Институт за национална историја - Скопје

Идеологија
Зборник на трудови од
Деветтиот меѓународен симпозиум за
византиски и средновековни студии
„Денови на Јустиниjан I“,
Скопје, 12-14.11.2021 г.

Уредник
Митко Б. Панов

Скопје, 2022
Институт за национална историја - Скопје
Уредник:
Митко Б. Панов
Лекторка:
Јордана Шемко Георгиевска

Tехничка обработка:
Игор Панев

Печати: ДПТУ Контура ДОО Скопје

Финансиски поддржано од:

CIP - Каталогизација во публикација

Национална и универзитетска библиотека "Св. Климент Охридски", Скопје

316.75(495.02)"653"(062)
930.85(495.02)"653"(062)

ЗБОРНИК на трудови од Деветтиот меѓународен симпозиум за византиски и

средновековни студии „Денови на Јустиниjан I" (9 ; 2021 ; Скопје)
Идеологија : зборник на трудови од Деветтиот меѓународен симпозиум
за византиски и средновековни студии „Денови на Јустиниjан I“, Скопје,
12-14.11.2021 г. / [уредник Митко Б. Панов]. - Скопје : Институт за
национална историја, 2022. - 292 стр. : илустр. ; 24 см
Текст на мак. и англ. јазик. - На наспор. насл. стр.: Ideology :
proceedings оf the 9th International Symposium on Byzantine and Medieval
Studies “Days of Justinian I”, Skopje, 12-14 November, 2021 / edited by
Mitko B. Panov. - Фусноти кон текстот

ISBN 978-608-4981-05-3

а) Идеологија -- Византија -- Среден век -- Собири б) Културна историја

-- Византија -- Среден век -- Собири
 Institute of National History - Skopje

Ideology
Proceedings оf the
9th International Symposium on
Byzantine and Medieval Studies
“Days of Justinian I”,
Skopje, 12-14 November, 2021

Edited by
Mitko B. Panov

Skopje, 2022
 Уредник
Митко Б. Панов

Меѓународен научен комитет

Флорин Курта, Универзитет во Флорида
Митко Б. Панов, Институт за национална историја, Скопје
Донатела Бијаџи Маино, Универзитет во Болоња
Елизабета Димитрова, Универзитет Св. Кирил и Методиј, Скопје
Драги Ѓорѓиев, Институт за национална историја, Скопје
Хрвоје Грачанин, Универзитет во Загреб
Ендрју Роуч, Универзитет во Глазгов
Џузепе Маино, Универзитет во Болоња
Георги Николов, Универзитет во Софија
Витомир Митевски, Македонска академија за науки и уметности, Скопје
Гордана Силјановска, Универзитет Св. Кирил и Методиј, Скопје
Каролин С. Снајвли, Гетисбург колеџ
Виктор Лилчиќ, Универзитет Св. Кирил и Методиј, Скопје
Александар Спасеновски, Универзитет Св. Кирил и Методиј, Скопје
Иванка Василевска, Универзитет Св. Кирил и Методиј, Скопје
Мишо Докмановиќ, Универзитет Св. Кирил и Методиј, Скопје
Рубин Земон, Центар за напредни студии, Скопје

Edited by
Mitko B. Panov

International Scientific Committee

Florin Curta, University of Florida
Mitko B. Panov, Institute of National History, Skopje
Donatella Biagi Maino, University of Bologna
Elizabeta Dimitrova, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje
Dragi Gjorgiev, Institute of National History, Skopje
Hrvoje Gračanin, University of Zagreb
Andrew Roach, Glasgow University
Giuseppe Maino, University of Bologna
Georgi Nikolov, Sofia University
Vitomir Mitevski, Macedonian Academy of Science and Arts, Skopje
Gordana Siljanovska, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje
Carolyn S. Snively, Gettysburg College
Viktor Lilčić, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje
Aleksandar Spasenovski, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje
Ivanka Vasilevska, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje
Mišo Dokmanović, University Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje
Rubin Zemon, Center for Advanced Studies, Skopjе
 СОДРЖИНА / CONTENTS

Предговор / Foreword ix
МИТКО Б. ПАНОВ

1. Ideology: shades of meaning, valences of interpretation

JOHN F. HALDON 17

2. The Letters of Romanos I Lekapenos to the Bulgarian ruler Symeon

and the principles of the Byzantine political ideology
ANGELIKI DELIKARI 31

3. Who Crowned Tsar Samuel: Appropriating the Byzantine ideology in

the 13th century Balkans
MITKO B. PANOV 37

4. Political ideology and cultural interaction between East and West on

the Battle of Pelagonia (1259)
SALVATORE CONSTANZA 47

5. A (Grand) Komnenos is forewer: Some Notes on the Dynastic Ideology

in the Empire of Trebizond
MARCO FASOLIO 59

6. Nomadic courts as reflection of imperial ideology (Huns, Avars,

Western Turks)
GEROGIOS KARDARAS 76

7. Race, Ethnicity and Tribalism in the World of Kōnstantinos VII

Porphyrogennētos
ALEX M. FELDMAN 86

8. Ideological resistance and Identity in the Byzantine Empire:

The case of Georgians
IOANNIS BANTOUVAS 95

v
 9. Crazy iconoclasts. The power of caricature viewed through the
Chludov Psalter
SIMONA PRIMO FASOLIO 103

10. Од ординарен консумеризам до интелектуализам:

Развојот на богомилската идеологија во интроспекцијата
на историските извори
МАЈА АНГЕЛОВСКА – ПАНОВА 110

11. Beyond Christian Ideology – Sketching the Typology of the Bogomil

Beliefs at the Fringes of Heresy: an Attempt of Typologization
BOJANA RADOVANOVIĆ 122

12. Interrelations between Church Father Origen and the Bogomils?

DICK VAN NIEKERK 132

13. Положбата на византискиот император во Црквата и

импликациите врз Охридската архиепископија
ЃОКО ЃОРЃЕВСКИ 143

14. Одразот на верската идеологија на Михаил VIII Палеолог

врз Охридската архиепископија
ВИКТОР НЕДЕСКИ 153

15. Justinian I as the Best of Architects. The Image of the

Emperor in the “On Buildings” of Procopius of Caesarea
MAGDALENA GARNCZARSKA 159

16. The “status quo” at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and
its connection with architectural appearance of the shrine
ELENA LAVRENTYEVA
IRINA CHIRSKOVA 168

17. Politically motivated Preservation of Cultural Heritage

ROZMERI BASIC 180

18. Византиски цркви и манaстири во Македонија – товар или

капитал за иднината?
ПАНЧЕ ВЕЛКОВ 189

vi
19. Science and Ideology in the Middle Ages
GIUSEPPE MAINO 195

20. The dynamic nature of Byzantine education

VÁCLAV JEŽEK 208

21. Образовната идеологија во Византиja

АНЕТА ЈОВКОВСКА 218

22. Можностите за осврт на идеологијата, религијата и

магијата низ византискиот светоглед
МАРИЈА ТОДОРОВСКА 228

23. Constantine, Sylvester, Procopius: Studies of Manuscript Traditions in

Russia in the 19th and early 20th century and their Relevance to the
Study of Justinian’s Reign
DMITRI STAROSTIN 238

24. Ἄρχετε βουκολικᾶς. Византиската еклога по примерот на

буколиката од Планудес
МАЌЕЈ ХЕЛБИГ 247

25. Христијанската просвета и книжевност во средновековно Кичево

и кичевско
АЛЕКСАНДАР КРСТАНОСКИ 257

vii
 ПРЕДГОВОР
Зборникот опфаќа дел од презентираните реферати на IX Меѓународен
симпозиум за византолошки и средновековни студии „Денови на Јусти-
нијан I“, одржан во периодот ноември 2021 година во Скопје, во органи-
зација на Институтот за национална историја, Универзитет Св. Кирил и
Методиј“ – Скопје и Универзитетот во Болоња, во партнерство со Право-
славниот богословски факултет „Св. Климент Охридски“ и ЗИРМ, Скопје, со
финансиска поддршка од Министерството за култура на Р.С. Македонија и
Градот Скопје.
Концептуално, трудовите не се поместени во строг хронолошки редослед,
туку се групирани тематски, со цел поадекватно да го одразат интердисци-
плинарниот приод во истражувањето на идеологијата.
Пленарното предавање на Џон Халдон ја нагласува важноста да се разбе-
ре како идеологијата во доцно римско-византискиот свет може да биде по-
врзана со нејзините културни услови на постоење, во однос на начините
на кои општествениот, економскиот, културниот и политичкиот контекст
генерира специфичeн збир на идеи. Во овој поглед, поставувајќи збир на
дефиниции, со што придонесува за покритичка примена на различните
термини, Халдон го истакнува пристапот на размислување и разбирање на
начините на кои луѓето во средновековниот свет го поимале своето опкру-
жување, општеството во кое живееле, физичката и културната околина,
односно како и зошто тие реагирале на таа околина. Соодветно на тоа, пре-
давањето нуди рамка во која можеме да ги организираме и испитуваме на-
шите докази и да ги моделираме социјалните интеракции, што ги вклучува
и начините на користење на наративот во контекст на поширокиот сим-
боличен универзум како начин на кој луѓето ги употребувале културните
алатки што им стоеле на располагање за да воздејствуваат на нивниот свет.
Ангелики Деликари се осврнува на фундаменталните принципи на ви-
зантиската политичко-екуменска идеологија манифестирани во писмата
на Романос I Лекапенос како одговор на агресивната политика на царот
Симеон против Византиската империја и неговата употреба на титулата
базилевс Rhomaion. Митко Б. Панов, го истражува прашањето за царското

ix
 крунисување на Самуил, преку анализата на кореспонденцијата помеѓу
папата Инокентиј III и Јоаница Калојан, забележувајќи ја тенденцијата за
конструирање на фиктивен континуитет на традициите и идеолошката до-
минација, заснована на адаптација на подеднакво измислените, иако спро-
тивни, идеолошки претензии на Василиј II во однос на Самуил и неговата
држава и црква.
Салваторе Констанца се занимава со основните концепти на политичка-
та теорија и мноштвото идеи кои ги споделувале владетелите на Империјата
Никеја и деспотатот Епир, Кнежевството Ахаја и кралството Хоенштауфен
во Сицилија, одразени во нивната интеракција и политика во контекст на
балканскиот судир и битката кај Пелагонија во 1259 година. Марко Фасолио
ги истражува стратегиите користени од владетелите на Понтос, фокусира-
ни на истакнување на антиката и континуитетот на владејачката лоза на
Комнените како нивни императорски предци од Константинопол, која про-
дуцирала династичка идеологија единствена во византискиот свет.
Истражувајќи го развојот на дворот во одредени номадски хегемонии на
Хуните, Аварите и западните Турци, Георгиос Кардарас забележува како
контактот со идеологијата на седентарните империи влијаел на новата но-
мадска „дворска култура“ со структурирана хиерархија на високи функцио-
нери, луксузни објекти и градби, кои го промениле ликот на некогашните
„номади скитници“. Алекс М. Фелдман се осврнува на прашањата за расата,
етничката припадност и народноста одразени во делата на Константин VII
Порфирогенит, презентирајќи целосна документација за употребата, фрек-
венцијата и значењата на овие зборови, што вклучува како тие биле толку-
вани од подоцнежните византиски автори и од современите истражувачи.
Јоанис Бантувас ги презентира примерите на отпор кон „романизацијата“
од страна на Грузијците во периодот од втората половина на 10 век до прва-
та половина на 11 век, манифестирани во идеолошките и експанзионистич-
ките претензии на грузиските владетели и неподготвеноста на грузиските
аристократи и грузиската монашка заедница од Света Гора за нивна ин-
теграција во римската средина, што им овозможило да го зачуваат своето
културно потекло.
Фокусирајќи се на употребата на карикатурата од страна на илуминато-
рите на Хлудовскиот псалтир како уникатно литургиско дело од среди-
ната на 9 век, Симона Примо Фасолио покажува како политичката сатира
станала ефективна алатка за борба против „ереста“ и значајна поддршка
за застапниците на иконофилската „партија“. Врз основа на анализите на
фундаменталните извори поврзани со православниот исток, Маја Анге-
ловска – Панова го реконструира концептот на богомилската идеологија
како инспирација за еден од претставниците на византискиот интелек-
туализам од крајот на XI век, Јован Итал, која се манифестира во неговата
интерпретација на метемпсихозата и теоријата на негирање на иконите.

x
Истражувајќи ги изворните податоци од 10 до 14 век, Бојана Радовановиќ,
ги става богомилските идеи и верувања на раскрсницата помеѓу апостол-
ското христијанство, екстра-канонските нитки, мистичната теологија, па
дури и елементите оптеретени со некаков вкус на магија. Врз основа на „по-
средните докази“ и паралелите на хетеродоксните идеи, Дик ван Никерк се
обидува да фрли светлина врз веродостојноста на врската помеѓу Ориген и
богомилите.
Истражувајќи ја специјалната положба која ја имал византискиот импера-
тор во црквата, Ѓоко Ѓорѓевски, презентира примери на активното вклучу-
вање на царевите во црковните работи, вклучувајќи ги и царските одлуки
кои ја засегнале позицијата на Охридската архиепископија. Виктор Неде-
ски ја проследува идеологијата на византискиот император Михаил VIII и
неговата политика кон западното христијанство, од аспект на црковните и
теолошките последици за Охридската архиепископија.
Анализирајќи го описот на Прокопиј Кесариски поврзан со градежната
програма на црквата на Света Софија во Константинопол, Магдалена Гарн-
чарска смета дека императорот Јустинијан I бил претставен како совршен
владетел и најдобар од архитектите во тоа време. Истражувајќи ја архи-
тектонската историја на црквата на Светиот гроб во Ерусалим и реставра-
торските работи, Елена Лаврентиева и Ирина Чирскова ги идентификуваат
интензивните периоди на борбата меѓу христијаните за правото да посе-
дуваат сопствени светилишта и улогата што ја играла секоја од заедниците
во влијанието на архитектонскиот изглед на Црквата. Дискутирајќи во кон-
текст на избраните примери на византиски споменици во денешен Истанб-
ул и во Грузија, каде што неколку значајни структури го загубиле статусот
на светско наследство со отстранувањето од списокот на заштитени споме-
ници на УНЕСКО поради „неповратните (реконструктивни) интервенции“,
Розмери Басиќ смета дека овие активности претставуваат своевидно прис-
војување на иконоборските политички мотивирани процеси, употребени
за да се искриви или намали важноста на културно различните наследства
од минатото. Претставувајќи ја оригиналноста на фрескоживописот во
средновековните цркви од Македонија од 11 до 15 век како византиско свет-
ско наследство, Панче Велков се осврнува на проблемот со одржувањето и
конзервацијата како сериозна закана за нивното зачувување. Набљудувајќи
ги сличностите, аналогиите и заедничките обрасци од Далечниот Исток
до Европа, од Кина до Индија до Балканот, Џузепе Маино смета дека слич-
ностите на идеологиите на тоталитарните системи на владеење и во секој
случај од апсолутистички тип и политички и религиозен, завршиле задушу-
вачки за креативноста, што резултира со брз пад на науката и технологија-
та, во споредба со Западна Европа.
Вацлав Јежек ја истражува динамиката на образованието во различни
византиски контексти и модели, фокусирајќи се на образовната теорија
xi
 и методологија, карактеризирана со интимно единство на практика/тео-
рија и интелектуално знаење/духовност. Анета Јовковска се занимава со
проблематиката на едукативната идеологија во Византија, манифестирана
преку коегзистенцијата на световното и теолошкото, што резултирало со
зачувување на античката литература и филозофија. Применувајќи некои
дефиниции за идеологијата во Византија во контекст на религијата и ма-
гијата, Марија Тодоровска ги разгледува како спротивставени идеологии,
имајќи ја предвид културната поставеност и византискиот светоглед.
Маќек Хелбиг се осврнува на застапеноста на буколската поезија во визан-
тиската книжевност, рефлектирана во темите инспирирани од Теокрите
во хексаметриската песна на Плануд од 13 век. Анализирајќи го проектот
за едитување на текст поврзан со историјата на Византија од страна на
помалку познат руски научник М.Н. Крашениников, Дмитриј Старостин
набљудува како тој хеуристички ги пронашол Константин I, папата Силвес-
тер и Прокопиј Кесариски, како претставници на клучните елементи на
византискиот христијански политички дискурс. Истражувајќи ги зачува-
ните ракописи од средниот век и во подоцнежните преписи, Александар
Крстаноски констатира дека градот Кичево и кичевско имале развиено
христијанско образование, кое нашло одраз во подоцнежната духовна и
културна историја.
Трудовите во овој зборник адресираат широк спектар на концептуални
прашања во истражувањето на различното толкување и дефинирање на
идеологијата, придонесувајќи за подобро разбирање како идеологијата
функционирала во различни политички, социјални, економски, културни,
религиозни услови, генерирајќи специфичен збир на идеи, поими, вред-
ности и верувања, кои влијаеле на политиките и општествата во Источното
Римско Царство - Византија и средновековниот свет.
Митко Б. Панов

xii
 PREFACE
The Proceedings encompasses part of the presented papers at the IX Inter-
national Symposium on Byzantine and Medieval Studies “Days of Justinian I”,
which was held on November 2021 in Skopje, organizated by the Institute of Na-
tional History, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University – Skopje and University of Bo-
logna, in partnership with Orthodox Theological Faculty “St. Clement of Ohrid”,
AHRM, Skopje, with the financial support from the Ministry of Culture of R.N.
Macedonia and the City of Skopje.
Conceptually, the papers are not positioned in strict chronological order, but
rather grouped thematically, in order to more adequately reflect the interdisci-
plinary approach to the research of the ideology.
The keynote lecture of John Haldon underlines the importance of understand-
ing how ideology in late Roman-Byzantine world might be tied into its cultural
conditions of existence, in respect of the ways in which the social, economic,
cultural and political context generated specific sets of ideas. In this regard, Hal-
don set out some definitions in contributing to a more critical application of the
various terms as regards ideology, outlining an approach of thinking and under-
standing оf the ways in which people in the medieval world understood their
surroundings, the society they inhabited, the physical and cultural environment
that surrounded them, and how and why they responded to those surroundings.
Accordingly, the lecture offers a possible framework within which we can orga-
nize and interrogate our evidence and to model social interactions, that include
using narrative in the context of the wider symbolic universe as a way into how
people used the cultural tools at their disposal to work upon their world.
Angeliki Delikari addresses the fundamental principles of the Byzantine po-
litical-ecumenical ideology manifested in the response letters of Romanos I Le-
kapenos to tsar Symeon’s aggressive policy against the Byzantine empire and his
use of the title of basileus Rhomaion. Mitko B. Panov investigates the issue of
the imperial coronation of Samuel, through the analysis of the correspondence
between the Pope Innocent III and Ioannitsa Kaloiannes, noticing the tendency
of constructing the fictive continuity of traditions and ideological dominance,
based on adapting the equally invented, though opposite, ideological claims by
Basil II as regards Samuel and His State and Church.
xiii
 Salvatore Constanza tackles the basic concepts of political theory and sets of
ideas shared by the rulers of the Empire of Nicaea and the Despotate of Epiros,
the Principality of Achaia and the Hohenstaufen kingdom of Sicily, reflected in
their politics and interaction in fighting on the Balkan chessboard at the battle
of Pelagonia in 1259. Marco Fasolio examines the strategies employed by the rul-
ers of Pontos, focused on highlighting the antiquity and the continuity of the
reigning lineage of Komnenoi as their imperial ancestors of Constantinople, that
produced a dynastic ideology unique in the Byzantine world.
Exploring the development of the court in certain nomadic hegemonies of
the Huns, Avars and Western Turks, Georgios Kardaras observes how the contact
with the ideology of the sedentary Empires influenced the new nomadic ‘‘court
culture’’ with structured hierarchy of higher officials, luxury objects and build-
ings that changed the image of the former ‘‘wandering nomads’’. Alex M. Feldman
addresses the questions of race, ethnicity and peoplehood reflected in the works
of Kōnstantinos VII Porphyrogennētos, providing a complete documentation of
the usages, frequencies and meanings of these words and as how they have been
interpreted by later Byzantine authors and by modern scholars. Ioannis Bantou-
vas presents the examples of resistance to the “romanization” by the Georgians
in the second half of the 10th century to the first half of the 11th century, reflected
in ideological and expansionistic claims by the Georgian rulers and the reluc-
tance of the Georgian aristocrats and the Georgian monastic community from
Month Athos to the integration into the Roman environment, which enabled
them to preserve their cultural background.
Focusing on the use of a caricature by the illuminators of the Chludov Psalter
as unique liturgical work from the middle of the 9th century, Simona Primo Faso-
lio demonstrates how the political satire has become an effective tool to combat
the “heresy” and a meaningful support for the advocates of the iconophile “par-
ty”. Based on the analyzis of the fundamental sources related to the Orthodox
East, Maja Angelovska – Panova reconstructs the concept of Bogomil ideology as
an inspiration for one of the representatives of Byzantine intellectualism from
the end of 11th century, John Italos, which found manifestation in his interpreta-
tion of metempsychosis and theory of denial of icons. Exploring the accounts
ranging from the tenth to the fourteenth century, Bojana Radovanović, places the
Bogomil-ascribed ideas and beliefs at the crossroads between apostolic Christi-
anity, extra-canonical strands, mystical theology, and even elements laden with
some flavor of magic. By means of “circumstantial evidence” and the parallels of
the heterodox ideas, Dick van Niekerk attempts to shed light on a plausible con-
nection between Alexandrian Origen and the Bogomils.
Examining the special position of the Byzantine emperor in the Church, evi-
denced by the Nomocanon’s and some patristic texts, Gjoko Gjorgjevski presents
examples of the active involvement of the emperors in the church affairs, includ-
ing the imperial decisions that affected the position of the Ohrid Archbishopric.

xiv
Victor Nedeski observes the ideology of the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII and
his policy towards the Western Christianity, from the aspect of the ecclesiastical
and theological consequences for the Ohrid Archbishopric.
Analyzing the description of Procopius of Caesarea related to the building pro-
gram of a Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople, Magdalena Garnczar-
ska argue that emperor Justinian I was represented as the perfect ruler and best
of the architects of the time. Exploring the arhitectural history of the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and the restoration works, Elena Lavrentyeva
and Irina Chirskova identify the intense periods of the struggle between Chris-
tians for the right to own shrines and the role played by each of the communi-
ties in its influence on the architectural appearance of the Church. Discussing
selected examples of Byzantine monuments in present-day Istanbul and in the
country of Georgia, where several significant structures have lost their World
Heritage status after removal from UNESCO’s list of protected monuments due
to the “irreversible (reconstructive) interventions.”, Rozmeri Basic argue that
these activities are an appropriation of the iconoclastic politically motivated
processes, employed to distort or diminish the importance of the culturally di-
verse legacies of the past. Presenting the uniquness of the fresco paintings in the
mediaeval churches from Macedonia from the eleventh to the fifteenth century
as Byzantine world heritage, Panche Velkov discuss the problem with the main-
tenance and conservation as a serious threat for its preservation. Observing the
similarities, analogies and common patterns from Far East to Europe, from China
to India to the Balkans, Giuseppe Maino argue that like ideology - totalitarian
systems of government and in any case of an absolutist type both political and
religious - have ended up stifling creativity, resulting in rapid decline of science
and technology , compared to Western Europe.
Václav Ježek explores the dynamics of education in various Byzantine contexts
and models, focusing on educational theory and methodology, characterized by
intimate unity of practice/theory, intellectual knowledge/spirituality. Aneta Jo-
vkovska deals with the issue of educational ideology in Byzantium, manifested
in coexistence of secular and theological, resulting in preservation of ancient
literature and philosophy. Applying some definitions of ideology in Byzantium
within the context of religion and magic, Marija Todorovska discuss them as op-
posing ideologies, bearing in mind the cultural setting and Byzantine worldview.
Maciej Helbig addresses the representation of the Bucolic poetry in the Byzan-
tine literature, reflected in the Theocritean-inspired themes in the hexametrical
poem of Planudes form 13th century. Analyzing a project of editing text related
to the history of Byzantium by a lesser-known Russian scholar M. N. Krashen-
innikov (1865-1932), Dmitri Starostin observes how he found heuristically Con-
stantine I, Pope Sylvester and Procopius of Caesarea, as representatives of key
elements of Byzantine Christian political discourse. Examining the preserved
manuscripts from the middle ages and later transcripts, Aleksandar Krstanoski

xv
 argue that the town Kičevo and its region had a developed Christian education,
reflected in later spiritual and cultural history.
The papers in this volume addresses wide range of conceptual issues in ex-
amining the different interpretation and definition of ideology, contributing to
better understanding of how ideology functioned in different political, social,
economic, cultural, religious conditions, generating specific sets of ideas, no-
tions, values and beliefs that impacted the politics and societies in the Eastern
Roman Empire - Byzantium and the medieval world.
Mitko B. Panov

xvi
 1

Ideology: shades of meaning, valences of

interpretation
JOHN F. HALDON, Princeton University
UDK 930.85:316.75”653”

Abstract: Ideology is a term generally used very casually, with the dominant
usage normally having a negative value – ideas or beliefs that are in some way
either dogmatic or biased or founded on prejudice. In the study of the later
Roman and Byzantine world the term usually refers both to the generality of
what people believed about their world and/or to particular sets of ideas. But
it is clear that ‘beliefs’ are different from ‘ideology’, so we need to decide how
these various terms can be used analytically – using them simply to describe
ideas held by some people at certain times is too vague and imprecise to have
much critical value. It is important to understand how ideology might be tied
into its cultural conditions of existence, in respect of the ways in which the
social, economic, cultural and political context generated specific sets of ideas.
This paper will set out some definitions that may be helpful in contributing to a
more critical application of the various terms in questions and at the same time
outline an approach to thinking about and understanding the ways in which
people in the medieval world understood their surroundings, the society they
inhabited, the physical and cultural environment that surrounded them, and
how and why they responded to those surroundings in the ways that they did.
The paper will begin by outlining some general issues, before illustrating the
points with some historical examples from the late Roman-Byzantine world.

17
 Ideology is one of those words that people in all walks of life use quite casu-
ally in all sorts of ways, but its dominant meaning tends to have a negative value
– “ideology” is something other people have, a set of ideas or beliefs that are in
some way either dogmatic or biased or founded on prejudice or some other set
of moral or political-cultural motives. So we hear people talking about religious
ideologies, about a political ideology, and so forth. Those who are concerned
with the study of the later Roman and Byzantine world use the term to refer both
to the generality of what people believed about their world and to particular
sets of ideas. But it is clear that ‘beliefs’ are different from ‘ideology’, so the ques-
tion of arises of how the latter it to be understood analytically – using it simply
to describe sets of ideas held by some people at certain times is too vague and
imprecise to have much critical value. For example it is important to understand
how ideology might be tied into its cultural conditions of existence, in respect of
the ways in which social, economic, cultural and political conditions generated
specific sets of ideas.
The first thing we have to do, if we are to use the term in any scientific discus-
sion, is to attempt to define the it – what do we want it to mean, and how do
we want to use it, so that it retains some critical value? We will all have our own
approach to this issue, and I am not suggesting by any means that we should all
adopt a single vocabulary within a single interpretative framework – that might
be desirable in one sense, and while we all share some values or hold some ap-
proaches to our historical subjects in common, we also all have our own par-
ticular views of how best to think about the pre-modern world and what sort of
critical framework we want to deploy to do so. So what I propose to do in this talk
is to outline my own approach to thinking about and understanding the ways
in which people, and especially people in the medieval world, understood their
surroundings, the society they inhabited, the physical and cultural environment
that surrounded them, and how and why they responded to those surroundings
in the ways that they did.
Although our concern at this meeting is the east Roman empire in the 6th cen-
tury and afterwards, the issues facing the historian of Byzantium are no different
in this respect from those facing the historian of any other pre-modern culture,
and so before I talk about the world of Byzantium I want to spend some time
outlining some general issues that we all need to be aware of if we’re to deploy
the concept of ideology in a critical and meaningful way.
At the heart of understanding how any society functions, and in particular of
how a given society or social-cultural system changes, is the question of the rela-
tionship between agency and structure: how do the ideas and beliefs about the
world held by the people who make up that society affect their actions, in partic-
ular when they are faced with challenging situations or situations that threaten
the way they believe their world works. The other side of the coin is the extent
to which individuals are a product of the conditions into which they are born
and the degree to which their circumstances and experience permit them to es-
18
cape or move away from or modify those conditions, thus increasing the limits of
their own cultural and intellectual independence. Such aspects often get pushed
into the background or taken for granted and generalized, and thus trivialized in
terms of their causal importance. A case in point is that of the degree to which
people in the east Roman or Byzantine world accepted the validity or reality of
particular sorts of miracle, and it has been argued persuasively that historians
have on the whole ignored or underestimated the amount of scepticism about
such matters.1
One of the issues that confronts us historians when we are attempting to ex-
plain past human actions is the issue of how to understand or gain insight into
the relationship between thinking and doing, between belief and praxis. His-
torical data cannot offer the same types of answer as that available to sociology
and psychology, simply because we do not have living people to interrogate or to
analyse. Nevertheless, general theories of mind and of cognition derived from
these disciplines can be applied to the product of past human consciousness,
as preserved in various types of historical document, for example. The agents
themselves may no longer be with us, but the essentially cultural nature of hu-
man cognitive activity remains. In elaborating an approach to cognition and
practice I draw substantively on both phenomenology and symbolic interaction-
ism, as reflected in the work of Alfred Schütz and Thomas Berger and Thomas
Luckmann on the one hand, or George Herbert Mead on the other.
For the purposes of this collection I will use four ideas in particular to try to
establish how beliefs have a material impact on social relations and social praxis.
First, the notion of ‘symbolic universe’, a term that describes the totality of cul-
tural knowledge and practice in a social formation, within which and through
which regular everyday life is carried on. One can think of it as a vast lexicon
of concepts and perceptions and accompanying social behaviours into which
people are born and through which, as they grow up, they learn to express them-
selves and to interpret their world. Much of this lexicon remains implicit, tacit
and unvoiced, but it determines what we might call the cultural logic of a soci-
ety. From this perspective the relationship between consciousness (what people
think) and practice (what they do) must be understood as perpetual feedback
loop, through which individuals receive their subjective awareness of self and
their personal environment. This symbolic universe also provides people with
the conceptual apparatus through which they can in turn express what they
know about the world and act back upon it. Importantly, though, it also sets
limits to what they can know and how they can know it, limits within which
what we can call ‘the culturally possible’ can be thought. Contingently, a symbol-
ic universe is itself a product of social practice, through which it is continuously
reproduced. Thus the activities carried on by individuals engaged in socially re-

1 A. Kaldellis, ‘The hagiography of doubt and scepticism’, in S. Efthymiadis, ed., The Ashgate
research companion to Byzantine hagiography, 2: Genres and contexts (Farnham: Ashgate,
2014), 453-477.
19
producing themselves, and hence in reproducing the social relationships they
inhabit, along with the roles and social institutions of their society, have the ma-
terial cultural effect of reproducing the structural forms within which the same
individuals are inscribed. This seems to me to be a more useful way of thinking
about the ways in which beliefs interpellate individuals in Althusser’s sense, be-
cause it retains a stronger emphasis on the individual’s active participation in
constituting and maintaining cultural practices and social relationships.2
Mythologies, religious systems, political theories, ways of perceiving and ap-
prehending the world, in differing degrees of internal consistency, coherence
and sophistication, all are discourses constructed out of the innumerable ele-
ments that make up the symbolic universe a culture evolves. We might describe
these as “world views” or Weltanschauungen, and this term constitutes my sec-
ond category. The term seems first to have been used by Immanuel Kant, and has
since acquired a set of often very highly technical definitions within the realms
of social-psychology, sociology, anthropology and so forth. But all tend to agree
on the basic idea, that it describes a disposition towards certain types of think-
ing, a way of viewing the world, a set of ideas and symbols that govern an individ-
ual’s approach, understanding, thinking, and feelings about the world in general.
It is from this material that my third category is woven, ideology in the strict
sense of the term. Ideologies are sets of beliefs focused around a particularly
significant aspect of people’s lives and understanding of their world, reflecting
beliefs and values that a person or group has for normative reasons, especially
systems of ideas and ideals which form the basis of economic or political theo-
ries and resultant policies. Ideologies, in the sense that I want to use the term,
are thus more-or-less systematic sets of concepts and symbolic relationships
with their own internal rationale, grounded in the broader range of culturally-
available ideas and concepts within the symbolic universe; they represent pro-
grammatic sets of values and assumptions, bundles of ideas that evolved in order
to explain and thus legitimate and justify a particular order of things. [Slide 6]
An ideology both describes and explains the world as it is perceived, on the one
hand, and on the other, it prescribes the range of behaviours and attitudes and
provides the vocabulary through which one’s choices and actions are guided and
expressed. In this respect the term is value-neutral, it has neither negative nor
positive significance, it simply refers to a specific bundle of ideas, concepts, as-
sumptions, not necessarily always coherently linked. We might refer to a politi-
cal ideology, again not as a good or bad thing, but rather to describe a specific
outlook on the world and how it works, focused around relations between rulers
and ruled, between the state and the law, between elites and non-elites, and so
forth. As I said, the beliefs and assumptions from which an ideology develops are

2 For ‘symbolic universe’: Peterl L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The social construction of re­
ality (New York: Penguin Books, 1966), esp. 110-112 and Alfred Schütz, Der sinnhafte Aufbau der
sozialen Welt (Vienna: Springer-Verlag, 1960); Tom W. Goff, Marx and Mead: contribution to a
sociology of knowledge (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980).
built out of concepts available within the symbolic universe but they come to be
focused through a particular world view or Weltanschauung. Ideologies also re-
act back upon the world view and upon the fabric of a symbolic universe, adjust-
ing and redirecting the relationships between the different strands of knowledge
from which they are made up.
This is precisely what happened across some five or six centuries with the
evolution of Christianity within the framework of pre-Christian beliefs and ra-
tionalities, to the point where the symbolic universe and the various Weltan-
schauungen which held sway in the late Roman and Byzantine world came to
be dominated by the syncretic soteriology of Christianity, subsuming older, now
‘sub-cultural’ systems, some of which simply withered away, some of which were
actively eradicated, many of which were simply re-identified and repurposed to
fit a Christian moral and theological framework. The specific processes through
which this took place is, of course, another and equally complex story. A similar
story can be told through the rise and expansion of Islam.
It was out of the lexicon of concepts and beliefs that constituted the increas-
ingly Christian symbolic universe of the late Roman world that what we can call
the imperial ideology was refined. This was a specific discourse that legitimated
the relationships between individuals and the whole network of symbols and
concepts concentrated around the role of the emperor, the ruler’s relationship
with God, their position as God’s deputies on earth, and the social fabric that was
understood to depend from this hierarchy. It is, in the broadest sense, a political
ideology, although we could also call it a political theology, since from the fourth
century onwards Christian theological concepts were increasingly deployed in
its support.
The final concept I wish to draw upon is that of narrative, in its specifically
socio-linguistic sense, to define a series of linked clauses or statements with an
evaluative – and therefore structuring – element, arranged temporally. Both the
originating function of the narrative – provided by the context which stimulates
the narrative – and the personal nature of its content affect its general coher-
ence. An evaluative aspect permeates the entire structure.3 The same basic defi-
nition can be extended to group or collective narratives, that is to say, to those
narrative forms which express the experiences and perceptions of individuals
in their aspect as members of a specific group. Although there is evidently a
qualitative shift in the composition and effectivity of such collective narratives,
their formal properties remain the same.4 Personal and collective narrative is a
3 See in particular William Labov and Joshua Waletzky, “Narrative analysis: oral versions of per-
sonal experience”, in Essays on the verbal and visual arts, ed. June Helm (Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1967), 12-44.
4 I leave to one side the use of the term ‘narrative’ to refer to the imposition of form on the past, as
argued by the ‘narrativist’ tradition, most clearly by Hayden White, Tropics of discourse: essays in
cultural criticism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), even though the common ele-
ment – evaluation through language and the construction of a specific ‘story’ – is apparent. See
Jerzy Topolski, “Conditions of truth of historical narratives”, History and theory 20 (1981), 47-60; and
Maurice Mandelbaum, “The presuppositions of Metahistory”, History and theory 19 (1980), 39-54.

21
 crucial element in the construction of social realities – perceived relationships
and structures – within which humans reproduce themselves. In this sense, in
fact, narrative provides the link between consciousness and practice.
Now in one sense narratives are fictions because they are reconstructions of
experience. They manage or organise experience and memory, in time, through
language, and in this process they elaborate a relationship between the narrator
and the events narrated.5 So narratives work essentially as means of identifying
the individual self within a social and cultural context, of providing a reality –
they answer the question ‘who am I?’ or ‘who are we?’. As such, they also act as
patterns for social action, future planning based on past experience. If the sym-
bolic universe is the aggregate of social institutions and the beliefs and concepts
associated with them, then narratives are the scripts and roles determining how
people live out their relationships to the world around them.
What is especially important to bear in mind is the point that narratives are
always re­constructions of experience, they involve evaluation, and therefore
within them is the potential for change, for shifts in understanding roles and
relationships and thus, crucially, for shifts in social practice. Thus a change in the
elements that make up a narrative will entail a change in evaluation, and conse-
quently a change in perceptions of the relationship between self (or group) and
the world. Depending upon the order of magnitude of change in these elements,
such changes can take any form. They might lead to the re-assessment of one’s
relationship to an individual or an activity –thus individualised and localized;
or they might involve a re-assessment by a whole collectivity or group of their
position in relation to other groups or individuals, or institutions, or beliefs, and
so forth.
We feel that things are in order and we can understand them when our narra-
tives are stable, because the narrative representation of ‘what has happened’ is
constructed within a cultural context which relies upon the stability of those key
ideas – institutions, situations, assumptions, and so forth. If these are removed
or shaken, the cohesion of the narrative is interrupted. It can no longer be con-
structed within the terms previously given, so these now need to be re-arranged
to account for the dissonance or mismatch.
Narratives exist and function at multiple levels. There are narratives of per-
sonal identity which situate an individual in their kin and family context, or pro-
fessional life, or social life – they intersect in the individual but they are available
as a means of identifying and reinforcing identity for each of the roles within the
bundle of roles each individual represents. Collective narratives similarly func-
tion to provide members of a group, however identified (by social and economic
situation, by job or function, by creed, by race or by language, for example, to

5 For narrative as organising experience and perceptions, see Harold Garfinkel, Studies in eth­
nomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967); Dan Sperber, Rethinking symbolism.
Cambridge studies in social anthropology 11 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975),
85-149; Goff, Marx and Mead, 112-114.

22
name but a few possibilities, usually a combination of some or all of these) with
their own common markers in respect of behaviour and expected attitudes, in
turn determined by a given social context.6 And there are metanarratives, polit-
ical-ideological systems, for example, which offer larger-scale identities to those
involved in them and which are given expression through an appropriate ideol-
ogy. But each of these can be disrupted by shifts in their conditions of existence,
and this brings with it the potential for an imbalance which challenges peoples’
assumptions and the predictable roles and patterns of their daily lives.
What generally happens first when a narrative structure is disrupted is a search
to re-establish equilibrium: in order to maintain a sense of self – a secure iden-
tity – based on older narratives, for example, in order to avoid a situation of so-
cial anomie, to use Durkheim’s concept,7 a re-ordering of the relevant narrative
elements may be required, and such a re-ordering may take one of several forms.
It might include action aimed at redressing the balance of elements considered
affected, whether behavioural or conceptual; it might include a re-evaluation of
the self – or the group – in the structure of the narrative as a whole; or it might
simply entail a minor re-adjustment of certain elements, intended to preserve
the same general order of things.
We can apply this to past societies as well as contemporary ones, although we
face many more difficulties with our different types of source. But in historically-
observable terms, this sort of re-evaluation or adjustment might be reflected or
represented by changes in patterns of behaviour of individuals or collectivities,
expressed publicly through ‘political’ means or violence, for example, although
other possibilities also exist. Social action in this model is thus construed as
culturally available re-action, based on personal and group narrative reconstruc-
tions of observed or perceived events; it is the socially-determined and cultural-
ly-situated responses of individuals to shifts in any of the elements which make
up their perceived or experienced world order. The emphasis on culturally-situ-
ated is important, since the potential for action is inscribed within a specific set
of social relations of production and reproduction. The ability of an individual to
evaluate and to re-evaluate, to act and to react, is thus understood as embedded
within, and as a consequence limited or circumscribed by, these relationships,
which represent at once both the social-economic and the cultural aspects of a
society.
What this means is that if we have ‘texts’ that indicate or include some sort of
a narrative, it becomes possible to suggest some concrete connections between
what people in the past perceived or thought, and the actions consequent upon
those perceptions. It allows us to understand historical change as, at least in

6 Ayhan Aksu-Koç, “Frames of mind through narrative discourse”, in Social interaction, social con­
text and language, ed. Dan I. Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kyratzis and Jiansheng Guo (Mahwah
NJ: Erlbaum, 1996), 309-328.
7 Émile Durkheim, The division of labour in society, trans. George Simpson (New York: Macmillan,
1933).

23
 part, the sum of people’s responses to a given set of circumstances. This offers
a very specific link between agency and structure, and between structure and
change, which is, after all, what the historian seeks to elucidate.
Now, this is not in any sense very radical – what I am describing is what histo-
rians do with texts most of the time. But I have tried to get into the mechanics
of the process and establish a vocabulary to describe the different aspects of the
thought-world of a cultural system through which we can make our reasoning
both more explicit and the logic of our interpretations clearer.
One closely-related concept that I have not addressed so far is that of ‘iden-
tity’ – important because identities make up a key element in many ideological
systems, but also because narrative is again a very useful tool for approaching the
question of how and why particular identities of sets of identities come into be-
ing and function. Identities are multi-dimensional, a product of the need to de-
fine oneself and others in contrast to those around one. Social-institutional roles
and self-perceptions generally overlap or even contradict one another at differ-
ent levels of social experience and practice – a point which immediately raises
the question of whether individuals possess an ‘essential’ identity, a conscious-
ness of themselves that exists beneath all other forms of context-determined
identity and praxis.8 This is a problem I will avoid addressing here, but it has
been a significant aspect of much of the discussion around the value of the term.
Everyone in any society belongs to more than one group of mutually recog-
nised ‘identity-sets’. Each ‘identity’ carries with it a reservoir of culturally-deter-
mined and -inflected ways of behaving in both public and private, determined
and shaped by the specific context in which other people are encountered. Peo-
ple’s behaviour tends to conform to the need to fulfil key criteria of their social
and institutional roles, such as ‘parent’ or ‘sibling’ or ‘relative’, ‘soldier’, ‘priest’ or
‘farmer’, for example.9 Perceptions and assumptions about one’s own and oth-
ers’ social and economic status likewise directly affect patterns of behaviour and
the ways in which identity is given expression – the poor behave differently in
the presence of the rich or powerful than before their peers, and vice versa.10
8 Since the 1960s there has been a series of debates around the concept of identity as used in res-
pect of the subject/self, focusing in particular on structuralist and post-structuralist challenges
to traditional psychoanalysis, and represented especially in the work of Lacan and his later
adherents. For useful surveys and discussion, see Stuart Hall, “Theories of Language and
Ideology,” in Culture, media, language, ed. Stuart Hall et al. (London: Hutchinson, 1980), 157-
162; idem, ‘Some problems with the ideology/subject couplet’, Ideology and Consciousness
3 (Spring 1978), 113-121; John Ellis, ‘Ideology and subjectivity’, in Hall, ed., Culture, Media,
Language, 186-194.
9 The best introduction to this approach to the question of social roles, identities and the
institutionalisation of social practices according to context and self-image, is still, in our view
– and in spite of flaws pointed out by later critics – Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction
of Reality, and Schütz, Der sinnhafte Aufbau. There is a vast social-psychological and social-
anthropological literature on these topics, to which we cannot begin to do justice here,
although some of this material will be found in the notes to several of the volumes and articles
cited.
10 Indeed, such degrees of differentness are also embodied in law: see, for example, Evelyne
Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance (Paris 1977), 25–27.

24
At the same time, social and cultural values are modified according to the con-
text in order that the individual can give expression to their understanding of
‘self’ and present the version felt to be most appropriate (or necessary) to the
social context. Not all of these different roles are necessarily compatible, and
can cause embarrassment, for example, or social anxiety of some sort. If our
soldier Theodoros is sitting at home with his family and a group of his loud and
perhaps drunken soldier-friends knock on his door, he has to compromise be-
tween his membership of two quite different social identities, and this may cause
him some problems. Identity is therefore processual and performative as well as
functional.
Social interaction embodies sets of power relations, so that not all individu-
als or groups are able to present the identity they would (or think they would)
prefer in every situation. Feelings of inferiority or superiority, for example, affect
such situations very markedly. Different sets of identities, based on appropriate
patterns of socially-determined and culturally normative behaviour have differ-
ent values according to the context in which they function: a hierarchy of inter-
ests informs most human social interaction. As a consequence, observable social
praxis is often the result of clashes and contradictions generated by a specific
context in which an individual or a group has to adopt a particular pattern of be-
haviour in order to preserve their identity for that particular context. Where the
evidence is sufficient, historians can try to see how such contradictions evolve,
how they present themselves and are ‘understood’, and how they are resolved
– and this, of course, can offer some insight into the structure of causal relation-
ships leading to historical change.
One ‘identity’ that lies at the heart of our discussion about ideology and World-
view is, of course, East Roman identity. Clearly there existed a dominant nar-
rative of identification through which the population of the medieval Eastern
Roman Empire could be represented as an ‘orthodox’ and Roman community
to itself and to the outsider. Situation and context determined which elements
were invoked in which combinations, so that being an East Roman could entail
many sub-sets of ‘Roman-ness’, some reflecting regional cultural, linguistic or
ethnic traditions and lifeways, some heterodox beliefs, some social status and
situation, some a mix of all of these.
By way of an example, I looked some time ago at the reasons underlying some of
the military revolts and interventions in imperial politics during the later part of
the seventh century in particular and suggested that traditional explanations were
inadequate – trying to account for these events through notions such as provincial
competition between armies, or greed, or opposition based on demands for better
conditions of service or pay or whatever really didn’t work when one takes all the
evidence together. (Slide 14) Instead, it is far more plausible to take these interven-
tions as attempts to restore things to the way they were by taking action that, it was
believed, would achieve this – whether by getting rid of a particular emperor or

25
 intervening in a religious dispute or whatever. In other words, trying to make the
world fit the traditional narratives through which it had made sense.
Of course, turning the clock back doesn’t work, so the inevitable outcome is
that the narrative itself had to be altered, by selectively pushing to one side those
elements that no longer matched perceived reality and bringing to the fore ele-
ments that allowed people to respond to their changed circumstances and, in
the process, build new narratives that made sense of the changed world. We can
understand a good deal of the military unrest of the period in this light. We can
also suggest that imperial iconoclasm was exactly this, a response to a disrupted
narrative, an attempt to restore what was believed to have been a more orthodox
practice with regard to sacred images in order to restore God’s favour; just as the
reaction to it, as reflected in the events of the later 780s, was likewise an effort to
restore a situation believed to have existed.
A good illustration of how narratives work to inform key aspects of how people
understand their world is found in Byzantine attitudes to warfare and violence.
Early Christian thinkers had evolved a number of objections to warfare and vio-
lence in general, and more especially to serving in the armies of the pagan Ro-
man emperors, and many believers before the ‘conversion’ of Constantine felt
that Christians could not serve two masters – Christ and the Roman state – espe-
cially when the latter was on occasion actively hostile to their beliefs or their very
existence. Indeed, the liturgy of the period before the Peace of the Church and
the Edict of toleration issued by Constantine I in 313 forbade soldiers who wished
to become Christians to take life, whether under orders or not.11
The adoption of Christianity by the emperor Constantine I and the reformula-
tion of imperial political ideology which followed radically altered this situation,
and while the debate about the justness of waging war continued, soldiers now
became, not servants of an oppressive pagan empire, but fighters for the faith and
defenders of Orthodoxy, at least in theory. Soldiers were fully-accepted members
of the Christian community, who had a recognised and indeed worthy role to play.
Liturgical prayers evolved from the fourth and fifth centuries in which the military
role of the emperors and the need for soldiers to defend the faith were specifically
recognised: “Shelter their (the emperors’) heads on the day of battle, strengthen

11 The standard work on this topic is now Yannis Stouraitis, Krieg und Frieden in der politischen
und ideologischen Wahrnehmung in Byzanz (7.­11. Jahrhundert) (Vienna: Fassbaender 2009).
For the broader context, see Niall Christie and Maya Yazigi, eds., Noble ideals and bloody reali-
ties: warfare in the Middle Ages (Leiden: Brill, 2006). See also Julian Chrysostomides, “Byzantine
concepts of war and peace,” in War, Peace and World Orders in European History, eds. Anja
Hartmann and Beatrice Heuser (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 91-101; Robert F. Taft,
SJ, “War and peace in the Byzantine divine liturgy,” in Peace and war in Byzantium, ed. Timothy
S. Miller and John S. Nesbitt (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1995),
17-32; Robert M. Grant, Augustus to Constantine: the thrust of the Christian movement into the
Roman world (New York: Harper and Row, 1970); and esp. John Helgeland, “Christians and the
Roman army A.D. 173-337,” Church History 43 (1974), 149-63; J. Helgeland, “Christians and the
Roman army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen
Welt 23/1 (Berlin/New York 1979), 724-834; and Louis J. Swift, ‘War and the Christian conscience
I: the early years’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, 835-68.

26
their arm, ... subjugate to them all the barbarian peoples who desire war, confer
upon them deep and lasting peace” is an illustrative example from a fifth-century
liturgical text. But this did not, of course, mean that warfare and the killing of en-
emies were in themselves intrinsically to be praised or regarded as in some way
deserving of a particular spiritual reward. Quite the reverse, for however much
Christians were able to justify warfare, whether from a defensive need or in what
we would see as an offensive context killing remained a necessary evil from the
Christian standpoint. This is such a strong tradition within Christian culture, in-
deed, that even in the modern highly secularised world of advanced technological
warfare, western strategists, military theorists and anthropologists or sociologists
of war point to the need still felt to justify war-making in terms established by this
pre-medieval moral-ethical context. And of course, matters became more compli-
12
cated when warfare between Christians also had to be taken into account.
The view that warfare – however regrettable – in a just cause was acceptable
became widespread, partly, of course, because from a pragmatic standpoint the
Roman state, whatever faith it professed, had to defend its territorial integrity
against aggression. So some rationalisation of the need to fight was inevitable.
Eusebius of Caesarea, the Christian apologist for Constantine I whose intellec-
tual influence in this respect played a key role in the compromise between pa-
gan and Christian attitudes to the empire, the emperor, and the imperial cult,
expressed a view which can indeed be understood to represent warfare with the
aim of promoting the new imperial faith as a type of holy war. The symbol of
the Cross appeared both in imperial propaganda and, more significantly, among
the insignia of the imperial armies. The Christian labarum and the chi­rho sym-
bol – seen in a vision by Constantine himself before his victory over Galerius in
312 – was carried by the standard-bearers of the legions, as well as appearing on
imperial coins and in association with images or busts of the emperors. Warfare
waged against the enemies of the empire was now warfare to defend or extend
the religion favoured by the emperor. Enemies of the empire could now be por-
trayed as enemies of Christianity, against whom warfare was entirely justified,
indeed, necessary if the True Faith were to fulfil the destiny inhering in divine
providence. That this was a paradox within Christian attitudes to warfare is clear;
but pragmatic considerations made a solution essential.13
12 For a summary of the debate with sources and literature: John F. Haldon, Warfare, state and
society in the Byzantine world, 565­1204 (London: Routledge, 1999), 13-33. For the liturgical texts
and their complex history, see Panagiōtēs N. Trempelas, The three liturgies according to the Ath-
ens codices (Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie 15. Athens
1935) (in Greek). On attitudes to warfare within the Christian cultural world, see, for example,
the discussion in the introductory chapter of John Keegan’s A History of warfare (New York: Al-
fred A. Knof, 1994); or the introduction by the editor of the volume, Thomas Gregor, to A natu-
ral history of peace (Nashville, Te.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1996); with Stouraitis, Krieg und
Frieden, 193-197; Yannis Stouraitis, “Byzantine war against Christians. An emphylios polemos?”
Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 20 (2010), 85-110.
13 See esp. T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA.-London 1981), and H.A. Drake,
In praise of Constantine: a historical study and new translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial orations
(Berkeley/Los Angeles 1976); Stouraitis, Krieg und Frieden, pp. 190-208; Stouraitis, ‘Jihād and

27
 My point is that key narratives within a Christian world view always existed in
tension, and that it was circumstances and the vested interests of specific ele-
ments in society that determined which of those narratives, and what elements
of those narratives, were given prominence and deployed in terms of the impe-
rial ideology and of ecclesiastical politics at any given moment.
Another good example of such tensions within the Christian world view can
be found in the theological disputes of the seventh century. We know that by the
late sixth century if not earlier there had evolved a general assumption that the
Roman state and the Christian church were now two aspects of a single enter-
prise, in which divinely-approved rulers defended orthodoxy and thus assured
God’s support and protection, but where failure of the ruler or the Christian
community, or part of it, to adhere to orthodox belief and practice could bring
about divine punishment of some sort. This is what I referred to earlier as the
imperial ideology, a systemic blending together of fundamentally Roman ideas
about rulership with Christian notions of divine providence. Most texts, wheth-
er theological or not, appear to take this system for granted.
Yet there existed below the level of this official ideological system alternatives,
based within the same set of narratives that made up the Christian world view but
drawing upon different threads, threads that permitted a questioning of the as-
sumption of the identity of Christianity with the Roman empire. One such thread,
for example, entailed senior representatives of the church – the bishops who were
intimately involved with local government as well as with the spiritual welfare of
their flocks – stepping in to fill the breach left by the absence, or failures of the sec-
ular authority. This might involve taking the lead in defending the interests of their
communities following military defeat or the hostile occupation of territory, or on
occasion by encouraging military leaders to take the appropriate action to confront
an enemy, in other words, by representing the values and priorities of Christianity
both in moral terms and in practical aspects. Here, the church could be seen both
to govern and to guide outside the framework, and without, the Roman state. This
occurred in Greater Syria and Egypt from the mid-630s and the 640s, where it be-
came possible to envisage Christian Roman identity as separate from the existence
of an imperial state. It was the bishop and the church that guaranteed the purity
of soul and physical survival of the Christian Roman people. While the empire de-
pended on Christianity, it would appear that the Christian church and people were
not necessarily dependent on the empire.
The idea that the church and the Christian community could be independent
of the Roman state if the latter departed from the path of orthodox belief was
reinforced in both theological discourse as well as at grass roots level once the
political disasters of the 630s onwards could be ascribed to the failures of the
secular state and its leaders to defend orthodox belief and practice. If salvation
depended on strict and unwavering adherence to the established forms of ortho-
crusade: Byzantine positions towards the notions of ‘Holy War’’, Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 21 (2011),
11-63.

28
dox belief and practice, then anything perceived as innovation had to be rejected
outright.14 Such was the position argued by churchmen such as Sophronius of
Jerusalem already in the 630s, refined by Maximus Confessor and adopted by the
papacy in the 640s in opposition to the initially successful compromise formulae
developed under the patriarch Sergios, aimed at bridging the divide between mi-
aphysite and dyophysite doctrine.15
The emphasis on correct practice as a means of signifying and preserving or-
thodoxy thus encouraged an existing but alternative strand of thinking within
the Chalcedonian community about the relationship between Roman empire
and Christian faith. On this logic, if it was explicit and rigid adherence to the es-
tablished forms of orthodox piety and practice that would bring salvation, then
it was essential that the official church and the state also adhered to them. A
church or a government that compromised those forms could be justifiably and
logically condemned, as incurring God’s wrath. At the same time, the unity and
integrity of the church and the Christian faith could be understood as resting
not upon the compromised and struggling secular empire, nor even on the va-
garies of patriarchal politics, but upon correct observance of the established or-
thodox tradition, which should be pursued independently of, even in opposition
to, the secular state and its interests. Those who most clearly and vociferously
represented this perspective – Sophronius in opposing the doctrine of the single
operation, Maximus and Martin in their opposition to the doctrine of the single
will – thus came into direct confrontation with the government.16
I mention these examples, which are known to you all, chiefly to illustrate my
point about the way different narrative strands within a system depend upon
context and conjuncture as to their relevance to people’s lives and way of see-
ing the world, their Weltanschauung. Locating the narratives that make up a
Weltanschauung, and that inform the contents of a more structured ideological
system such as the Roman imperial ideology, is one way of understanding the
motivations behind the actions of both individuals and groups and, in particular,
of understanding the rationale and logic of people’s actions, as they are revealed
through the historical evidence.
Historians are concerned to explain change, and to do this we need to try to
understand why people acted in the ways that they did. But, as we all know, we
14 Phil Booth, Crisis of empire. Doctrine and dissent at the end of Late Antiquity (Berkeley-Los
Angeles-London: University of California Press, 2014), 329-342.
15 See Karl-Heinz Uthemann, “Der Neuchalkedonismus als Vorbereitung des Monotheletismus.
Ein Beitrag zum eigentlichen Anliegen des Neuchalkedonismus,” Studia Patristica 29 (1997),
373-413; and esp. Christian Lange, Mia Energeia. Untersuchungen zur Einigungspolitik des
Kaisers Heraclius und des Patriarchen Sergius von Konstantinopel (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2012). A useful summary of these developments is to be found in Richard Price, Phil Booth and
Catherine Cubitt, The Acts of the Lateran synod of 649 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
2014), 17-27; see also Jack Tannous, “In search of monotheletism,” DOP 68 (2014), 29-67.
16 See esp. Heinz Ohme, “Oikonomia in monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streit,” Zeitschrift für
antikes Christentum 12 (2008), 308-343; Price, Booth and Cubitt, The Acts of the Lateran synod
of 649, 1-58 for a good survey; and the detailed exposition and analysis of the key theological
issues in Booth, Crisis of empire.

29
 can only come close to finding out what people in the past thought and what
motivated them by examining their own testimony, both in respect of texts and
documents as well as in terms of their impact on their environment – art, build-
ings, the physical infrastructure they created. I have attempted to sketch in an ap-
proach to thinking about the relationship between thinking and doing, between
belief and action, first by suggesting a possible framework within which to orga-
nize and interrogate our evidence and to model social interactions; and second
by using narrative in the context of the wider symbolic universe as a way into
how people used the cultural tools at their disposal to work upon their world.

30
 2

The Letters of Romanos I Lekapenos to the

Bulgarian ruler Symeon and the principles of the
Byzantine political ideology
ANGELIKI DELIKARI, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
UDK 32(497.2:495.020(093)

Abstract: Tsar Symeon’s aggressive policy against the Byzantine empire and his
use of the title of basileus Rhomaion forced the hand of Romanos I Lekapenos to
write three letters addressed to the Bulgarian sovereign. It is in these documents
that we can make out the basic principles of the Byzantine political ideology.

On 11 May 912, Emperor Leo VI died, creating a difficult domestic situation for
Byzantium. His brother Alexander, the guardian of Leo VI’s underage son and
successor, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, ascended to the throne.1 Among
other problems created by Alexander2 was his refusal to pay the agreed annual
levy to the Bulgarian state.3
1 Ioannis Zonarae epitomae historiarum libri XVIII. Libri XIII­XVIII, edited by Theodor Büttner-
Wobst [CSHB], vol. 3 (Bonnae: Ed. Weber, 1897), 455.7-10: τότε δὲ τελευτῶν τὴν αὐταρχίαν τῷ ἀδελφῷ
κατέλιπεν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῷ παραδέδωκεν, ἀξιώσας ἐπιμελεῖσθαι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνάγειν βασιλικῶς
καὶ αὐτοκράτορα καταλιπεῖν, and Symeonis magistri et logothetae Chronicon, edited by Staffan Wahl-
gren [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 44/1 - Series Berolinensis] (Berlin - New York: De
Gruyter, 2006), 294.441-444: τελευτᾷ Λέων ὁ βασιλεὺς προχειρισάμενος Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν αὐτοῦ ἀδελφὸν
... πολλὰ ἐκλιπαρήσας (sc. Leo) καὶ δεηθεὶς αὐτοῦ φυλάττειν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ Κωνσταντῖνον (see also Theo-
phanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus, edited by Im-
manuel Bekker (Bonnae: Ed. Weber, 1838), 377.12-16 etc.).
2 Patricia Karlin-Hayter, “The Emperor Alexander’s Bad Name,” Speculum 44/4 (1969): 585-596.
3 Steven Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign. A Study of Tenth­Century By­
zantium (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1929), 45-50; Georges Kolias, Léon Choerosphac-
tès. Magistre, proconsul et Patrice. Biographie – Correspondance (Texte et Traduction) [Texte und
Forschungen zur Byzantinisch-Neugriechischen Philologie/Zwanglose Beihefte zu den “Byz-

31
 This marked the beginning of a new era of conflicts between Byzantium and
the Bulgarians that lasted from 913 to 927.4 In particular, shortly after Alexan-
der’s own death on 6 June 913, Symeon, the ruler of Bulgaria, decided that the
ground was ripe for a campaign against Byzantium, further expanding his plans
of conquest. No longer content with raiding and pillaging Byzantine territories,
he turned his attention to Constantinople itself. Thus, in August of the same year,
he besieged Constantinople with a large army from Blachernae to the Golden
Gate in the hope of conquering it. Its fortified walls, however, forced him to re-
treat at Ebdomon and to seek negotiations with the then seven-member regency
council acting as the Byzantine government.5
In their accounts of these events, the Byzantine chroniclers also refer to a cer-
emony which many scholars mistakenly considered to have been the coronation
ceremony of Symeon by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nikolaos Mystikos.6
antinisch-Neugriechischen Jahrbuecher” 31] (Athen: Verlag der “Byzantinisch – Neugriechische
Jahrbuecher, 1939), 41-42; Aleksandr P. Každan, “K voprosu o načale vtoroj bolgaro-vizantijskoj
vojny pri Simeone,” in Slavjanskij archiv [Vyp. II] (Moskva 1959), 24; Rašo Rašev, “Knjaz Simeon i
imperator Aleksandǎr,” Istorija 2-3 (1998): 63-69; Angel Nikolov, Političeska misǎl v rannosrednove-
kovna Bǎlgarija (sredata na IX ­ kraja na X vek) (Sofija: Paradigma, 2006), 126-128.
4 Vasil N. Zlatarski, Istorija na bǎlgarskata dǎržava prez srednite vekove, vol. 1: Pǎrvo bǎlgarsko
carstvo, čast 2: Ot slavjanizacijata na dǎržavata do padaneto na Pǎrvoto carstvo (Sofija:
Akademično izdatelstvo “Prof. Marin Drinov, 32002), 367-515; Ivan Božilov, Car Simeon Ve-
liki (893­927): Zlatnijat vek na Srednovekovna Bǎlgarija (Sofija: Izdatelstvo na otečestvenija
front, 1983), 106-145; Petǎr Mutafčiev, Istorija na Bǎlgarskija narod/681­1323 (Sofija: Izdatelstvo
na Bǎlgarskata Akademija na Naukite, 1986), 190-197; Μαρία Νυσταζοπούλου-Πελεκίδου, Οι
Βαλκανικοί Λαοί κατά τους μέσους χρόνους (Θεσσαλονίκη: Βάνιας, 1992), 161-166.
5 Αλκμήνη Σταυρίδου-Ζαφράκα, Η συνάντηση Συμεών και Νικολάου Μυστικού (Αύγουστος 913) στα
πλαίσια του βυζαντινοβουλγαρικού ανταγωνισμού (Θεσσαλονίκη, 1972), 49-57. See also Patricia Kar-
lin-Hayter, “The Homily on the Peace with Bulgaria of 927 and the “Coronation” of 913,” Jahr-
buch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 18 (1968): 32; Jonathan Shepard, “Symeon
of Bulgaria – Peacemaker,” Godišnik na Sofijskija universitet “Sv. Kliment Ochridski” Naučen
centǎr za Slavjano­vizantijski proučvanija “Ivan Dujčev” 83/3 (1989) [= 1991], 21-22, 39, n. 103; Va-
sil Gjuzelev, “Vizantijskata imperija i Bǎlgarskoto carstvo v bran i mir,” Archiv za srednovekovna
filosofija i kultura 2 (1995): 73; Jonathan Shepard, “Bulgaria: the other Balkan ‘empire’,” in The
New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. III: c. 900­c. 1024, edited by Timothy Reuter (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999), 574; Paul Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier. A Politi-
cal Study of the Northern Balkans, 900­1204 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 21-
22; Nikolov, Političeska misǎl v rannosrednovekovna Bǎlgarija, 129-130.
6 Karlin-Hayter, “The Homily on the Peace with Bulgaria of 927,” 32-38; Σταυρίδου-Ζαφράκα, Η
συνάντηση Συμεών και Νικολάου, 68-98, 109-114; Georg Ostrogorsky, “Die Krönung Symeons von
Bulgarien durch den Patriarchen Nikolaos Mystikos,” in Georg Ostrogorsky, Byzanz und die Welt
der Slawen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzantinisch­slawischen Beziehungen (Darmstadt: Wis-
senschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974), 53-64; Evangelos K. Chrysos, “Die “Krönung” Symeons in
Hebdomon,” Cyrillomethodianum 3 (1975): 169-173; Ivan Dujčev, “On the Treaty of 927 with the
Bulgarians,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32 (1978): 248; John Van Antwerp Fine, The Early Medieval
Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1983), 144-148; Georgi Bakalov, Srednovekovnijat bǎlgarski vladetel (Titulatura
i insignii) (Sofija: Nauka i izkustvo, 1985), 106-118; Dimitri Obolensky, Η Βυζαντινή Κοινοπολιτεία.
Η Ανατολική Ευρώπη, 500­1453, translated by Γιάννης Τσεβρεμές (Θεσσαλονίκη: Βάνιας, 1991), 184-
187; Shepard, “Symeon of Bulgaria – Peacemaker,” 40-44; Vasilka Tǎpkova-Zaimova, “Struk-
tura Bolgarskogo gosudarstva (konec IX-načalo XIv.) i problema gegemonii na Balkanach,” in
Rannefeodal’nye gosudarstva i narodnosti ( južnye i zapadnye slavjane VI­XII vv.) (Moskva: Nauka,
1991), 140; Pavel Georgiev, “Koronacijata na Simeon prez 913 g.,” Istoričeski Pregled 57/1-2 (2001):
3-20; Vlada Stanković, Carigradski patrijarsi i carevi makedonske dinastije [Vižantološki Institut
Srpske Akademije nauka i umetnosti, posebna izdanja knjiga 28] (Beograd: Vižantološki Institut
SANU, 2003), 105-106; Džonatan Šepard, Nespokojni sǎsedi. Bǎlgaro­vizantijska konfrontacija, ob-
men i sǎžitelstvo prez srednite vekove, prevod Ljubomira Genova (Sofija: Universitetsko izdatel-
32
Probably, there was also talk of a future marriage between Symeon’s daughter
and the heir to the Byzantine throne, who was still a minor. In the end, the plans
of the Bulgarian ruler to ascend to the Byzantine throne by proxy, i.e., as the
father-in-law of the Byzantine emperor and later as co-emperor, foundered. Con-
stantine Porphyrogenitus’ mother, Zoe, reacted strongly to the prospect of such a
marriage, while Romanos Lekapenos took advantage of the situation, achieving
himself a few years later what Symeon had dreamed of, namely the marriage of
his daughter Helen to Constantine. Thus, Romanos in May 919 became basileopa-
ter, and on 17 December 920 he became co-emperor (until 944).7
Symeon, who had probably engineered the Byzantine plot, did not stop the
raids8 in spite of using the title of basileus from 913 onwards, as is evident from
our sources (letters, seals, etc.).9 Byzantium’s reaction both to Symeon’s bloody
attacks and to his usurpation of the title of Byzantine emperor is clearly reflected
in the letters to Symeon from the patriarch Nikolaos Mystikos10 and in those writ-
ten by Theodore Daphnopates11, probably in the spring of 925, by order of and in
the name of the emperor Romanos Lekapenos.

stvo “Sv. Kliment Ochridski”, 2007), 111-120; Ivan Božilov, Bǎlgarskata archiepiskopija XI­XII vek.
Spisǎkǎt na bǎlgarskite archiepiskopi (Sofija: IK Gutenberg, 2011), 43-48; Vlada Stanković, “The
crowning of Symeon in 913, revisited, historical context, causes and consequences,” in Treti
meždunaroden kongres po Bǎlgaristika, 23­26 Maj 2013 g., Krǎgla masa “Zlatnijat vek na car Simeon:
Politika, religija i kultura” (Sofija: Universitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ochridski”, 2014), 24-29;
Nikolov, Političeska misǎl v rannosrednovekovna Bǎlgarija, 131-136; Angel Nikolov, “Making a new
basileus: The case of Symeon of Bulgaria (893-927) reconsidered,” in Rome, Constantinople and
Newly­Converted Europe. Archaeological and Historical Evidence, edited Maciej Salomon - Marcin
Wołoszyn – Alexander Musin – Perica Špehar, vol. I ( Kraków – Leipzig – Rzeszów – Warszawa
2012), 101-108; Angel Nikolov, “Carskata titla na Simeon i kato istoriografski i političeski problem,”
in Treti meždunaroden kongres po Bǎlgaristika, 23­26 Maj 2013 g., 30-40.
7 Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus; Alexander P. Kazhdan, “Romanos I Lekapenos”,
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3 (New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press 1991), 1806;
Vlada Stanković, Carigradski patrijarsi i carevi Makedonske dinastije [Vizantološki Institut
Srpske Akademije Nauka i Umetnosti posebna izdanja knj. 28], (Beograd: Vizantološki institut
SANU, 2003), 107-117.
8 Νίκος Α. Βέης, “Αι επιδρομαί των Βουλγάρων υπό τον τζάρον Συμεών και τα σχετικά σχόλια του
Αρέθα Καισαρείας,” Ελληνικά 1 (1928): 337-370; Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus, 81-
101; Μάρθα Γρηγορίου-Ιωαννίδου, “Η βυζαντινοβουλγαρική σύγκρουση στους Κατασύρτες (917),”
Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης 21 (1983): 123-148;
Fine, The Early Medieval Balkans, 137-140, 142-144, 148-155.
9 Αγγελική Δεληκάρη, “Η οικειοποίηση βυζαντινών τίτλων από Σλάβους ηγεμόνες ως έκφραση της
πολιτικής ιδεολογίας τους. Η περίπτωση του Βούλγαρου τσάρου Συμεών,” in Αγγελική Δεληκάρη,
Βυζαντινο­Σλαβικά Μελετήματα (Θεσσαλονίκη: Εκδόσεις Κυριακίδη, 2017), 80-89.
10 Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters. Greek text and English translation edited by
Romilly James Heald Jenkins – Leendert Gerrit Westerink [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzan-
tinae 6] (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1973), Ep. 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. Cf. Jules Gay, “Le patriarche
Nicolas le Mystique et son rôle politique,” in Mélanges Charles Diehl, vol. 1: Histoire [Études sur
l’histoire et sur l’art de Byzance] (Paris: E. Leroux, 1930), 95-97.
11 Karl Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Literatur von Justinian bis zum Ende des Os-
trömischen Reiches (527­1453) (München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Oskar Beck,
2
1897), 170, 459; Robert Browning, “The Correspondence of a tenth – century Byzantine Schol-
ar”, Byzantion 24/2 (1954): 431-432; Αλκμήνη Σταυρίδου-Ζαφράκα, “Ο ανώνυμος λόγος «επί τηι των
Βουλγάρων συμβάσει»,” Βυζαντινά 8 (1976): 354-355; Théodore Daphnopatès Correspondance, ed-
ited by Jean Darrouzès – Leendert Gerrit Westerink [Le Monde Byzantin] (Paris: Éditions du
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1978), 1-4.
33
 I will focus on these three letters of the Byzantine emperor that are preserved
in a manuscript (Cod. Patm. 706/ψ΄ϛ according to the Catalogue of I. Saccelion,
Patmian Library, pp. 274-275) which dates from the late 11th to early 12th century,
today in the Library of Patmos.12
The codex includes a collection of letters by various wise men (among them
Romanos), as their editor I. Sakkelion noted in the first (1883) and second (1885)
volumes of the Bulletin of the Historical and Ethnological Society.13 Unlike Niko-
laos Mystikos’s letters, which have a very pleading tone (as befitted an ecclesiasti-
cal man, of course), Romanos tried to put things in a realistic context.
In his attempt to convince Symeon of the absurdity of his actions, he stresses
the incompatibility of the demands and ambitions of the Bulgarian ruler with
basic tenets of Byzantine political ideology. Symeon’s arbitrary self-proclamation
of himself as king or emperor flies in the face of the usual requirements for his
elevation to the highest office, such as, for example, the principle of the divine
origin of power.14 Already in his first letter, the Byzantine emperor makes clear his
role as God’s sole and undisputed chosen representative on earth. It is God, after
all, who gives the prestige and control of the state to the emperor as his epresen-
tative.15 This theory of the merciful king of God is repeated over and over again
in the epistles, in a spirit of both anger and amazement on the part of Romanos
at Symeon’s intransigent behaviour. The Bulgarian ruler does not realize that he
has neither God’s approval nor his favour.16 In a stern tone, Romanos points out
to him that he should finally stop calling himself a king and king of the Romans
to boot. The Byzantines never granted him such a title, nor would they naturally
proceed to such an act according to Romanos.17 It is known, moreover, that more
than a century earlier they had for a long time refused to recognize the title of
Charlemagne (in 800) as emperor, considering that the right to confer titles be-
longed to the one and only emperor, i.e. the one who had his seat in Constan-

12 Ιωάννης Σακκελίων, Πατμιακή Βιβλιοθήκη ήτοι αναγραφή των εν τηι Βιβλιοθήκηι της κατά την νήσον
Πάτμον Γεράρας και Βασιλικής Μονής του Αγίου Αποστόλου και Ευαγγελιστού Ιωάννου του Θεολόγου
τεθησαυρισμένων χειρογράφων τευχών (Αθήνα: Εκ του Τυπογραφείου Αλεξάνδρου Παπαγεωργίου,
1890), 274-275; Théodore Daphnopatès Correspondance, 11-23.
13 Ιωάννης Σακκελίων, “Ρωμανού βασιλέως του Λακαπηνού Επιστολαί,” Δελτίον της Ιστορικής και
Εθνολογικής Εταιρίας της Ελλάδος 1 (1883): 657-666; 2 (1885): 38-48.
14 Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters, 122.26-40, Ep. 18.
15 Σακκελίων, “Ρωμανού βασιλέως του Λακαπηνού Επιστολαί,” 658, Ep. 1: Ἐκ πολλῶν γνωρισμάτων
ἠπίστατο ἡ ἐκ Θεοῦ βασιλεία ἡμῶν.
16 Σακκελίων, “Ρωμανού βασιλέως του Λακαπηνού Επιστολαί,” 659, Ep. 1: Τί γάρ, εἰπέ μοι, καὶ περισσότερον
ἐξεγένετό σοι ἐκ τοῦ σεαυτὸν γράφειν βασιλέα Βουλγάρων καὶ Ῥωμαίων, τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ συνευδοκοῦντος,
μὴ συνεργοῦντος τῷ πράγματι; ... Εἰ δὲ καὶ καλεῖσθαί τινα βασιλέα Ῥωμαίων καὶ Βουλγάρων ἔδει, ἡμᾶς
ἔδει μᾶλλον καλεῖσθαι, τοὺς καὶ παρὰ Θεοῦ τοῦτο λαβόντας, καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῦ πιστευομένους τὴν ἀρχὴν
εἰληφέναι, ἢ ὑμᾶς τοὺς αἵμασι καὶ σφαγαῖς ταύτην κτήσασθαι διαγωνιζομένους.
17 Σακκελίων, “Ρωμανού βασιλέως του Λακαπηνού Επιστολαί,” 41-42, Ep. 2: Πῶς δὲ οὐδὲ ἔκρινέ σου ἡ
ὑψηλοτάτη καὶ δραστικὴ φρόνησις, ὡς οὐ περὶ τοῦ μηδόλως καλεῖσθαι σε βασιλέα γεγράφαμεν, ἀλλὰ
περὶ τοῦ σεαυτὸν γράφειν βασιλέα Ῥωμαίων, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι ἔξεστί σοι ποιεῖν ὃ βούλει· εἰ
δὲ δεῖ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, οὐδ’ ἐν αὐτῇ. Πόθεν γάρ σοι τὸ τοιοῦτον προσαρμοσθήσεται ὄνομα; ἀπὸ προγόνων;
πάντως αὐτὸς γινώσκεις. Ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τυραννίδος ἢ κατασχέσεως γῆς καὶ συμφώνων ἐνόρκων; οὐκ ἔστι τοῦτο
βασιλεία, ἀλλ’ ἀπληστία.

34
tinople.18 From about this time onwards, Byzantine emperors began to be more
frequently referred to as „kings of the Romans“, perhaps wanting to emphasise
that anybody else styled emperor could not be the true emperor of the Romans.
This is why Romanos also criticized Symeon’s use of the term Romans, tracing it
back to the conquest of just some Byzantine territories, and to the enslavement
of Roman subjects by force and war, rather than their peaceful and voluntary
adherence to Symeon.19
Romanos was indignant and did not hesitate to touch upon the incompat-
ibility of the existence of two Roman emperors (a mental parallel between the
earthly and the heavenly kingdom, i.e. one emperor - one Christian state), mak-
ing it clear that the only legitimate emperor was the Byzantine one, and that the
Romans were in fact a whole that could not be divided, leading to the existence
of two Roman emperors.20
The supremacy of the Byzantine emperor over all other rulers is directly linked
to the Byzantine political doctrine of the universal ruling family, at the top of
which was the father, i.e. the Byzantine emperor. Next came his spiritual children
who had received Christianization from Byzantium and therefore owed special
obedience and respect to the emperor. This category included the Bulgarians af-
ter the baptism of Boris I, Symeon’s father (spiritual brothers and then friends
came in third place).21
18 Georg Ostrogorsky, Ιστορία του βυζαντινού κράτους, vol. 2, translated by Ιωάννης Παναγόπουλος
(Αθήνα: Ιστορικές Εκδόσεις Στέφανος Δ. Βασιλόπουλος, 72002), 56-57. Cf. Georg Ostrogorsky, “W.
Ohnsorge, Das Zweikaiserproblem im früheren Mittelalter. Die Bedeutung des byzantinischen
Reiches für die Entwicklung der Staatsidee in Europa, Hildesheim 1947,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift
46 (1953): 153-158. See also Otto Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser­und Reichsidee nach ihrer
Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell vom oströmischen Staats­ und Reichsgedanken (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21956), 187-188; Διονυσία Μισίου, “Βυζάντιο: Αυτοκρατορία ή
Κράτος;,” in Ανοιχτοσύνη. Μελέτες προς τιμήν της Βασιλικής Παπούλια, edited by Θεόδωρος Κορρές
- Παναγιώτης Δουκέλλης - Σπυρίδων Σφέτας - Φωτεινή Τολούδη (Θεσσαλονίκη: Βάνιας, 2012), 247.
19 Σακκελίων, “Ρωμανού βασιλέως του Λακαπηνού Επιστολαί,” 659-660, Ep. 1: Ἀλλὰ ποῖον τὸ ἐκ
τούτων ἀναφαινόμενον ὄφελος; τίς ἡ τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς προσθήκη τε καὶ ὠφέλεια, εἰ ἀλλοτρίοις ὀνόμασιν
ἑαυτοὺς καλλωπίζομεν; Μὴ τοῦτό σοι λογιζέσθω, πνευματικὲ ἀδελφέ, πᾶσαν τὴν δύσιν καταληίσαντι,
καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ κατοικοῦντας αἰχμαλώτους λαβομένῳ, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου τρόπου βασιλεὺς Ῥωμαίων
κατονομάζῃ· οὐ γὰρ αὐθαιρέτως σοι προσέφυγον, ἀλλὰ βίᾳ καὶ πολέμῳ παρ’ ὑμῶν δουλωθέντες, τῶν
ὑμετέρων ἀποδιδράσκουσι, καὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὡς ὁμογενεῖς καταφεύγουσι. ... Τί οὖν, διὰ τοῦτο καλέσομεν
ἑαυτοὺς βασιλεῖς Ῥωμαίων καὶ Βουλγάρων; Μὴ δῴη ἡμῖν Κύριος, τῶν ἰδίων ἀποστάντας τοῖς ἑτέροις
ὀνόμασιν ἐπισεμνύνεσθαι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὡς ἄδικοι καὶ ἅρπαγες κατακρίνεσθαι. Ποίων δὲ Ῥωμαίων ἑαυτὸν
ἀποκαλεῖς βασιλέα, τῶν παρὰ σοῦ κρατηθέντων, ἢ τῶν ἀπίστοις ἔθνεσιν ἐκδοθέντων καὶ πρὸς δουλείαν
κατακριθέντων;
20 Σακκελίων, “Ρωμανού βασιλέως του Λακαπηνού Επιστολαί,” 42, Ep. 2: Πῶς δὲ καὶ δύο βασιλεῖς ἔσονται,
καθὼς αὐτὸς ματαιοπονεῖς, καὶ γένει διεστηκότες, καὶ τρόποις διῃρημένοι, καὶ τιμῇ βασιλείας ὑπερκείμενοι;
21 Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae Libri Duo Graece et La­
tine, edited by Johann Jacob Reiske, vol. 1 (Bonnae: Ed. Weber, 1829), 686-692. See also Franz
Dölger, “Die “Familie der Könige” im Mittelalter,” in Franz Dölger, Byzanz und die europäische
Staatenwelt. Ausgewählte Vorträge und Aufsätze.(Ettal: Buch-Kunstverlag, 1953), 37-42; Franz
Dölger,”Die mittelalterliche “Familie der Fürsten und Völker” und der Bulgarenherrscher,” in
Dölger, Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt, 159-182; George Ostrogorsky, “The Byzantine
Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order”, The Slavonic and East European Review 35/84
(1956): 1-14; Georg Ostrogorsky, “Die byzantinische Staatenhierarchie,” in Georg Ostrogorsky,
Zur byzantinischen Geschichte. Ausgewählte kleine Schriften (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1973), 121-132; Jadran Ferluga, “Die Adressenliste für auswärtige Herrscher
aus dem Zeremonienbuch Konstantin Porphyrogennetos,” in Jadran Ferluga, Byzantium on

35
 Despite the fact that Romanos is regularly using the address ἡ σὴ ἀδελφότης,
πνευματικὲ ἀδελφέ,22 stressing equal standing, Nikolaos Mystikos on the other
hand refers to Symeon as τέκνον μου πολυέραστον, τέκνον ἐμόν/ἡμῶν, σπλάχνον ἐμόν,
υἱέ μου ἀγαπημένε καὶ μεγαλόδοξε, υἱέ μου ποθεινότατε καὶ φίλε).23 In the second let-
ter Romanos highlights the material relationship between the emperor and the
Bulgarian ruler on the basis of the theory of the global ruling family. He even
calls him to order, noting that the son cannot attack the father.24 This ranking was
accepted by the majority of peoples, who acknowledged the Byzantine king as
father. None of the other rulers was on a par with the Byzantine, since he was the
heir and successor of the emperors of Rome.25
Finally, the Byzantines considered it their duty to keep their territories intact
as heirs of the Roman state. This is why Romanos treated the conquered territo-
ries as potential Byzantine territories, hoping that they would eventually become
part of Byzantium.26
In my opinion, these three relatively short letters of Romanos reflect in a succinct
and very tangible way the fundamental principles of Byzantine political-ecumeni-
cal ideology, as they were shaped over the centuries and confirmed in other Byzan-
tine texts. Romanos Lekapenos does not hesitate for a single moment to defend the
time-honoured values of the Byzantine ideal, offering a document in which all the
fundamental principles of Byzantine political ideology are condensed.

the Balkans. Studies on the Byzantine Administration and the Southern Slavs from the VIIth to
the XIIth Centuries (Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1976), 261-290; Ελένη Γλύκατζη-Αρβελέρ, Η
πολιτική ιδεολογία της Βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας, translated Τούλα Δρακοπούλου (Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις
«Αργώ», 1977) 55-57; Vasilka Tǎpkova-Zaimova, “L’idée byzantine de l’unité du monde et l’état
bulgare,” in Vasilka Tǎpkova-Zaimova, Byzance et les Balkans à partir du VIe siècle. Les mou-
vements ethniques et les Etats (London: Variorum Reprints, 1979), Nr. XVIII, 291-294; Ιωάννης
Καραγιαννόπουλος, Η πολιτική θεωρία των Βυζαντινών (Θεσσαλονίκη: Βάνιας, 1988), 8-9; Μισίου,
“Βυζάντιο: Αυτοκρατορία ή Κράτος;,” 241-248; Μαρία Νυσταζοπούλου-Πελεκίδου, Γεωπολιτική και
πολιτισμός στα Μεσαιωνικά Βαλκάνια. Το βυζαντινό πρότυπο (Αθήναι: Λειμών, 2021), 153-155.
22 Σακκελίων, “Ρωμανού βασιλέως του Λακαπηνού Επιστολαί,” 658, Ep. 1: Ἐκ πολλῶν γνωρισμάτων
ἠπίστατο ἡ ἐκ Θεοῦ βασιλεία ἡμῶν περὶ τῆς ὑμῶν πνευματικῆς ἀδελφότητος and τὰς παρὰ τῆς σῆς
ἀδελφότητος προτεινομένας ἀδίκους ἐνστάσεις; 659, Ep. 1: Μὴ τοῦτό σοι λογιζέσθω, πνευματικὲ ἀδελφέ;
660, Ep. 1: Οὐκοῦν ἐμοῦ μᾶλλον ἄκουσον, πνευματικὲ ἀδελφέ; 662, Ep. 1: Μὴ οὖν ἔλπιζε, πνευματικέ μου
ἀδελφέ, etc.
23 Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters, 42.2, Ep. 7; 44.2, Ep. 8; 46.35, Ep. 8; 56.50-51, Ep. 9;
110.3-4, Ep. 17; 116.91. Ep. 17.
24 Σακκελίων, “Ρωμανού βασιλέως του Λακαπηνού Επιστολαί,” 41, Ep. 2: Μᾶλλον μὲν οὖν ἔδει τὰ σεαυτοῦ
σκοπεῖν καὶ ἀναλογίζεσθαι, πῶς ἐν υἱοῦ τάξει διατελῶν, τῆς πνευματικῆς ἐκείνης ἀποπηδήσας υἱότητος,
ὥσπερ πάλαι τῆς φυσικῆς, καὶ τὴν τάξιν συγχέας, καὶ φυρμὸν ἀμφοτέρων πεποιηκώς, ὥσπερ κατὰ πατρὸς
νεανιευσάμενος ἐξ ὧν τὰ δεινὰ τοῦ πολέμου.
25 Αικατερίνη Χριστοφιλοπούλου, Το πολίτευμα και οι θεσμοί της Βυζαντινής αυτοκρατορίας 324­1204.
Κράτος – Διοίκηση, Οικονομία – Κοινωνία (Αθήνα, 2004), 191-192. See also notes 18 and 21.
26 Σακκελίων, “Ρωμανού βασιλέως του Λακαπηνού Επιστολαί,” 663, Ep. 1: Οὐ γὰρ ἐθίσαντες Ῥωμαῖοι
τὴν ἑαυτῶν γῆν κατέχεσθαι παρ’ ὑμῶν, ἐπιλήσμονες ταύτης ἐγένοντο. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς τοῦτο τότε
παραχωρήσαντας βασιλεῖς οὐ μικρῶς καταμέμφονται, ὡς καταδεξαμένους ὑμᾶς τὴν τοιαύτην παροικῆσαι
γῆν.
36
 3

Who Crowned Tsar Samuel: Appropriating the

Byzantine ideology in the 13th century Balkans
MITKO B. PANOV, Institute of National History,
Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje
UDK 929.731 Самуил, цар

Abstract: The paper addresses the issue of the imperial coronation of Samuel
reflected in the correspondence between the Pope Innocent III and Ioannitsa
Kaloiannes, the ruler of the Vlachs and Bulgarians. The analysis of the letters
shows that the both Innocent III and Kaloiannes adapted the Byzantine ideo-
logical construct from the time of Basil II, turning it against Constantinople.
Innocent III exploited the fictitious claims of the leaders of Vlachs and Bulgar-
ians to demonstrate the continuous superiority of the Papacy in the political
and ecclesiastical affairs in the Balkans. The essence of this constructed notion
was based upon the equally invented, though opposite, ideological claims by
Byzantium as regards Samuel and His State and Church.

The issue about the coronation of emperor Samuel still raises questions among
scholars.1 The complexity derives from the complete silence of the Samuel’s for-

1 More detailed analysis on the issue, see Stjepan Antoljak, Samuilovata država (Skopje: Institut
za nacionalna istorija, 1969), 55-58, 80-81; Antoljak, “Samuilovoto carstvo,” in Istorija na make-
donskiot narod, I, ed. Mihailo Apostolski et al. (Skopje: Institut za nacionalna istorija, 1969), 125,
131, who argue about the direct involvement of the Roman Papacy in the coronation of Samuel.
Srđan Pirivatrić, using the suggestion of Božidar Prokić, “Postanak jedne slovenske carevine u
Maćedoniji u X veku,” Glas Srpske kraljevske akademije 76 (1908), 281, does not exclude the pos-
sibility that Samuel used the military triumph over Basil II at the battle of Gate of Trajan in 986,
to crown himself with the actual Byzantine crown seized among other imperial insignia (Srđan
Pirivatrić, Samuilova država. Obim i karakter (Beograd: Vizantološki institut Srbske akademije
nauka i umetnosti, 1997), 207-208).

37
 mal title by the contemporary Byzantine authors. The deliberate conceal of Sam-
uel’s title became part of Byzantine ideological concept and propaganda that
was created and implemented by Basil II, following the conquest of Samuel’s
State in 1018.2
Samuel and his State were clearly seen as illegitimate and incompatible with
the Byzantine ideological concept. This is understandable since as far as we know
the Byzantine establishment did not have any role in official recognition of the
Samuel’s State. Evidently, Samuel did not ask for the legitimization of his title, nor
it was offered to him. This conclusion is supported by John Skylitzes’ description
of Basil II’s celebration in Constantinople following the subjugation of Samuel’s
State, where the emperor was portrayed as “entering through the great doors of
the Golden Gate and crowned with a crested golden diadem celebrated triumph
preceded by Maria, wife of Vladislav, and the daughters of Samuel …”.3 There is
no mention of any imperial regalia regained, since they were not granted by the
Byzantine emperor to Samuel to be victoriously brought back to Constantinople.
Hence, the highlight on Basil’s golden imperial crown, symbolizing the imperial su-
periority and prestige. The military spoils were left in Samuel’s heartland, with his
Ohrid fortress razed and left in ruins as a reminder of Basil’s victory.4 Indicatively,
Skylitzes did mention that after the conquest of Ohrid fortress the “crowns with
pearls” were found,5 belonging to residing rulers, which could refer to Samuel’s.
As for Samuel’s title, Yahya of Antioch mentioned that he “proclaimed himself
as emperor”. However, we can hardly believe Yahya’s story that “Cometopuolos”
formally recognized “Samuel’s” unnamed younger son as an emperor and even
waited for his death in 997 to claim the imperial title. What we have here is Yahya’s
own attempt to understand, or rather to conjecture, the relationship between
Samuel (whom he named Cometopoulos) and Peter (whom he named Samuel)
and the heirs to throne of the then non-existent Bulgarian Empire, whose name
he did not mentioned. The clear confusion was clearly a consequence of Yahya’s
own interpretation of the ideological conception and imperial propaganda that
was transmitted through the Byzantine sources that he used, which found re-
flection in his inverted contextualization of the narrated protagonists. On the
other hand, Skylitzes tells us that Samuel become a sole ruler after murdering

2 Mitko B. Panov, The Blinded State. Historiographic Debates about Samuel Cometopoulos and his
State, 10th–11th Century, (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2019); Panov, “Ohrid Archbishopric and Ecclesi-
astical Identity in Byzantium,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Byzantine
and Medieval Studies, Days of Justinian I, ed. Mitko B. Panov (Skopje: Institute of National His-
tory, Skopje 2021), 82–92.
3 Ioannes Scylitzes, Synopsis historiarum, rec. Ioannes Thurn, CFHB, Series Berolinensis, V (Ber-
lin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1973), 344; John Skylitzes, A Synopsis of Byzantine His-
tory, 811­1057, Translation and Notes by John Wortley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2010), 344-345.
4 Continuator of Skylitzes noted that the fortifications at Ohrid were still in ruins in 1072, Ioann
Scylitzes Continuatus, He Synecheia tes Chronographias tou Ioannou Skylitze, ed. Eudoxos T.
Tsolakes (Thessaloniki: Etaireia Makedonikon Spoudon, 1968), 164.
5 Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, 353; 358–359; tr. Wortley, 335; 339.

38
his brother Aaron, completely disregarding any connection of Romanos’ destiny
with Samuel’s formal position.6 Contemporary of Samuel, Step῾anos of Taron did
not mention any title, narrating that two brothers Cometopouloi, who were Ar-
menians, were brought into Macedonia by Basil II, but switched sides, using the
situation when the “king of Bulgars, the castrated eunuch” was taken into captiv-
ity to gain control over the territory.7 Taken together, it is impossible to reconcile
these combined texts, since only Skylitzes revealed the real protagonists, while
Step῾anos of Taron and Yayhya discussed them in alleged relation to the former
Bulgarian Empire. All were using Byzantine texts that transmitted the literary
politics, ideology and constructed terminology of the time.
What becomes certain from Constantinople’s perspective is that the Byzantine
authors refrained from mentioning Samuel’s title, since that would mean recog-
nizing that the imperial superiority was discontinued during his rule. Avoiding
that and filling the vacuum during the period of ataxia during the existence of
Samuel’s State, Basil II with his sigillia to the Ohrid Archbishopric actually con-
structed the illusion of the ecclesiastical continuity that Samuel and his Church
maintained with the abolished Bulgarian patriarchate. This invention allowed
the Byzantine emperor to demonstrate that the imperial preeminence and pres-
tige were not affected during Samuel’s rule, having in mind the Byzantium’s
immediate role in recognition, legitimation and subsequent abolition of the Bul-
garian Empire and Patriarchate in 971. As a result, Basil II created fictive ideologi-
cal continuity between Samuel and his Church – Ohrid Archbishopric and the
Bulgarian emperor Peter and the Bulgarian patriarchate, which did not exist in
reality, as was also the case with equally non-existent continuity of ideological
domination of Byzantium.8
If Byzantium did not crown Samuel, who did it? Was it Rome? Do we have any
attestation whatsoever which would indicate whether Samuel sought elsewhere
the legitimization of his title and crown?
The search for answers of these questions, leads us to the beginning of 13th cen-
tury and the only source that mentioned the crowning of Samuel, that is the corre-
spondence of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) with Ioannitsa Kaloiannes (1197-1207),
the ruler of Bulgarians and Vlachs. In a response letter to “Pope Innocent III” from
January 1202, Kaloiannes acknowledged his devotion to the Roman Papacy, that
originated from the “blood and fatherland” initially attributed by Innocent III. As-
piring to provide justification from the Pope for his claimed title as emperor and to
legitimize the newly founded Church in Tarnovo, Kaloinanes made a reference to
Peter and Samuel, as emperors crowned by the Roman Papacy.
6 Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, 328-330, 346; tr. Wortley, 312, 346.
7 The Universal History of Step῾anos Tarōnec῾i, Introduction, Translation and Commentary Timothy
Greenwood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 245.22, (p. 285).
8 Panov, “Ohrid Archbishopric and Ecclesiastical Identity in Byzantium,” For the negligence of the
formal title of Samuel in Byzantine sources, see also Srđan Pirivatrić, “Za Samuil sled Samuil
(Predstava za tsar Samuil i priemnitsite mu văv vizantiiskite izvori ot XI-XII v.),” Paleobulgarica
27/1 (2003), 94-99.

39
 …In the first place, we, as a beloved son, desire from our mother, the Roman
Church, the emperor’s crown and dignity, the same as our old emperors had.
For we found it written down in our books that one of these was Peter, another
Samuel, and there were others who were before them.9
The evident similarity between Kaloiannes’ claim and Basil’s second sigillia is-
sued to Ohrid Archbishopric in ca 1020, raises the supposition that he was in fact
adapting the Byzantine documents and used them for his own political advantage
in obtaining legitimization by the Pope. Basil II’s sigillia contained equally con-
structed ecclesiastical continuity between Peter and Samuel that was exploited for
the purpose of Byzantine ideological propaganda. What Basil II actually did, as he
acknowledged, was „blending into one the divided parts, and placing under one
yoke the boundaries, without in any way infringing upon the rules well established
by those who have ruled before us”.10 This meant that Basil II in fact ideologically
blended the territory of the former Samuel’s Church - Ohrid Archbishopric that he
conquered, with the territory of the former Bulgarian empire and Patriarchate that
was abolished by John Tzimiskes in 971.
Turning to Kaloinanes’ aspiration, he evidently adapted Basil’s ideological con-
struct and suitably used it for inventing the connection with the former emper-
ors from the 10th century. Accordingly, he claimed that Peter and Samuel were
crowned by Rome, which was clearly a fabrication, since the Papacy was not in-
volved in the coronation of Peter. Thus, we are left only with Kaloinannes’ claim
in his letter to Innocent III that he allegedly possessed some unspecified books
- most probably non-existent, or in preparation to adapt the Byzantine ones -
to justify his invention. Otherwise, Kaloiannes would certainly have sent those
books to Rome to verify his claim. On the other hand, if Kaloiannes’ claims were
historically founded, Innocent III would certainly have acknowledged it, without
asking for documental attestation. The content of the letter shows that this was
evidently not the case.
Innocent’s reservations about Kaloiannes’ allegation regarding the involve-
ment of the Papacy in Peter and Samuel’s crowning, are evident in his response
letter from November 1202:
You calmly asked of the Roman Church to give you a crown, as it was given to
Peter, Samuel and others among your noteworthy predecessors, according to
your books. Тo make sure of this, we ordered our registers to be carefully read
to better assure ourselves, and we learned clearly that many tsars were crowned
9 Archivum secretum Vaticanum, Innocentius III papa, Reg. Vat. 5, fol. 56v : “In primis petimus
ab ecclesia Romana matre nostra coronam et honorem tamquam dilectus filius, secundum
quod imperatores nostril veteres habuerunt. Unus fuit Petrus, alius fuit Samuel et alii, qui eos
imperio precesserunt, sicut in libris nostris invenimus esse scriptum”. Innocent III, ep. 115, ed.
Migne, PL 214, col. 1112-1113.
10 Heinrich Gelzer, “Ungedruckte and wenig bekannte Bistumerverzeichnisse der orientalischen
Kirche,” BZ 2 (1893), 44; Iordan Ivanov, Bălgarski starini iz Makedoniia (Sofia, Dărzhavna
pechatnitsa, 1931 (reprint Sofia: Bălgarska akademiia na naukite, Nauka i izkustsvo, 1970),
555-556.

40
 in the land subordinated to you. Besides that, [the letters] contain that in the
time of our predecessor, the blessed Pope Nicholas, the Bulgarian tsar who
often answered his inquiries, was honored together with his whole entrusted
kingdom, and that the tsar himself had requested from him an Archbishop…11
Innocent’s reservations about Kaloiannes’ allegation regarding the involve-
ment of the Papacy in Peter and Samuel’s crowning, are evident. Furthermore, it
is noticeable from the letter that Innocent himself made a false assertion about
the involvement of pope Nicholas I (858-867) in the baptism of the Bulgarian
ruler Boris I, who was (possibly not coincidentally) wrongly titled as “Bulgarian
tsar“ (reges Bulgarici). Innocent III also reminded that the process of the recog-
nition of the Bulgarian Archbishopric was terminated due to the inconsistency
of the Bulgarians who “bribed by the gifts and promises of the Greeks, received
Greek priests rather than those chosen by the Romans”.12
In the same letter, we read that Innocent dispatched his chaplain, John of
Casamari to “diligently inquest in the old books, as well in other documents,
the truth concerning the crown that was given from the Roman Church to your
ancestors”.13 This imply that nothing was found in the Papal regesta that would
support the Roman origin of the crown of Kaloinannes’ pretended predecessors.
The same context is noticeable in Innocent’s letter dated 10 September, 1203,
where he responded to Basil the “Archbishop of Zagora”, restating that he in-
structed his legate to “diligently inquest the truth about the crown given by the
Roman church to forefathers (progenitoribus)” of Kaloiannes.14 There is no word
in the correspondence about the final outcome of the investigation undertaken
by the Papal legate, which imply that the findings did not provide satisfactory
arguments for Rome to validate the Kaloiannes’ claim.
This conclusion is supported with the following correspondence which reveals
that Kaloiannes did not get any formal reassurance about his reservations. This
explains Kaloiannes’ recurrent Golden Bull from 10 September, 1203, reinforcing
his claim by adding Simeon along with Peter and Samuel as crowned emperors
from Rome:
Because it pleased our Lord Jesus Christ to elevate me as Lord and Emperor
of all Bulgaria and Vlachia, I made an inquiry in the writings and books of our
forefathers and in the laws of our predecessors, the tsars now resting in blessed
peace, from where did they receive the tsardom of Bulgaria and the confirma-

11 Archivum secretum Vaticanum, Reg. Vat. 5, fol. 57r: “Petisti vero humiliter, ut coronam tibi
ecclesia Romana concederet, sicut illustri memorie Petro, Samueli et allis progenitoribus tuis
in lbris tuis legitur concessisse. Nos ergo, ut super hoc maiorem certitudinem haberemus, re-
gesta nostra perlegi fecimus diligenter, ex quibus evidenter comperimus, quod in terra tibi
subiecta multi reges fuerant coronati”. Innocent III, ep. 116, ed. Migne, PL 214, col. 1113-1114.
12 Innocent III, ep. 116, ed. Migne, PL 214, col. 1113-1115.
13 Innocent III, ep. 116, ed. Migne, PL 214, col. 1113-1115.
14 Innocent III, ep. 143, ed. Migne, PL 215, col. 156-158.

41
 tion of their tsar’s [title], crowns for their heads, and the blessing of a Patri-
archate. After a diligent inquest we found in their writings that these tsars of
the Bulgarians and the Vlachs, our now resting in blessed peace predecessors
Simeon, Peter, and Samuel, received crowns for their tsardom and the blessing
of a Patriarchate by the most holy Roman Church of God and the Apostolic See
of the prince of the apostles Peter. Hence my tsardom, too, desired to receive
blessing and confirmation in the tsardom through a crown for the head of our
tsardom and blessing for a Patriarchate from the Roman Church, the Apostolic
See, the prince of the apostles Peter, and from our most holy father and patri-
arch of the universe, Pope Innocent the Third.15
Kaloiannes exploited this evident construct, to which he added Simeon, in op-
position to Byzantium and to satisfy Rome. Adding Simeon, from the perspective
of Kaloiannes, was intended to reinforce his claims and to convince Innocent to
recognize him as emperor. One gets the impression that Kaloiannes actually mis-
interpreted two people with the same name - Pope Nicholas I to whom Innocent
III was referring in his letter while deliberately avoiding mentioning the name
of the Bulgarian ruler - and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas Mystikos.
It was Nicholas Mystikos who crowned Simeon and later gained recognition as
‘spiritual brother’ by Emperor Romanus I.16 Whether Kaloiannes did make this
misconception from the invented claim of Innocent III, cannot be proven. What
is certain, is that he did not refrain from fabricating and manipulating the his-
torical facts, using all the means at his disposal to obtain the legitimacy and rec-
ognition from the Papacy of his status as emperor. However, Kaloiannes’ claims
were not satisfactory for Papacy, since they did not correspond with the reality.
Kaloiannes was clearly impatient, since he repeatedly referred to the invented
traditions in a letter to Innocent III dated after September 10, 1203, to “…fulfill the
desire of my tsardom, according to the customs of my predecessors and ances-
tors, the tsars of the Bulgarians and Vlachs, Simeon, Peter, and Samuel and all
other Bulgarian tsars”.17
15 Archivum secretum Vaticanum, Reg. Vat. 5 fol. 136r: “Cum placuit Domino nostro Iesu Christo
me dominum et imperatorem totius Bulgarie et Vlachie facere, inquisivi antiquorum nostrum
scripturas et libros et beate memorie imperatorum nostorum predecessorum leges, unde ipsi
sumpserunt regnum Bulgarorum et firmamentum imperiale, coronam super caput eorum
et patriarchalem benedictionem. Et diligenter perscrutantes, in eorum invenimus scripturis
quod beate memorie illi imperatores Bulgarorum et Blachorum, Symeon, Petrus et Samuel et
nostri predecessores coronam pro imperio eorum et patriarchalem benedictionem accepe-
runt a sanctissima Dei Romana ecclesia et ab apostolica sede, principe apostolorum Petro. Sic
et imperium meum voluit benedictionem et imperiale firmamentum corone capitis imperii
sui suscipere et patriarchalem benedictionem ab ecclesia Romana, ab apostolica sede, prin-
cipe apostolorum Petro, et a sanctissimo patre nostro et universali papa tercio Innocentio”.
Innocent III, ep. 15, ed. Migne, PL 215, col. 287-288.
16 See in this volume, Angeliki Delikari, “The Letters of Romanos I Lekapenos to the Bulgarian
ruler Symeon and the principles of the Byzantine political ideology,” in Proceedings of the 9th
International Symposium of Byzantine and Medieval Studies, Skopje 12­14 November 2021, ed.
Mitko B. Panov (Skopje: Institute of National History, 2022), 41-47
17 Archivum secretum Vaticanum, Reg. Vat. 5 fol. 136v: ”desiderium imperii mei sanctitas tua,
secundum consuetudinem predecessorum meorum imperatorum Bulgarorum et Blachorum,

42
 It was in a Letter from February 1204, that Innocent finally informed Kaloi-
annes about his decision to recognize his status, however not as an emperor, but
as “King of the Bulgarians and the Vlachs”. Kaloinannes’ Archbishop Basil also re-
ceived the title of archbishop, not of a patriarch. The contents of this letter shows
that Innocent refrained from recognizing the claim of Ionanitsa regarding the
alleged involvement of the Papacy in the coronation of Simeon, Peter or Samu-
el, which was reflected in granting the title King, not of Emperor. Furthermore,
Kaloiannes had to wait nine months for the performance of formal coronation
by the papal legate in Tarnovo.
Clearly, Kaloiannes never received any direct acknowledgment by Innocent III
for his invented traditions based on the false assertion of the involvement of the
Papacy in the coronation of Simeon and Peter, that included Samuel. However,
indicatively, Innocent used this claim to demonstrate the continuity of the Ro-
man influence in the Balkans, much as Basil II did to create a fictious notion
about the ideological dominance as regards the Samuel’s State and Samuel’s
Church.
The letter addressed to Cardinal Leo of Santa Croce, dated 15 September, 1204,
contains Innocent’s reply to his other ally, the Hungarian King Emeric (1196-
1204), where the Pope conveniently exploited Kaloiannes’ invented traditions to
counterweight the opposition and territorial pretensions of the Hungarian king:
If you have written that Kaloiannes is not by right lord of any land, even though
he may have occupied some part of your kingdom and some part of the king-
dom of another for a time, for which reason you wonder why we would pro-
pose so immediately to crown such a manifest enemy of yours as king without
consulting you, still it is from a certain point of view that we speak, saving your
peace, since you do not know the full truth in this matter. For, of old, many
kings were successively crowned in Bulgaria by Apostolic authority, like Peter
and Samuel and several others after them. For, also, at the preaching of our pre-
decessor, Pope Nicholas, of holy memory, the king of the Bulgarians, to whose
consultation he very often responded, merited to be baptized with his whole
kingdom, but then, with the prevalence of the Greeks, the Bulgarians lost the
royal dignity, and indeed were forced under a heavy yoke to serve the emperor
of Constantinople, until recently two brothers named Peter and Joannitsa, de-
scendants of the stock of the earlier kings, began not only to occupy but also to
recover the land of their fathers, with the result that they obtained a wonderful
victory on one day from great princes and numberless peoples. Therefore, we
do not deny that they violently invaded some foreign lands, but we assert con-
stantly that they have recovered a major share of the land by hereditary right.
For this reason, we intend to crown him king not over a foreign land but over

Symeonis, Petri et Samuelis progenitorum meorum et ceterorum omnium imperatorum

Bulgarorum”. Innocent III, ep. 143, ed. Migne, PL 215, col. 156-158.

43
 his own in the manner of our predecessor.”18
With this letter, Innocent actually intervened because Emeric was frustrated
by the recognition of new king of the Bulgarians and Vlachs by the Pope, openly
demonstrating his rights on the Serbian territory between Braničevo and Bel-
grade. He even presented it as the “right of inheritance” for Kaloiannes that de-
rived from the alleged coronation of Peter and Samuеl by the Papacy. Accordingly,
Innocent used the invented claim by Kaloiannes for his own demonstration of
the projected right of the Papal involvement in the Balkans, giving an impression
that it was illegally interrupted by Byzantium and Basil II. This was a clear fabri-
cation, as was the fictive notion of the involvement of Papacy in the coronation
of Peter, to which Innocent III added the baptism of Boris I by pope Nicholas I,
who was titled by him as emperor, to reinforce the dominance of Rome.
Innocent exploited the fictitious claims of the leaders of Vlachs and Bulgar-
ians for his own demonstration of the alleged continuous superiority of the Pa-
pacy in the political and ecclesiastical affairs in the Balkans. Actually, Rome was
appropriating and adapting the ideological construct of Byzantium, turning it
against Constantinople. The essence of this construct was based upon the equal-
ly invented, though opposite, ideological claims by Byzantium. The basis of the
conflict between Constantinople and Rome laid in their common tendency to
create an image of their own immediate involvement in political and ecclesiasti-
cal traditions stemming from the coronation of Samuеl and Peter, though in the
case of the Papacy this could only apply to Samuel’s coronation, while in the case
of Byzantium to that of Peter.
Traditions were invented and not inherited, much as after 1018 the people
around Basil ΙΙ with imperial sigiliias constructed a fictitious notion of continu-
ity of Byzantine ideological domination over the Archbishopric of Ohrid, and
thus over Samuel’s State and Church, although it did not exist in reality.19 This
18 Archivum secretum Vaticanum, Reg. Vat. Fol. 166r : ”Nam antiquitus in Bulgaria multi reges suc-
cessive fuerunt auctoritate apostolica coronati, sicut Petrus et Samuel et alii nonnulli post illos.
Nam et ad predictationem sancte memorie Nicolai pape predecessoris nostri rex Bulgarorum,
ad quorum consulta seppisme respondebat, cum toto regno sibi commisso meruit baptizari,
sed tandem prevalentibus Grecis, Bulgari perdiderunt regiam dignitatem, quin immo com-
pulsi sunt gravi sub iugo constantinopolitano servire, donec novissme duo fratres, Petrus vede-
licet et Ioannitius, de priorum regum prosapia descedentes, terram patrum suorum non tam
occupare, quam recuperare ceperunt, ita quod una die de magnis principibus et innumeris
populis mirabilem sunt victoriam consecuti”. Innocent III, ep. 127, ed. Migne, PL 215, col. 413-
417. Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan’s Frontier, 311, noticed Kaloiannes’ “conscious rewriting”
of the imperial past, which he interprets as a decisive move away from Byzantium.
19 Most recently Angeliki Delikari, “Die Situation im Nord-West Makedonien während der Regier-
ung des Basileos II., die sogennante Kirche des Zaren Samuel und die Gründung des Erzbis-
tums von Ohrid,” in Evropeiskiiat Iugoistok prez vtorata polovina na X – nachaloto na XI vek:
Istoriia i kultura, Mezhdunarodna konferentsiia Sofia, 6­8 Oktomvri, 2014, ed. Vasil Giuzelev,
Georgi N. Nikolov (Sofia: Bălgarska Akademiia na naukite, 2015), 236-243, observes that Samuel
maintained the existing church organization in Macedonia, which was during his reign most
probably under the jurisdiction of the Roman church. She argues that the Archbishopric of
Ohrid was established by Basil II in 1018 while the title Archbishop of Bulgaria, actually “cor-
responded to the name of the Byzantine theme of Bulgaria and had no connection with the
Bulgarian church itself”. Hence, her conclusion that Ohrid Archbishopric was neither a con-

44
clearly demonstrates that these inventions and adaptations served the actual po-
litical and ideological propaganda. Accordingly, it raises doubts about the real
involvement of the Papacy in Samuel’s coronation as emperor.
Samuel clearly did not ask for legitimization from Byzantium, nor he aspired to
connect with the traditions of the former Bulgarian Empire, which was eliminat-
ed in 971. Hence, he did not wait Romanos to die to proclaim himself as emperor,
as Yahya thought. Writing from geographical and chronological distance, Yahya
clearly misinterpreted the real characters trying to apprehend the Byzantine ide-
ological propaganda that circulated after 1018. This conclusion is complemented
from Skylitzes’ narrative, who completely disregarded any connection of Samu-
el’s formal position in the state with Romanos’ position and destiny, remarking
that he became sole ruler after murdering his brother Aaron.
Samuel as one of the Cometopouloi was considered by Byzantium as the
founder of the new state, that emerged as apostasy illegally from the territory of
southwestern Macedonia, which belonged to the Romans. The accounts of Leo
the Deacon, John Geometres and Step῾anos of Taron attest that Samuel’s primary
agenda initially encompassed Macedonia.20 Indicatively, byzantine authors, Leo
the Deacon and John Geometres, who were witnessing the rise of Samuel’s State,
exemplified the danger for the Romans coming from Samuel, although they did
not refer to him by name. Leo stated that the new enemy army “were harass-
ing Roman territory and mercilessly plundering the lands of the Macedonians.”
Geometres demonstrated that “Macedonian land showed the glow of newly ris-
en star” - that of the Cometopoulos - whose Scythian army lightened the west
and crossed over as “if it was their own fatherland”. Both Leo and Geometres
expressed their perception that the Roman possession of the Macedonian land
was endangered by the emergence of Samuel’s State. The “land of the Macedo-
nians”, which belonged to the Romans and was represented by the Macedonian
emperors, was endangered by the new rising star – the leader of the Scythian
State, Samuel Cometopoulos, who clearly also claimed the “Macedonian land”.21
Could it mean that Samuel’s military success and conquests of the territories that
belonged to the Romans, were considered as a threat to the Byzantine throne
itself,22 represented by the emperors from Macedonian dynasty? This could well
be one of the reasons for the tendentious conceal of Samuel’s title, which would
tinuator of the Bulgarian church, nor it continued the Church of the ephemeral Samuel’s state
(A. Delikari, H Arhiepiskopi Ahridon kata ton Mesaiona (Thessaloniki: University studio press,
2014), 75-103.
20 Leo the Deacon, History, 10.8, ed. Hase, 171; tr. Talbot and Sullivan, 213; John Geometres, Poems,
ed. Cramer, 282; Step῾anos of Taron, Universal History, 3.22, tr. Greenwood, 283-284.
21 Mitko B. Panov, “The Slavs and the Conceptual Roman Borderland in Macedonia,” in Continu-
ation or Change? Borders and Frontiers in Late Antiquity and Medieval Europe. Landscape of
Power Network, Military Organisation and Commerce, ed. Gregory Leighton, Łukasz. Rożycki,
Piotr Pranke (London/New York, 2022), 59–80.
22 Angeliki Delikari, “Die Situation im Nord-West Makedonien während der Regierung des Bas-
ileos II.”, 240, rightly points that “due to the rapid conquest of Byzantine territories, Samuel
could expect to further expand his state and even threaten the Byzantine throne. The relatively
few clues from the time of Samuel indicate that he followed Byzantine models (almost in all
areas). As a Christian ruler in particular, he attached great importance to the relics”. 45
 also explain the reason why Basil II so carefully constructed the sigillia and de-
cided to completely change the terminology of the new map of the Balkans, that
encompassed the “Macedonian land” as the cradle of the Samuel’s State.
This leads to conclusion that Samuel was in fact content with his indepen-
dent position established in his state core in Prespa and Ohrid and with obtained
dominance over the large territory in the Balkans was simply defying Byzantium,
by proclaiming himself as emperor. This can explain his tendency for “import-
ing” the Christian cults from conquered territories in the far south (St. Achilleios
of Larissa) and far West (St. Tryphon of Kotor). The immense cathedral which
Samuel had built in Prespa and the large basilica built or refurbished in Ohrid in-
dicate where we should look for the political and ecclesiastical core of his state,
which constituted the foundation of his independent ruling and ideological pro-
gram. This at the end enabled him with enough power to proclaim himself as
emperor and to demonstrate pretensions to the Byzantine throne.
Anyhow, what is certain is that Basil II’s ideological construct and terminol-
ogy was conveniently exploited by Kaloiannes who adapted it for obtaining from
Rome justification of his own claim of the equally invented traditions. We can
suppose that the books that Kaloiannes was referring to “prove” the invented
continuity with the alleged predecessors, were from Byzantine provenience, that
could well encompass Basil II’s sigiliia. Pope Innocent III used it for its own ad-
vantage for demonstrating the equally non-existent continuity of the dominance
of the Papacy in the Balkans. The issue of legitimization of Samuel’s coronation
was re-actualized in the second half of the 19th century within the Slavic-Greek
rivalry, when the medieval past was appropriated and projected for legitimiza-
tion of the contemporary agendas and territorial aspirations in the Balkans.23

23 The issue was openly raised by Franjo Rački, “Grčka crkva i narod Bugarski,” Zagrebački katolički
list 46, November 14 (1961), 362-365, who used it to demonstrate the Papal influence in the
coronation of Samuel, which clearly echoed his Catholic perspective and contemporary Uni-
ate movement. See also, Rački, “Borba Južnih Slovena za državnu neodvisnost u XI. vieku,” Rad
JAZU 24 (1873), 99–100, where he further developed his argument to prove the allied connec-
tions between Samuel and the Papacy, resulting in his coronation as emperor by Pope Benedict
VII (974–83) who legitimized Samuel’s state and the Church. Sharing Rački’s perspective, Kon-
stantine Jireček, also attributed the coronation of Samuel to the Roman Papacy (Konstantin
Jireček, Istoriia Bolgar. Sochinenie prof. Prazskago universiteta d­ra Konstantina Iosifa Irecheka,
transl. Filip K. Brun, Vladimir N. Palauzov (Odessa: Tipografiia L. Nitchе, 1878), 257-258. Marin
Drinovwith his constructed theory on the Western Bulgarian Empire, argued that Samuel in-
herited the imperial crown legitimately as he was a member of Shishman’s dynasty, which
made him fully independent from both Byzantium and the Papacy (Drinov, “Nachaloto na
Samuilovata dărzhava,” Periodichesko spisanie na Bălgarskoto Knizhovno druzhestvo 1/9-10
(1875), 41-70; kn. 11-12 (Braila, 1876), 104-124). Thus, Drinov conveniently rejected the theses of
the involvement of Papacy in the coronation of Samuel.

46
 4

Political ideology and cultural interaction between

East and West on the Battle of Pelagonia (1259)
SALVATORE CONSTANZA, National and Capodistrian
University of Athens
UDK 316.75:355.01(497.774)”1259”

Abstract: It is noteworthy to analyze the basic concepts of political theory

which is shared by the rulers involved in the battle of Pelagonia (1259). This
battle took place near today’s Bitola in Macedonia, close to Hlerin in Aegean
Macedonia. The Empire of Nicaea fought against an alliance formed by the
Despotate of Epiros, the Principality of Achaia and the Hohenstaufen kingdom
of Sicily. After the Epirotes unexpectedly deserted, the Nicenes inflicted
a decisive defeat on the Latins. A set of current ideas underlies politics and
interaction of the rulers fighting on the Balkan chessboard.

1. It is undeniable, that Nicene ruler Michael Palaeologos (1225 – 1282, reigned

since 1259) succeeded in winning against a heterogeneous alliance. As a con-
sequence of his success, he had a clear road ahead to recover Constantinople
as Emperor Michael VIII (1261). The recapture of Constantinople allowed him
to dismiss the so-called Latin Empire, that is, a Latin Crusader kingdom, and
to restore the Roman Empire. Even the Latin emperors searched to follow uses
and forms of Byzantine Imperial costume1. As the Palaiologos recovered the Polis

1 Latin emperors identified with the key elements of Byzantine imperial ideology, their practice
of kingship shows a continuity with their Byzantine predecessors, see Filip van Tricht, The
Latin Renovatio of Byzantium. The Empire of Constantinople (1204­1228), (The Medieval Medi-
terranean 90), (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 61-82; Id., The Horoscope of Emperor Baldwin II: Political and
Sociocultural Dynamics in Latin­Byzantine Constantinople (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2019), 27-30;
Teresa Shawcross, “Conquest Legitimized: The Making of a Byzantine Emperor in Crusader

47
 after the fifty-seven- years Latin occupation2, the ideology of basileia was the cru-
cial tenet for his restauratio Imperii. Michael embodied traditional Komnenian
models3, he cannot be viewed separately from the wider imperial family, which
the Palaiologoi served from the ascension of Alexios I (1057 – 1118, emperor from
1081).4 On the grounds of his personal and family story, Michael pursued ideolog-
ical claims of ecumenism, universalism, and hierarchical rank. The main idea of
Romanness provided national identity and civic awareness to Byzantium. In fact,
the Romanía (Ῥωμανία) was based upon the hegemony of the Romans (Ῥωμαῖοι)
over the others5. In the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade (1204), the centralized
imperial rule of Constantinople collapsed; the Romans-Byzantines claimed the
exclusiveness of the Romanness for themselves, a new world without the Νέα
Ῥώμη being out of question6. The ruler of the successor state of Nicaea witnesses
a new version of Roman ethnic and political identity focused on loyalty to New
Rome.7 The Byzantine élite adopted, in turn, a more emphatic Hellenism in re-

Constantinople 1204-1261”, in Byzantines, Latins, and Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean World
After 1150, ed. Jonathan Harris, Catherine Holmes and Eugenia Russel (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2012), 214.
2 On August 15th 1261, the Day of the Feast of Dormition of the Virgin Mary, Michael VIII Palaiolo-
gos solemnly entered Constantinople. He celebrated the triumph according to Roman-Byzan-
tine ceremonial of adventus, see Cecily J. Hilsdale, Byzantine Art and Diplomacy in an Age of
Decline (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 27.
3 Ruth Macrides, “From the Komnenoi to the Palaiologoi: Imperial Models in Decline and Exile,”
in New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th­13th Centuries. Papers
from the Twenty-Sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St Andrews March 1992
(Publications of the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 2), (Aldershot; Variorum,
1994), 269-276.
4 The general George Palaiologos helped him to ascend the throne in 1081 and gained the title of
sebastos, see Vitalien Laurent, “La généalogie des premiers Paléologues,” Byzantion 8 (1933): 125-
149; Jean-Claude Cheynet and Jean-François Vannier, Études prosopographiques (Byzantina
Sorbonensia 5), (Paris: Éditions de la Sorbonne, 1986), 133-186.
5 On this main concept of Byzantine ideology in view of scholarly debate, see Anthony Kaldellis,
Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical
Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 42-119; Id., Romanland. Ethnicity
and Empire in Byzantium (Cambridge/Mass.-London: Harvard University Press, 2019). 17-19, 30,
267-272.
6 As Vlada Stanković, “John II Asen (1218-1241), the Importance of being Roman, and the Battle
for Dominance over Southeast Europe,” in Car Ivan Asen II (1218­1241). Zbornik po slucaj 800-
Godišninata ot negovoto văzšestvie na bălgarskija prestol, ed. Vasil Gjuzelev, Ilija G. Iliev and
Kiril Nenov (Plovdiv: Fondacija Bălgarsko Istoričecko Nasledstvo, 2019), 49-54, esp. 50 pointed
out: “The fight for the Romanness has reached its pinnacle in the decades following the ca-
tastrophe of 1204 and the destruction of the Empire by the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade”.
See also Johannes Koder, “Anmerkungen zu γραικόω,” Gedenkschrift für Ioannis E. Karagian-
nopoulos = Byzantina 21 (2000): 119-202; “Griechische Identitäten im Mittelalter – Aspekte ein-
er Entwicklung,” in Βυζάντιο – Κράτος και Κοινωνία. Μνήμη Νίκου Οικονομίδη, ed. Anna Avramea,
Angeliki E. Laiou and Evangelos K. Chrysos (Athina: E.I.E., 2003), 297-319, esp. 310-313; Dimiter
Angelov, “Byzantine Ideological Reactions to the Latin Conquest of Constantinople,” in Urbs
Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences. LA IVe Croisade et ses consequences, ed. Ange-
liki E. Laiou (Réalités Byzantines 10), (Paris: Lethielleux, 2005), 293-310: esp. 299-303.
7 On this hybrid version of Romanness in the mid-thirteenth century, see Ioannis Stouraitis,
“Roman Identity in Byzantium: A critical Approach,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 107.1 (2014): 175-
220, esp. 212-217; Id., “Byzantine Romanness: From Geopolitical to Ethnic Conceptions,” in
Transformations of Romanness. Early Medieval Regions and Identities, ed. Walter Pohl, Clemens
Gantner, Cinzia Grifoni and Marianne Pollheimer-Mohaupt (Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und

48
sponse to the Latin conquest of Byzantium8. On the other hand, his Laskarid
predecessors echoed a militarist ideology; they were usually portrayed as heroic
generals9.
Indeed, Michael was obliged to emprove his legitimacy after the coup d’état
that granted him the rulership. In the year 1261, he overthrew and blinded the last
heir of the Laskarids, the infant John IV (1250-1305 ca.)10. Imperial propaganda
was, thus, obliged to show Michael as an alter Constantinus, a new Constantine,
whose restoration of New Rome proved to be the result of the heavenly favour
granted to him and to Nicenes. The peoples of Nicaea are meant as a chosen
people, with Biblical references to the history of the Jewish people in the Old
Testament11. The newly crowned Emperor was ostensibly depicted to play the
role of pius rex, the righteous ruler par excellence, whose piety guaranteed him
to defeat his adversaries, as Manuel Holobolos (ca. 1245 – ca. 1310/14), “Master of
the rhetors” (¨ῥήτωρ τῶν ῥητόρων) and teacher in the re-established Patriarchal
school, put out in his panegyrics, prose encomiums devoted to Michael VIII12. Ac-
Geschichte des ersten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. 71), (Berlin-Boston: W. de Gruyter, 2018), 123-140, esp.
138.
8 See Han Lamers, Greece Reinvented: Transformations of Byzantine Hellenism in Renaissance Italy
(Brill´s Studies in Intellectual History 247), (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 30: “As the Latins had their own
claims to a Roman tradition, the Byzantine Romans had to readdress their own Romanness.
It was their Hellenism that could distinguish them from the Latin Romans, who could not lay
claim to this cultural legacy even if they now claimed the mantle of Roman power in the East”.
9 Glorification of the war against the Latins was a main ideological frame, as Nicene propagandist
texts show, see Angelov, Byzantine Ideological Reactions, 297-298; Savvas Kyriakidis, Warfare
in Late Byzantium, 1204­1453 (History of Warfare 67), (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 16-19.
10 Subsequently, Michael VIII was excommunicated by Patriarch Arsenios (1254 – 1260/ 1261 –
1265), see Georgius Akropolites, Opera, I, ed. August Heisenberg, 1-2 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903),
reprinted with corrections by Peter Wirth (Stuttgart 1978), 183; Pachymeres, History, in Georges
Pachymérès. Relations historiques, ed. Albert Failer, trad. Vitalien Laurent (Corpus Fontium
Historiae Byzantinae 24.5, 1-2), (Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1984), I, 205-207; Deno John Geanako-
plos, Emperor Michael Palaelologus and the West, 1258­1282: A Study in Byzantine­Latin Relations
(Cambridge/Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), 119-122; Mark C. Bartusis, The Late Byzan-
tine Army. Arms and Society, 1204­1453 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992),
41-42; Donald M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261­1453 (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 19932), 44; Lutz Rickelt, “Die Exkommunikation Michaels VIII. Palaiologos durch
den Patriarchen Arsenios,” in 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, ed. Michael Grünbart, Lutz Rickelt and
Martin Marko Vučetić, vol. I (Berlin: LIT, 2011), 97-126.
11 See Ruth J. Macrides, “The New Constantine and the New Constantinople - 1261?,” Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies 6 (1980): 13-41, esp. 22-24; Ead., From the Komnenoi, 275-282; Alice-Mary
Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,” Dumberton Oaks Papers 46
(1992): 295-302; Dimiter Angelov, Imperial ideology & Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204­1330
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 105-115; Kyriakidis, Warfare, 20.
12 Manuelis Holoboli, Orationes 1­2, ed. Maximilian Treu (Potsdam: Brandt, 1906-1907), 57, 83. As
Pachymeres, History, ed. Failler, 2, 368-369 states, Patriarch Germanus III (died 1289) convinced
Michael VIII to appoint Holobolos as teacher of rhetoric in 1265. Formerly, Holobolos was mu-
tilated and exiled because he criticized Michael VIII for blinding John IV Laskaris. After his
official appointment, he acted as a key speaker of Palaiologan propaganda, see Kyriakidis, War-
fare, 20-21; Constantine N. Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and
Early Fourteenth Centuries, 1204 – ca. 1310, (Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre, 1982), 52-58; Nic-
osa Börje Bydén, “Strangle them with these Meshes of Syllogisms! Latin Philosophy in Greek
Translations of the Thirteenth Century”, in Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture:

49
 cording to Imperial propaganda, the Palaiologos easily gained decisive victories
through his skills with the result that warfare revealed to be unnecessary13.
Michael significantly expanded his own influence into the Peloponnese at the
expense of Latin principality of Achaia. He also managed to control Frankish
principalities in Central Greece14. All this ascertained, the founder of the new
imperial lineage inscribed his regime in a steady, cultural and ideological interac-
tion with the West, as Manuel Holobolos and other leading figures of the early
Palaiologan period such as George Pachymeres (1242–ca. 1310) and Manuel/Max-
imos Planoudes (ca. 1255 – 1305/10) attest. These bilingual intellectuals trans-
lated Latin works of theology, rhetoric and literature into sophisticated Greek15.
The alliance with the Papacy enabled Michael VIII to play a pivotal role by pro-
posing talks on the reunification of the Churches, so to be universally accepted
as the legitimate heir of Constantine, the head of the Christian oikoumene16. He
was also successful in making an agreement with Genoa at the Treaty of Nym-
phaion (1261),17 which balanced the power of Venice: According to Holobolos’ en-
comium, the Genoese ambassadors greeted Michael as the master of the world
Papers read at a Colloquium held at the Swedish Research Institute in Instabul, 1-5 December
1999 (Swedish Research Institute in Instabul, Transactions 13), (Stockholm: Bloomsbury Aca-
demic, 2004): 137-146; esp. 145; Dimiter Angelov, “The Confession of Michael VIII Palaiologos
and King David: On a Little Known Work of Manuel Holobolos,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen
Byzantinistik 56 (2006): 193-204; Elizabeth A. Fisher, “Manuel Holobolos and the Role of Bilin-
guals in Relation between the West and Byzantium,” in Knotenpunkt Byzanz. Wissensformen
und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen, ed. Andreas Speer and Philipp Steinkrüger (Miscellanea
Mediaevalia 36), (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012), 210-222, esp. 214.
13 John V. A. Fine Jr., The Late Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to
the Ottoman Conquest (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1987), 165 judges the military
recovery of the Polis “ridiculously simple”. As far as concerns this achievement, another
panegyrist such as Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus (1241-1290, patriarch 1283-1289), AG I, 326-327
overstates that Michael granted this exploit by his prudent policy, see Kyriakidis, Warfare, 20
and nt. 33.
14 Michael VIII’ ambition was to retake the whole Peloponnese, see Vassiliki Foskolou, “In the
Reign of the Emperor of Rome...”: Donor Inscriptions and Political Ideology in the Time of
Michael VIII Paleologos,” Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 27 (2006): 455-462, esp.
456-457.
15 See Elizabeth A. Fisher, “Planoudes, Holobolos, and the Motivation for Translation,” Greek,
Roman, and Byzantine Studies 43 (2003): 77-104, esp. 77-82; Ead., Manuel Holobolos, 210-216;
Ead., “Homo Byzantinus and Homo Italicus in Late Thirteenth-Century Constantinople”.
In Dante and the Greeks, ed. Jan M. Ziolkowski (Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Humanities 1),
(Washington/DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2014), 63-82; Kathleen
Maxwell, Between Constantinople and Rome. An Illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book (Paris. R. 54)
and the Union of Churches (New York: Ashgate, 2014), 119-120.
16 Nicol, The Last Centuries, 58; Aphroditi Papayanni, “The Papacy and the Fourth Crusade in the
Correspondence of the Nicaean Emperors with the Popes”, in La Papauté et les Croisades/The
Papacy and the Crusades. Actes du VIIe Congrès de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and
the Latin East, ed. Michael Balard (Crusades, Subsidia 3), (London-New York: Routledge, 2011),
154-184.
17 Ida Toth, “The Narrative Fabric of the Genoese Pallio and the Silken Diplomacy of Michael
VIII Palaiologos,” in Objects in Motion: The Circulation of Religion and Sacred Objects in the Late
Antique and Byzantine World, ed. Hallie G. Meredith (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011), 91-109, esp.
92-93; John Haldon, Guide to Byzantium at War: AD 600­1453 (Oxford: Osprey, 2014), 134; Cecily
J. Hilsdale, “The Imperial Image at the End of Exile: The Byzantine Embroidered Silk in Genoa
and the Treaty of Nymphaion (1261),” Dumbarton Oak Papers 64 (2010): 151-199; Ead. Byzantine
Art, 83.

50
(κοσμοκράτωρ), they proclaimed to be very glad to become Roman-Byzantine
subjects and to experience his right rule18.
Finally, Michael’s prudent strategy enabled him to resist the powers which
actively searched for implementing the Partitio Romaniae, the partition of im-
perial dominions resulting from the dismembered monarchy19. On the contrary,
Michael’s idea of imperial ecumenism was linked with the leadership of a Ro-
man-Byzantine basileus20. Therefore, Michael VIII was also involved in a complex
programme of renewal of the imperial capital. Extensive building activities were
related to his policies as Novus Constantinus who promoted a systematic urban
plan, in order to display the magnificence of New Rome21. After the recapture of
Constantinople, universal ideological tenets justify the claim of the Rhomaioi to
world supremacy. Actually, such a goal was far beyond boundaries of Palaiologan
reduced empire, which held, however, the city-state of New Rome until the last
days of his life22.
2. It is useful to consider the partners of the Anti-Nicene alliance, that compris-
es conflicting political interests. Indeed, the rulers show some common points in
economic aspirations23. As far as concerns the Despotate of Epiros, the Duke Mi-
chael II Komnenos Angelos Doukas (1205-1268, reigned since 1230) largely shares
the key Roman-Byzantine Imperial ideology as well as his rival Michael Palaiolo-
gos. Beyond any doubt, he too wanted to recover Constantinople. Following the
18 In this ambassadorial speech, which reflects standards of Byzantine diplomacy, Holobolos,
Encomium 1 Treu, 46,28-31 describes the philia between Genoa and Roman-Byzantine Empire as
the result of Genoese supplication, see Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 165-166; Toth, The Narrative
Fabric, 95; Ead. “The Genoese Pallio (Dossier),” in The Visual Culture of Later Byzantium (c.
1081­c.1350), ed. Foteini Spingou (Sources for Byzantine Art History 3), (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2022), 667-687, esp. 678, on diplomatic silk gifts produced by imperial luxury
fabrics.
19 Haldon, Guide, 145. Romanness as a Byzantine ideological hallmark was deeply questioned after
the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade. Hence, Ancient Hellenism
gave Roman identity a new cultural, linguistic, and ethnic context, see Michael Angold,
“Byzantine ‘Nationalism’ and the Nicaean Empire,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 1
(1975): 49-70, esp. 68; Stouraitis, Roman Identity, 215-217; Id., Byzantine Romanness, 139.
20 On the impact of the Hellenism, see Angelov, Byzantine Ideological Reactions, 300-302; Id.,
Imperial Ideology, 95-96. Greek identity was crucial for Nicenes as a pendant, not a replacement
for their sense of Romanitas. At this respect, see also Hilsdale, Byzantine Art, 85. As a result of
this process, Greekness emerged as a revival of traditional Hellenism in educated members of
Palaiologan élites and in fifteenth century Greek diaspora in Italy, when Ancient Greek past
offered an alternative to Byzantine Romanness, see Lamers, Greece Reinvented, 28-30, 63-66.
21 On Michael’s monumental program aimed at the renovation of Late Antique and Middle
Byzantine Constantinople by rebuilding its walls and harbors, see Geanakoplos, Emperor
Michael, 129-130; Talbot, Restoration, 243-252; Jessica Varsallona, “Reinventing the Capital:
The Ideological Use of Monumental Architecture in Michael VIII Palaiologos’ Constantinople
(1261-1282),” in Εἰς τὴν πόλιν: Strolling through the Unbeaten Paths of Constantinople, ed Ead.,
Alessandro Taddei and MariaVrij = = Eurasian Studies 19,1 (2021): 155-177.
22 See Kyriakidis, Warfare, 21.
23 Julian Baker, Coinage and Money in Medieval Greece 1200­1430 (The Medieval Mediterranean.
Peoples, economies and cultures 400-1500, 124), (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2020), vol. 1, 257
remarks, Michael II of Epiros, Manfred of Hohenstaufen and William II of Villehardouin were
all responsible for coinages which bore the metrological hallmarks of trachea, respectively so-
called large and small modules.

51
 example of his predecessors, the Epirote Duke claimed to be the legal heir of the
Roman Empire because he was connected by blood to the Komnenian family24.
He equally intended to emphasize his role as true follower of Komnenian mod-
els: the Epirote State founded its political and administrative system upon the
Byzantine imperial tradition25. After the fall of Constantinople to the Franks in
1204 and the subsequent creation of Epiros as a State under Michael I Komnenos
Doukas (1205 – 1215), this peripheral region of the Byzantine world became a fa-
vourite destination for those who wanted to escape Latin rule. Given the vacant
Imperial seat, the Komnenoi Doukai were entitled to occupy imperial land and
offer conditions of stability to their subjects and refugees seeking asylum26. The
Palaiologan propaganda in the 1260s counterattacked that a Roman-Byzantine
emperor was now inside Constantinople. Indeed, George Pachymeres (1242-1310
ca.) relates Michael II’s genuine claim to keep his dominions, even after Palaiolo-
gan restoration in the Polis.27 In fact, the Komnenos Doukas failed to achieve his
goal despite of the help, which German Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen
(1194-1250) and his son king Manfred of Sicily (1232-1266) provided to him. In
sum, the Emperor of Nicaea was in a better position not only strategically, but
also politically for the purpose of conquering New Rome. On the Nicene side,
Roman-Byzantine self-identification played a basic role not only towards Latins,
as we may wait, but also toward rival Roman-Byzantine claimants to the succes-
sion in Epiros, as George Acropolites expressly states28.
The Komnenos Doukas had far exceeding ideas to act as universal Roman-Byz-
antine basileus under an ecumenist perspective. Such an aim corresponds to the
24 On the ideological controversy between Epiros and Nicaea, see Alkmeni Stavridou-Zafraka,
Νίκαια και Ήπειρος τον 13o αιώνα. Ιδεολογική αντιπαράθεση στην προσπάθειά τους να ανακτήσουν την
αυτοκρατορία (Thessaloniki: Vanias, 1990), 115-146. The ideologues of both States claim that their
rulers have right to restore Constantinople and present them as divine Emperors of the Ro-
mans. On Epiros’ ideology, see Ead., “The Political Ideology of the State of Epiros,” Urbs Capta,
311-323.
25 See Günter Prinzing, “Studien zu Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung im Machtbereich der epeiro-
tischen Herrscher Michael I und Theodore Doukas. Erster Teil,” Epeirotika Chronika 24 (1982):
73-120; Id., “Studien zu Provinz- und Zentralverwaltung im Machtbereich der epeirotischen
Herrscher Michael I und Theodore Doukas. Zweiter Teil,” Epeirotika Chronika 25 (1983): 37-109;
Id., “Das Kaisertum im Staat von Epeiros: Propagierung, Stabilisierung und Verfall,” in Πρακτικά
Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου (Άρτα, 27-31 Μαΐου 1990), ed. Evangelos K. Chrys-
sos (Arta: Vassilopoulos, 1992), 17-30.
26 Günter Prinzing, “Das byzantinische Kaisertum im Umbruch. Zwischen regionaler Aufspal-
tung und erneuter Zentrierung in den Jahren 1204-1282,” in Legitimation und Funktion des
Herrschers. Vom ägyptischen Pharao zum neuzeitlichen Diktator, ed. Rolf Gundlach and Her-
mann Weber (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1992), 129-183; Brendan Osswald, “The Ethnic Composition
of Medieval Epirus,” in Imagining Frontiers, Contesting Identities, ed. Steven G. Ellis and Lud’a
Klusáková (Frontiers and Identities 5.2), (Pisa: Plus, 2007), 125-155, esp. 132: Many refugees
coming from Constantinople fond asylum in Epiros after 1204. This flow continued throughout
the century, even after 1261. Opponents of Michael VIII Palaiologos’ ecclesiastical policy were
welcomed in Epiros.
27 Pachymeres, I 275. On Epiros’ political ideology counterbalancing Byzantine legitimism and
Italian coastal expansionism, see Kyriakidis, Warfare, 22.
28 According to Acropolites 166.7, Pindos mountains separated the Hellenic land of Nicaea
from Epiros, see Ruth Macrides (ed./transl.), George Akropolites, The History (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007), 356-358; Hilsdale, Byzantine Art, 85.

52
ambitious urban projects that he carried out in his capital Arta. This town should
have been of a size to rival New Rome. He too promoted an urban plan aimed
to stress his capital’s magnificence, as well as Michael VIII did. The Blacherna
monastery near Arta clearly pointed to the memory of the Constantinopolitan
shrine, where the icon of the Virgin Blachernitissa was greatly venerated and
held a place as a symbol of the protection of the Polis29. The nostalgia for the
loss of the Queen of Cities underlies the monastic patronage in Epiros under the
Komnenos-Doukas family30. Face to Nicene invasion of the Despotate in 1259,
Epirote legitimist ideology was a key element. The failed siege of Ioannina and
the revolt in Arta after a short Nicene occupation confirm this feeling of loyalty,
identification by the Duke’s subjects being a matter not to be neglected31.
3. In turn, the Prince of Achaia William (Guillaume) II of Villehardouin (Kala-
mata, ca. 1211 – 1278, ruler since 1246) is a relevant representative as far as concerns
Frankish theory of power in Greece. In the 1250s, he was de facto the most powerful
ruler of Latin Greece. He had the pre-eminence among crusader sovereigns. Ac-
cording to the ruling system of feudality, most of lesser Frankish rulers acknowl-
edged him as their overlord32. He also received the suzerainty of the Aegean Islands
from the Latin Emperor of Constantinople Baldwin II (Baoudouin II de Courtenay,
1217 – 1273) in 124833. Indeed, William revealed to pursue too ambitious political
goals with respect to his actual forces. He was also captured by Michael Palaiologos
after the defeat of Pelagonia. Hence, his power was annihilated34.
29 On the ways in which art-making reflected political ideology under first ruler Michael I (1204-
1215) and his brother Theodore, see Leonela Fundić, “Art and Political Ideology in the State
of the Epiros during the Reign of the Theodore Doukas (r. 1215-1230),” Byzantina Symmeikta
23 (2013): 217-250, esp. 220, 223-224. See also Myrtali Achimastou-Potamianou, Ἡ Βλαχέρνα
τῆς Ἄρτας. Τοιχογραφίες (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας 264), (Athinai:
Ἀρχαιολογικὴ ἑταιρεία, 2009), 19-39.
30 On this ideological tenet, see Marcus Louis Rautman, “Patron and Buildings in Late Byzantine
Thessaloniki,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 39 (1989): 295-315, esp. 308-309; Mi-
chael Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081­1261 (New York: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1995), 230-232; Fundić, Art, 221; Dimitris Giannoulis, “Αμφιπρόσωπη
εικόνα Παναγίας Οδηγήτριας από τη Βυζαντινή Άρτα,” in Η Βυζαντινή Άρτα και η περιοχή της.
Πρακτικά Β΄ Διεθνούς Αρχαιολογικού και Ιστορικού Συνεδρίου Άρτα 12-14 Απριλίου 2002, ed. Ef-
stratia Synkellou (Athina: Kostakiotis, 2007), 249-268, esp. 251-253.
31 Brendan Osswald, “Arta et Iôannina: deux villes rivales au parcours parallèles”, in Cities and
Power in Byzantium during the Palaeologan Era (1261­1453), ed. Anastasia Kontogiannopoulou
(Athina: Academy of Athens. Research Centre for Medieval and Modern Hellenism, 2018), 205-
236, esp. 206-207.
32 Kenneth Meyer Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204­1571 (Philadelphia: The American
Philosophical Society, 1991), 68; Jean Longnon, “The Frankish States in Greece 1204-1311,” in
A History of the Crusades, vol. II The Later Crusades, 1189­1311, ed. Kenneth M. Setton, Robert
Lee Wolff and Harry W. Hazard (Madison/WI-London: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962),
234-275.
33 Marina Koumanoudi, “The Latins in the Aegean after 1204: Interdependence and Intervowen
Interests,” in Urbs capta, 247-268: esp. 250.
34 Fine, Late Medieval Balkans, 165-166; Nicholas Cheetham, Mediaeval Greece (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1981), 86; on Villehardouin’s aptitude towards Nicaean Empire, see Juho
Wilskman, “The Battle of Prinitsa in 1263,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 105.1 (2013): 167-198, esp.
173: “Achaia were ideologically hostile, the Realpolitik suggested forming an alliance against
Nicaea.”.

53
 It is interesting to remark that William II was equally fluent in French and
Greek. Although himself born and raised in Greece, he always shew a feeling of
solidarity with the Latin West, especially with the king and nobility of French.
Beyond any doubt, William felt himself as a French ruler, even if he was based
in Morea in the Peloponnese which was the heartland of his principality. The
Achaean coinages printed by him clearly show the effort to imitate French mon-
ey issues, as deniers mint in Argos and Clarentza confirm35. There, the Prince
opened a new mint by increasing import of Western silver36. Generally said,
settlers in Morea and their descendants continued to identify themselves with
Westerners, not to Roman-Byzantines. According to the Chronicle of Morea (Τὸ
Χρονικὸν τοῦ Μωρέως), William II addressed the Emperor Michael VIII Palaiolo-
gos in a manner with eagerly disappoints Roman-Byzantine customs. In fact,
he acted against the familiar practice of Byzantine diplomacy. In manuscript H
(Hauniensis 57, Copenhagen), the Chronicle is available in 15-syllable political
verses and accounts this struggle based on cultural differences in mentality be-
tween the two rulers37. Against the pretence of Roman-Byzantines to recover ter-
ritories of Latin Frankish Greece as their ancestral inheritance, the Villehardouin
claimed to possess Morea by right of conquest. The Frankish knights had granted
it as a lawful possession for him and his descendants with their swords38.
Upon ideological grounds, we may consider a speech attributed to William II
in the Chronicle, where Frankish mistrust is directed not against the Nicene Em-
peror, but rather against the Despot Michael of Epiros and his family. These ones
wooed the Prince as their ally. However, they treacherously abandoned him on the
battlefield (H, vv. 3966, 3974-75; B § 294). Hence, Greek perfidy (perfidia Graeco-
rum) plays a pivotal role as ideological tenet: Roman-Byzantines are depicted as
perjurers, coward, unchivalrous, and above all as haeretics, while Latins possess
chivalric ethos and prefer to honourably fight face-to-face, not to practise guerrilla
warfare, as Emperor Michael VIII expressly instructs his generals to do39. Indeed, it
is interesting to remark that Prince William II was aware of Greek warfare. He was
able to emulate the same useful trick, when he counseld his overlord Charles of
Anjou (1226 – 1285) at the battle of Tagliacozzo (1268). On this occasion, he advised
the Angevin King to use “Greek” technique of false retreat against Corradino (1252
– 1268), the last Staufen dynast to claim the Sicilian throne. The Chronicle does
not label such a conduct as “perfidious”, as Latins do. The stereotype of Graecu-

35 Baker, Coinage, 1385-86, 1690-1702 for coin illustrations on issues by William II.
36 Julian Baker, “Money and Currency in Medieval Greece,” in A Companion to Latin Greece, 217-
254: esp. 240; Id., Coinage, 92, 141. French issues are also largely represented in addition to local
Achaïan coins, as excavations attest.
37 Version H, vv. 4256-65, see Theresa Shawcross, The Chronicle of Morea: Historiography in Cru-
sader Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 190; Ead., “ ‘Listen, All of You, Both Franks
and Romans’: The Narrator in the Chronicle of Morea,” in Byzantine History as Literature, ed.
Ruth Macrides, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2010, 91-109 on different versions and stylistic features of
this poem.
38 Kyriakidis, Warfare, 22-23.
39 Shawcross, Chronicle of Morea, 194-195.
54
lus perfidus is only deployed against Romans of Constantinople, Nicaea or Epiros,
that is, the opponents of Latin conquerors in Greece. In the Chronicle, the target of
Greekness is a political ideological frame under the perspective of supporting the
creation or survival of Frankish Greece. As a result, both ethno-religious groups of
Morea, that is, Franks and Roman-Byzantines, whether they are conquerors or con-
quered, are summoned to show their loyalty toward their common lord. We must
not forget that the principalities of Morea and Cyprus were governed by Frankish
rulers. Both states took in Francophone refugees from the crusader kingdoms after
the fall of Acre in 1291, with the result of further increasing the amount of their sub-
jects of Western origin40. In the 13th and 14th centuries, the Papacy actively supported
Latin nobility and its familiar ties in Morea, in order to hold the position of Roman
Church in the same area.41
As peoples of Morea, Moraites, that is, Moreots, whether Francophone or
Greek-speaking, are compelled to share a patriotical sentiment of locality toward
their prince. According to the Chronicle, William II stresses this ideological frame
in the speech that he was going to address to his troops on the eve of Pelagonia’s
battle. This speech emphasizes common purposes between Latins and Pelopon-
nesian subjects. The prince clearly appeals his soldiers on feelings of comrades,
teamwork, esprit de corps. This is particular evident in H 3963-93, and especially
in final verses 3991-9342:
ἡμεῖς γὰρ καὶ ἂν εἴμεθεν ὀλίγοι πρὸς ἐκείνους,
ὅλοι εἴμεθεν ἐγνώριμοι καὶ μίας οὐσίας ἄνθρωποι,
καὶ πρέπει ὅλοι ὡς ἀδελφοὶ ἀλλήλως ν’ ἀγαπᾶστε.
(We, though fewer than they, / stand in fellowship and are men of one flesh / and
therefore you must all love one another as true brothers).
This principle of true brotherhood is a clear ideological assertion. In fact, the so-
ciety was founded upon the hierarchical system of lieges (ligii), among them only
a small group of the barons (bers de terre) were the peers of the prince and as-
sisted him in the governance of the principality as his own vassals43. On the either
hand, the inhabitants of the principality of Achaia are regarded to form a distinct
group, while differences in religion, law, and language are not emphasized. A sense
of unity was useful to Villehardouin’s ideological claims. Any source of division
40 Jane Gilbert, Simon Gaunt and William Burgwinkle, Medieval French Literary Culture Abroad
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 16: the Eastern Mediterranean was multilingual,
French existed alongside multiple forms of Greek, Arabic, Italian, Occitan, Hebrew and
Persian, in communities that were multi-ethnic and where a minority spoke French as their
mother tongue. Texts in French have been also composed in Morea.
41 Isabella Ortega, “La politique de soutien pontifical aux lignages nobiliaires moréotes aux XIIIe
et XIVe siècles,” in La Papauté, 185-202: esp. 189, 199.
42 At this respect, Shawcross, Chronicle of Morea, 208-209 put out a “process of self-definition
among Moreots”.
43 Charalambos Gasparis, “Land and Landowners in the Greek Territories under Latin Domina-
tion, 13th-14th Centuries”, in A Companion to Latin Greece, ed. Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis and
Peter Lock (Brill’s Companions to European History 6), (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2014), 73-114: esp.
105.
55
 or animosity should disconcert his political goals. The Chronicle also informs us
that William II on his deathbed equally provisioned Greek-Orthodox and Frankish
Roman-Catholic monasteries44. There was no conflict between the Villehardouin
prince and his Greek-Orthodox subjects. On the contrary, a struggle upraised be-
tween him and his rival rulers, Latin or Roman-Byzantine they were. The Chronicle
stresses the legitimacy of Achaia’s principality and the heavenly favour assigned to
the Villehardouin as a legitimate sovereign45. A large effort of overstating legitimist
ideology of Latin power in Greek territories is clearly noticeable behind the narra-
tive of events in Morea.
4. Beside the Epirote Duke and the Nicene Prince, the Sicilian king Manfred
was involved in a power play with expansionist aims in the Western Balkans.
Under this perspective, he truly followed the foreign policy of his Norman pre-
decessors. He was also a paradigm for Angevin kings after the collapse of Staufen
rule (1266)46. Just crowned king of Sicily in 1258, Manfred engaged his military aid
in the East, even if he was still far from pacifying his dominions and solving inter-
nal quarrels. Anyway, he sent his fleet and 400 knights to Macedonia, while 300
knights were the envoy from the Duke of Carinthia, Rudolf I of Habsburg (1218-
1291, reigned from 1273 until his death as first king of Germany from the House of
Habsburg). Probably, Hungarian forces were also fighting at the side of German
troops in Macedonia47. Surely, Manfred did not personally move to Macedonia,
as Nicephoros Gregoras (1295 ca. – 1359/1361) falsely alleges, because he was in-
volved in quarrels in Northern Italy. However, he was certainly interested in this
conflict in Western Balkans, as such a relevant military support to Anti-Nicean
alliance testifies48. It was not merely matter of familiar ties as son-in-law of the
Epirote Duke, given that the latter’s daughter Helena Doukaina (1242-1271) be-
came Manfred’s second wife. Once that the kingdom of Sicily was definitively
divided from the Holy Roman Empire ruled by his half-brother Conrad IV (1228-
1254, king of Germany since 1250), it is undeniable that Manfred turned his atten-

44 H v. 7778-83, see Shawcross, The Chronicle of Morea, 209.

45 Shawcross, The Chronicle of Morea, 215 argues that Moreot identity would appear to have
been entwined with the history of a dynasty and to have reflected that dynasty’s drive for the
concentration and centralization of power.
46 Charles I of Anjou claimed to recover Ionian and Adriatic Epirote possessions of Manfred, his
defeated predecessor on the Sicilian throne. Notoriously, he also acquired the suzerainty of
Aegean islands at the dead of William II of Achaia (1278), who addressed him as a powerful
protector, see Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 168, 170; Koumanoudi, “The Latins,” 250.
47 Geanakoplos, “Graeco-Latin relations,” 124-125; Bartusis, The Late Byzantine Army, 37; Ábel
Török, “A Byzantine Epic in the Chronicle of Morea. The Heroic Deeds of Geoffroy de Briel,”
in Byzanz und das Abendland VII Studia Byzantino­Occidentalia, ed. Erika Juhász (Budapest:
Eötvös-József-Collegium, 2021), 375-393.
48 Geanakoplos, “Graeco-Latin relations,” 134-136; Mihajlovski, “The Battle of Pelagonia,” 282; Bo-
jana Pavlović, “Nikephoros Gregoras und das Nikänische Reich”, in Byzanz und das Abendland
IV. Studia Byzantino­Occidentalia, ed. E. Juhász (Budapest: Eötvös-József-Collegium, 2016),
203-226, esp. 222-224; Salvatore Costanza, “Siciliani sulle rotte della Macedonia: Manfredi alla
battaglia di Pelagonia,” Istorija. Journal of History 53.1 (2018): 41-52.

56
tion to the Mediterranean as his main field of action49. After Pelagonia, there was
a break with former Nicene ally: Michael VIII sent back to Sicily Manfred’s sister
Constance (1230-1307 ca.), the widow of his predecessor, the Nicene Emperor
John III Doukas Vatatzes (1193-1254).
Manfred’s dynastic succession to Frederick II was questioned by his opponents.
However, he pursued his father’s foreign politics in open conflict with the Papa-
cy. Above all, he was the true heir of intellectual and cultural politics of the Great
Staufen towards ancient Hellenism. At the Court of Manfred, Bartholomew of
Messina (1240-1294/95) was active as his chief translator. He was charged by his
lord to translate Greek works of Hippocrates, Hierokles, Aristotle and pseudo-
Aristotelian works such as Problemata, Physionomia, and other treatises50. The
Sicilian king expressly sent these translations to Sorbona University in Paris, as
attests his own letter, which is preserved in the cartulary of the same University51.
Bartholomew was a judge and legal expert based in his birth-town. He is also
known for his Historia Sicula (ca. 1294), where he focuses on the Sicilian Vespers
in 1282 and the struggle between Angevin and Aragonese kings for the suprem-
acy of Sicily52. Bartholomew emphasizes the significance of the large Greek-
speaking population resident in Messina. This port town was a trading hub in

49 Salvatore Costanza, “La politica adriatica di Guglielmo il Buono e di Manfredi: paradigmi di

integrazione tra Sicilia e Balcani,” Istorija. Journal of History 56.1-2 (2021): 21-34.
50 Bartholomew also translated De mirabilibus auscultationibus, De principiis, De signis, Magna
Moralia, De mundo, De coloribus, see Jozef Brams, “La riscoperta di Aristotele in Occidente,”
Eredità Medievale 3/22 (Milano: Jaca Book, 2003), esp. chap. VII: Bartolomeo di Messina, 89-
95; see also Gerardo Marenghi, “Un capitolo dell’Aristotele medievale: Bartolomeo da Mes-
sina traduttore dei Problemata Physica,” Aevum 36.3/4 (1962): 268-283; Joachim Oesterle, “Bar-
tholomäus von Messina,” Lexicon des Mittelalters, vol. 1 (München-Zürich: Walter de Gruyter,
1980): 1496; Dagmar Gottschall, “Pseudo-Aristoteles in der Büchersammlung des Naturwissen-
schaftlers Amplonius Rating de Bercka,” in Die Bibliotheca Amploniana – Ihre Bedeutung im
Spannungsfeld von Aristotelismus, Nominalismus und Humanismus, ed. Andreas Speer (Miscel-
lanea Mediaevalia 23), (Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), 73-85: 75; Matthias Heiduk,
“Sternenkunde am Stauferhof. Das „Centiloquium Hermetis“ im Kontext höfischer Überset-
zungstätigkeit und Wissensaneignung,” in in frumento et vino opimo. Festschrift für Thomas
Zotz zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, ed. Heinz Krieg and Alfons Zettler (Ostfieldern: Jan Thorbecke,
2004), 267-282: esp. 271.
51 Heinrich Denifle and Émile Chatelain, eds. Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, 1-4 (Paris:
Delalain, 1889-1897, repr. Bruxelles: Culture et civilisation, 1964), vol. 1, 435-436, n° 394; Iolanda
Ventura, “Aristoteles fuit causa efficiens huius libri: On the Reception of Pseudo-Aristoteles’
Problemata in Late Medieval Encyclopaedic Culture,” in Aristotle’s Problemata in Different
Times and Tongues, ed. Pieter de Leemans and Michèle Goyens (Mediaevalia Lovaniensia Ser.
I St. 39), (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006), 113-144: 118; Fulvio Delle Donne, “Un’inedita
epistola sulla morte di Guglielmo de Luna, Maestro presso lo Studio di Napoli, e le traduzioni
prodotte alla corte di Manfredi di Svevia,” Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 74
(2007): 225-245; Pieter de Leemans, Translating at the Court: Bartholomew of Messina and the
Cultural Life at the Court of Manfred, King of Sicily (Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, Ser. I 45), (Leuven:
Leuven University Press, 2014).
52 Enrico Pispisa, “Per una rilettura dell’Historia Sicula di Bartolomeo di Neocastro,” in Studi sulle
società e le culture del Medioevo per Girolamo Arnaldi, ed. Ludovico Gatto and Paola Supino
Martini (Florence: All’insegna del giglio, 2002), 531-548: 535; Id., “Costruzioni storiografiche
e propaganda politica: L’esempio di Bartolomeo di Neocastro,” in La propaganda politica
nel basso medioevo: Atti del XXXVIII Convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 14-17 ott. 2001
(Spoleto: CISAM, 2002), 29-48.

57
 Mediterranean, whose political role cannot be neglected53. Bartholomew’s fellow
citizen Steven of Messina (Stephanus de Messana, very probably another lawyer
to be identified with Stephanus Tacchi), translated the Centiloquium Hermetis,
an astrological collection, for king Manfred in the year 126254. Cultural activity
was useful to credit Staufen’s political role in Romanía. A valuable commitment
to discover Ancient Greek culture and promote its transfer in the West allowed
him to legitimate his expansionism in the Eastern Mediterranean. Remarkably,
king Manfred had already seized former Norman possessions of Adriatic coast
around Drać and Vlora (1258)55. He openly claimed for a full-scale occupation of
Balkans. No doubt, he was leading an ambitious plan of extending his influence
in Greece, Albania and Macedonia. Probably, the Sicilian king would have seri-
ously planned the conquest of the Balkan Peninsula, when he mastered both
Adriatic coasts and mainlands.56
Conclusion
A turn point in Byzantine history such as the battle of Pelagonia also implies a sig-
nificant confrontation between Western newcomers and the Roman-Byzantines.
It is not unrelevant that such an interactionist process took place in Macedonia.
Our sources largely use ethno-religious markers in order to suggest distinct in-
terpretations of these events. Subsequently, a Frankish oriented source such as
the Chronicle of Morea shows a realignment of narratives symmetrical to Byzan-
tine works dedicated to same historical frames such George Akropolites’ History,
which is written under a Byzantino-centric perspective.57

53 On the central role played by Sicilian Greek population from Messina, see Vera von Falkenhau-
sen, “The Greek Communities in Messina and Palermo 11th to 13th centuries,” in Urban Dynamics
and Transcultural Communication in Medieval Sicily, ed. Theresa Jäckh and Mona Kirsch (Mit-
telmeeren Studies 17), (Paderborn: Wilhelm Fick, 2017), 27-66.
54 On Stephanus’ Centiloquium and De revolutionibus nativitatum, see Heiduk, Sternenkunde, 269-
271: the collection was probably translated from a Greek, not Arabic source.
55 See Salvatore Costanza, “Ad provinciam Macedoniae. Sicilian Admiral Philip Chinardo on the
Route to Macedonia (1258),” in Држава и империја. State and Empire. Зборник на трудови
од Шестот меѓународен симпосиум “Денови на Јустинијан I”. Proceedings of the 6th
International Symposium “Days of Justinian I”, Ohrid, Resen, 23-24.11.2018, ed. M.B. Panov
(Skopje: Institute of National History, 2019), 106-120.
56 Geanakoplos, Graeco-Latin relations, 105.
57 George Acropolites, 79-82. As Stanković, John II Asen, 49 stated: “Permeated with the author’s
strong ideological views of Byzantine superiority, and the portrayal of his hero Michael VIII
Palaiologos in the best possible light, Akropolites’ History also aimed at presenting events in
the thirteenth century Balkans from a distinctively Byzantine perspective.”

58
 5

A (Grand) Komnenos is forewer: Some Notes on

the Dynastic Ideology in the Empire of Trebizond
MARCO FASOLIO, University of Eastern Piedmont, Vercelli

UDK 94(495.02)”1204/1461”

Abstract: Despite its history was dotted with civil wars, violent usurpations and
political upheavals, unlike other late-Byzantine States, the so-called Empire of
Trebizond never experienced a dynastic change during its more than two and
a half centuries of life (1204-1461). The principality was founded in April 1204,
almost contemporarily with the second fall of Constantinople in the hands
of the crusaders, on the north-eastern ‘edge’ of Anatolia by the grandchildren
of emperor Andronikos I, the brothers Alexios and David Komnenos, whose
descendants managed to preserve the throne within their family, even
though the ‘Empire’ had access to a limited amount of human and material
resources and was soon relegated to the role of a minor regional power. This
paper analyses the strategies, which were mainly focused on highlighting
the antiquity and the continuity of the reigning lineage from the time of its
imperial ancestors of Constantinople, that the Komnenoi enacted throughout
their rule in the Pontos in order to promote the image of their family, both
in the domestic arena and internationally, thus producing a dynastic ideology
that was quite unique in the Byzantine world.

1. Endless Life to the Komnenoi! An Introduction

«It is impossible to find a family of rulers, tyrants or emperors that has remained
in power forever. But our masters and emperors have done well even in this
respect and have surpassed the others. Once they took possession of this land and

59
 ascended this throne, neither time, nor fortune, nor a change of circumstances
has swept them away. Instead, as if they were immortal rulers, the members of
this same family and its bloodline have continued to reign perpetually over us.
Son succeeds father, and each further consolidates his own rule. May we have
the same masters for the rest of time and may we be ruled by them. And may
you, Almighty God, protect this family of emperors from on high and guide their
rule»1. This quotation is taken from Bessarion’s Encomium on Trebizond – which,
according to a hypothesis formed by Odysseas Lampsides in 1955, was presumably
written in Constantinople during the year 1436/14372 – and is referred to the Grand
Komnenoi, the ruling dynasty of the Empire of Trebizond. Its bombastic wording
is undoubtedly a product of the rich Byzantine rhetorical tradition, especially as
far as the eulogies for the emperors, the latter’s relatives, the great aristocrats and
the high-ranking court officials are concerned3, but nonetheless it should not
be considered a full-fledged panegyric, such as, for instance, those of Michael
Psellos or Niketas Choniates. First, unlike most Byzantine panegyrists, Bessarion
had never been in the service of those he eulogised, nor he was indebted to them
by any means, neither his work had been commissioned by a member of the
family. Secondly, the Encomium was not an ‘occasional literary work’, as usually
panegyrics were, but rather a scholarly one, possibly aimed to circulate among
the author’s learned friends, and its primary purpose was to extol the city of
Trebizond – hence not or, better to say, not just its current rulers – mainly by
emphasising its Greek heritage and its loyalty to Rome4. Therefore, given that
Bessarion’s words were not compelled by his political allegiance or by the rules
1 «οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν γένος οὐδὲν οὐκ ἀρχόντων, οὐ τυράννων, οὐ βασιλέων μέχρι παντὸς ἐπὶ ταὑτοῦ
παραμεῖναν. Οἱ δ’ ἡμέτεροι δεσπόται καὶ βασιλεῖς κἀν τούτῳ καλῶς ποιοῦντες τῶν ἄλλων ἐκράτησαν,
καὶ ἧς ἅπαξ ἐλάβοντο γῆς καὶ βασιλείας ἐπέβησαν, ταύτης οὐ χρόνος, οὐ τύχη, οὐ πραγμάτων
μεταβολαὶ τούτους ἀπήγαγον, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ ἀθάνατοι ἄρχοντες διαιωνίζουσιν ἡμῖν οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ ταὐτοῦ
γένουςὄντες καὶ αἵματος, παῖς πατέρα διαδεχόμενοι καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν ἕκαστος ἡγεμονίαν κρατύνοντες.
Εἴη δὲ καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ τοῖς αὐτοῖς χρῆσθαι δεσπόταις καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν αὐτῶν βασιλεύεσθαι, καὶ συνέχοις
αὐτὸς ἄνωθεν, Θεὲ ἡγεμόνιε, τὸ γένος τῶν βασιλέων καὶ ἰθύνοις μὲν τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῖς», in
Bessarion, “Encomium on Trebizond,” in Two Works on Trebizond. Michael Panaretos. Bessarion,
ed. and trans. Scott A. Kennedy (Cambridge Ms., London: Harvard University Press, 2019) 59-
215, the Greek text quoted in the footnote and Scott Kennedy’s translation are at pp. 183-185.
2 Odysseas Lampsides, “Datierung des Ἐγκώμιον Τραπεζοῦντος des Kardinal Bessarion,” Byzan-
tinische Zeitschrift 48 (1955): 291-292. Lampsides’ hypothesis is also substantially confirmed by
Ilias Giarenis, “Η Έκφρασις του Βησσαρίωνα για την Τραπεζούντα. Η χρονολόγηση του έργου και το
εγκώμιο των Μεγαλοκομνηνών αυτοκρατόρων,” Βυζαντινός Δόμος 25 (2016-2017): 175-208.
3 Concerning Rhetoric in Byzantium, v. Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur
der Byzantiner, 2 vols. (Münich: C. H. Beck, 1978), I, 63–196; the important collection of pa-
pers in Elizabeth M. Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium. Papers from the Thirty­fifth Spring
Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Exeter College, University of Oxford, March 2001 (Aldershot:
Routledge, 2003); and, more concisely, ead., “Rhetoric in Byzantium,” in A Companion to Greek
Rhetoric, ed. Ian Worthington (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 166–184.
4 As far as the Encomium is concerned, v. also Odysseas Lampsides, “L’éloge de Trébizonde de
Bessarion,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 32 (1982): 121-127; id., “Περὶ τὸ ‘ἐγκώμιον
εἰς Τραπεζοῦντα’ τοῦ Βησσαρίωνος,” Ἀρχεῖον Πόντου 37 (1982): 153-181; Ilias Giarenis, “Ο λόγιος και
ο γενέθλιος τόπος. Η Τραπεζούντα με τον τρόπο του Βησσαρίωνος,” Ἀρχεῖον Πόντου 53 (2007-2009):
265-280; Aslıhan Akışık, “Praising A City: Nicaea, Trebizond, and Thessalonike,” Journal of
Turkish Studies 36 (2011): 1-25, esp. 8-16; Eleni G. Saranti, “Η Έκφρασις της Τραπεζούντας από τον
Βησσαρίωνα. Η αρχαιότης και το ιστορικό μήνυμα,” Βυζαντινός Δόμος 25 (2016-2017): 149-174.

60
of the Encomium’s literary genre, perhaps we should conclude that his wish to
see the Grand Komnenoi on the throne of Trebizond «for the rest of time» was at
least partly a true display of affection towards them and not the result of a mere
stylistic convention.
Despite he had left the Pontos for Constantinople when he was only sixteen
years old (1416/1417), Bessarion was a native of Trebizond5 and seemingly never
completely severed the ties he had with his homeland, as it may be argued by the
fact that in 1427 John VIII Palaiologos (1425-1448) involved him in his embassy to
Alexios IV Grand Komnenos (1417-1429).6 Like many of his fellow countrymen,
Bessarion presumably felt a sort of ‘bond of gratitude’ towards the Grand
Komnenoi, whose origins had something in common with the pro-Laskaris7
and pro-Komnenodoukas8 sentiments of the thirteenth-century Nicaeans
and Epirotes, but was apparently way more rooted and long-lasting among
the Trapezuntines. The purpose of this contribution is to identify some of the
reasons behind the alleged popularity of Trebizond’s rulers among their subjects
as well as the political strategies which enabled the local dynasty to retain the
throne until the final collapse of the Byzantine world, notwithstanding the
upsets of late-medieval Pontos. After a concise overview about the historical
context in which the Empire of Trebizond was established and the genealogical
5 Elpidio Mioni, Vita del Cardinale Bessarione (Venezia: Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, 1991), 16-
23, who dates Bessarion’s birth at the end of the year 1400. According to Ludwig Mohler, Kardi-
nal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsman, 3 vols. (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh
1923-1942), I, 38-42, and other scholars who follow his chronology, Bessarion was born in 1403,
therefore his departure from Trebizond occurred when he was approximately thirteen years
old. The hypothesis of John Monfasani, “Platina, Capranica and Perotti: Bessarion’s Latin Eulo-
gists and his Date of Birth,” in Bartolomeo Sacchi il Platina (Piadena 1421 ­ Roma 1481). Atti del
Convegno Internazionale di Studi per il V Centenario, Cremona, 14­15 novembre 1981, eds. Augusto
Campana and Paola Medioli Masotti (Padova: Antenore, 1986), 97-136, esp. 117-123, who argues
that Bessarion’s date of birth was 1408, thus implying his arrival in Constantinople at eight or
nine years old, probably has to be dismissed. For further bibliography about Bessarion’s life, v.
Gianmario Cattaneo, Le lettere greche del cardinal Bessarione. Nuovi percorsi di ricerca (Roma:
Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2020), VII, fn. 2, whom I thank for his extremely helpful biblio-
graphical advice on this point.
6 The embassy led to the marriage between John VIII and Maria Komnene, daughter of Alexios
IV, Giorgio Sfranze, Cronaca, ed. Riccardo Maisano (Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,
1990), 30; Ducas, Istoria turco­bizantina (1341­1462), ed. Vasile Grecu (București: Academia
Repubblicii Populare Române, 1958), 139; Mioni, Vita, 18, 29-30; Ivan Djurić, Il crepuscolo di
Bisanzio, 1392­1448, trans. Silvia Vacca (Roma: Donzelli, 1995), 133-134. About Maria and Alexios
IV, v. Kelsey J. Williams, “A Genealogy of the Grand Komnenoi of Trebizond,” Foundations 2
(2006): 171-189, esp. 181-183; Michel Kuršankis, “La descendance d’Alexis IV, Empereur de Trébi-
zonde: contribution à la prosopographie des Grands Comnènes,” Revue des études byzantines
37 (1979): 239-247; Alexios G. K. Savvides, Ιστορία της Αυτοκρατωρίας των Μεγάλων Κομνηνών της
Τραπεζούντας (Αθήνα: Εκδοτικός Οίκος Αδελφών Κυριακίδη, 2009), 144-149.
7 Michael Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society under the Laskarids
of Nicaea (1204­1261) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 37-45; Dimiter Angelov, “Byzantine
Ideological Reactions to the Latin Conquest of Constantinople,” in Urbs Capta. The Fourth Cru-
sade and its Consequences, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou (Paris: Lethielleux, 2005), 293-310, esp. 295-305;
Vincent Puech, “The Aristocracy and the Empire of Nicaea,” in Identities and Allegiances in the
Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, eds. Judith Herrin and Guillaume Saint-Guillan (Farnham: Ash-
gate, 2011), 69-80.
8 Marco Fasolio, “Despota, patria e famiglia. Strutture di potere nell’Epiro tardomedivale,” Eu-
rostudium3w 56 (2021): 77-100, esp. 82-93.

61
 profile of its founders, the core of the paper will be dedicated to discuss the
main tools of the dynastic propaganda devised by the Grand Komnenoi with the
aim to consolidate their position and to measure their effectiveness both in the
domestic and in the international sphere.

2. Saving a Bloodline and Carving an Empire: the Historical Context

With their action, the Grand Komnenoi had preserved the ‘ῥωμαιοσύνη’9 of
south-eastern Pontos and spared the latter from the dire consequences which
befell the rest of Romània after the Fourth Crusade (1204), like Theodore I Laskaris
(1205-1221) and Michael I Komnenodoukas (1205-1215) did in Asia Minor and in
north-western Greece respectively10. At the beginning of the 13th century, however,
the area that would have been subject to the Trapezuntine principality already
had a more than secular history of separatist aspirations, which dated back at
least to the aftermath of the battle of Mantzikert (1071) and the autonomous
reconquest of the region by Theodore Gabras during the early eighties of the 11th
century11. The sudden disruption of the Byzantine world by the crusaders and
9 Literally the ‘romanness’, namely what in modern terms we may describe as the medieval/Byz-
antine Greek identity. Regarding this concept, v. Anthony Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium:
the Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), 42 ff.; Gill Page, Being Byzantine: Greek Identity Before the
Ottomans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Élisabeth Malamut, “De l’empire
des Romains à la nation des Hellènes. Évolution identitaire des Byzantins de la fin du XIe au XVe
siècle,” in Nation et nations au Moyen Âge. XLIVe Congrès de la SHMESP (Prague, 23 mai­26 mai
2013) (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2014), 165-179; Christos Malatras, “The Making of an
Ethnic Group: the Romaioi in 12th-13th Century,” in Ταυτότητες στον ελληνικό κόσμο από το 1204 έως
σήμερα. Δ΄ Ευρωπαϊκό Συνέδριο Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών, Γρανάδα, 9­12 Σεπτεμβρίου 2010. Πρακτικά, 5
vols., ed. Konstantinos A. Dimadis (Αθήνα: Ευροπαϊκή Εταιρεία Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών, 2011), III,
419–430; Ioannis Stouraitis, “Roman Identity in Byzantium: a Critical Approach,” Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 107 (2017): 175-220; id, “Reinventing Roman Ethnicity in High and Late Medieval Byz-
antium,” Medieval Worlds: Comparative & Interdisciplinary Studies 5 (2017): 70-94.
10 The bibliography about the fourth Crusade and its aftermath is immense, e.g., v. Michael J.
Angold, The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context (Harlow-New York: Pearson Longman, 2003);
Marco Meschini, 1204: l’incompiuta. La quarta crociata e le conquiste di Costantinopoli (Milano:
Ancora, 2004); Laiou (ed.) Urbs Capta; Gherardo Ortalli, Giorgio Ravegnani and Peter Schrein-
er (eds.), Quarta Crociata. Venezia, Bisanzio, Impero Latino, 2 vols. (Venezia: Istituto Veneto di
Scienze, Lettere e Arti, 2006); Pierantonio Piatti (ed.), The Fourth Crusade Revisited (Città del
Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2008). Nikos G. Moschonas (ed.), Η τέταρτη σταυροφορία
και ο ελληνικός κοσμος (Αθήνα: Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, 2008). For a concise summary re-
garding the actions of the Byzantines after Constantinople’s fall, v. Marco Fasolio, “Una com-
parazione possibile? La crisi di Bisanzio e lo sviluppo dei principati separatisti di Trebisonda
e d’Epiro,” in Medioevo in Formazione. Studi storici e multidisciplinarità, eds. Alberto Luongo
and Marco Paperini (Livorno: Debatte, 2015), 210-221; Ilias Giarenis, “Τα κράτη της Νίκαιας, της
Ηπείρου και της Τραπεζούντας έως το 1230. Δράση, αντιπαραθέσεις, αντοχές και συμβιβασμοί,” in Η
τέταρτη σταυροφορία, 251-267.
11 Marco Fasolio, “Trebisonda dalla separazione al divorzio. Politica e potere ai confini di Bisan-
zio nel basso medioevo,” Eurostudium3w 53 (2019): 80-106. Concerning Theodore Gabras, v.
id., “Dentro il sistema e contro l’Impero: l’ascesa politica di Teodoro Gabras e la costruzione
dell’autonomia pontica dopo la battaglia di Manzicerta,” Storicamente XIV (2018): no. 29.
DOI: 10.12977/stor719; Anthony A. M. Bryer, “A Byzantine Family the Gabrades, c. 979-c. 1653,”
in id., The Empire of Trebizond and the Pontos (London: Variorum, 1980), 164-187, esp. 175,
n. 3; Basile Skoulatos, Les personnages byzantines de l’Alexiade: analyse prosopographique et
synthèse (Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1980), 295-298, n. 200; Antonio Rigo, “Il martirio di
Teodoro Gabras (BHG 1745),” Analecta Bollandiana 116 (1998): 147-156; Anthony A. M. Bryer,

62
the contemporary presence of the Grand Komnenoi on the Pontic shore meant
that those aspirations could finally and definitively be fulfilled, since even the
reconquest of Constantinople and the restoration of the basileia by Michael VIII
Palaiologos (1259-1282) in 1261 did not affect Trebizond’s independence, which
would have remained so until the city fell to the Ottomans in mid-August 146112.
We are thus inclined to consider that the devotion of the Pontic Greeks, as well as
Bessarion’s, towards their masters depended to a significant extent on the latter’s
role as the embodiment, and possibly one of the main reasons, of the prolonged
freedom from what the local population perceived as a foreign rule, either Latin,
Constantinopolitan or Turkish.
The ‘architects’ of the Empire of Trebizond were the brothers Alexios I
(1204-1222) and David (1204-1212) Komnenoi13, grandsons of the late basileus
Andronikos I (1182-1185), who had been the governor/lord of Byzantine Pontos
before his accession to the throne in Constantinople14. At the beginning of the 13th
century the Komnenoi brothers lived in Georgia, where they had possibly been
brought to safety after Isaac II Angelos’ (1185-1195) coup, during which both their
grandfather and their father, the sebastokrator Manuel, had been killed15. Until
the spring of 1204 they were raised at the court of queen Tamar (1184-1213)16, who,
according to the Trapezuntine chronicler Michael Panaretos, was their aunt17.
But when the Bagratid monarch was reached by the news that a crusader army
had approached Byzantium in 1203, she decided to exploit the situation with the
aim to take vengeance of a slight that emperor Alexios III Angelos (1195-1203)
Archibald Dunn and John W. Nesbitt, “Theodore Gabras, Duke of Chaldia (†1098) and the
Gabrades: Portraits, Sites and Seals,” in Βυζάντιο: Κράτος Και Κοινωνία. Μνήμη Νίκου Οικονομίδη,
eds. Angeliki E. Laiou, Anna Avramea and Evangelos Chrysos (Αθήνα: Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών
Ερευνών, 2003), 51-70.
12 Franz Babinger, “La date de la prise de Trébizonde par les Turcs (1461),” Revue des études byz-
antines 7 (1949): 205-207; Savvides, Ιστορία, 165-168; Sergey P. Karpov, История Трапезундской
империи (Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя, 2017), 526-535.
13 About the founders of the Empire of Trebizond, v. Williams, “A Genealogy,” 172-174; Savvides,
Ιστορία, 35-47, 53-58; Alexander A. Vasilev, “The Foundation of the Empire of Trebizond (1204-
1222),” Speculum XI (1936), 3-37, esp. 3-30.
14 Konstantinos Varzos, Η γενεαλογία των Κομνηνών, 2 vols. (Θεσσαλονίκη: Κέντρον Βυζαντινών
Ερευνών, 1984), I, 529-541; Oktawiusz Jurewicz, Andronikos I. Komnenos (Amsterdam: Hakkert,
1970), 80-84, 134.
15 Vasilev, “The Foundation,” 9-12; Savvides, Ιστορία, 43. Other scholars, such as Michel Kuršanskis,
“Autour des sources géorgiennes de la fondation de l’Empire de Trébizonde,” Ἀρχεῖον Πόντου
30 (1970): 107-115, esp. 112-113, date their escape from Constantinople in 1201, while Odysseas
Lampsides, “Περὶ τὴν ἵδρυσιν τοῦ κράτους τῶν Μεγάλων Κομνηνῶν,” Ἀρχεῖον Πόντου 31 (1971-1972):
3-18, esp. 11-17, in 1203. For Manuel’s biography, v. Varzos, Η γενεαλογία, ΙΙ, 511-528.
16 For a short biography of Thamar, v. Wilhelm Baum, “Thamar, Königin von Georgien (1184-1213),”
in Biographisch­Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 35 voll., eds. Friedrich W. Bautz and Traugott
Bautz, (Hamm-Herzberg: Bautz 1975-2020), XXIII, 1468-1470. See also Cyrille Toumanoff, “On
the Relationship betweeen the Founder of the Empire of Trebizond and the Georgian Queen
Thamar,” Speculum 15 (1940): 299-312; Vasilev, “The Foundation,” 12-14
17 Michail Panaret, О великих Комнинах (Трапезундская хроника), eds. Sergey P. Karpov, Rustam
M. Shukurov and Alexey M. Kryukov (Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя 2019), 74. About Panaretos
and his work, v., among the abundant scholarly literature, Annika Asp-Talwar, “The Chronicle
of Michael Panaretos,” in Byzantium’s Other Empire: Trebizond, ed. Anthony Eastmond
(Istanbul: ANAMED, 2016), 173-212, esp. 173-185.

63
 had made her a few years before and organised a military expedition against
the Empire with her nephews at its head18. With the support of the Georgian
troops, Alexios I and David easily conquered the Pontic littoral19, as most towns
and fortresses voluntarily opened them their gates, either because they were the
descendants of Andronikos I or since the local archons saw their presence as
a tool to get rid of Constantinople’s burdensome rule and maybe become the
first-tier aristocracy of the emerging principality. The Byzantine capital’s fall
(April 13, 1204) gave the Komnenoi the legitimacy to claim the imperial title20
and while Alexios I remained in Trebizond to consolidate his newly acquired
position, David pushed further West in Paphlagonia until he made his entrance
in Heraclea Pontica, on the border with the Empire of Nicaea. Yet, after his army
had suffered some setbacks against Theodore I Laskaris’ forces in Bithynia, David
was sent in exile on Mount Athos under mysterious circumstances and died
there in 1212 as a monk of Vatopedi21. Two years later, the State established by the
Komnenoi was attacked almost jointly by an alliance of Nicaea and the Seljuks,
with the former occupying Heraclea and the latter conquering Sinope within
a few months22. Alexios I’s possessions were reduced to the former Byzantine
theme of Chaldia, which would have been the territorial core of the pocket
empire until its final collapse, and perhaps a narrow coastal strip in southern
Crimea23, cutting thereby off the Pontic principality from the ‘quest’ for the
restoration of the basileia – which, since then, became restricted to Epirus and
Nicaea – and turning it into a regional power for the remainder of its existence.
Unlike what happened in the other Byzantine States that rose in the aftermath of
the Fourth Crusade and survived until the second half of the 15th century, namely the
Empire of Nicaea/Constantinople and the Despotate of Epirus, which experienced
several dynastic changes throughout their history24, the Grand Komnenoi were
18 Simon Quaukhchishvili (ed.), The Georgian Chronicle: the Period of Giorgi Lasha (Amsterdam:
Hakkert, 1991), 86-87; v. also Lina M. Pozidou, “Η συμβολή της βασίλισσας Ταμάρας (Θάμαρ)
στην ίδρυση της Αυτοκρατορίας της Τραπεζούντας,” in Ο βυζαντινός Πόντος (4ος­15ος αι.). Ιστορικές
συμβολές, ed. Alexios G. K. Savvides (Αθήνα: Επιτροπή Ποντιακών Μελετών, 2013), 177-195.
19 Vasilev, “The Foundation,” 17-24; Savvides, Ιστορία, 35-47; Karpov, История, 103-121; Lampsides,
“Περὶ τὴν ἵδρυσιν,” 3-18.
20 Nicolas Oikonomides, “The Chancery of the Grand Komnenoi: Imperial Tradition and Political
Reality,” Ἀρχεῖον Πόντου 35 (1979): 299-332, esp. 321.
21 Odysseas Lampsides, “Ὁ ἀνταγωνισμὸς μεταξὺ τῶν κρατῶν τῆς Νικαίας καὶ τῶν Μεγάλων Κομνη-
νῶν διὰ τὴν κληρονομίαν τῆς βυζαντινῆς ἰδέας,” Ἀρχεῖον Πόντου 34 (1977-1978): 3-19; Anthony A. M.
Bryer, “David Komnenos and Saint Eleutherios,” Ἀρχεῖον Πόντου 42 (1988-1989): 163-187; Rustam
Shukurov, “The Enigma of David Komnenos,” Mésogeios 12 (2001): 125-136, esp. 125-131.
22 Vasilev, “The Foundation,” 25-30; Karpov, История, 126-135; Rustam Shukurov, “Trebizond and
the Seljuks (1204-1299,” Mésogeios 25-26 (2005): 71-136, esp. 78-92; Michel Kuršanskis, “L’empire
de Trébizonde et les Turcs au 13e siècle,” Revue des études byzantines 46 (1988): 109-124, esp.
111-113.
23 Savvides, Ιστορία, 48-53; Alexander A. Vasilev, The Goths in Crimea (Cambridge, MA: The
Medieval Academy of America, 1936), 160-170.
24 Three in Nicaea and Constantinople, scilicet the Laskarids/Vatatzai, the Palaiologoi and the
Kantakouzenoi; five in Epirus, namely the Komnenodoukai, the Komnenoi of Kephalonia, for-
merly known in historiography as ‘Orsini’ – v. the discussion of the issue in Andreas Kiesewet-
ter, “Preludio alla quarta crociata? Megareites di Brindisi, Maio di Cefalonia e la signoria sulle

64
never ousted from their position by a rival family and only one Trapezuntine ruler25
was not a not direct male-line descendant of Alexios I. Such dynastic continuity
was not the consequence of a particularly stable domestic scenario, nor it could
be ascribed to any ‘constitutional’ innovation with regard to the succession to
the throne, since Trebizond was tormented by frequent internal strife and every
monarch’s death was an opportunity for further political turmoil just as, if not
even more than, in Nicaea, Constantinople, Arta and Ioannina26. In fact, the entire
history of the Empire of Trebizond, with special reference to the central quarters
of the 14th century, is dotted with civil wars27, whose initiative was not only the
prerogative of a few ambitious and dissatisfied members of the ruling house or
its cognate lineages, as it was nearly always the case with the other late-Byzantine
realms, but also of the most powerful Pontic clans, which filled the highest ranks
of both the military and the civil apparatus, but were generally unrelated to the
Grand Komnenoi28. In the course of the several uprisings they openly provoked or
masterminded behind the scenes, particularly during the Thirties and the Forties
of the 14th centuries, these aristocratic families often managed to put the imperial
throne at their mercy and presumably had more than once the opportunity to
seize it for themselves, but nevertheless they consistently preferred to choose the
new sovereign among the Grand Komnenoi, provided that he would have been
amenable with the interests of the winning faction.
isole ionie (1185-1250),” in Quarta Crociata, I, 317-358, esp. 338-352, who refutes the previous
identification, while the current and more acceptable name of the family is given in Bren-
dan Osswald, “L’Épire du treizième au quinzième siècle: autonomie et hétérogénéité d’une
région balcanique,” (PhD diss., Université Toulouse II Le Mirail, 2011), 141 ff. –, the Nemanjić/
Preljubović, the de’ Buondelmonti and the Tocco.
25 I.e., Andronikos I Gidos (1222-1235), son in law and successor of Alexios I, whose sons were re-
portedly all minors at the time of their father’s death, Michail Panaret, О великих Комнинах,
74; Williams, “A Genealogy,” 174; Shukurov, “The Enigma,” 131-132; Savvides, Ιστορία, 58.
26 These last two cities were the capitals of the Despotate of Epirus.
27 Michail Panaret, О великих Комнинах, 80-100; Οdysseus Lampsides, Ἀνδρέου Λιβαδηνοῦ βίος
καὶ ἔργα (Ἀθῆναι: Ἐπιτροπὴ Ποντιακῶν Μελετῶν, 1975), 60-66, 71-87. The latter is the edition of
Andrew Libadenos’ works and our reference is to the account of his journeys, the Periegesis.
Regarding Libadenos, v. also Martin Hinterberger, “Ο Ανδρέας Λιβαδηνός, συγγραφέας/γραφέας
λογίων κειμένων, αναγνώστης/γραφέας δημοδών κειμένων: ο ελληνικός κώδικας 525 του Μονάχου,”
in Κωδικογράφοι, συλλέκτες, διασκευαστές και εκδότες. Χείρογραφα και εκδόσεις της όψιμης βυζαντινής
και πρώιμης νεοελληνικής λογοτεχνίας, ed. David Holton et al. (Ηράκλειον: Crete University Press,
2005), 25-42. As far as the internal strife of the Empire of Trebizond during the 14th century is
concerned, v. also Savvides, Ιστορία, 86-116; Karpov, История, 213-223.
28 Concerning the aristocracy of the Pontic State, v. the remarks in Maria Menshikova, “The No-
bility of the Empire of Trebizond,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine
Studies, 3 vols., ed. Elisabeth Jeffreys (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), III, 10-11; Anthony A. M. Bryer,
“Late Byzantine Rural Society in Matzouka,” in Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and
Early Ottoman Society, ed. id. and Heath Lowry (Birmingham: The University of Birmingham
Centre for Byzantine Studies, Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Col-
lection, 1986), 52-95, esp. 53-59, 66-81; id., “Rural Society in the Empire of Trebizond,” Ἀρχεῖον
Πόντου 28 (1966): 152-160; id., “The Estates of the Empire of Trebizond. Evidence for their Re-
sources, Products, Agriculture, Ownership and Location,” in id., The Empire of Trebizond (or.
ed. Αρχείον Πόντου 35 (1979): 370-477), 370-477, esp. 413-440; id., “The Faithless Kabazitai and
Scholarioi,” in Maistor: Classica, Byzantine and Renaissance Studies for Robert Browning, ed.
Ann Moffat (Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1984), 309-328; Savvides,
Ιστορία, 208-212.

65
 3. Tales and Pictures of Grandness: Dynastic Ideology and Propaganda in
Trebizond
To a certain degree the apparent ‘irremovability’ of the imperial house might
be attributed to the already mentioned affection of the Trapezuntine subjects
towards Alexios I and his descendants, as well as to the prestige that the name
Komnenos naturally enjoyed among the Byzantines and abroad. However, it
seems quite obvious that these two elements are not enough to explain why,
even in the midst of the civil wars’ most turbulent phases, the leading members
of the Pontic aristocratic clans never thought about replacing the Grand
Komnenoi, whereas a change in the ruling family had always been among the
possible solutions during political crisis in Byzantine history. Hence, further
reasons behind this phenomenon should be sought elsewhere and, among the
chief ones, we may probably count the influence that the dynastic ideology
which was developed by the Grand Komnenoi themselves and by Trebizond’s
courtly learned elites exerted on the domestic audience and, to some extent,
also internationally. Basically, such ideology was the local and latest evolution of
the concepts, notably that of the ‘εὐγένεια’, i.e., the ‘good birth’, which emerged
around the aristocracy since the latter’s earliest appearance as a social class in
Byzantium29, in combination with the notion of ‘πορφυρογέννητος/η’, scilicet,
‘born in the purple’, that was applied to those princes/princesses who were
born from a reigning basileus since the 9th century circa30. Bearing the title
of ‘πορφυρογέννητος’ began to endow with a legitimacy surplus as far as the
succession to the throne was concerned right from the moment the term was
coined, while having a good birth, especially when it implied an imperial kinship
of some sort, grew in importance as a preferential title to serve in the highest
ranks of the State’s apparatus until it became the ultimate criterion to select the
public officials under Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118)31. It is unnecessary to clarify
the grounds on which the birth of the Komnenoi of Trebizond was ‘good and
noble’, given that their surname speaks for itself, and albeit they were technically
not ‘born in the purple’, since Manuel Komnenos had never been basileus, they
29 About this concept, v., among the abundant scholarly literature, Évelyne Patlagean, Un Moy-
en Âge grec: Byzance IXe­XVe siécle (Paris: Albin Michel, 2007), 83 ff.; Alexander P. Kazhdan,
L’aristocrazia bizantina dal principio dell’XI alla fine del XII secolo, ed. Silvia Ronchey, (Palermo:
Sellerio 1997), 61 ff.; Efi Ragia, “Social Group Profiles in Byzantium: Some Considerations on
Byzantine Perceptions Αbout Social Class Distinctions,” Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 26 (2016), 309-372,
esp. 348-356; Paul Magdalino, “Byzantine Snobbery,” in The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XII cen-
turies, ed. Michael Angold (Oxford: BAR, 1984), 58-78; Jean-Claude Cheynet, “The Byzantine
Aristocracy (8th-13th centuries),” in id., The Byzantine Aristocracy and its Military Function (Al-
dershot: Ashgate, 2006), 1-43, esp. 2-19.
30 Gilbert Dagron, “Nés dans la pourpre,” Travaux et mémoirs 12 (1994): 105-142; Vlada Stanković,
“La porphyrogénèse a Byzance des Comnènes,” Зборник радова Византолошког института
45 (2008): 99-108; Mario Gallina, Incoronati da Dio. Per una storia del pensiero politico bizantino
(Roma: Viella, 2016), 108-112.
31 Patlagean, Un Moyen Âge grec, 142-162; Paul Magdalino, “Innovations in Government,” in Alexios
I Komnenos. Papers of the Second Belfast International Byzantine Colloquium, 14­16 April 1989,
eds. Margaret E. Mullet and Dion C. Smythe (Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises, 1996), 146-
166; id., “Aspects of twelfth-century Byzantine Kaiserkritik,” Speculum 58 (1983), 326-346.

66
considered themselves as such – as it can be argued by David’s seals, in which he
claimed to be «πορφυρόβλαστος» and «πορφυρανθής»32 – and the purity of their
ancestry’s imperial pedigree was unmistakable.
The most noticeable aspect of Trapezuntine dynastic propaganda was perhaps
the addition of the adjective ‘μέγας’, namely ‘big’, or rather ‘grand’ in the modern
rendering, to the surname Komnenos33. Originally, its adoption was probably not
a deliberate choice by the scions of Andronikos I, given that none of the earliest
mentions in which they were addressed in that manner came from Trebizond.
Since local Pontic sources, particularly those of the 13th century, are quite scanty,
the absence of the term does not constitute conclusive evidence for our surmise,
but in order to support it, Bessarion could prove useful again. In the Encomium, he
wrote that Alexios I, the first emperor of Trebizond, «was called Grand Komnenos,
and was no less grand in his actual deeds, as he inherited not so much the name as
the virtue of the Komnenoi»34, which possibly means that it was his subjects who
started to name him and, according to David’s obituary, his brother too, ‘μέγας’ as a
recognition for his/their achievements. In fact, the first occurrence of the term with
reference to a Trapezuntine ruler is precisely David’s obituary, which is found in the
Codex Athous Vatopedinus 720 and reads as follows: «Μηνὶ δεκεμβρίου ιγ’ ἡμέρᾳ ε’
ἰνδ. α’ ἐν ἔτει ςψκα’ ἐκοιμήθη ὁ εὐσεβέστατος μέγας Κομνηνὸς κύριος Δαβίδ, ὁ διὰ τοῦ
θείου καὶ ἀγγελικοῦ σχήματος μετονομασθεὶς Δανιὴλ μοναχός»35. Even though at the
beginning the honorific addition was apparently not self-imposed, as early ‘Grand
Komnenian’ seals and coins do not contain the word ‘μέγας’ in their legenda, its
‘spontaneous’ attribution to the reigning members of the family should be dated
not long after Trebizond’s conquest and, anyway, before December 1212. There is no
doubt that David was already known as ‘μέγας Κομνηνὸς’ when he came in exile to
Vatopedi, since otherwise he would have not been called that way by the obituarist,
and perhaps we can assume that approximately at the same time also Alexios I was
referred to as such, since, after all, he was the elder of the two and his exploits were
at least comparable to his brother’s.

32 Vitalien Laurent, “Sceau inédit de David Comnène, liberateur du Pont et cofondateur de

l’empire de Trébizonde,” Ἀρχεῖον Πόντου 19 (1954): 151-160; Nikolay P. Likhachyov, Моливдовулы
греческого Востока, ed. Valentina S. Šandrovskaja (Москва: Наука, 1991), 77-78, 289-293;
Bryer, “David Komnenos,” 164-167.
33 Worhwhile discussions of this issue can be read in Odysseas Lampsides, “Le titre Μέγας Κομνηνός
(Grand Comnène),” Byzantion, 37 (1967): 114-125; Ruth Macrides, “What’s in the Name «Me-
gas Komnenos»,” Ἀρχεῖον Πόντου 35 (1979): 238-245; Demetrios I. Polemis, “A Note on the Ori-
gin of the Title “Μέγας Κομνηνός”,” Neo-Hellenika I (1970): 18-22 ; Sergey P. Karpov, “У истоков
политической идеологии Трапезундской империи: (О происхождении титула ΜΕΓΑΣ
ΚΟΜΝΗΝΟΣ),” Византийский Временник 42 (1981) : 101-105.
34 «μέγας δὲ Κομνηνὸς κεκλημένος, οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις ἦν μέγας, οὐ μᾶλλον ὀνόματος ἢ τῆς τῶν
Κομνηνῶν ἀρετῆς αὐτὸς τε κληρονόμος γενομένος», in Bessarion, “Encomium,” 180-181.
35 «In the month of December, day 13, in the year 6721 (1212) died the most pious Grand Komnenos
lord David, who was renamed monk David for the divine and angelic habit», our translation.
The inscription is reported by Chrysanthos, Ἡ ἐκκλησία Τραπεζοῦντος (ἐν Ἀθήναις: Τυπογραφείον
“Ἐστία”, 1933), 355, 360/361.

67
 Niketas Choniates is the closest Byzantine source to the events of 1204 in terms
of chronology, but, as he did not label the Komnenoi brothers as ‘Grand’ in the
Χρονικὴ διήγησις36, in 1979 Ruth Macrides inferred that Alexios I did not bear the
epithet during his lifetime37. Her conclusion is surely plausible, also considering
that the earliest mention of the elder Komnenos brother in historiography as
‘Grand’ is that of George Akropolites38, who was born more than a decade after
the foundation of the Pontic State and wrote his Χρονικὴ συγγραφή after Michael
VIII Palaiologos’ reconquest of Constantinople39. As it can be observed from
a few documents dated to the 1260s and the 1270s among the acts of Vazelon
monastery’s cartulary40, the honorific addition had possibly been adopted by
Trebizond’s rulers in a somewhat official fashion already during the years in
which Akropolites was writing, perhaps leading him to apply it to Alexios I
anachronistically. Nevertheless, despite its consistency, Macrides’ reconstruction
still remains highly hypothetical, given that, even assuming Akropolites’
anachronism – which is by no means certain – there would be no guarantee that
Alexios I did not use the title or was, at least informally, dubbed ‘Grand Komnenos’
by his contemporaries. Moreover, the practice of appending the word ‘μέγας’
to the surname Komnenos was not new at the beginning 13th century, since it
had apparently been conceived by the rhetoricians who gravitated around the
imperial court in Constantinople during the previous century41, nor in those
years it was restricted to the area of Trebizond and its sovereigns. Indeed, the
archbishop of Ochrid Demetrios Chomatenos42 at times mentioned Theodore
Komnenodoukas (1215-1230), who had succeeded his half-brother Michael I as
independent ruler of Epirus and was later crowned basileus after he stripped

36 Nicetas Choniates, Historia, 2 vols., ed. Jean-Louis van Dieten (Berlin-New York: de Gruyter,
1975), I, 626, 638-641.
37 Macrides, “What’s in the Name,” 239-240.
38 Georgius Acropolites, Opera, 2 vols., eds. August Heisenberg and Peter Wirth (Stuttgart: Teub-
ner, 1978), I, 12.
39 Ruth Macrides, introduction to The History, by George Akropolites, trans. Ruth Macrides
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 3-101, esp. 6, 31-34.
40 Fyodor I. Uspenskij and Vladimir N. Beneševič, Вазелонские акты. Материалы для истории
крестьянского и монастырского землевладения в византии XIII­XV веков (Ленинград:
Издание Государственной Публичной Библиотеки, 1927), 10-11, 18-21, 23, 37-38, nos. 25, 39-
40, 44, 63.
41 E.g., in Niceforo Basilace, Encomio di Adriano Comneno, ed. Antonio Garzya (Napoli: Scalabrini,
1965), 32, 67, 141 ff.; Theodorus Prodromus, “Versus in coronationem Alexii Comneni,” in Pa-
trologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca, CXXXIII, ed. Jeaques-Paul Migne (Paris: J.-P. Migne,
1864), cols. 1339-1344, esp. 1343. V. also the discussion of the issue in Polemis, “A Note,” 21-22.
42 About whom, v. Günter Prinzing, prolegomena to Ponemata diaphora, by Demetrius Choma-
tenus, ed. Günter Prinzing (Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 2002) 3* ff.; id., “The Authority of the
Church in Uneasy Times: the Example of Demetrios Chomatenos, Archbishop of Ohrid, in
the State of Epiros, 1216-1236,” in Authority in Byzantium, ed. Pamela Armstrong (Farnham:
Ashgate, 2013), 137-150.

68
Thessaloniki from the Latins in 122443, as ‘μέγας Κομνηνὸς’44, while Theodore
himself never used the title in his known documents, seals and coins. We can
thus presume that, in this regard, Alexios I’s condition was akin to that of the
emperor of Thessaloniki, but maybe there were not learned men of the calibre
of Chomatenos within his domains who could hand down the memory of his
‘Komnenian grandness’ to posterity.
As we alluded to above, it was however not until the decades after the
reconquest of Constantinople by Michael VIII that Trapezuntine basileis finally
turned the epithet ‘gained on the field’ by the founders of their Empire into a
standard attribute of the sovereign. Some of the aforementioned acts of Vazelon
show that in the early Sixties of the 13th century, therefore presumably during the
reigns of Manuel I (1238-1263) or Andronikos II (1263-1266)45, the local emperors
were already commonly addressed as ‘Grand’ by their subjects46. The French
nobleman and historian Jean de Joinville47 seems to corroborate this chronology
also from an ‘international perspective’, for he stated that in 1253 Manuel I «se
fesoit appeler le grant Comnenie et sire de Trafentesi»48, but the first unmistakable
evidence of the adjective’s official use by the Pontic emperors is a few years
later and comes from the legenda of two copper coins issued by George (1266-
1280) and John II (1280-1297)49. Although it is impossible to determine exactly
when the popular appellative was formally adopted by local rulers, inasmuch
as the earliest surviving imperial documents date from the 14th century50, a
few realistic assumptions can be formed at least concerning the grounds on
which they took such a decision. With the loss of Heraclea and Sinope in 1214,
Trebizond’s chances to restore the basileia suffered a fatal blow, but, in theory,
until the Sixties of the 13th century they were not completely compromised, as
the fact that the Komnenoi continued to style themselves with the traditional

43 Concerning Theodore and his realm, v. Varzos, Η γενεαλογία, ΙΙ, 548-637; Osswald, “L’Épire,”
50-70; François Bredenkamp, The Byzantine Empire of Thessaloniki (1224­1242) (Thessaloniki:
Municipality of Thessaloniki, 1996), 65-190.
44 Demetrius Chomatenus, Ponemata Diaphora, 85, 118, 165, 305, 426, nos. ΚΒ, ΛΑ, ΜΕ, ΠΘ, ΡΜς.
45 Concerning these two Trapezuntine emperors, v. Williams, “A Genealogy,” 174-175; Savvides,
Ιστορία, 63-67.
46 Uspenskij and Beneševič, Вазелонские акты, 10-11, 18-21, nos. 25, 39-40.
47 Amid the abundant scholarly works about Joinville, v. e.g., the papers collected in Jean Dufour-
net and Laurence Harf (eds.), Le prince et son historien: la vie de saint Louis de Joinville (Paris:
Champion, 1997); Daniel Quéruel (ed.), Jean de Joinville: de la Champagne aux royaume d’outre­
mer (Langres-Saints-Geosmes: Guéniot, 1998).
48 «[who] called himself the grand Komnenos and lord of Trebizond», our translation, Jean de
Joinville, Vie de saint Louis, ed. Jacques Monfrin (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 1995), 294.
49 For George’s coin, v. Michel Kuršanskis, “L’usurpation de Théodora Grande Comnène,” Revue des
études byzantines 33 (1975): 187-210, esp. 196, 210, fn. 42; while for John II’s one, v. Otto Retowski,
Die Münzen der Komnenen von Trapezunt (Braunschweig: Klinkhardt & Biermann,1974), 131.
As far as the two Pontic basileis are concerned, v. Williams, “A Genealogy,” 175-176; Savvides,
Ιστορία, 67-75.
50 Oikonomides, “The Chancery,” 303-321.

69
 imperial title of «βασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων»51 and managed to reconquer
Sinope in 1254 clearly demonstrate52. Yet, between the early Sixties and the early
Eighties of the 13th century three episodes marked the definitive decline of the
Komnenian universalistic ambitions, namely the coronation of a legitimate
Byzantine emperor in Constantinople in 1261, the second and final loss of Sinope
to the Turks in 126553 and Michael VIII’s embassy to Trebizond in 1281 during
which the latter asked John II to renounce the imperial title in exchange for that
of despot and a marriage – which was celebrated in 1282 – with his daughter
Eudokia Palaiologina54.
Given the relevance of these events for Trebizond and since their chronology
approximately encompasses the period in which the local emperors seem to
have definitively attached ‘Grand’ to their names, it is almost certain that the
combined effect of the former had influenced their decision. With their grandiose
aspirations quickly falling apart, Pontic rulers must have acknowledged the need
to adjust their claims to reality – which then saw them relegated on the edges of
the Byzantine oikoumene – and the most obvious option at their disposal was to
‘stake everything’ on the nobility of their lineage, whose prestige had remained
unaffected by the recent vicissitudes. After all, being Komnenoi was one of
their main assets, since, notwithstanding that most late Byzantine aristocratic
families had a Komnenian ancestry, the rulers of Trebizond were the only ones
that descended directly and in the male line from Alexios I55. Making ‘grandness’
a default feature of the sovereign was thus purportedly aimed at highlighting
the incorrupt bloodline of the dynasty as opposed to those members of the
upper Byzantine nobility, who used the name Komnenos without having the
same credentials of Trebizond’s emperors56. Such a shift implied that a new
meaning was subtly added to the epithet initially given to Alexios I and David
as an acknowledgement of their deeds, for thenceforth the attribute ‘μέγας’ did
not just point to the alleged individual qualities of the monarch, but explicitly
suggested that those who bore it were the only ‘true Komnenoi’ in Romània. The
targets of this ‘implicit side’ of the political message inscribed in their names
51 Ibid., 321.
52 Marie Nystazopoulou, “La dernière reconquête de Sinope par les Grecs de Trébizonde (1254-
1265),” Revue des études byzantines 22 (1964): 241-249, esp. 241-247; Shukurov, “Trebizond and
the Seljuks,” 120-124.
53 Nystazopoulou, “La dernière reconquête,” 247-249; Shukurov, “Trebizond and the Seljuks,”
124-125.
54 Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, 5 vols., ed. Vitalien Laurent (Paris: Les Belles Lettres,
1984-2000), II, 653-659; Nicephorus Gregora, Byzantina Historia, 3 vols., ed. Ludwig Schopen
(Bonn: 1829-1835), I, 148-149; Michail Panaret, О великих Комнинах, 76. About the episode, v.
also Savvides, Ιστορία, 70-71; Karpov, История, 238-241
55 Namely, the Byzantine emperor who ruled from 1081 to 1118 and not the founder of the Empire
of Trebizond.
56 On this subject, v. also the discussion of the older hypotheses regarding the adoption of the
epithet in Lampsides, “Le titre Μέγας Κομνηνός,” 117-125; as well as the interpretations given by
Macrides, “What’s in the Name,” 243-245; and Karpov, “У истоков политической идеологии,”
102-105.

70
were perhaps the international counterparts of the Komnenoi rather than their
subjects, since, while the latter already called their masters ‘Grand’ and some of
the learned ones among them had probably devised the formula during the early
decades of the 13th century, it was with the former that Trapezuntine basileis had
to ‘restructure’ their image as ‘the noblest of the Byzantine rulers’.
The final twist in the exploitation of the epithet was instead seemingly
addressed to an internal audience and apparently occurred after Alexios III’s
(1349-1390)57 accession to the throne, when some passages from the chronicle of
Michael Panaretos hint that it began to be applied to all members of the imperial
family, illegitimate ones included, and not just to the sovereign58. Bearing in mind
that ‘Grand Komnenos’ also impliedly meant ‘true/authentic Komnenos’, this
development looks like an almost natural end point, as, albeit they were not given
an official position in the State hierarchy, every Trapezuntine Komnenos was a scion
of Andronikos I and hence undeniably a ‘genuine’ one. Even so, the chronology
leads us again to suspect that there was a further political objective behind the
evolution, for, when Alexios III came to power in 1349, Trebizond had already gone
through nearly twenty years of intermittent civil wars, which would cease only in
the mid-1350s and still have a brief resurgence in the following decade59. As we
mentioned previously, during those years the theoretical opportunity of a dynastic
change, either provoked by local archons or even engineered from Constantinople,
arose several times, despite not occurring in practice, thus, by making each one
of his relatives a Grand Komnenos, the new emperor was possibly also trying to
symbolically reassert that no one except them could aspire to reign over Trebizond.
In this sense, we may assume that being a ‘μέγας Κομνηνὸς’ presumably became a
formal prerequisite for the succession to the throne, something close to a palatine
title that was available only to the members of the imperial family, both male and
female, and unequivocally identified them amid the courtly elites in a sort of local
and reinforced version of the ‘birth in the purple’.
The core of Trapezuntine dynastic propaganda was clearly its focus on the
nobility and the continuity of the lineage, which, above all, was meant to justify
the ‘ancestral’ right to rule of the Komnenoi and spread its awareness both in the

57 About him and his reign, whose account is given in detail by Michail Panaret, О великих
Комнинах, 88-110; v. Williams, “A Genealogy,” 178-181; Savvides, Ιστορία, 103-132; Sergey P.
Karpov, L’Impero di Trebisonda Venezia Genova e Roma 1204­1461 rapporti politici, diplomatici e
commerciali, trans. Eleonora Zambelli (Roma: Il Veltro 1986), 85-102, 154-155.
58 Michail Panaret, О великих Комнинах, 88, 90, 100, 102, 104, 110. The non-ruling members of
the family mentioned as Grand Komnenoi by Panaretos are Irene Palaiologina, about whom
v. Averikios T. Papadopoulos, Versuch einer Genealogie der Palaiologen (Amsterdam: Hakkert,
1962), no. 80; Maria, Anna, the despot Andronikos, Eudokia, whose concise biographies are
collected in Williams, “A Genealogy,” 178, 180-181; and Theodora Kantakouzene, about whom v.
Donald M. Nicol, The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus), ca. 1100­1460. A Ge-
nealogical and Prosopographical Study, (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzan-
tine Studies, 1968, 143-146; who were the mother, the sister, the daughter, the illegitimate son,
another daughter and the wife of Alexios III respectively.
59 Michail Panaret, О великих Комнинах, 92, 98-100; Lampsides, Ἀνδρέου Λιβαδηνοῦ, 72-74, 79-83.
See also Savvides, Ιστορία, 107-109, 115-116; Karpov, История, 221-223.

71
 domestic and in the international arena. Bessarion too wrote it quite bluntly in
the Encomium and, referring to the reigning house, he added that «all of them
[were] of imperial quality»60, ergo, we might maliciously say, it should be little
wonder that in those days every single Komnenos was ex oficio made grand from
his/her first wail. That polysemous epithet was nonetheless not the only way
through which medieval Pontic sovereigns tried to bolster their position. The
12th of May 1330 Constantine Loukites, at the time a high ranking Trapezuntine
official61, delivered a lengthy memorial oration for Alexios II (1297-1330)62, who
had died nine days earlier63, and in a passage of his speech he addressed one
by one nearly all the previous emperors of Trebizond asking them to receive
the newly deceased basileus in their heavenly pantheon64. With reference to
the older generations of the family, a few lines below Loukites declared that
«the noble Komnenoi emperors who lean forward from up there cover me with
insults, since they too want to participate in the same way»65, thence, before
begging them likewise to accept Alexios II, he listed them like their Trapezuntine
scions. «On one side», the orator said, there were emperors Alexios I, John II
(1118-1143), Manuel I (1143-1180) and Alexios II (1180-1183), «on the other side» the
two sebastokratores named Isaac, scilicet Alexios I’s brother and son66, emperor
Andronikos I, the sebastokrator Manuel, son of the latter, «and before all these,
the great emperor Isaac I (1057-1059), who originally took the sceptre of the
Romans and became the foundation and the root of the Komnenoi»67.
As it was customary in those circumstances, the oration had presumably
been delivered to a relatively small and selected audience, which consisted
of members of the imperial house, courtiers and senior officials, who were all
fully aware of and almost certainly agreed with grand-Komnenian genealogical
narrative. Apart from the unusual length of the list’s chronological scope –
maybe unnecessary for the kind of people that were listening to the speech68

60 «πάντας βασιλικούς», in Bessarion, “Encomium,” 180-181.

61 Concerning Loukites and his career, v. Annika Asp-Talwar, “Constantine Loukites, the Emperors’
Right-hand Man in Fourteenth Century Trebizond,” Acta Byzantina Fennica 4 (2015): 39-62.
62 Regarding this sovereign, v. Williams, “A Genealogy,” 176-177; Savvides, Ιστορία, 80-86.
63 Michail Panaret, О великих Комнинах, 78.
64 Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀναλέκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταξυολογίας, 5 vols. (ἐν Πετ-
ρούπολει: Αὐτοκρατορικὸς Ὀρθόδοξος Παλαιστίνος Σύλλογος, 1891-1898), I, 424-425.
65 «γεννάδαι γὰρ ἄνωθεν Κομνηνοὶ προκύψαντες κράτορες ἡμᾶς ὀνείδεσι βάλλουσι καὶ αὐτοὶ μετασχεῖν
τῶν ἴσων ἐθέλουσιν», ibid., I, 425; the translation in the main text is ours.
66 As far as the two sebastokratores named Isaac are concerned, v. Varzos, Η γενεαλογία, I, 67-79
(Alexios I’ brother), 238-254 (Alexios I’s son).
67 «ἔνθεν μὲν Ἀλέξιος, Ἰωάννης, Μανουὴλ καὶ Ἀλέξιος οἱ βασιλικώτατοι, ἐκεῖθεν δ’αὖθις Ἰσάκιος
καὶ Ἰσάκιος οἱ σεβαστοκράτορες, βασιλεὺς Ἀνδρόνικος ὁ πολὺς καὶ σεβαστοκράτωρ Μανουὴλ
ὁ χαρμόσυνος, καὶ πρὸ τούτων δὴ πάντων ὁ μέγας βασιλεὺς Ἰσάκιος ὁ τῶν Ῥωμαϊκῶν ἀρχῆθεν
σκήπτρων ἐπιλαβόμενος καὶ Κομνηνῶν κρηπὶς καὶ ῥίζα γενόμενος», Papadopoulos-Kerameus,
Ἀναλέκτα, I, 425-426; ; the translations in the main text are ours.
68 Since, considering their proximity to the emperor, they almost certainly all had a fairly detailed
knowledge of the dynasty’s genealogical history and did not need – neither probably wanted
– to review it.

72
– it is worth noting that, if we dwell upon the ‘positional details’ Loukites gives
when he mentions the early Komnenoi, he was most likely looking at or at least
thinking about a picture that those he entertained were well acquainted with. We
know from Bessarion’s description, that the main reception hall of Trebizond’s
imperial palace69 had its walls painted with the portraits of all the previous
sovereigns and their earlier ancestors in procession70, therefore, Loukites’ source
of inspiration must have been there71. In all likelihood, the most important
non-religious official ceremonies of the Empire, Alexios II’ posthumous eulogy
included, took place in that hall and, when diplomats, distinguished travellers,
foreign dignitaries and rich merchants came to Trebizond, the ‘landlords’ of the
palace surely never missed the opportunity to show them the wall paintings
with their bloodline credentials. Those who designed the Komnenian parade
had been duly instructed about the political needs of the dynasty and, in order
to meet them, it appears that they applied to the letter the old saying “an image
is worth more than a thousand words”, thinking perhaps that plenty of images
would have served their goal even better. It was the easiest and most effective
way to impress the emperor’s guests, since the serial portraits of the Komnenoi
could assuredly have a greater impact on them than a mere – probably boring –
recapitulation of the family’s history by a pompous courtly erudite and maybe
provoke that almost physical sensation which Umberto Eco called the ‘vertigo of
the list’72, which would have remained impressed in their memory and remind
them the antiquity and the nobility of the Trapezuntine dynasty.

4. The Most Beloved, the Noblest and the Most Puffed­up Ones:
Effects of the Komnenian Strategy
Despite their pride and lofty title, most Pontic basileis were anything but
grand, with just a handful of notable exceptions. This was not – or rather not
just – caused by their lack of personal qualities, but should be largely ascribed
to the fact that, since the mid-1260s they had become little more than petty
provincial lords surrounded by hostile and usually more powerful neighbours,
which, no matter their Komnenian pedigree, prevented them any action greater
than fending off the raid of a minor Turkoman tribe or setting some riotous
69 About the imperial palace of Trebizond, v. Anthony A. M. Bryer and David C. Winfield, The
Byzantine Monuments and the Topography of the Pontos, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1985), I, 191-195.
70 Bessarion, “Encomium,” 196.
71 As far as the portraits of the Trapezuntine emperors are concerned, v. also the discussion in
Oikonomides, “The Chancery,” 322-324; and more extensively in Tatiana N. Bardashova, “Im-
perial Portraits of the Grand Komnenoi of Trebizond (1204-1461),” in Late Byzantium Recon-
sidered. The Arts of the Palaiologan Era, eds. Andrea Mattiello and Maria A. Rossi (London-
New York: Routledge, 2019), 207-215; id., “Аспект визуального в системе идеологической
пропаганды династии Великих Комнинов в Трапезундской империи (1204-1461),”
Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета, Серия 4: История 3 (2015):
79-91.
72 Umberto Eco, Vertigine della lista (Milano: Bompiani 2009).

73
 archons straight. Nevertheless, according to Bessarion, «the people, along with
the public servants bear such goodwill towards the emperors […] that I do
not know whether children actually possess this much goodwill towards their
parents. Our masters would consequently never change their subjects for anyone
else […] nor would we ever change our masters and seek out others, as we would
be aggravated by them»73. Even Nikephoros Gregoras, who obviously did not
share Bessarion’s feelings towards the Pontic metropolis, almost echoed the
latter in his brief excursus about the political and dynastic upheavals occurred
in Trebizond during the 1340s, as he wrote that local citizens «do not accept
voluntarily to be ruled by anyone from whatever race, save for those who belong
to the lineage of the Komnenoi»74. It is hard – and maybe futile – to determine
to which extent Gregoras’ and Bessarion’s words reflected reality or were
influenced by Komnenian propaganda, as well as by their personal views, but
it is an undisputable fact that the Grand Komnenoi were never overthrown by
a rival family until their Empire was conquered by the Ottomans. Accordingly,
given the limited amount of resources that the local basileis had access to, at
least some credit has to be given to their self-narrative if a substitution of the
Komnenoi had remained a sort of taboo for the Trapezuntines that long. Such
dynastic propaganda was surprisingly far-reaching and proved quite effective
also abroad, as, for instance, we can notice from the works of the Syrian al-
Umari75 and the Egyptian al-Qalqashandi76, compiled respectively in the 1340s
and in 1412. In both of them the authors explicitly stated that the ruler of
Trebizond had a nobler and more ancient family than his Constantinopolitan
colleague77, that is almost verbatim what the Grand Komnenoi wanted the others
to know about themselves. Even in the restored Empire of the Palaiologoi –
73 «Τοσοῦτο γοῦν εὐνοίας ὅ τε δῆμος εἰσφέρει τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν οἵ τε τῶν ἐν τέλει […] ὅσον οὐκ οἶδ’εἰ
παῖδες πατράσιν, ἀνθ’ ὧν οὔθ’ ἡμῖν οἱ κρατοῦντες ἠλλάξαντο τὸ ὑπήκοον […] οὔθ’ ἡμεῖς ἠλλαξάμεθα
τοὺς δεσπότας ἑτέρους ἐπιζητήσαντες ὡς ἂν ἀχθεσθέντες αὐτοῖς.», in Bessarion, “Encomium,”
182-183.
74 «μηδ’ ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς ἑκουσίοις τῶν ἁπάντων γενῶν ἄρχεσθαι βούλεσθαι, πλὴν τῶν ὅσοι τὸ γένος ἐκ
Κομνηνῶν κατίασιν ἔχοντες», in Nicephorus Gregora, Byzantina Historia, II, 679; the translation
in the main text is ours.
75 About him, v. Kamal S. Salibi, “Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-‘Umarī,” in The Encyclopedia of Islam2, 12 vols.,
eds. Peri J. Bearman, Thierry Bianquis, Clifford E. Bosworth, Emeri J. van Donzel and Wolfhart
P. Heinrichs (London: Luzac & Co., Leiden: Brill, 1960-2007), III, 758-759.
76 Concerning whom, v. Clifford E. Bosworth, “al-Ḳalḳas̲h̲andī,” in The Encyclopedia of Islam2, IV,
509-511.
77 According to al-Umari «le roi de Trébizonde porte comme celui de l’Armenie le titre de Taka-
four. Il est d’une naissance plus illustre que l’empereur de Grèce actuellement régnant, et il
s’attribue sur ce monarque une grande supériorité», quoted from the French translation by
Étienne M. Quatremère, “Notice de l’ouvrage qui a pour titre: Mesalek alabsar fi memalek
alamsar. Voyages des yeux dans les royaumes des différentes contrées,” in Notices et extraits
des manuscrits de la bibliothèque du roi et autres bibliothèques, XIII (Paris: Imprimerie Royale,
1838), 151-384, esp. 380; while referring to Trebizond al-Qalqashandi stated that «son souverain
de l’ancienne maison impériale, est parent de l’empereur de Constantinople. Son père, dit-
on, appartiendrait même à une dynastie plus ancienne que l’empereur actuel», quoted from
the French translation by Henri Lammens, “Correspondances diplomatiques entre les sultans
Mamlouks d’Égypte et les puissances chrétiennes,” Revue de l’Orient chrétien 9 (1904): 151-187,
359-392, esp. 179-180.

74
where until the second half of the 14th century the Pontic basileus was addressed
as the ‘lord of the Lazes’78, as if his subjects were barbarians and his rule was
merely de facto and illegitimate79 – Komnenian genealogical discourse had made
a breach80. It is true that Constantinople’s elites mocked the pretensions of the
Komnenoi comparing them with the isolation, the small size and the weakness
of their realm. For example, the Πουλολόγος, an anonymous demotic satirical
poem presumably written during the 14th century81, contains a possible reference
to the Trapezuntine emperors, in which they are described as «φουσκωματάδες»,
i.e., «the boastful ones»82, but if Palaiologan Byzantines ridiculed the claims of
their ‘Pontic cousins’ masters’, they must have known the content of the latter’s
political/dynastic message: since they were in not the position neither to share
it, nor to deny it, all they could do was to have a good laugh.

78 E.g. in Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, II, 653.

79 Sergey P. Karpov, “Трапезундская империя в византийской исторической литературе XIII–
XV вв.,” Византийский временник 35 (1973): 154-164; id., “Трапезунд и Константинополь в
XIV в.”, Византийский временник 35 (1974): 83-99; id., История, 230-262.
80 V., e.g., Gregoras’ words quoted above.
81 Karl Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen litteratur von Justinian bis zum Ende des
Oströmischen Reiches (527­1453) (Münich: Beck, 1897), 879-889; Hans G. Beck, Geschichte der
byzantinischen Volksliteratur (Münich: Beck, 1971), 173-174; Giovanna Carbonaro, “Per una
rilettura del “Poulologos” greco medievale,” in Confini e oltre: studi fra Oriente e Occidente per
Francesca Rizzo Nervo, eds. Rossana Barcellona, Gaetano Lalomia and Teresa Sardella (Soveria
Mannelli: Rubbettino 2020), 77-90.
82 Isabella Tsavari, Ο Πουλολόγος. Κριτική έκδοση με εισαγωγή, σχόλια και λεξιλόγιο (Αθήνα: Μορφωτικό
Ιδρυμα Εθνικής Τραπέζης, 1987), v. 276. The identification of the «φουσκωματάδες» with the
emperors of Trebizond, which is based on the fact that they were «ἐκ τὴν Ἀνατολὴν», namely
«from the East», was made by Oikonomides, “The Chancery,” 299-300.

75
 6

Nomadic courts as reflection of imperial ideology

(Huns, Avars, Western Turks)
GEROGIOS KARDARAS, Institute of Historical Research/NHRF, Athens
UDK 323.1(495.02)

Abstract: Taking into account the role of the court as bearer of state/imperial
ideology, the paper considers the relevant development of the court in certain
nomadic hegemonies after their transformation to temporary ‘‘empires’’
(Huns, Avars, Western Turks). Into this frame, actually an ‘‘imitatio imperii’’,
we remark reflections of the ideology of the sedentary Empires with whom
these hegemonies had contacts and accepted their influences. Elements of the
new nomadic ‘‘court culture’’ are the structured hierarchy of higher officials,
luxury objects and buildings that changed the image of the former ‘‘wandering
nomads’’. Necessary conditions for the survival as well as the display of power
in the new nomadic courts were the flow of annual tribute and luxury gifts
from the sedentary Empires.

“In nearly all of the ‘Barbarian’ kingdoms which were created on formerly Roman
soil during the Migration Period, the monarchs adopted certain elements of the
ruling style employed by the Roman or Byzantine emperors”. With such a notion,
Christian Scholl underlines the new reality of the Migration Period and the need
of the new ‘barbarian’ polities to set up their power on stable institutional bases
and use their former enemies as a ‘‘guide of state administration’’. Into this
frame, the paper attempts to shed light in certain Eurasian nomadic polities
which, as Sebastian Kolditz notes, ‘‘still occupy a rather marginal position in
Medieval Studies in general’’.1 Apart from the conflicts and the negative image for
1 Christian Scholl, “Imitatio Imperii? Elements of Imperial Rule in the Barbarian Successor States
of the Roman West,” in Transcultural Approaches to the Concept of Imperial Rule in the Middle

76
each other, the sedentary empires and the Eurasian nomads developed a wide
spectrum of contacts considering the diplomacy, the trade, the warfare etc.2 In
our paper a brief overview of how the cultural contacts developed between the
sedentary empires and certain nomadic people (Huns, Avars and western Turks)
will be presented, led not only to the formation of nomadic courts but also to the
adoption of imperial ideological features by them.
Having caused the beginning of the so-called Migration Period in 375, the
Huns formed in c. 390 a temporary hegemony in modern Romania3 and in c.
422 they migrated to the Carpathian Basin.4 The Hunnic attacks in 441-442 and
447 directed to both border Byzantine cities and forts at the Lower Danube
(e.g. Viminacium, Singidunum, Sirmium, Margus, Ratiaria, Iatrus and further in
Scythia Minor), as well as the central and eastern Balkans (e.g. Naissus, Serdica,
Marcianoupolis, Nicopolis ad Istrum, Drizipera, Philippopolis, Arcadiopolis),
causing serious destructions to all the areas affected by their raids.5 During
the reign of Theodosius II (408-450) the Byzantine solidi entered the Hunnic
kingdom, mostly in the era of Attila (435–453 and up to 450), in form of annual
tribute.6 Apart from the tribute, other official resources, found also in the
bilateral treaties (434/35 and 447), where products and money through the trade
activity and ransom (12 gold coins per capita) for Byzantine captives.7 However,
the subsidies of Byzantium to the Huns was a small rate compared to the annual
tribute since 574 (partially paid in kind) and the various gifts from Byzantium to
the Avar khagans (cords worked with gold, couches, silken garments, belts, etc.).8

Ages, eds Christian Scholl, Torben R. Gebhardt and Jan Clauß (Frankfurt am Main and New
York: Peter Lang Edition, 2017), 19. Ibidem, Sebastian Kolditz, “Barbarian Emperors? Aspects of
the Byzantine Perception of the qaghan (chaganos) in the Earlier Middle Ages,” 41.
2 See, Anatoly M. Khazanov, “Nomads in the History of the Sedentary World,” in Nomads in
the Sedentary World, eds Anatoly M. Khazanov and Andre Wink (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon
Press, 2001), 1-23.
3 See Otto Maenchen-Helfen, Die Welt der Hunnen (Wien, Koln and Graz: Hermann Böhlaus
Nachfolger, 1978), 15-30, 44. Herwig Wolfram, Das Reich und die Germanen. Zwischen Antike
und Mittelalter (Berlin: Siedler, 1998), 133, 184.
4 Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnen, 56. Wolfram, Germanen, 188.
5 Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnen, 81-83, 86-87, 89, 92. Constantin Scorpan, Limes Scythiae. Topographi
cal and stratigraphical research on the late Roman fortifications on the Lower Danube. Oxford:
BAR International Series 88, 1980), 133. Miloje Vasić, “Le limes protobyzantin dans la province
de Mésie Première,” Starinar 45-46 (1994–1995): 41-53.
6 Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnen, 137-141. Katalin Biró-Sey, “Beziehungen der Hunnen zu Byzanz im
Spiegel der Funde von Münzen des 5. Jahrhunderts in Ungarn,” SCIAM 35/2 (1988): 413-31. Wal-
ter Pohl, The Avars: a steppe empire in Europe, 567–822 (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
Press, 2018), 232. The flow of annual tribute to the Huns (350 pounds of gold), started in the era
of Roua. See Wolfram, Germanen, 189.
7 Priscus, Fragments, ed. Roger C. Blockley The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later
Roman Empire, vol. 2: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus (Liverpool: Francis Cairns,
1983), 2, 224-226 and 9. 3, 236. Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnen, 66-67, 83-89, 92. Wolfram, Germanen,
190. Gerhard Wirth, Attila. Das Hunnenreich und Europa (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1999), 50-51.
8 See Ekaterina Nechaeva, Embassies – Negotiations – Gifts. Systems of East Roman Diplomacy in
Late Antiquity (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2014), 171, 180–183. Georgios Kardaras, Byzantium and
the Avars, 6th–9th Century ad. Political, Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Leiden and Boston:
Brill, 2018), 20, 24, 30, 34-35, 110, 170. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 221, 231, 250.

77
 On the other hand after the collapse of the Gepidic kingdom and the flight of the
Lombards to Italy, the Avars established their khaganate in the Carpathian Basin
in 568, centered between the rivers Danube and Tisza, which survived for more
than two centuries.9 Though the hostilities with Byzantium lasted until 626, main
aim of the Avars since their first embassy in 558 was to enter into alliance (foedus)
with Constantinople. However, from the scrutiny of the relevant testimonies,
it seems that this purpose was not achieved, as no simultaneous provision of
regular annual payments, land for settlement, and presents, which would have
turned the Avars into federates of Byzantium, took place.10
Likely the most important aspect of Byzantine influences (in the frame of
the Byzantine ‘‘cultural diplomacy’’) concerns the emergence in the Hunnic
kingdom and the Avar khaganate of a ‘‘court culture’’, imitating the Roman/
Byzantine patterns and based on the annual tribute and the gifts of the Empire.
These subsidies, along with the loot from raids, had a crucial role to the to the
cohesion of the nomadic hegemonies and the prestige of their rulers (the so-
called “prestige economy” or “economy of violence”).11 Such a relation with
Byzantium created simutaneously a fertile ground for the appearance of practises
and mentality that turned the ‘‘wandering nomads’’ to organized hegemonies.
Giving the frame of a court, we may choose the case of a ‘‘barbarian’’ state
developed gradually to Empire, namely the Carolingian one, and the conditions
in such a court in the era of Charlemagne (late eight and early ninth centuries).
Charlemagne’s capital in Aachen (a court in the broader sense) concentrated the
treasures of his Empire and had large public buildings with prominent among
them the king’s aula, bearing a bronze eagle with outspread wings. The hierar-
chy of the space is reflected e.g. by the houses of the nobility, the royal officers
and the servants, members of a vivid court with ministri, aulici, consiliarii, comi-
tes, actores, mansionarii, camerarii, etc. These court members (palatini, mostly
young aristocrats belonging to the entourage and the household of the Emperor)
were also subject to a king-centered hierarchy, reflected to the spaces, garb, gifts,
meals, etc.). In the court was taking place various functions and events (ban-
quets, court poetry, conversations for didactic purposes, imperial tribunal etc.)
but its main role was the political training and the appropriate codes of behav-
ior, connected to the ethic of royal service (and accompanied by punishments
for political ‘‘crime’’ and disloyalty). The model of Charlemagne’s early medieval
court culture, being a microcosm of the polity and a living social organism based
on personal ties, ‘‘encouraged the diffusion of mores and models, thanks to the
imitation of great officials by young aristocrats, and above all the example of
9 Kardaras, Avars, 27-29. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 60-68.
10 See Kardaras, Avars, 34-37. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 221-222. On the Byzantine coins in the Avar
Khaganate, see Peter Somogyi, Byzantinische Fundmünzen der Awarenzeit in ihrem europäischen
Umfeld (Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University, Institute of Archaeological Sciences, 2014), 237–
61. Kardaras, op. cit., 124. Pohl, op. cit., 224, 231-233, 250-253, 336.
11 Nechaeva, Embassies, 171–72. Kardaras, Avars, 32. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 220-21, 224-26, 235-36,
254.

78
the king’’, promoting ideals and right order values, such as wisdom, self-control,
morality, discipline and restraint.12
To what concerns the nomads under consideration, though they had no perma-
nent capital and different socio-economic structure (see below), they wished to
developed similar courts following the example of their neighbouring Empires.
Regarding the relevant information of the sources on the Huns and Avar higher
officials (where is evident the elite formation and the interdependence of ruler
and elite), we note for the first the term logades in Priscus’ History.13 To denote the
members of the Avar elite, being around the khagan, the Byzantine authors use
terms such as ἄρχοντες (leaders), δυνατότατοι (the most powerful) or ἔξαρχος (com-
mander). The logades employed by Priscus were a model that Theophylact Simo-
catta followed (in addition to δυνατώτατοι), much like Theodore Syncellus. 14 This, in
fact, became an important element in Simocatta’s narrative strategy.15 The wealth of
Attila’s higher officials was completed by the money and the gifts, e.g. such as those
the Byzantine embassy in 448 offered to Onegesius, to Edecon and Orestes (silk
garments and Indian pearls), as well as to the Queen of a village, in turn for her hos-
pitality (silver bottles, red skins, Indian pepper and other exotic products).16 Similar
gifts (Indian spices and perfumes) offered the Byzantines to the Avar khagan in the
spring of 598, during the siege of Tomis/Constanza.17 On the other hand, the term

12 See Janet L. Nelson, “Was Charlemagne’s Court a Courtly Society?,” in Court Culture in the Early
Middle Ages. The Proceedings of the First Alcuin Conference, ed. Catherine Cubitt (Turnhout:
Brepols Publishers n.v., 2003), 39-57. Ibidem, Matthew Innes, “ ‘A Place of Discipline’:
Carolingian Courts and Aristocratic Youth,” 59-76. For the Byzantine court, see Ibidem,
Rosemary Morris, “Beyond the De Ceremoniis,” 235-254. Lyn Rodley, “The Byzantine Court and
Byzantine Art,” 255-273.
13 See in details, Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnen, 147-49. Klaus Tausend, “Die logades der Hunnen,”
in Ad fontes!: Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch zum 65. Geburtstag am 15. September 2004, darge-
bracht von Kollegen, Schülern und Freunden, eds Herbert Heftner and Kurt Tomaschitz (Wien:
Eigenverlag der Herausgeber, 2004), 819-28. See also, Hyun Jin Kim, ‘‘The Political Organiza-
tion of Steppe Empires and their Contribution to Eurasian Interconnectivity: the Case of the
Huns and Their Impact on the Frankish West,’’ in Eurasian Empires in Antiquity and the Early
Middle Ages Contact and Exchange between the Graeco­Roman World, Inner Asia and China, eds
Hyun Jin Kim, Frederik Juliaan Vervaet, Selim Ferruh Adali Cambridge University Press (2017),
20-22, n. 39. ‘‘These logades were clearly not random selections of men, but are probably iden-
tical with the ranked graded-officials of the Xiongnu. This is confirmed by the later East Ro-
man/Byzantine usage of the same term to describe graded officials within the Avar Empire
that succeeded the Huns.’’
14 See Kardaras, Avars, 12. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 220, 240-43 and 479, n. 330.
15 See Michael and Mary Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1986), xxv-xxx. Anna Kotłowska, Łukasz Różycki, “The Role and Place of Speeches in the Work
of Theophylact Simocatta,” Vox Patrum 36 (66) (2016): 353-82, esp. 353-55.
16 Priscus, Fragments, 11, 2, 246-48, 262, 272-74. Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnen, 141, 143. Wirth, Attila,
82-83.
17 Simocatta, Histories, ed. Carl de Boor, Theophylacti Simocattae, Historiae (Leipzig: Teubner
1887), VII, 13. 1–6, 267-68. (trans. Michael and Mary Whitby, op.cit., n. 15). Theophanes Confes-
sor, Chronography, ed. Carl de Boor, Theophanis abbatis agri atque Confessoris, Chronographia
annorum DXXVIII (Leipzig: Teubner, 1883). (trans. Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, The Chronicle of
Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1997). Nechaeva, Embassies, 183. Kardaras, Avars, 57. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 188, 231, 250. See also,
Szabolcs József Polgár, ‘‘The Character of the Trade between the Nomads and their Settled Neigh-
bours in Eurasia in the Middle Ages,’’ in Competing Narratives between Nomadic People and their

79
 wealth finance instead of gifts or prestige economy, is proposed to describe the inter-
elite exchanges in the wider area of East Central and Central Europe during the
Early Middle Ages, considering as such the above testimony of Simocatta.18 Con-
sidering Onegesius, a captive from Sirmium was working as architect for his luxuri-
ous lodges and baths, while a Greek in origin, formerly a wealthy merchant from
Viminacium, was a higher official in his service.19 According to Priscus, the interior
of Attila’s palace, imitated the patterns of Greek and Roman architecture.20 Worth
mentioning too is the transfer of “know-how” from Byzantium to the Avars, as the
khagan Baian asked Justin II to send him craftsmen to build a luxurious home and
baths, but who were later used for the construction of a bridge over the Danube.21
Other aspects of the “cultural diplomacy”, which projected in the eyes of for-
eigners the wealth and the power of the Roman/Byzantine Empire, were the
attribution of honorary titles to foreign rulers and the intermarriages. For the
first case we know that Attila received from Valentinian III the title of magister
militum22 while for the second a marriage was arranged for Attila’s secretary Con-
stantius by the Byzantine envoys in 448.23 In the Far East, the marriage alliances
between the Chinese emperor and the Huns (Xiongnu), as well as the sending of
silk and other products to the latter was a Chinese practise since the Antiquity.24
On the other hand, there is no evidence of intermarriages between the Avars
and Byzantium, namely a continuity of a Roman-barbarian aristocracy in the
Carpathian Basin.25
Mostly from the Avar side, we observe the use of diplomatic rhetoric on a
rather fictitious parental relationship between the Byzantine emperor and the
Avar khagan. As W. Pohl points out, ‘‘the expression of international relation-
ships through the use of kinship terminology was a Roman tradition as well as
barbarian custom’’, but such a relation, actually to legitimize Avar demands, is
not testified in the sources.26 Only being at war with Persia, emperor Heraclius

Sedentary Neighbours Papers of the 7th International Conference on the Medieval History of the
Eurasian Steppe Nov. 9­12, 2018 Shanghai University, China, ed. Chen Hao [Studia uralo-altaica 53]
(Szeged: Department of Altaic Studies, Department of Finno-Ugrian Philology, 2019), 253-263. On
the other hand, , expresses doubts about the character of gifts in that case.
18 Florin Curta, The Long Sixth Century in Eastern Europe [East Central and Eastern Europe in the
Middle Ages, 450–1450, 72] (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2021), 290-91.
19 Priscus, Fragments, 11, 2, 264 and 268-72, 385-86, n 59. Wirth, Attila, 83-84. Pohl, Steppe Empire,
239.
20 Priscus, Fragments, 13.1, 284. Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnen, 137. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 231.
21 John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. Ernest Walter Brooks, Ioannis Ephesini,
Historiae Ecclesiasticae pars tertia (CSCO 106, Scriptores Syri 55) (Louvain: Ex officina Orientali
et Scientifica, 1964), VI, 24, 247-48. Kardaras, Avars, 110. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 248.
22 Priscus, Fragments, 11.2, 278. Maenchen-Helfen, Hunnen, 79. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 229.
23 Priscus, Fragments, 14, 15.2 and 4, 290-93, 296-99.
24 Pohl, Steppe Empire, 225.
25 Ibidem, 203, 229.
26 For the Avars’ claims on a ‘father – son’ relation, see Menander, History, ed. and trans. Roger
C. Blockley, The History of Menander the Guardsman (ARCA: Classical and Medieval Texts 17)
(Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1985), fr. 12.6, 138-39 (embassy in 568). Theodore Syncellus, Homily,

80
‘‘appointed’’ the khagan as ‘‘protector of his son’’.27 Unlike other nomad or Ger-
man rulers, the khagans of the Avars never received from the Byzantines titles
such as patrician or magister militum. Furthermore, despite the decorative mo-
tifs with Christian symbols in the Avar khaganate, no evidence exists either of a
missionary activity from Constantinople to the Avars or any conversion of the
latter to Christianity prior to their subjugation to Charlemagne.28
Considering Simocatta’s account for the year 594, part of the Avar higher of-
ficials, with Targitius at their head, favored peaceful relations with Byzantium in
sharp contrast to the hostile attitude of the khagan along with another group of
officials, who incited the latter to wage war. The case of Targitius (an experienced
envoy and a respected person among the Avars) leaves no room to doubt the
existence of rival aristocratic factions inside Avaria (for and against peaceful re-
lations with Byzantium respectively), especially after the fall of Sirmium in 582.29
Another explanation maybe a possible in time-depth byzantinisation of the Avar
khaganate. At this perspective, we note that in some cases the Avars rejected the
Byzantine gifts under the pretext, among others, that they could lead to loose of
power and their subjection to the suzerainty of Constantinople, as with certain
peoples in the past.30 However, the Byzantine emperor seems to have a presti-
gious impression among the Avars, if we believe the testimony of John of Ephe-
sus that after the fall of Anchialus to the Avars in 585, the khagan appeared in the
baths of the city in the robe of the empress Anastasia.31
Byzantium was the main source of prestige goods for the Avars and a huge
amount of finds, namely Byzantine imports, either by trade or diplomatic gifts
(possibly also loot from raids), or other local artefacts produced by indigenous
or Byzantine craftsmen, came to light in the territory of the Avar khaganate.32
ed. Ferenc Makk, Traduction et commentaire de l’homélie écrite probablement par Théodore le
Syncelle sur le siège de Constantinople en 626 (Acta universitatis de Attila Jozsef nominatae,
Opuscula Byzantina 3/Acta antiqua et archaeologica 19) (Szeged: University of Szeged, 1975),
XI, 16 (78). Kolditz, “Byzantine Perception,’’ 47. Kardaras, Avars, 13. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 229.
27 Theophanes Confessor, Chronography, 303; Theodore Syncellus, Homily, XI, 16 (78), 51 (n. 57)
(letter in 626). Pohl, Steppe Empire, 229.
28 Tivadar Vida, “Heidnische und christliche Elemente der awarenzeitlichen Glaubenswelt, Amu-
lette in der Awarenzeit,” Zalai Múzeum 11 (2002), 179-209. Kardaras, Avars, 12-13, 127-34. Pohl,
Steppe Empire, 261-62.
29 Menander, History, fr. 25.2, 224. Simocatta, Histories, VI, 11. 4-6, 242. Nechaeva, Embassies, 129.
Kardaras, Avars, 51-52. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 219-20, 241.
30 See Pohl, Steppe Empire, 89-90, 226-28.
31 John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical History, VI. 49, 260: Et tandem muro disiecto purpuras ibi in-
venerunt quas Anastasia uxor Tiberii, cum ad thermas iret, ecclesiae loci oblatas donavit. Has
chaganus adsumptas induit, dicens: ‘’Si vult rex Romanorum sive non vult, regnum mihi datum
est’’. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 230.
32 Eva Garam, Funde byzantinischer Herkunft in der Awarenzeit vom Ende des 6. bis zum Ende des
7. Jahrhunderts (MMA 5) (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum and Institute of Archae-
ology HAS 2001). Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska, “Byzantine Goldsmithing in Avaria? Exchange
and Transfer at the Edge of the Empire During the Seventh Century ad,” in Grenz/übergänge:
Spätrömisch, frühchristlich, frühbyzantinisch als Kategorien der historisch­archäologischen
Forschung an der mittleren Donau, eds Orsolya Heinrich-Tamaska and Daniel Syrbe (Remshal-
den: Verlag Bernhard Albert Greiner, 2016), 280-85, 289-90. Kardaras, Avars, 105-107, 110, 170.

81
 Further, important parameter for the import of certain products in the Carpath-
ian Basin, (given the rather limited market-based exchanges), was the ‘‘interna-
tional’’ non-commercial exchange networks of that era. Such products were e.g.
female dress accessories (fibulae, buckles, and bracelets), gemstone or amber
beads, furs and generally products of “wealth finance”, exchanged between elite
groups for their needs and in order to negotiate and maintain social, marital, and
political alliances.33
To what concerns the Turkish khaganate, the first contact between the Byzan-
tines and the khagan of the Western Turks Sizabul/Silzibul (or Istemi) is linked
with the coming of a Turkish embassy to Constantinople, in 562/63. The inten-
tion of the Turks, who at that time lived to the east of the river Don, was not only
to strengthen their ties to the Empire, but also to prevent the rapprochement
between the Byzantines and the Avars. Furthermore, there was an economic and
trade dimension to that policy, since being in frequent conflicts with Persia, the
Byzantines wished to secure access to Chinese and Sogdian silk via trade routes
across the Turkic khaganate. On the other hand, the bad relations with Persia
turned the Turks towards Byzantium. The momentum was also favourable, as the
Avars were a common enemy and Byzantium was ready to trust the defence of its
interests in the East European steppes to the Turks. Justinian’s alliance with Siz-
abul was, according to Theophanes Byzantius, the reason for which the Avar de-
mands were rejected by Justin II (565–578) just after his accession to the throne.34
Emperor Justin II developed even more the relations of Byzantium with the Tur-
kic khaganate and many embassies both to Constantinople and Central Asia are
recorded through the northern Silk Road.35 A crisis to bilateral relations came in
576, since khagan Turxanthus reacted to the treaty between Byzantium and his
‘‘slaves’’, the Avars, in 574.36 The Byzantine-Turk relations developed again in the
era of emperor Maurice (582–602)37 and later in Heraclius’s reign (610–641) dur-
ing his campaign against the Persians in 625.38
In the case of the Turks, the Byzantine influences were likely more limit-
ed compared to the Huns and the Avars, since the early Turkish khaganates,
Pohl, Steppe Empire, 231, 253.
33 See in details, Curta, Long Sixth Century, 273-92.
34 Theophanes Byzantius, Fragments, ed. Karol Müller, Theophanis Byzantii, Fragmenta [FHG 4]
(Paris: Ambrosio Firmin Didot, 1885), 2, 270. Theophanes Confessor, Chronography, 351. Karda-
ras, Avars, 25-27. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 50-52.
35 See, Menander, History, fr. 10.1-5, 110–27 and 262-63 (n. 110, 126). Theophanes Byzantius, Frag-
ments, 3, 270–271. Theophanes Confessor, Chronography, 362. John of Ephesus, Ecclesiastical
History, VI. 23, 244–46. Sören Stark, Die Altturkenzeit in Mittel – und Zentralasien. Archäolo-
gische und historische Studien (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 2008), 296-97. Nechaeva, Em-
bassies, 136-140, 144-151. Kolditz, “Byzantine Perception,’’ 48. Kardaras, Avars, 26-27. Pohl, Steppe
Empire, 52-53.
36 Menander, fr. 19.1, 172-74. Kolditz, “Byzantine Perception,’’ 48, 50. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 227.
37 Kolditz, “Byzantine Perception,’’ 51-53.
38 Kolditz, “Byzantine Perception,’’ 56-60. On the identification of the Western Turks with the
Khazars, see also, László Balogh, “Notes on the Western Turks in the Work of Theophanes Con-
fessor,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58/2 (2005), 190-93.

82
despite the often conflicts, had established more intensive contacts with the
Chinese realms and the subsequent strong influences from the latter paved the
way for the development of imperial ideology in the Turkish courts. According
to the narrative of the Tschou­schu, T’umen (Bumin), grandson of the mythical
founder of the Turkish Ashina dynasty, came to the frontiers of China to sell
silk as “he wished to develop relations with China”39 while the coming of the
first Chinese embassy to the Turks in 545 was considered as a matter of good
fortune and flourishing for the future.40 Regarding the relevant testimonies,
the Chinese silk was particularly wellcome and was obtained mostly as annual
tribute.41 Further, a long list of goods (probably a cas of “wealth finance”) from
the Chinese emperors to the Turks (mirrors, carriages, horses, banners, golden
vases, dresses, bedding etc.) along with the luxury belts, obviously contributed
to the emergence of a ‘‘court culture’’ to the latter.42 Important parameter for
the flow of goods was the trade and the establishment of frontier markets be-
tween the two powers.43
The Turks exploited for their purposes the intermarriages with imperial courts.
Looking for a military alliance during his campaign against the Persians in 625,
emperor Heraclius promised to the khagan his daughter Eudokia, offering also rich
gifts and crowned him with his own crown.44 On the other hand, a number of in-
termarriages between Turkish khagans and Chinese princesses is recorded for the
sixth century.45 Considering the practice of ‘‘adoption’’, though the case of Hera-
clius, who called the Turk khagan his ‘‘son’’, is obviously fictional,46 between the
Turks and the Chinese seems to be more substantial that practice.47 The strong
influence of Chinese patterns to the Turks are observed since the late sixth century
when khagan Taspar (T’a-po, ca. 572–581), converted to Buddhism and “he regret-
ted keenly that he had not been born in China”48 while two Turkish elite graves in
39 Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der Ost­Turken (T’u­küe), (Göttinger
Asiatische Forschungen 10), vol. I, Texte, vol. II, Anmerkungen­Anhänge­Index (Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1958), I, 6.. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 220.
40 Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, 6-7 (Tschou­schu). Pohl, Steppe Empire, 222.
41 Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, 1, 13 (Tschou­schu) and 43, 63 (Sui­shu). Pohl, Steppe
Empire, 51, 232.
42 Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, 64 (Sui­shu). Stark, Alttürkenzeit, 69-70, 171, 189.
Pohl, Steppe Empire, 231, 236-37. On the Turkish cultural elements in China, see Stark, op. cit.,
264. Pohl, op. cit., 228, 473 (n. 209).
43 Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, 56 (Sui­shu). Stark, Alttürkenzeit, 191. Pohl, Steppe
Empire, 250. See also, Khazanov, ‘‘Nomads,’’ 13.
44 Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History, ed. and trans. Cyril Mango (CFHB 13,
DOT 10) (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1990), ch. 12,
54-57. Theophanes Confessor, Chronography, 316 (mentioning the Chazars and certain Ziebel,
the second to hierarchy after the khagan, and nothing about Eudokia). Kolditz, “Byzantine
Perception,’’ 57-58. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 229.
45 See Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten I, 19-20 (Tschou­schu) and 56-57 (Sui­shu). Pohl,
Steppe Empire, 228-29.
46 See above, n. 44.
47 Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, 43 (Sui­shu). Pohl, Steppe Empire, 229.
48 Liu Mau-Tsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten, I, 43 (Sui­shu). Pohl, Steppe Empire, 228.

83
 Shoroon Bumbagar in central Mongolia (second half of the seventh century), fol-
lowed the patterns of Chinese funerary architecture and wall paintings.49
Such contacts and relations formed the necessary frame for the development
of imperial ideology to the Turks, even stronger compared to that of the Huns and
the Avars, which is primarily reflected through the display of power and wealth.
Describing the embassy of Zemarchus in 569–571 in Central Asia, Menander the
Guardsman records interesting details, such as the silken tents and the golden
throne with two wheels of the Turk khagan Sizabul, able to be drawn by one
horse, his golden couch and various impressive objects in his court (golden urns,
water fountains, golden pitchers, gilded wooden pillars, golden peacocks and
many silver objects).50 A similar account on the wealth of khagan of the Western
Turks (silken garments and adornment of the tent with dazzling flowers of gold)
comes from Xuanzang, a Buddhist pilgrim of the seventh century.51 Further, con-
trary to his Avar counterpart,52 the khagan of the Turks raised claims to universal
rule. Such cases are recorded for the year 576, when Turxanthus referred to the
limits of his power53 and c. 597, when the khagan, in a letter addressed to em-
peror Maurice, appears himself as “the great lord of the seven generations and
ruler of the seven climates of the Oikumene”.54 Coincidentally however, as the
Avars did with Byzantium, a Turkish khagan was also worried about the Chinese
‘‘methodology’’ to subdue the others with ‘‘sweet words and soft materials’’.55
Summarizing the presentation of our topic, the contacts of nomadic polities
under consideration (Huns, Avars and Western Turks) with their neigbouring
sedentary Empires, after their emergence to middle powers, resulted not only to
the flow of wealth, which allowed them to survive, but also to influences that led
to the development of a new court structure and ‘‘court culture’’ which imitated
49 Sergey A. Yatsenko, “Images of the Early Turks in Chinese Murals and Figurines from the
Recently-Discovered Tomb in Mongolia,” Silk Road Foundation Newsletter 12 (2014): 13-24. Pohl,
Steppe Empire, 228.
50 Menander, fr. 10.3, 120. Stark, Alttürkenzeit, 192. Kolditz, “Byzantine Perception,’’ 48-49. Pohl,
Steppe Empire, 230-31, where also a suggestion for Iranian influences regarding the thrones
supported by bird figures on certain Turkish bronze coins.
51 Stark, Alttürkenzeit, 192-95. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 231.
52 See Kolditz, “Byzantine Perception,’’ 47-48, 53.
53 Menander, History, fr. 19.1, 174-177: For the whole world is open to me from the farthest East to the
very western edge. Consider, wretches, the Alan nation and also the tribe of the Unigurs. Full of
confidence and trusting in their own strength they faced the invincible might of the Turks. But
their hopes were dashed, and so they are our subjects and are numbered amongst our slaves.
Kolditz, “Byzantine Perception,’’ 50.
54 Simokatta, Histories, VII, 7.8, 257 (Whitby, 188: The letter’s salutation was as follows, word for
word: `To the king of the Romans, the Chagan, the great lord of seven races and master of seven
zones of the world.’ For this very Chagan had in fact outfought the leader of the nation of the Ab-
deli (I mean indeed, of the Hephthalites, as they are called), conquered him, and assumed the rule
of the nation). János Harmatta, “The Letter Sent by the Turk Qaγan to the Emperor Mauricius”.
Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 41 (2001): 109-118. Kolditz, “Byzantine Percep-
tion,’’ 51-52: ‘This intitulatio does not correspond to the usual style of Türk rulers – in contrast
to the Orkhon inscriptions from the Second Eastern qaghanate, references to heaven as the
source of legitimate rule are curiously absent – but it seems to reflect the Persian royal title.’
55 Vilhelm Thomsen, “Alttürkische Inschriften in der Mongolei,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 78 (1924–1925): 141-42. Pohl, Steppe Empire, 227.
84
the hegemonic ideology of the latter. The imitatio imperii is obvious as strategy
and reflects a new mentality in the nomadic ‘‘courts’’ (the ruler and the elite
around him), not only through the display of the material wealth but, mostly,
though combined with native concepts and practices, by the claims of suprem-
acy over other peoples.

85
 7

Race, Ethnicity and Tribalism in the World of

Kōnstantinos VII Porphyrogennētos
ALEX M. FELDMAN, University of Birmingham /
College of International Studies, Madrid
UDK 94:347.99(=1:3)

Abstract: Race, ethnicity and tribalism are well-known to be brittle, daunting

and difficult aspects of the human condition to study even in the modern
world - and doubly so in the ancient world. This research serves as a study of
race, ethnicity and peoplehood in 10th-c. thought as it pertains to language,
religion and identity within and beyond 10th-c. Byzantium. Specifically it
addresses questions of race, ethnicity and peoplehood, or in Greek, genos,
ethnos and laos, in the works in which the 10th-c. Byzantine emperor,
Kōnstantinos VII Porphyrogennētos, is purportedly the primary author. The
four works attributed to him which bear the most relevance to questions of
race, ethnicity and peoplehood, are the De Administrando Imperio, the De
Thematibus, the De Ceremoniis and the Vita Basilii. Each of these works were
completed sometime in the mid-10th century, typically in the 940s-950s. They
have each separately received plenty of scholarly attention, but never has a
comprehensive study of race, ethnicity and tribalism been attempted across
all of them together. This study will provide a complete documentation of the
usages, frequencies and meanings of these words as they appeared in these
sources, and as they have been interpreted by later Byzantine authors and by
modern scholars.

How did the 10th-c. Roman emperor Kōnstantinos VII Porphyrogennētos

conceive of race, ethnicity and tribalism in the many texts in which he was
86
involved? According to Anthony Kaldellis, “Constantine VII’s logic defines
the Romans as one nation (ethnos) among others. […] This is a fundamentally
secular conception.”1 However, the facts, when compiled in a full lexicographical
study, do not support his claim. This lexicographical study explores the use of
certain primary terms (and their many derivative uses and meanings) such
as ethnos (ἔθνος), genos (γένος), laos (λαός), fatria (φρατρία/φατρία) and fylon
(φῦλον) which are used repeatedly in the many surviving encyclopedic works
in which the emperor Kōnstantinos VII was involved, whether credited as an
author, by commission, under tutelage, guise, supervision or any other form of
sponsorship. These works include the De Administrando Imperio and his three
military treatises, the De Thematibus, the De Ceremoniis, the Vita Basilii, the
Oratio de translatione Chrysostomi, the Oratio ad milites, the Narratio de imagine
Edessena and even those works begun during his movement of encyclopaedism
but completed after his death, such as the Souda and the Exerpta Constantiniana.
Together, the study of these terms in these sources give us a clue as to how race,
ethnicity and tribalism were conceived, presented, produced and consumed
during the 10th century.2 They also give us a clue about how conceptions of
nationhood first germinated.
The best place to begin to understand what terms such as ethnos, genos, laos,
fatria and fylon meant in the 10th century is to explore the definitions given
in the Souda, the 10th-c. Byzantine encyclopedia compiled alongside the other
projects of Kōnstantinos VII’s imperial scriptorium in Constantinople.3 The
Souda defines ethnos and ethnitai as the vast ‘other,’ the hoi polloi, the margin-
alized masses and low-born castes. The term was essentially the Byzantine
Greek version of ‘gentiles’, or in Hebrew, goyyim (‫)גויים‬.4 Similarly, the Souda
defines fylon the same, equating the ethnos with the fylon, but with extra kin-
ship relation. In short: the fylon of the Souda means a tribe, clan or ‘nation’,
possibly kin-related via a common ancestor or dynast, and can be interchange-
able with ethnos and genos.5 Clearly, the Souda, which has directly tied the
term ethnos to fylon, in turn directly ties the term fylon to genos as a reference
to tribe and tribalism, ostensibly through ancestry (genealogy).6 In short, the
Souda distinguishes between two broad meanings of genos: A) ancestry, nobil-
ity, descent and generation; B) kind, race, clan and tribe – thereby making the

1 Anthony Kaldellis, Romanland (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, Harvard UP, 2019), 8.

2 Paul Magdalino, “Constantine and Historical Geography of Empire,” in Imperial Geographies
in Byzantine and Ottoman Space, eds. S. Bazzaz et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2013), 23-41.
3 András Németh, The Excerpta Constantiniana and Byzantine Appropriation of the Past (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge UP, 2018), 238-255.
4 David Whitehead, et al., ed./tr., Suda Online, epsilon 326-327, last modified 11/ 25/2016, https://
www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-html/index.html.
5 Ibid, phi 821-837, last modified 12/18/2013, https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-html/index.
html.
6 Ibid, gamma 125-147, last modified 09/27/2015, https://www.cs.uky.edu/~raphael/sol/sol-html/
index.html.

87
 term all but interchangeable with ethnos and fylon. Furthermore, while tying
the term fylon directly to genos, the Souda also ties it directly to f(r)atria. The
Souda avoids defining the term laos.
The Souda drew heavily on the works not only of Kōnstantinos VII, but also
on many of his favorite sources and works he relied on as historical excerpts
from previous eras in his imperial scriptorium.7 Before examining the works
that Kōnstantinos VII is directly credited as an author, he was also credited as
an editor and selector of historical excerpts to be “mirrors of princes” to guide
his progeny on foreign relations, rhetoric, warfare, virtue and vice.8 Corre-
sponding with these four themes, he guided the edition, collation and compi-
lation of a number of excerpts of older works into four broad texts, collectively
known as the Excerpta Constantiniana. They survive in the Patrologia Graeca:
Excerpta de legationibus Romanorum ad gentes; de gentium ad Romanos (On
Embassies of Romans and Foreigners), de insidiis (On Ambushes), de sententiis
(On Gnomic Statements) and de virtutibus et vitiis (On Virtues and Vices).9 The
Excerpta Constantiniana comprise passages drawn from the works of Polybios,
Flavios Josephos, Dexippos, Zosimos, Sokrates, Petros Patrikios, Diodoros Sik-
oulos, Cassios Dio, Herodotos, Thoukydides, Agathias’ Historiae, Menandros,
Theophylaktos Simokatta, Prokopios, Arrian, Appian, Malchos of Philadelphia,
Priskos, Eunapios, Georgios Monachos, Ioannes of Antioch and Dionysios of
Halikarnassos.10
Throughout all the Excerpta Constantiniana, the terms ethnos, genos, laos, fatria
and fylon appear regularly, and are used interchangeably. For example, foreign,
gentile peoples like the Goths, Skythians and even Christian Franks are labeled
with the terms ethnos, genos and fylon, whereas the Romans are described using
only the terms genos and laos, with two exceptions. There are two uses of the
term ethnos to describe the Romans – one in the De Sententiis and one in the De
Virtutibus et Vitiis, but the former corresponds to the pre-Christian period while
the latter to the early Christian period immediately after the death of Julian the
Apostate.11 Similarly, in the encyclopedias of excerpts of earlier authors on flora
and fauna he supervised, (the Geōponika and De Natura Animalium respective-
ly), ethnos is used rarely but similarly to the previous Excerpta, while the terms

7 Karl Krumbacher, Byzantinische Literatur (Munich: Beck, 1897), 562-70; Németh, Excerpta
Constantiniana, 238-255; Catherine Holmes, “Byzantine Political Culture and Compilation
Literature,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 64 (2010), 55-80.
8 Leonore Neville, Byzantine Historical Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2018), 110-113.
9 Excerpta de legationibus Romanorum ad gentes; gentium ad Romanos; de insidiis; de sententiis;
de virtutibus et vitiis, eds. Charles de Boor at al., Excerpta Historica iussu Imperatoris Constan-
tini Porphyrogeniti Confecta (Berlin: Weidmann, 1903-1910); Πανεπιστήµιο Αιγαίου, Ψηφιακή
Πατρολογία (2006), accessed 11/30/2021, http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne.
10 Németh, Excerpta Constantiniana, 270-277.
11 Excerpta Constantiniana, Ψηφιακή Πατρολογία (2006), accessed 11/30/2021, http://khazarzar.
skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne; de sententiis; de virtutibus et vitiis, eds. Ursulus Boissevain and
Theodore Büttner-Wobst, Excerpta Historica iussu Imperatoris Constantini Porphyrogeniti
Confecta (Berlin: Weidmann, 1906-1910), 203, 1.201.

88
genos and fylon are used plentifully and interchangeably to label various species
of plants and animals.12
Among the original speeches composed by Kōnstantinos VII Porphyrogennētos,
the De Contionibus Militaribus (Δημηγορία Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως πρὸς τοὺς τῆς
ἀνατολῆς. στρατηγούς), an 8-part oration delivered ca. 958 to the Roman gener-
als (strategoi) of the East, uses ethnos interchangeably with fylon to refer to for-
eign gentiles and hostile tribesmen, while genos and laos are mostly used to refer
to the Romans themselves.13 He also composed orations directly to his soldiers
(Oratio ad milites) and on the relics of St. Iōannēs Chrysostomos (Oratio de trans-
latione Chrysostomi).14 In both these orations, the term laos specifically describes
the Romans as God’s chosen people, although intriguingly, the latter refers to a
godly ethnos, as opposed to the way it’s typically used for heathens: “revered and
holy nation”, etc. This is his only text which ties together the Christian laos with
the term ethnos into a kind of reverence or holiness – but never directly labels
the Romans an ethnos.15
Kōnstantinos also supervised the composition of hagiographies on previous
rulers who he felt legitimized his dynasty’s rule. One of these was the Narratio de
imagine Edessena, which portrays him as a new Abgar, the first-century Armenian
king of Edessa.16 While the terms ethnos, laos and fatria do not appear in this text,
variations of the terms genos and fylon are used interchangeably. Similarly, his
most well-known hagiography, the Vita Basilii was most likely written largely by
the emperor himself (along with his friend Theodoros, the bishop of Kyzikos17), to
narrate his grandfather (and dynastic founder) Basil the Macedonian’s life, from
the latter’s putative ancestry and birth, his murderous rise to imperial power, to
his sole reign from 867 and death in 886.18 Edited and translated into English by
Ihor Ševčenko, the terms ethnos, genos, laos, fatria and fylon appear regularly, and
are used interchangeably.19 Except for one instance20, laos is primarily used to
12 Geoponika, ed. Henry Beckh, Geoponica De re rustica eclogae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1895); tr. Owen,
Geoponica (London: Spilsbury, 1805-1806); De Natura Animalium, ed. Spyridon Lambros,
Constantini de natura animalium (Berlin: Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae, 1885).
13 De Contionibus Militaribus, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca (Paris: Garnier, 1864),
§112-113; Πανεπιστήµιο Αιγαίου, Ψηφιακή Πατρολογία (2006), accessed 11/30/2021, http://
khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne; Juan Zoido and Victoria Pineda, eds., Anthologies of
Historiographical Speeches from Antiquity to Early Modern Times (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 102.
14 Oratio ad Milites; Oratio de translatione Chrysostomi, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologia Grae-
ca (Paris: Garnier, 1864), §112-113; Πανεπιστήµιο Αιγαίου, Ψηφιακή Πατρολογία (2006), accessed
11/30/2021, http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne.
15 Ibid, 306-307 (‘τὸ ἅγιον ἔθνος [...] Διὸ δεῦτε λαὸς ἱερός, μερὶς ἐκλεκτή, τίμιον ἔθνος καὶ ἅγιον’), 313.
16 Narratione de Imagine Edessena, ed./tr. Mark Guscin, “Tradition of the Image of Edessa,” PhD
thesis, University of London (2014), 322-382; Németh, Excerpta Constantiniana, 32.
17 Aleksei S. Shchavelev, «Treatise De administrando imperio by Emperor Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus: date of the Paris. Gr. 2009 copy, years of compiling of the original codex, and
a hypothesis about the number of authors,» Studia Ceranea 9 (2016), 690.
18 Armoni, “Constantine Porphyrogennetos: Contribution to «Vita Basilii»,” Πρακτικά Συνεδρίου
Φιλολογίας ΕΚΠΑ (Athens, 2018), 48-61.
19 Vita Basilii, ed./tr. Ihor Ševčenko, Vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011).
20 Ibid, §55.32 (‘Hagarene troops’).

89
 refer to God’s Christian Roman people. Ethnos is typically translated as “nation”
(referring to Bulgarians, Jews, Rhos/Rus’, Dalmatians, “Parthians, Armenians and
Medes”, etc.21). Yet it is also translated as “pagan error” or any “foreign” gentile
group.22 Like ethnos, genos is also used to label Bulgarians, Armenians and Rus’23,
which overlaps in meaning with both fatria and fylon: “[the Arsakids] banded
together into a clan (fatrian) and tribe (fylēn) of their own” and shortly afterward,
“the clan (genos) of Arsakes’s descendants constituted a separate tribe (fatria).”24
Fatria is later translated as “clan and faction”.25
In his two-part De Ceremoniis (including his Three Treatises on Imperial Mili-
tary Expeditions), translated by Ann Moffatt and Maxeme Tall, Kōnstantinos VII
supervised a encyclopedic guide to imperial rituals in court and public life, es-
pecially pertaining to the conduct of embassies with foreign gentiles.26 As pre-
viously, ethnos is typically (though not always) translated as “nation.”27 Twice
translated as “foreigners” and “ethnics,”28 ethnos refers to unspecific foreign gen-
tiles – usually pagans, seldom Christian, never Romans. Fylon is also used to la-
bel what Moffat and Tall translate as “foreign peoples” and “[barbarian] tribes”29,
whereas intra-tribal war, or “civil strife” (among Romans) is contrasted with
“foreign attack.”30 Genos, excerpted from Petros Patrikios, is used to describe the
“race of the Romans.”31 In this way, Kōnstantinos VII indirectly implies a cor-
relation between Romans and tribalism in using fylon for his Romans. Lastly,
the abundant term laos refers directly to the Roman common folk (primarily in
Constantinople), which signifies “people or force … contrasted with the senate.”32
Kōnstantinos’ De Thematibus is a collection of antiquities and folklore of
various Roman provinces, or themata, of Europe and Asia, organized thema by
thema, which is one of the most revealing texts about how race, ethnicity and
tribalism were conceived, given that it refers to those who the emperor consider
his own Romans.33 Ethnos is used to label the Roman inhabitants of many thema-
ta, like Bithynians, Frygians, Dardanians, Galatians, Mariandynians, Thracians,

21 Ibid, §2.3-43; §4.15-16; §53.10, §55.11; §95.5; §96.2; §97.1-8, 38.

22 Ibid, §4.16 ; §41.2; §50.24; §74.20-22.
23 Ibid, §54.2; §96.1; §97.9.
24 Ibid, §2.50; §4.2.
25 Ibid, §17.20.
26 De Ceremoniis, eds. Jacob Reiske and Johannes Leich; Constantini Porphyrogeniti Imperatoris De
Ceremoniis Aulae Byzantinae (Bonn: Weber, 1829-1830); tr. Ann Moffatt and Maxeme Tall, Book
of Ceremonies (Canberra: Brill, 2012).
27 Ibid, §I.2-3; §I.8-9; §I.63-69; §I.83; §I.94-96; §II.1, §II.46-52.
28 Ibid, 469, 749.
29 Ibid, 368, 383, 397.
30 Ibid, §I.HC.319, (Treatise C, Imperial Military Expeditions, ‘ἐμφυλίου τε πολέμου καὶ ἐθνῶν
ἐπιδρομῆς’).
31 Ibid, §I.92.
32 Ibid, 236.
33 De Thematibus, ed. Agostino Pertusi, De Thematibus (Rome: BAV, 1952).

90
Greeks/Hellenes34, alongside those he considered foreigners elsewhere, like the
Mysians and Bulgarians.35 The concept of ethnos was so ill-defined and spongy
it could absorb even Kōnstantinos’ own tax-paying, army recruiting imperial
subjects without absorbing Roman identity itself. For Kōnstantinos, then, while
each of his imperial themata may have had their own pre-Christian histories and
folklores, by his time, their common assimilated Roman Christianity at various
levels made them varying degrees of Roman, though not equally.36 Genos is used
interchangeably with ethnos and even fylon (itself interchangeable with ethnos37)
in referring specifically to other and even the same peoples like Ligurians in Sic-
ily, Armenians in Cyprus, Isaurians and Bulgarians.38 The Thrakesion thema is
even listed as containing the residual genea of Lydians, Maionians, Karyians, Io-
nians, Sardians and Frygians.39 Laos refers primarily to Roman armies of various
themata which marched with emperors against ethne.40
Lastly, the most notably work of Kōnstantinos VII’s imperial scriptorium for
historians of nations and nationalism, the De Administrando Imperio (DAI) is
widely cited, debated and misunderstood. Originally compiled about 955 by
Kōnstantinos VII himself and an “Anonymous Collaborator” (according to Alexei
Shchavelev), this work of mid-10th-c. imperial scholarship is simultaneously a
manual of foreign policy, ethnography and history meant for Kōnstantinos VII’s
son, Rōmanos II.41 The definitive English edition, translation and commentary
by Gyula Moravcsik, Romilly Jenkins and their associates, published at the Cold
War’s height (with the corresponding essentialist assumptions about primordial
ethnicity, which Nazism relied on) was still omnipresent in post-WWII historiog-
raphy. Jenkins, the English translator, was not a critic of this tradition so much
as a product of it. Unsurprisingly, Jenkins typically translates ethnos as “nation”
to label various peoples from Saracens, Spanish and Franks to Pechenegs, Kha-
zars, Rus’ and Turks.42 However, ethnikos (ἐθνικός) is presented as a foreigner or

34 Ibid, §4.25; §6.23-24 (Opsikion, Boukellarion); §18.34 (Thrakon); §22.4 (Hellas).

35 Ibid, §4.25 (Opsikion); §18.26 (Thrakon).
36 Alexander Vasiliev, Goths in Crimea (Cambridge: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1936), 68;
Paul Stephenson, Byzantium’s Balkan Frontier (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000), 109-110.
37 De Thematibus, ed. Pertusi, 4.6 (‘many tribes [φυλῶν] and nations [ἐθνῶν]’), 11.12 (‘Frankish tri
bes [Φραγγικὰ φῦλα]’).
38 Ibid, §27.29 (Sikelia); §15.23 (Kypros); §14.38 (Kibyrraiotos); §18.7 (Thrakon).
39 Ibid, §3.25-29 (Thrakesion).
40 Ibid, §5.4-7 (Optimaton).
41 Shchavelev, “Treatise De administrando imperio by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus,”
688-701.
42 De Administrando Imperio, ed./tr. Gyula Moravcsik and Romilly Jenkins (Washington DC:
Dumbarton Oaks, 1967), §προοίμιον.8, 15, 16, 19, 38; §1.17, 25; §2.13, 22; 4.7; §13.1, 3, 25, 82, 86, 106,
114, 123, 175-179, 197; §15.5; §21.88; §23.5, 20; §24.10; §25.15; §29.2, 17, 56, 67, 75, §30.7, 13; §38.1, 3,
31, 38, 62; §39.1; §41.3, 24-25; §45.21; §46.167; §48.22; §49.15; §53.100.

91
 an infidel,43 which overlaps with his use of the word apistos (ἄπιστος).44 In one
instance, Jenkins renders Kōnstantinos’ (or his Collaborator’s) use of the word
ethnos as “the ethnic term,” regarding Iberians as a concrete ethnic group,45
who today would call themselves either Spanish or Portuguese, or perhaps also
Catalan, Basque, Galician, Castilian, Andalusian, Extremaduran and Valencian.
Jenkins usually translates laos as “folk,” in the sense of “common folk”46 rather
than outlining different “peoples” in the “national” sense, although he also uses
other words such as ochlos, or “crowd,” “mob” or “throng” to convey the same
meaning.47 Less often Jenkins translates laos as an “army.”48 Kōnstantinos and
his Collaborator use different words which Jenkins has rendered “tribe”: omofylos
(ὁμόφυλος49), allofylos (ἀλλοφύλος50) and genos (γένος51). Genos is translated vari-
ably as “stock”52, “kin”53, “clan”54, “race”55, “family”56, and “party.”57
Kōnstantinos VII’s concept of ethnos is regularly accompanied by an origin
story, where group distinctions are made by descent from some putative ances-
tor, as in the case of the Turks (Magyars)58, Mohammed59 and the Frankish king
Hugh of Arles.60 But that applies to the rulers of the foreign peoples he described
– not the ruled. That Kōnstantinos frequently addresses various genealogies at
length in the DAI, paying particular attention to, according to his own sources,
43 Ibid, §13.96; §31.40; §48.5. In the military treatises, the word ethnikos (ἐθνικός) is used
interchangeably with xenos (ξένος); Haldon translates ethnikos as “foreigner” (John Haldon,
ed./tr., Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions [Vienna: ÖAW, 1990]), C.224, 406.
44 Ibid, §13.106, 143; §45.79. Jenkins translates allopistos (ἀλλοπίστος - §13.115) as “infidel.”
45 Ibid, §23.19.
46 Ibid, §6.2; §8.5, 31 (sub-group of Pečenegs); §26.23, 26, 56, 59, 62 (Frankish townsfolk
and countryfolk); §28.44 (Venetian townsfolk); §29.2 (Romano-Dalmatian townsfolk);
§30.65 (Croatian genealogical “people”); §32.8, 124 (Serbian genealogical “people”); §33.8
(“Zachlumian” Serbs); §37.69 (sub-group of Pečenegs); §41.23 (Moravian refugees); §47.4, 7,
19 (Cypriot island-folk); Haldon, ed./tr., Three Treatises, C:734 (townsfolk of Constantinople).
47 Ibid, §30.17; §53.197, 203, 342, 381.
48 Ibid, §21.104 (Saracen army); §26.47 (Berengar’s army); §28.27 (Pippin’s army); §45.132, 168 (Ro-
man army). Other words are translated as “army”: fossatos (φοσσάτος - §15.9; §30.49, 55; §32.111,
117) and stratos (στρατός - §21.120; §27.17; §29.106, 108; §53.9, 11, 194, 208, 218). Haldon (ed./tr.,
Three Treatises) translates laos: B.18, 37 (“population,”), 44, 88 (“host,”), 92-99, 133.
49 Ibid, §14.24; §14.178-180; §37.57; §29.42-43.
50 Ibid, §15.13 (“foreigners,” like ethnikos [§13.96; §31.40; §48.5]; ἐξ ἑτέρας φυλῆς, “of another tribe”
(§21.51).
51 Ibid, §13.15, 178, 180 omogenos (ὁμόγενος); §15.1; §21.77; §22.38.
52 Ibid, §13.152.
53 Ibid, §13.165; 21.105 suggeneia (συγγενεία).
54 Ibid, §22.3; §37.34, 39; §38.10; §39.11, 12, 13; §40.1, 4, 44, 50.
55 Ibid, §προοίμιον:46; §13.122; §13.122; §23.6; §39.2; §50.72.
56 Ibid, §21.23, 50; §25.58, 61, 81, 85; §29.77, 78; §32.32; §33.16; §38.55; §40.48; §45.113. Jenkins
commonly translates familia (φαμίλια) as “family” (§27.37; §29.4; §40.18; §53.16, 20, 24, 41, 59,
75, 85, 99, 101, 105, 281, 436 [“household”]).
57 Ibid, §21.25. Elsewhere, Jenkins translates meros (μέρος) as “party” (§21.22, 76, 78, 86).
58 Ibid, §38; Dvornik, et al, eds., DAI Commentary, 145-153.
59 Ibid, §14; Dvornik, et al, eds., DAI Commentary, 70-72.
60 Ibid, §26; Dvornik, et al, eds., DAI Commentary, 83.

92
the genealogical origins of each “nation”61, is hardly surprising given his insis-
tence on preserving “ethnic” homogeneity above all else.62 The same can easily
be said about Kōnstantinos VII’s attempt to project his own genealogy.63 How-
ever, his persistence in this regard is as inconsistent as his ultimate reliance on
biblical precedents for genealogical homogeneity. For Kōnstantinos, ethnicity
was predicated on genealogy, not necessarily on a given landscape, which bears a
strong resemblance to earlier precedents found in the Old Testament, Josephus,
the other authors’ passages in the Excerpta Constantiniana,64 and much antique
so-called “ethnography” generally (the Table of Nations in Genesis 10).65
Kōnstantinos did not have a specific Morganian-esque system for distinguish-
ing between foreign “nations”, “races”, “peoples” and “tribes” – not even “factions.”
They all melded together interchangeably – either as putatively genealogical en-
tities or as constitutively geographical entities. However, according to Yannis
Stouraitis, for Kōnstantinos’ Romans, there was little in the genealogical way of
“common ethnic descent”; instead, “Romanness was an identity of political cul-
ture that supplanted ethnic ideologies.”66 There was clearly a Roman religious
exceptionalism – a century of top-down iconoclastic policies had, by his time,
created a Christian Roman identity recognizably distinct from the staunchly
iconophilic Latin Christianity to the West and the miaphysitic Christianity to the
East. There was, according to Florin Curta, “a sharp distinction of ‘us’ and ‘them’,
which is a key component of ethnic identity.”67 Yet when Kōnstantinos discussed
ethne, he referred to the genealogy of the rulers, not the ruled.
As previously mentioned, Anthony Kaldellis claims that Kōnstantinos VII had
a “secular conception” of “the Romans as one nation (ethnos) among others.”68
Nothing could be further from the truth. Exactly nowhere, in all the texts linked
to Kōnstantinos VII, does he refer to the Christian Roman ethnos (ethnos tōn
romaiōn). Yes, he refers to the Roman genos and laos (although never fylon) – he
clearly articulated a cohesive Roman peoplehood – but it was a biblical people-
hood as God’s chosen people, not simply one secular, indistinct group among
61 Ibid, §προοίμιον.19, §13.197-200: “concerning also the difference between other nations, their
origins (γενεαλογίας τε αὐτῶν).”
62 Ibid, §13.175-186: “For each nation has different customs and divergent laws and institutions,
and should consolidate those things that are proper to it, and should form and develop out of
the same nation the associations for the fusion of its life.”
63 Arnold Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his World (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1973), 587-588.
64 DAI, ed./tr. Moravcsik and Jenkins, 336; Panagiotis Manafis, “Excerpta Anonymi and Constantin-
ian Excerpts,” Byzantinoslavica 75/1-2 (2017), 250-264.
65 Genesis 10; Guido Zernatto, “Nation: History of a Word,” Review of Politics 6/3 (1944), 351-366.
66 Yannis Stouraitis, “Reinventing Roman ethnicity in the High and Late Medieval Byzantium,”
Medieval Worlds 5 (2017), 75; idem, “Roman identity in Byzantium: a critical approach,”
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 107/1 (2014), 217.
67 Florin Curta, The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050. The Early Middle Ages (Ed-
inburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2011), 291; idem, “Burial in early medieval Greece: on
ethnicity in Byzantine archaeology,” in Prof d­r Boris Borisov uchenici i priiateli, ed. B. Borisov
(Veliko Tărnovo: IVIS, 2016), 432.
68 Anthony Kaldellis, Romanland (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, Harvard UP, 2019), 8.

93
 many. As God’s chosen people, for Kōnstantinos’ Romans were special and dis-
tinct from the ethne – which were by definition the other – always foreign, often-
hostile, sometimes Christian, never Roman. There was nothing remotely secular
about Kōnstantinos’ conception of Romanitas – this is a 21st-century imaginary
idea anachronistically foisted onto his writing. Kōnstantinos’ logic defines the
Romans against, not among the nations (ethne), since to him, the Romans were
God’s new chosen people. To say that emperor Kōnstantinos VII thought of his
Roman subjects as comprising one ethnos among others would be like saying
that king David thought of his Jewish subjects as goyyim and gentiles. Had that
been the case, these men never would have been kings or emperors in the first
place. The term gentiles would be a better translation than the term nations for
the word ethne.

The table below contains usages of ethnos, genos, laos, fatria and fylon in
Kōnstantinos’ texts.
Noun & adjective uses ἔθνος γένος λαός φατρία φῦλον
De Administrando Imperio 57 76 44 0 15
De Thematibus 18 18 4 0 2
De Ceremoniis (incl. Three Treatises 34 7 693 0 4
on Imperial Military Expeditions)
Vita Basilii 19 25 19 4 10
De Contionibus Militaribus 4 16 8 0 2
Oratio Ad Milites 0 3 2 0 0
Oratio De Translatione Chrysostomi 4 0 8 0 0
Narratio De Imagine Edessena 0 3 0 0 1
Geoponika 0 ~391 0 0 0
De Natura Animalium 5 38 0 0 1
De Legationibus 200 98 1 0 37
stantiniana

De Insidiis 85 118 17 4
Excerpta

1
De Sententiis 34 93 4 0 17
De Virtutibus & Vitiis 81 237 26 1 43
Souda 2 7 0 Addressed
together
Totals 542 ~2013 826 6 1041

94
 8

Ideological resistance and Identity in the Byzantine

Empire: The case of Georgians
IOANNIS BANTOUVAS, University of Crete, Rethymno
UDK 316.75:323.1(=353.1:495.02)

Abstract: The aim of this study is to present how much the Georgians, who
lived either inside or outside the Byzantine Empire, resist the process of
«romanization», a procedure to which the non-Greek speaking people were
subdued as they were thought to be the «vassals» of the Eastern Roman
Empire. The time period which I study is the second half of the 10th century
until the first half of the 11th century. The presentation of the aforementioned
situation is divided in two parts. In the first part, I analyze the relations
between the Georgian rulers and the Byzantine emperors and how these were
affected by the ideological and expansionistic claims of the Georgians. As a
result of my first analysis I proceed by focusing on the study of the titles which
the Georgian rulers used to define their authority, because through them
they expressed in an indirect way their claims against the Byzantine Empire.
Furthermore, I present the cases of aristocrats who lived in the Roman Empire
and did not get culturally integrated into the Roman cultural environment. The
second part of my study is dedicated to the different ways which provoked
the ideological resistance affected by the religious Georgian context. Finally, I
present and analyze the case of the Iviron monastery at Mount Athos and how
this Georgian monastic community preserved its cultural background in direct
contrast to that of the rest of the monastic communities.

As the title denotes, the main aim of this paper is to briefly describe and try
to understand the procedures under which the Georgian ethnic communities
tried to rise as a distinct ethnic group and go against the typical process of
95
 romanization in the context of the Byzantine empire during the time period
of the middle of the 10th century until the middle of the 11th century. It will be
necessary to scrutinize cases of the secular and the religion domain in order to
conceptualize this topic properly. Furthermore, it is important to clarify the fact
that the term Georgian which will be used is more accurate than the Byzantine
term “Iberian” (“Ίβηρ”) because, in regards to the latter, it was a common practice
to refer to the people of the Caucasus in general using this term, as it will be
proved through the cases throughout the present study. Additionally, the region
of Caucasus was thought to be, in the byzantine imaginary, a marginal zone.1 We
must, also, make clear from the beginning that the Hegemony of “Tao-Klarjeti”
will be denoted under the term “Georgian Hegemony” for reasons which will be
understood throughout this essay. Also, it is really encouraging that nowadays the
historiographical research is directed to the proper clarification of the Georgian-
Byzantine relations in the level of ideology with the help of new approaches on
the domain of identity.
First of all, it will be useful to shed some light on the relations between
the Byzantine empire and the Georgian hegemony in the context of the
aforementioned period. The turning point of those relations were the
insurrections of Bardas Skleros (976-979) and of Bardas Phokas (987-989). For
the first case the intervention of the Georgian ruler (that of Tao-Klarjeti) was
considered crucial by the Byzantine Empire for the suppression of Skleros’
revolt. David III of Tao (966-1000) accepted to help in the successful venture
against Skleros. In exchange for his help Basil II gave to David some territories
including those of Armenians in the region of Tao. However, during the second
rebellion David supported Phokas. This made Basil move against David in order
to retrieve the lands which he gave to the Georgian ruler, but David managed to
persuade Basil instead that he will accept to be vassal of Byzantium and in the
end, he obtained the title of “kouropalates”. After his death, David was succeeded
by his adopted son Bagrat III. He also received the title of “kouropalates” while
his father Gurgen got a less important title, that of “magister”. At the same time
Basill placed a byzantine official at those regions and therefore he tried to create
a “katepanaton”. During the reign of Bagrat’s son, George I, the antagonism of the
two states was at its peak and it ended with the defeat of George and the official
foundation of the “Iberian katepanaton”. There was another clash between the
Byzantine emperor and George’s wife Maria at 1027. In addition, during the year
1022 the insurrection of Nikephoros Phokas and Nikephoros Xiphias took place
and according to some historians this occurred because of George’s interference
in the byzantine affairs.2 After the escalation of hostilities, under the reign of
1 Bernadette Martin-Hisard, “L’Athos, l’Orient et le Caucase au XIe siècle”, in Mount Athos and
Byzantine Monasticism: Papers from the Twenty­eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies,
Birmingham, March 1994, ed. Anthony Bryer and Mary Cunnigham (Aldershot: Variorum,
1996), 242-247.
2 Anthony Kaldellis, Streams of Gold, Rivers of Blood: The rise and fall of Byzantium, 955 A.D. to the
first Crusade (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 51, 85-90, 98-101, 110-111, 131-134; Stephen

96
Romanos III Byzantine-Georgian relations were pacified as Romanos’ niece
married Bagrat IV. A fourth unsuccessful insurrection occurred at the “thema” of
Thessaloniki and Strymon. The head of this was Konstantinos Diogenes and he
was supported by the monks of Iviron monastery. According to Pavlikianov this
was the result of the good relations which Diogenes’ family had with Georgian
aristocratic families. Apart from these events, Bagrat IV was hostile against
Byzantium during the decade of 1030 while during the 1040s this changed with
the intervention of Bagrat’s mother. It is important to notice that the political
presence of the higher Georgian church official Melchizedek, the “katholikos” was
strong during those diplomatic fluctuations. Finally, Konstantinos Monomachos
successfully created a clear administrative region, under the title of the Iberian
“katepanaton” in the areas which were at the center of the previous conflicts.3
A closer look at this transforming political landscape will provide a considerable
part of the answer to our question. First, during the negotiations which resulted
to David’s embroilment in the fight against Skleros, the “head” of the Byzantine
embassy was Ioannes Tornikios. This aristocrat is known for his mixed ethnic
background (Georgian and Armenian origins) but, as it is obvious, in our case
he is treated as a Georgian. According to the “Life of Ioannes the Iberian and
Euthymios” Tornikios’ intervention is thought to be the potent factor which led
to David’s aid. As a fact itself it can prove to a certain extend that Tornikios was
Georgian despite the dominating confusion which was discussed at the beginning
of the paper.4 Generally, the value of Tornikios’ contribution was contested for
a certain period of time in modern historiography because some researchers
supported the fact that this was not stated in many contemporary sources and
that the Georgian community tried to bolster its territorial claims in relation to
the lands which were the apple of discord between Basil and the Georgians in
the beginning of the 11th century.5 The opposers of this approach stated that this
was just the point of view of the Byzantine aristocracy.6 Nevertheless, we will
follow the second approach because Tornikios was an important person, since
he was granted a chrysobulle to create a monastic community for Georgians in
Mount Athos. Furthermore, he chose to be consecrated as a monk and live at
Harold Rapp Jr., Imagining History at the Crossroads: Persia, Byzantium and the Architects of the
Written Georgian Past, PhD dissertation (Michigan, 1997), 554-556.
3 Kaldellis, Streams of Gold, 157-159, 168, 211-212; Cyril Pavlikianov, The Medieval Aristocracy on
Mount Athos (Sofia: Sofia University Press, 2002), 57-58; Bernadette Martin-Hisard, “La Vie
de Georges L’Hagiorite (1009/1010-29 Juin 1065): Introduction, Traduction du texte georgien,
notes et eclaircissements,” in Revue des Études Byzantines 64-65 (2006-2007), 19-20, 22-27.
4 Archive de l’Athos, XIV, Actes d’Iviron 1, ed. Jacques Lefort (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1985), 22-24 ͧ
Bernadette Martin-Hisard, La Vie de Jean et Euthyme et le statut du monastère des Ibères sur
l’Athos, in Revue des Études Byzantines 49 (1991), 89-91, 93-95.
5 Mark Whittow, The Making of Orthodox Byzantium, 600­1025 (London: Macmillan Press, 1996),
361-366· J. C. Cheynet, Basil II and Asia Minor”, in Byzantium in the Year 1000, ed. Paul Magdalino
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 98-99; Nicolas Adontz, “Tornik Le moine”, in Byzantion 13 (1938), 143-145,
149-154.
6 Ch. Badridze, “Contribution A L’Histoire Des Relations Entre Tao et Byzance: Les Annes 70 Du
Xe siècle, Insurrection De Bardas Skleros”, in Bedi Kartlisa 33 (1975): 162-164, 168-171, 177-190.

97
 this community. These actions established further his Georgian identity. Taking
those pieces of information into account it is safe to say that Tornikios belongs to
the cases of the Georgian aristocrats who did not choose to adopt a completely
byzantine profile. In relation to the topic of the obscurity of the Georgian identity
in the byzantine imaginary the statements of an Armenian priest, Aristakes
Lastivertc’i in his chronicle (1072-1079) support a clear distinction between the
“Georgians” and the “Armenians” and he paints a dark picture against Basil II and
the calamities which the Georgians suffered because of him. Aristakes’ point of
view is crucial because we can see through a glimpse that the people of Caucasus
in general had created their own distinct ethnic-cultural identities.7 In order
to properly conceptualize this question the Arabic influence on the Georgian
hegemony must be taken into serious consideration. For example, according to
Rapp, sometimes Arabic terms were used to refer to any official. Rapp presents as
paradigm of this the term “emir” which was used instead of the Georgian term for
the “general”. Apart from that, Bagrat III himself introduced the Arabic dirham
with inscriptions in Arabic and at the same time followed the aniconic patterns
of the Islamic art as to the style of those coins. In fact, the emirate of Tbilisi,
which was under the rule of the Shaddad tribe, recognized the foundation of the
Georgian Hegemony. This Arabic influence is also observed in the names of some
Georgians. The last name of Ioannes the Iberian is “Aboulherit” and the name of
the relative which he met at Constantinople is “Abouharb”. The Arabic names
were assimilated to this extend that even the Georgians who were living in the
Byzantine Empire kept them and did not choose a name closer to the Byzantine
ones. Also, this leads to the fact that some aspects of the Arabic culture were
thought to be an integrant part of the Georgian identity, because of the long
living Arabic influence, and by means of those the Georgian aristocrats of
Byzantium tried, to a specific extend at least, to preserve their Georgian culture.
The aforementioned statement is only a hypothesis at this stage and not a safely
deduced conclusion as it is crucial to find more similar cases in the future. It is
clearer at this point that the Georgians inside the Eastern Roman Empire had a
complicated identity and there are many levels which should be meticulously
researched even if the byzantine sources are hasty and superficial when they
are referring to them. However, it will be necessary to further discuss the topic
of the regal titles, which we tried to connect with the possible Arabic influence,
and mainly to present the choice of Bagrat III as to his title. Two examples of
inscriptions in two different Georgian churches and Rapp’s translation will help
us to further support this. The first inscription (1003) is placed at the church
of “K’ut’at’isi”. According to this inscription Bagrat is the “Kuropalates and the
King of the Apchaz and the Kartvelians”. The second (1008) is at the cathedral
of Nikorcmida. Bagrat is presented again as “the King of the Apchaz and the
Rani-s and the Kuropalates of the Kartvelians”. A first level analysis can lead to
7 A. Lastivertc’i, History Regarding the Sufferings Occasioned by Foreign People Living Around Us,
trans. Bedrosian Robert (New York: Sources of the Armenian Tradition, 1985), 3-8, 15-16, 21-28.

98
the conclusion that the Georgian rulers accepted vassalage under Byzantium as
it is denoted by the existence of the Byzantine titulature. Nevertheless, at the
next stage we must think that the use of those titles could only be a way for the
rulers to rise steadily as powerful sovereigns while using the titles of a strong
political power. 8
The third insurrection which occurred at 1022 and its results can offer another
example of similar cases. George’s intervention is contested but according to
Tchkoidze he was in touch with the rebels. Regarding this venture, between the
two key figures of the revolt, Phokas and his family had really good relations
with the Georgian aristocratic environment and he had an Armenian nickname
(Tsarviz). Of great importance is the fact that many Georgian soldiers are
attested to have participated in the uprising and a Georgian aristocrat under
the name Feres was the only person to be decapitated after the ending of the
insurrection. This person was brought to the byzantine court with his brother
Theudatos when they were young. This makes his case more interesting because
no matter how much he was exposed at the byzantine influence since he was
young, he chose to support a rebellion against Byzantium. Tchkoidze states
without being completely certain that the Georgians of the revolt wanted to
support the territorial integrity of the Georgian hegemony.9 What really matters
here is that Feres is quite similar to Tornikios in terms of identity but in his case,
Basil tried to create an example “of what not to do” to the rest of the aristocrats
of non “byzantine” origins. We can deduce from the aforementioned facts that
the byzantine emperor was aware of the threat that Georgian aristocrats posed.
Another good example of this general trend among the Georgians of Byzantium
is the Life of George the Hagiorite which was composed by a monk named
George approximately at 1065. At this text George is considered a “Kartvelian”,
the Georgian word for the term “Georgian”, despite the fact that he was born in
the area of the “Iberian katepanaton”.10
After this glimpse on the political aspects of the present topic, it is necessary
to point out how the religious milieu contributed to the Georgian ideological
resistance. The case of the Georgian monks Ioannes the Iberian and his son
Euthymios who stayed at first at the Great Lavra are of crucial importance. Those
monks were Georgian aristocrats of the Chordvaneli family and arrived at the
Mount Athos during the decade of the 970s. The choice of the Great Lavra as the
residence locus for two Georgians might seem as coincidence but if we bring to
the spotlight the origins of the founder of this monastic community, we might
understand this as something more than that. Athanasios’ mother is thought to
be from Colchis. If we accept as a fact that Ioannes and Euthymios were aware

8 Rapp, Crossroads, 569, 578-579, 587, 593 ͧ Hisard, Jean et Euthyme, 86-88.
9 Eka Tchkoidze, “Η επανάσταση του Νικηφόρου Φωκά και του Νικηφόρου Ξιφία (1021-1022): Η
τελευταία εσωτερική κρίση στη βασιλεία του Β΄ (976-1025),” in Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 24 (2014),
319-328.
10 Hisard, “La «Vie de Georges L’Hagiorite,” 37; Iviron, 251-256.

99
 about this, we have in front of us a hypothetical Georgian network outside of
the Land of “Kartli” in which the Georgian identity was active. As a matter of
fact, in the “typicon” of Great Lavra, which was written among the years 973 and
975, there is a specific paragraph in which it is stated that the Georgian monks
of the Great Lavra should move to another place because they were exceeding
in number. More specifically the number of the given monastic cells was 8
and their augmentation or their sale was strictly prohibited (the status under
which they were given to the monks was that of “charistikion” which explains
the aforementioned restriction to a certain extend). This decision leads to the
statement that an assimilation of the Roman and Georgian culture was not
supported or in general was rejected. Also, it is important to have in mind that
those cells were under the complete authority of Athanasios. 11
A few years later the foundation of the Iveron monastery (or the Lavra tou
Clementos as it was known during its creation) followed as we have already
discussed. This religious foundation was one of the richest ones even from its early
stages because it was given many agricultural territories and other monasteries with
their lands under the status of “metochia” throughout the region of Macedonia.
These lands were granted by a “chrysobulle” of Basil of 979-980.12 Furthermore Basil
had to move meticulously through the legislation corpus because the foundation
of new monasteries was forbidden since the reign of Nicephorus Phocas. This
explains the decision to name this foundation “Lavra” and not “monastery”.13 It is
obvious that Basil’s regime got through serious thought in order to guarantee the
official foundation of a Georgian religious foundation. It seems to me as a rational
cause for this behavior was that this was a venture whose aim was to restrict and
control those Georgian aristocrats because as we have already seen they were
unstable and not completely assimilated to the Byzantine environment which
made them a possible danger for the stability of the Empire.
During the first years of the Lavra tou Clementos, according to the Life of Ioannes
and Euthymios, Ioannes, as the first abbot, designated that they should not accept
many Greek-speaking monks because this was an institution for Georgians. The
same advised his son to do when he was going to be the next abbot. Furthermore,
under the light of this information the characterization of the abbots George I
(1019-1025) and George II (1029-1035) as malevolent by the author of the Life seems
understandable. George I accepted the entrance of many Greek-speaking monks
and put them at crucial for the economic and social life of the monastery posts in
11 Hisard, Jean et Euthyme, 86-88; Iviron, 21; Tamara Grdzelidze, Georgian Monks on Mount Athos:
Two Eleventh­Century Lives of the Hegoumenoi of Iviron (London: Bennet and Bloom, 2009), 21-
22; Phillip Meyer, Die Haupturkunden fur die Geschichte der Athoskloster (Amsterdam: Verlag
Adolf M. Hakkert, 1965), 118; Angela Constantinides, John Thomas, Byzantine Monastic Founda-
tion Documents: A complete translation of the surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments vol. 1
(Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, 2000), 245.
12 Iviron, 25-32, 37-38, 152-154.
13 Rosemary Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium: 843­1111 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995), 46-47; Nicolas Svoronos, Les Nouvelles des Empereurs Macedoine Concernant La
Terre et Les Stratiotes (Athens: Μορφωτικό Ίδρυμα Εθνικής Τραπέζης, 1994), 151, 161, 185.

100
order to better organize the monastery itself. Next, George II was favored by the
Greek-speaking community. In fact, during the latter’s reign the rivalry between
the Georgian-speaking and the Greek-speaking community reached an apex and
what is really peculiar is that the Greek-speaking monks eventually got the upper
hand. This rivalry was expressed under the terms of which community would
use the largest of the two main churches of their monastic complex for their
liturgic needs because the liturgy was conducted in Georgian by the Georgian-
speaking monks and in Greek by the Greek-speaking ones. The church which was
devoted to the “Holy Virgin” was the biggest and the church which was devoted
to “John the Baptist” was the smallest. The community which used the first had
more power than the other. During the time which George II was the abbot the
Greek-speaking community conducted its liturgy in the church of the Virgin.14
In sum we must acknowledge two things: a) the aforementioned rejection of
the cultural assimilation was present during the first years of the existence of
the Iveron monastery, b) the liturgic controversy expressed the constant struggle
of the Georgian-speaking community against the procedure of the Byzantine
“romanization”.
For a complete understanding of the religious aspect, it is important to dive into
the matter of the translations of liturgic and other religious in texts from Greek to
Georgian. Throughout the life of Ioannes and Euthymios and the Life of George the
Hagiorite, Euthymios and George are depicted as important translators because
they took care of the deficit of religious texts in Georgian. This fact is also contested
because translations in Georgian took place also in the centuries before (since the
7th century) and in many places such as Palestine and more specifically in the region
of Jerusalem and furthermore in the Sinai Peninsula. However, the authors of those
texts decided to approach this from a different point of view. The translation locus
in these texts gives us the impression that the fate of the Georgian religious identity
is based on the extensive translative activity of the monks of the monastery. To a
certain extend this was true if we consider the rich collection of manuscripts and
the fact that many of them (and their translations) were sent back to the hegemony
of Tao.15 Additionally, the monks-translators were aware of the Greek terms which
were used in the Byzantine bureaucracy and of its dating system. This is important
because, according to Hisard’s statement, the Georgian monks-translators were
applying either the Georgian terminology in regards to the aforementioned topics
or the Byzantine one depending on the conditions of the relations between the
Byzantine central state and the monastery itself.16 Furthermore, if we take a closer
look at the life of Ioannes and Euthymios, Ioannes says at his son that “the Land of
14 Hisard, Jean et Euthyme, 77-78, 91-93, 124-128; Iviron, 41-50
15 Hélène Metreveli, “Le rôle de l’Athos dans l’histoire de la culture géorgienne”, in Bedi Kartlisa 41
(1983): 21-25; Alexandre Alexidze, “Le Mont Athos, Historique, Légendaire, Réel”, in Bedi Kar-
tlisa 41 (1983): 78-79; Tamara Grdzelidze, “The Georgians of Mount Athos”, in Mount Athos:
Microcosm of the Christian East, ed. Graham Speake and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (Bern:
Peter Lang, 2012), 40-43.
16 Hisard, L’Athos, 240-242.

101
 Kartli is in great need of books for they are lacking many of them” and Holy Mary
advises Euthymius in his dream to “get up and speak Georgian fluently”.17 These
actions could be interpreted as acts of reinforcement of the cultural identity of the
“Kartvelians” in a religious milieu.
To conclude, by examining those pieces of information it is deduced that
this specific ethnic group got aware of its distinct identity in an ethnic-cultural
way. More specifically we can characterize this group as “ethnic”, because of its
distinct language and “cultural” because of its roman-orthodox inspired culture.
The concurrent efforts of the “Kartvelians” in the secular and in the ecclesiastic
domain to bolster their identity should not be considered as random but as a
part of a general endeavor of the Georgian realm to rise as a distinct sovereign
and at the same time to allow the more powerful individuals of this group to
have the support of two different political entities. This interpretation leads us
to the point that the Georgian community tried to connect itself with different
“patria”, if I am to use Kaldellis theoretical scheme, which was “Tao-Klarjeti”
and not “Romania”, as it is denoted by the cases of the main protagonists of the
hagiographical texts which I studied. Also, Stouraitis’ “elite approach” cannot
be applied, to a specific extend, because of two reasons: 1) inside the Georgian
community not only the aristocratic elite but the rest of the “illiterate masses”
are depicted as ardent supporters of the Georgian identity, 2) the Georgian elite
made use of the Byzantine state apparatus in order to support the Georgian
Hegemony but their failure did not discourage them and at the same time this
denotes that the Constantinopolitan center did not have absolute control on
those aristocrats and at the vassal Georgian Hegemony as a “premodern state”.18

17 Grdzelidze, “Georgian monks,” 67.

18 Yannis Stouraitis, “Roman Identity in Byzantium: a critical approach”, in Byzantinische Zeitsch­
rift 107 (2014), 179-181; Stouraitis, “Reinventing Roman Ethnicity in High and Late Medieval
Byzantium”, in Medieval Worlds 5 (2017): 75-76; Anthony Kaldellis, “Provincial Identities in
Byzantium”, in The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium, ed. David Alan Parnell,
Michael Edward Stewart, Conor Whately (London: Routledge, 2022), 257-258.

102
 9

Crazy iconoclasts. The power of caricature viewed

through the Chludov Psalter
SIMONA PRIMO FASOLIO, Université Lumière Lyon II
UDK 2-282:[271.2-526.62:27-876.7(495.02)”8”

Abstract: The iconoclastic controversy over religious images was a crucial

moment in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire, since it was not merely
a political and intellectual debate, but also an important moment in the
development of Byzantine literature and art. In the second phase of the
Iconoclasm, emperor Leo V, who ruled from 813 to 820, banned the sacred images
following the military defeats against the Bulgars in Macedonia and Thrace,
as he presumably considered the latter a sign of God’s abhorrence of icons.
The Chludov Psalter originates from the time of the iconoclastic controversy
and the unusually polemic style of the work shows the strength of the struggle
between the iconoclasts and the iconodoules. This unique liturgical work
is the oldest of three remaining illuminated psalters that were made in the
middle of the 9th century. The anonymous illuminators of the Chludov Psalter
used a caricature in order to explain the iconoclastic controversy and its object
was the last iconoclastic Patriarch of Constantinople, John VII Grammatikos.
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how the political satire has been an
effective tool to combat the heresy and a meaningful support for the advocates
of the iconophile “party”.

The Chludov1 is an illuminated Psalter created in the middle of the 9th century
and it is an exceptional example of Byzantine art.2 In its pristine state, the Psalter
1 Chludov Psalter (Moscow, State Historical Museum of Russia), GIM 86795 - Khlud. 129-d.
2 André Grabar, “Quelques notes sur les psautiers illustrés byzantins du IX e siècle”, in Cahiers

103
 would have contained about eighty miniatures illustrating or commenting verses
of the Psalms. Many folios have been lost, but we can still read some Psalms in
the arrangement of the Septuaginta and their responses.3 The Chludov Psalter
marks the need of a new kind of relationship between text and image and reveals
a deep consciousness on the part of Byzantine readers of the ability of images to
comment on scriptural text. The Psalter is a small book and it was intended for
a small audience, probably the circle of the patriarch or the patriarch himself.
Anyway the audience would have had a keen sense of the political and doctrinal
disputes.
The victorious iconodoules, after the official end of Iconoclasm, continued
to carry a ruthless struggle against the iconoclasts’ “perfidious errors”, as the
reason behind the creation of the Chludov Psalter is clearly related to a context
of iconodoule “winners” which can be chronologically placed soon after the
iconoclastic controversy. The icons demonstrate the Christ’s power4, that is not
comprehensible to non-Christians, Pagans and Jews. Therefore, an “anonymous
hand”, maybe a monk of Stoudion or an artist of the imperial workshop of
Constantinople, attacked the enemies of the true faith through an uncommon,
but certainly effective weapon: irony.
Iconoclasm played an essential role in the history of the Byzantine Empire
because of deep damage it inflicted not only on the Christian faith and its
theological solidity, but also on Constantinople’s political and cultural structure.
The cult of images underwent various ups and downs, but the final phase of the
attack on icons was led by Leo the Armenian, i.e. Leo V in modern historiography,
and John Grammatikos. Coming from the same Asiatic background that had
produced the first generation of iconoclastic emperors, Leo V claimed that
the defeat against the Bulgarians suffered by his predecessor was a divine
punishment for the reintroduction of the cult of images. After stabilizing the
military front, he turned to the ecclesiastical sphere, firmly determined to revive
the iconoclastic party. He chose for this task the scholar John Grammatikos,
who researched theological sources aimed at demonstrating the fallacy of the
cult of images. The new iconoclastic wave had very violent effects and many
iconodoules were imprisoned or forced into exile, while Patriarch Nikephoros
was deposed and replaced by a prelate trusted by the emperor. At Easter 815,
this new patriarch convened a synod that disavowed the resolutions of the
second council of Nicaea and restored Iconoclasm according to the dogmas of
the council of Hieria. However, this new iconoclastic movement had lost much
of its appeal and had to rely entirely on imperial authority to impose itself. The
fact that the defense of Iconoclasm was now more of a problem for the emperors
is demonstrated by the attitude of Michael II, successor of Leo the Armenian.
archéologiques 15 (Paris: Klincksieck, 1965), 71-85.
3 Georgi R.Parpulov, Toward a History of Byzantine Psalters (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
2004), 86-93.
4 Maria Bettetini, Contro le immagini. Le radici dell’iconoclastia (Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2006), 92-94.

104
Michael was, in fact, undoubtedly opposed to the cult of images, and had his son
educated by John Grammatikos, but he was also aware that the movement was
now in involution, and to avoid a weakening of his position due to the opposition
of the Orthodox, he chose ambiguity and did not recognize either the second
council of Nicias or the various iconoclastic synods. Officially, Iconoclasm was
still in force, but unofficially, image worship was allowed to remain a common
practice.
The last violent jolt of iconoclasm occurred under Michael’s son, Theophilus,
who became Emperor in 829. Under his reign, also because of his teacher
John Grammatikos, the clash with the monks, staunch defenders of the cult
of images, was rekindled, but in practice, Iconoclasm survived artificially only
in the capital. When Theophilus was assassinated by his wife Theodora in
January 842, the cult of icons was officially restored and John Grammatikos
was deposed as patriarch.5
The monastic communities, which had been the stronghold of the fight
against iconoclasm, felt the need to inspire the creation of a book of Psalms that
would celebrate the return of the iconodoules 6and, at the same time, continue
to express disapproval of the enemies of the “true faith” by emphasising the
“ridicule” they had been guilty of by opposing the cult of images.
This manuscript was most probably drafted in the 9th century in a
Constantinopolitan environment, was partly rewritten between the 11th and
12th centuries, and was then stored in the monastery of Chalki7 and, at length,
on Mount Athos. Some scolars hypothesized that the Psalter was created in the
monastery of Stoudios in Constantinople, while other academics think that the
liturgical responses cited in the text were only used in Hagia Sophia, and that it
was created in the imperial workshops of the capital soon after the iconodoules
returned to power in 843. We are not aware of any other transfer of ownership;
the only certain fact in our possession is that the Psalter came into the collection
of the rich merchant Aleksej Chludov. During the October Revolution the
collection was confiscated and the codex ended up in the Moscow Historical
Museum, where it is still preserved today, and remains known by the name of its
former owner.8
The illustrations in the margins of the pages of the Chludov Psalter,
accompanied by captions, do not merely represent the written word graphically,
but constitute a semantic extension of it, taking the form of a ‘subtext’ of
commensurate importance with that of the sacred word. This is why scenes
taken from the New Testament express continuity with what is expressed in the
5 Mario Gallina, Bisanzio. Storia di un impero (secoli IV­XII) (Roma: Carocci, 2008), 117 ff.
6 André Grabar, L’iconoclasme byzantin: dossier archéologique (Paris: College de France, 1957), 227.
7 Alexis Chryssostalis, “Psautier Chludov”, le “Barlaam de Paris” et la bibliothèque de la Sainte-
Trinité de Chalki” in Revue des études byzantines 73 (Paris: Institut Français d’Etudes Byzantines,
2015), 259-266
8 Helen C.Evans and William D.Wixom, The Glory of Byzantium Art and culture of the Middle
Byzantine Era A.D. 843­1261 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997), 97-98.

105
 Old Testament for a precise choice aimed at reinforcing the power of the word of
God in Christian life.9
Alongside these images that we can define as traditional, the anonymous
illustrators inserted images of characters taken from their actuality or from the
recent past, which must have been familiar to the users of the Psalter10.
The element that unites the depictions is undoubtedly the choice to connote
the figures recognised as enemies of the Church in a way that is not only negative,
but also caricatural, almost as if to emphasise how the ‘ridiculousness’ of their
beliefs is reflected in their gestures, facial expressions and clothing. Bernabò11
pointed out how the characters are connoted by elements of theatricality
already present in ancient comic theatre, as evidenced by numerous clay finds,
among others. The most obvious distinctive feature is the grotesque character
of the facial expressions of the characters considered morally questionable and
therefore to be despised: facial features are very pronounced, facial expressions
exaggerated, gestures excessive and emphatic. All this was meant to help
observers immediately recognise, albeit through caricature distortion, the
characters worthy of being exposed to ridicule.
Even in the Crucifixion scene12, Chludov’s best known, which we will discuss
later, the soldier armed with a spear is depicted with a pointed beard and two
tufts of hair at the temples and his expression is one of bewilderment, thus not
realistic, but caricatured, as befits an individual involved in such a reprehensible
and ungodly act in this context.
It is therefore highly probable that the miniaturist commissioned to paint the
images that characterise the margins of the Psalter possessed, either directly or
indirectly, a solid prior knowledge of the ‘fixed-types’ of ancient comic theatre,
and it is not possible to ignore how caricature constituted a ‘common thread’
between the forms of mockery of socially awkward characters of the past and
those of contemporary times, passing through recent history.
Indeed, looking at the set of illustrations in the Chludov Psalter, one notices
other caricatures targeting the oldest adversaries of Christianity, the Jews13:
they represent the visual aspect of the anti-Jewish polemics that flourished
from the early days of Christianity, which became especially relevant in anti-

9 Christopher Walter, “Christological themes in the Byzantine Marginal Psalters from the Ninth
to the Eleventh Century” in Revue des études byzantines 44 ( Paris: Institut Français d’Etudes
Byzantines, 1986), 269-287.
10 Giuliano Milani, “Il secondo Simone: le fonti letterarie e visuali di un’illustrazione del salterio
Chludov (Bisanzio, secolo IX)” in Ricerca come incontro, ed. Giulia Barone et al. (Roma: Viella,
2013), 84.
11 Massimo Bernabò, Un repertorio di figure comiche del teatro antico dalle miniature dei salteri
bizantini a illustrazioni marginali, in Zograf (Beograd: Institut za istoriju umetnosti, 2005),
21-32.
12 Leslie Brubaker, Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press), 123-124.
13 Emma Maayan-Fanar ,“Silenus among Jews? Anti-jewish polemics in ninth century byzantine
marginal psalters” in Between Judaism and Christianity, ed. Katrin Kogman-Appel and Mati
Meyer (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 259-278.

106
iconoclastic writings, since it was also frequently reused against the iconoclasts
themselves.
The depictions of Jews in scenes of polemical content from the New Testament
reflect not only anti-Jewish, but also anti-iconoclastic stances: the Jews, who
reject the True God, who are unable to interpret the words of the Bible correctly,
who failed to recognise the Messiah and crucified the Son of God, are assimilated
with the Iconoclasts.
In the at least five scenes directly dealing with the misdeeds and defeat of the
Iconoclasts, the actions of the most recent opponents of the Faith are compared
to those of the historical enemies of the Church, indicating the deep emotional
involvement of the illustrator in designing their depiction.
Yet, while the images of the Jews are somewhat conventional, as there were
already caricatured figures of them in earlier Byzantine art, the images of the
Iconoclasts are innovative, not only because they make a connection with the
present, but also because they reveal the deep hatred they were subjected to by
the people of their time.
Thus, their physiognomy is not only distorted, but takes on demonic
characteristics and they are closely associated with satanic imagery first and
foremost because of one distinctive feature: their stiff, spiky hair.
We can then find this type of depiction again in the scene mentioned earlier
that sees John the Grammatikos as the protagonist, clearly in a negative sense.
A miniature in the Psalter features a verse from Psalm 69.21: “They also gave
me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” And in
the scene of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (fol.67r. fig.1) it is possible to see a
soldier that reaches Christ with a sponge soaked in vinegar on a pole14. In the
foreground stands the person caricatured, namely the last iconoclastic patriarch
of Constantinople, John VII Grammatikos, who is erasing an image of Christ with
a similar sponge. He is in direct comparison with the Roman soldiers stabbing
Christ Crucified with a spear. Both under the crucified Christ and his to-be-
erased depiction there is a container, but while the one under the former collects
his blood, the other contains the paint with which his image is whitewashed.
John Grammatikos is portrayed with crazily tousled hair spreading everywhere,
with the aim to ridicule him and mark his inner disorder.
Subsequent readers probably destroyed John’s image, rubbing out his face so
that now it is hardly visible.
Ironically, it was the heretic himself who was removed as a result of his efforts
to erase an image of Christ.
John Grammatikos,15 according to the testimony of Photius, had been a cleric,
an icon painter and possibly the author of a grammar. Leo V later commissioned
him to write a florilegium of patristic texts to be used during the council of 815.

14 Brubaker, Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm, 124.

15 Milani, “Il secondo Simone”, 85-88.

107
 A fervent iconoclast, he succeeded the patriarchs Theodotus Kassiteras and
Antonius Kassimatas until the return of orthodoxy, when he was deposed and
replaced by the iconodoule Methodius. He then lived until around 860, so at the
time of the compilation of the Psalter, the dating of which remains uncertain, he
may still have been alive.
There is also another image that again features John Grammatikos, proposed
with a similar type of depiction to that explained above.
On folio 51v (fig. 2), the iconoclast is referred to by the derogatory nickname
Iannis and is lying on the ground on his side. His face is too damaged to be clearly
visible, but his straight, dishevelled hair is clearly distinguishable, while an open
bag, from which coins have fallen, hangs around his neck. Above him towers
the figure of Nicephorus, who has a long, pointed beard, a bishop’s pallium, and
holds an icon of Christ in his left hand and points to John with his right, while
with his foot he tramples him.
Nicephorus had been Patriarch of Constantinople from 806 to 815 and had
played a decisive role among the iconodoules between the first (730-787) and
the second iconoclasm (815-843). Indeed, he had participated as an envoy of
Empress Irene at the Second Council of Nicaea, which re-established the cult
of icons for the first time. The patriarch promoting this initial victory had been
Tarasius, upon whose death Nicephorus was appointed. Emperor Leo V deposed
him and sent him into exile. From the monastery, Nicephorus continued to
oppose iconoclasm by writing several pamphlets in defence of icons until his
death in 828. He was later declared a saint and, at the behest of the new patriarch
Methodius, his body was moved to the city.
Returning to Figure 2., we find at the top, next to Psalm 52:7 , “Behold the
man who had not made God his fortress, but trusted in the abundance of his
riches and made himself strong through his perverseness”, an illustration
mirroring that of Nicephorus and John, and the caption explains that we are
dealing with: «NIKHOOPOC IATPIAPXH ΥΠΟΔΕΙΚΝΟΙΩΝ (sic) IANNHN ΤΟΝ
ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟΝ CIMOΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΚΟΝΟΜΑΧ(ουν)»16. Therefore, as Milani argues,
the author of the psalter, in order to emphasise John’s faults, chose to compare
him to Simon Peter for the guilt of simony, an accusation repeatedly hurled
against the iconoclasts already by Theodore the Studite in his epistolary and,
later, after the restoration of orthodoxy, often repeated against the patriarchs
(like John) who had supported the emperor’s policy out of lust for wealth.
Not surprisingly, Patriarch Methodius wrote : “The ungodly have defiled your
sanctuary with profane and simoniacal ordinances. For this reason such men
have been expelled from the divine glory: with them Simon Magus, and with him
John and the foolish Anthony’.17
16 The inscription reads: “Patriarch Nicephorus points to Ianni second Simon and enemy of ico-
ns”, in Kathleen Corrigan, Visual Polemics in the Ninth­century Byzantine Psalters (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992), 161.
17 MIgne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, 99, col. 1773

108
 Once again then, the illustrator of the Chludov chooses to denigrate John
by appealing to his cultural heritage and drawing attention to his faults as an
opponent of icons and a man corrupted by simoniacal greed, but the tool he
uses, the caricatured image, makes the psalter a priceless testimony of how
political struggle can continue over time and keep its force alive thanks to the
power of irony.

109
 10

Од ординарен консумеризам до
интелектуализам: Развојот на богомилската
идеологија во интроспекцијата на историските
извори
МАЈА АНГЕЛОВСКА - ПАНОВА, Институт за национална историја,
Универзитет „Св. Кирил и Методиј“, Скопје
UDK 27-876.45(495.02)(093)

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to reconstruct the concept of Bogomil

ideology, based on the analyzis of the fundamental sources related to the
Orthodox East. This is a very complex process, especially considering that since
its very beginning the Bogomilism was related to the people with lower social
status. The situation drastically changed during the period from the end of 11th
and the beginning of 12th century when, according to Anna Comnena, it started
to penetrate between Byzantine aristocracy and intellectual elite. The typical
example is John Italos, a philosopher who gathered around himself many
listeners from the prominent Byzantine families and his teaching received
great acclaim. More precisely, Italos’ teaching was considered to be contrary to
the doctrine of the official Church, so he was forced by the Alexius I Comnenos
to the public condemnation. Anyway, Italos is important because he was
inspired of the Bogomilsim which found manifestation in his interpretation of
metempsychosis and theory of denial of icons. This was actually initial stage
when Bogomilism acquired dimension of intellectual movement.

110
Проучувањето на богомилството, а во таа смисла и на неговата идеологија
се базира главно на изворите со антибогомилски карактер, што во голема
мера го отежнува објективното реконструирање на проблематиката, осо-
бено поради евидентната тенденциозност на податоците. Таквата состој-
ба дополнително се проблематизира со отсуството на историски извори
со автентичен богомилски статсус, кои поради карактерот на содржината
во континуитет биле подложни на уништување. Сепак, имајќи ги предвид
фундаменталните извори, чијашто провениенција со поврзува со право-
славниот Исток делумно може да се проследи идеологијата на богомил-
ството, која евидентно еволуира од ординарен консумеризам до движење
со интелектуални и револуционерни атрибути.
Нема сомнение дека појавата на богомилството топографски се поврзува
со просторот на средновековна Македонија1, но духовниот извор, а доне-
каде и инспирацијата за појавата на богомилството лежи во традициите
воспоставени со Охридската книжевна школа, во која образовниот про-
цес не бил сведен само на пасивно восприемање на христијанските догми,
туку напротив подразбирал и можност за создавање критички однос во
нивното толкување. Особено, што тенденцијата на св. Климент Охридски
била вклучување на што поголем број ученици во образовниот процес со
цел писменоста да добие пошироки димензии без претензија да се третира
како привилегија на еден ограничен општествен слој со повисок соција-
лен статус.2 За тоа во голема мера придонел и методолошкиот пристап на
св. Климент, кој во рамките на своите проповедни и пофално-поучни сло-
ва ги имплементирал и апокрифните текстови како релевантни книжевни
творби кои го одразувале светогледот на обичниот човек во услови на не-
говите лимитарани сознанија за светот и за појавите во него. Во контекст
на неговото дело „Слово за Пасха“ повеќекратно се споменува мотивот за
слегување на Христос во адот, додека во „Пофалното слово за архангелите
Михаил и Гаврил“ се зборува за падот на Луцифер и победата на архистра-
гот Михаил, теми карактеристични за апокрифите, а подоцна одразени и
во народното творештво.3
Апокрифите во јужнословенските средини во принцип биле пренесени
преку византиската традиција, а првите словенски преводи се доведува-
ат во врска со дејноста на светите Кирил и Методиј и нивните ученици.4
Впрочем, дејноста на Климентовата книжевна школа во голема мера била
поврзана со традициите на Кирило-методиевската традиција и како таква
оставила траен белег во македонската средновековна писменост и култура.
1 Бранко Панов, Македонија низ историјата (Скопје: Менора, 1999), 61.
2 Маја Ангеловска-Панова, Богомилството во духовната култура на Mакедонија (Скопје:
Институт за старословенска култура-Прилеп, Аз-Буки), 69.
3 Георги Василев, Български богомилски и апокрифни представи в английската среднове­
ковна култура (София: Корени, 2001), 240.
4 Biserka Grabar, „Iz problematike slavenskih apokrifa“, Зборник 1100 годишнина од смртта на
Кирил Солунски, кн.1 (Скопје: МАНУ, 1970), 91.

111
 Во таа смисла интересно е да се спомене дека глаголската традиција во рам-
ките на Охридската книжевна школа била восприемена и од богомилите
на што своевремено укажале Ватрослав Јагиќ и Ватрослав Облак.5 Особено
што тоа јасно го покажуваат и босанските богомилски текстови од XV век
кај коишто се чувствуваат траги од глаголски оригинали и придржување до
јазичните особености на архаичната Охридска книжевна школа. 6
Просветно-образовната активност во Охридската книжевна школа резул-
тирала со создавање кадар од 3500 свештеници, од кои поголемиот дел ја
продолжиле својата активност како доследни служители на официјалната
Црква во функција на феудалната идеологија, но веројатно имало и так-
ви кои проширувајќи ги своите теолошки и идејни концепции пројавиле
скептицизам, кој еволуирал до конструктовна критика. Токму во еден таков
духовен амбиент на компетитивност на идеите може да се бара и настану-
вањето на богомилството како рана народна антиципација на европскиот
хуманизам и реформација.7
Хронолошки првиот извор во кој се засегнува богомилската проблема-
тика е „Писмото“8 на цариградскиот патријарх Теофилакт (933-956), кое во
споредба со останатите извори како да отстапува од образецот за приказ на
богомилската ерес. Тоа можеби се должи на фактот, што жанровски станува
збор за писмо, упатено „до Петар, цар на Бугарите од патријарх Теофилакт“
или со други зборови се работи за конкретен одговор на конкретно пра-
шање. Во Писмото патријархот разликува три категории на еретици и тоа:
„Првите од нив кои проповедаат туѓи догми на црквата... да бидат повтор-
но крстени според 19-то правило на Никејскиот собор... другите, кои биле
заблудени од првите и биле подведени од нив не поради порочност, туку
поради простотилук и глупавост... да не се крштеваат одново, туку да се по-
мазаат со печатот на светото миро, кое се става на новородени деца. ... А
припадниците на третата група – оние кои ниту подучувале, ниту учеле...
туку се присоединиле кон нив од незнаење.“9 Независно од граѓанските за-
кони, кои предвидувале смрт и физичко насилство, зашто како што стои

5 Блаже Конески, „Охридска книжевна школа“, Климент Охридски (Скопје: Одбор за

одбележување на 1100 годишнината од доаѓањето на Климент во Охрид и формирањето
на Охридската школа за словенска култура и писменост, 1986), 23; Емилија
Црвенковска, „Влогот на македонската редакција во меѓуредакциските контакти на
црковнословенската писменост“, Rocznik Slawistyczny, t. LXV (2016), 20, бел.20.
6 Конески, „Охридска книжевна школа“, 23.
7 Повеќе за ова види: Маја Ангеловска-Панова, Богомилството во духовната култура на
Македонија, 67-70.
8 Писмото било откриено од страна ма бенедиктинскиот монах Bernard de Montfaucon во
архивата на Амброзијската библиотека во Милано околу XVII век. Види: Georgi Minczew,
“Remarks on the Letter of the Patriarch Theophylact to Tsar Peter in the Context of Certain
Byzantine and Slavic Anti-heretic Texts”, Studia Ceranea, 3, (2013), 113.
9 Димитър Ангелов, Борислав Примов, Георги Батаклиев, Богомилството в България,
Византия и Западна Европа в извори (София: Наука и изкуство), 42; Christian Dualist
Heresies in the Byzantine World c.650 – c.1450, ed. Janet Hamilton and Bernard Hamilton, assist.
Yuri Stoyanov (Manchester University Press, 1998), 98-99.

112
во Писмото: „злото се повеќе и повеќе...напредува,“10 Теофилакт го предо-
чил текстуалниот модел на анатемата, давајќи им шанса на еретиците за
покајание и повторно враќање кон православието. Анатемите се однесува-
ле на луѓето, кои пропагирале ерес или во конкретниот случај како што
стои во првата анатема: „на онoj коjшто верува дека има две начела, добро и
зло и дека едното е творец на светлината, а другото на ноќта“11, што во овој
случај само ја потврдува дуалистичката ориентација на движењето. Врз ос-
нова на ваквата содржинска поставеност се добива определена претстава
за богомилската организациска структура и идеологијата, иако во оваа
првична фаза станува збор за прилично лимитирана претстава, особено
што уште на самиот почеток патријархот констатира дека станува збор за
„новопојавена ерес,“12 идентификувана како „мешавина од манихејство и
павликијанство“.13 Во оваа фаза со скромна мрежа и веројатно со мал број
на совршени богомили како идеолошки супстрат на движењето тие сѐ уште
не претставувале сериозна опасност за Црквата и воопшто за Византија.14
Состојбата се менува и суштински и концептуално во периодот, што сле-
дува. Корпусот извори, составен од „Беседата“ на презвитер Козма, „Писмо-
то“ на монахот Ефтимиј од Акмонија, „Паноплиа догматика“ на Ефтимиј
Зигавен и „Алексијадата“ на Ана Комнина, дефинитвно го менуваат дискур-
сот за богомилството и нудат една интегрална слика за ереста и нејзините
еволутивни тенденции. Интересно, во овој контекст е да се спомене дека
авторите припаѓале на повисоката црковна хиерархија, додека Ана Комина
била византиска принцеза и писателка. Имајќи го предвид нивниот опш-
тествен статус и позицијата во црковната хиерархија реално следува заклу-
чокот дека станува збор за ерудити, искусни во егзегезата на христијанските
догми, кои со исклучок на презвитер Козма сознанијата за богомилството
ги темелеле врз основа на личните сведоштва на припадниците на бого-
милството и тоа најверојатно припадници на категоријата на совршените,
што само ја потврдува релевантноста на податоците.
И покрај тоа што „Беседата на презвитер Козма“ претставува „веродос-
тоен приказ на ереста во сите нејзини повеќекратни верски и политички
манифестации“15 сепак содржаните податоци како да имаат повеќе лока-
10 Ангелов, Примов, Батаклиев, Богомилството в България, Византия и Западна Европа в
извори 43; Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World, 99. Повеќе за начинот
на казнувањето на еретиците види: Andrew P.Roach, Maja Angelovska-Panova, „Punishment
of Heretics: Comparisons and Contrasts between Western and Easter Christianity in the
Middle Ages,“ Историја, год. XLVII, бр.1 (2012), 145-172.
11 Ангелов, Примов, Батаклиев, Богомилството в България, Византия и Западна Европа в
извори, 43, Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c.650­ c.1450, 100.
12 Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c.650­ c.1450,98.
13 Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c.650­ c.1450, 99.
14 Маја Ангеловска-Панова, „Ерес, идеологија, империја: Случајот со богомилите“, Зборник
од шестиот меѓународен симпозиум „Денови на Јустинијан I“, ед. Митко Б. Панов (Скопје:
Институт за национална историја-Скопје, 2019), 56.
15 Драгољуб Драгојловић, Богомилство на Балкану и у Малој Азији, т. II (Београд: Бал-

113
 лен карактер во смисла на просторот на појавата на богомилството, додека
останатите споменати извори се однесуваат на еден поширок географски
ареал во контекст на Византија, вклучително и на самата престолнина во
Константинопол.
Најстараиот препис на „Беседата“ се чува во Соловецкиот манастир под
инвентарен број 865, а хронолошки се идентификува помеѓу 1491-1492 годи-
на. Станува збор за книжевно дело во кое се интегрирани 40 слова, распре-
делени во две тематски целини и тоа во првото е опфатено алегоричното
толкување на евангелските принципи, исклучиво од аспект на богомилска-
та идеологија, а второто има исклучиво дидактички карактер, наменет пред
сѐ за еретиците, но во контекст ги засегнува и правоверните христијани,
како и претставниците на официјалната Црква.16 Презвитер Козма е при-
лично субјективен во надворешниот опис на еретиците, па во таа смисла
констатира: Надворешно еретиците изгледаат како да се овци: кротки,
смирени и молчаливи. Наизглед лицата им се бледи од лицемерниот пост.
Збор не прозборуваат, наглас не се смеат, не се љубопитни и од тие погледи
се вардат. Прикриени прават сѐ за да не ги разликуваат од правоверните
христијани, а како што кажува Господ – длабоко во себе се волци и крвоже-
дни ѕверови.17 На друго место,пак, Козма е уште пожесток во описот па вели:
„А тие слични на волкот, којшто сака да го изеде јагнето, првин се препра-
ваат дека духовно се возвишуваат и понизно ги прифаќаат. Откако,пак, ќе
сретнат прост и неук човек, таму го расејуваат плевелот на своето учење,
при што ги клеветат одредбите наменети за светите вркви“.18 Во овој кон-
текст интересно е да се споменат два битни моменти и тоа: повикувањето
на сентенцата од Евангелието по Матеј (7, 15) ”Пазете се од лажните проро-
ци, кои ви доаѓаат во овча облека, а внатре се грабливи волци“, која подоцна
ќе ја користат речиси сите автори и која ќе се третира како еден вид форму-
ла во надворешниот опис и квалификувањето на еретиците.19 Друг значаен
момент е оној дел од текстот во кој Козма зборува за „прост и неук човек“
што укажува и на социјалната структура на консумерите на еретизмот.
На дигресивно методолошко ниво Беседата како да претставува еден вид
архетип за подоцнежните извори не само во однос на физичкиот опис на
припадниците на богомилството, туку воопшто во реконструирање на по-
веќето аспекти на ереста, особено егзегезата на евангелските принципи.
канолошки институт САНУ, 1982), 47.
16 Ангеловска-Панова, Богомилството во духовната култура на Македонија, 18.
17 Илија Велев, Беседа против богомилите на презвитер Козма (Скопје: Македоника, 2011),
53; Kiril Petkov, “The Voices of Medieval Bulgaria, Seventh – Fifteenth Century”, East Central
and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450­1450, ed. Florin Curta (Leiden-Boston: Bril, 2008),
69.
18 Велев, Беседа против богомилите на презвитер Козма,53; Petkov, “The Voices of Medieval
Bulgaria”, 69.
19 Joachim Gnilka, Comentario Theologico del Nuovo Testamento: Il vangelo di Matteo (Breshia:
Paidea, 1990), 159; Maja Angelovska-Panova, “Turning towards Heresy: Bogomils and Self-
defence”, Nottingham Medieval Studies 63 (2019), 83;

114
 Значајно податоци за богомилите, познати уште како фундагиагити,20
за еволутивните фази на богомилството и методологијата на апсолви-
рање на ереста содржи полемичната творба на константинополскиот
монах Ефтимиј од Акмонија, настаната најверојатно околу средината на
XI век. Станува збор за релевантни податоци, особено што самиот Ефти-
миј констатира дека „мене ништожниот ми се случи да патувам со еден
од нив без да го познавам... Тој бил како што ми кажа, псевдопрезвитер
и жител на селото Гозус“.21 Нема сомнение дека соговорникот на Ефти-
миј бил припадник на богомилството, кого што авторот го идентификува
како „безбожен фундагиагит,“ термин кој како номенклатура за еретици-
те богомили за првпат се промовира во изворниот материјал. Во врска
со надворешниот изглед на богомилите-фундагиагити Ефтимиј констати-
ра: „Тие си облекле овча кожа, а под неа, внатре во себе кријат волк“.22 И
покрај евидентната тенденциозност во разобличување на ереста, сепак
Ефтимиј е објективен во смисла на теолошкото образование на протаго-
нистите, кои „наизуст ги знаеле не само цитатите од светото свенгелие и
од Посланијата на апостол Павле, туку и цитати од богослови, од Златоуст,
од псалтири и од светите отци...“23
Очигледно во периодот во којшто е напишано посланието богомилството
е веќе поприлично стандардизирана религиска манифестација, дисперзи-
рана на едно пошироко рамниште во рамките на Византиската Империја.
„Тие – вели Ефтимиј ја обиколуваат целата ромејска држава и сите христија-
ни под сонцето за да ги измамуваат и лажат душите и да ги отргнат од раце-
те на Бога и да ги предадат во рацете на својот отец Ѓаволот“.24
Во фокусот на вниманието е и извесен Јован Чурило, за којшто Ефтимиј
вели: „не можам да го наречам отец како што вие сте свикнале да го нареку-
вате, или, абат, зашто тој не е таков, туку е слуга и пратеник на ѓаволот. Сите
знаете дека тој ја напуштил жена си, откако ја направил псевдоабатка, како
што и тој станал псевдоабат“.25 Останува дилемата дали во случајот на Јован
Чурило станува збор за свештеник во рамките на православната црква, кој
заедно со својата сопруга, подоцна се конвертирале кон богомилство, или
20 За етимологијата на терминот фундагиагити види: Dmitri Obolensky, The Bogomils. A Study
in Balkan Neo­Manichaeism, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), 177-178.
21 Ангелов, Примов, Батаклиев, Богомилството в България, Византия и Западна Европа
в извори, 48; Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c.650- c.1450, 144.
22 Ангелов, Примов, Батаклиев, Богомилството в България, Византия и Западна Европа в
извори, 48.
23 Ангелов, Богомилството в България, Византия и Западна Европа в извори 51; Hamilton,
Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c.650- c.1450, 146.
24 Ангелов, Примов, Батаклиев, Богомилството в България, Византия и Западна Европа в
извори, 60, Hamilton, Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c.650- c.1450,
158. За дисперзијата на богомилството во Анатолија, за којашто говори Ефтимиј од
Акмонија види: Yuri Stoyanov, The Other God. Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar
Heresy (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2000), 169-171.
25 Ангелов, Примов, Батаклиев, Богомилството в България, Византия и Западна Европа
в извори, 61; Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World c.650- c.1450, 159.

115
 пак, се работи за богомили, припадници на категоријата на совршените,
кои од самиот почеток партиципирале во овие средини. Доколку постои
веројатност тие да биле првенствено во рамките на православната црква,
тогаш логично би се наметнала и претпоставката дека богомилството по-
чнало да навлегува во монашките кругови и меѓу претставниците на офи-
цијалното христијанско свештенство уште во средината на XI век, времето
кога настанало делото на Ефтимиј од Акмонија.26
Во случајот со Ефтимиј Зигавен и Ана Комнина станува збор за личното
сведоштво на попот Василиј, главниот проповедник и еден од совршените
богомили, кој дејствувал во самата престолнина во Константинопол. „Јас би
сакала да ја опишам подробно богомилската ерес – вели Ана Комнина, но
одбегнувам некои нешта за да не си го осквернам јазикот. А оние коишто
сакаат да ја изучат целата ерес на богомилите ги препраќам кон книгата,
насловена како „Паноплиа Догматика“,составена по наредба на мојот тат-
ко” Станува збор за делото на Ефтимиј Зигавен, но останува дилемата дали
тој бил „брзописецот, кој запишувал зад завесата“ – како што соопштува
Ана Комнина или станува збор за службеник на дворот на чиишто белеш-
ки подоцна се повикал Зигавен при создавањето на делото. „Славата на бо-
гомилството – истакнува Ана Комнина веќе се распространила насекаде...
и злото како со оган уништило многу души“.27
Богомилската идеологија бележи подем на две нивоа и тоа хоризонтално,
што значи распространување на територијата на Македонија, Балканот,
Византиската Империја, вклучително и во престолнината во Константино-
пол и вертикално во смисла на еволуирање на интелектуалните аспекти,
внатре во самото движење, идентификувани преку книжевните состави
со автентична артикулација и филозофската егзегеза, како последица од
влијанието на гностицизмот, орфизмот, питагорејството и неоплатони-
змот. Тоа само ја потврдува претпоставката дека богомилските ересиарси
во периодот од крајот на XI и почетокот на XII век биле образовани луѓе.
Всушност, ако се вратиме на почетоците на богомилството логично се
наметнува претпоставката дека темелите на богомилската книжевност
биле поставени со самата концепција, најверојатно изложена во писмена
форма од страна на попот Богомил и неговите соработници. Поконкретно
богомилската книжевност во иницијалната фаза веројатно била сведена на
еден вид програма во која биле изложени основните начела на апостаза-
та и нивната интерпретација во согласност со богомилскиот догматизам и
доктрина. Во таа смисла не случајна била и упатеноста на презвитер Козма
во богомилската идеологија, кој своите сознанија најверојатно ги стекнал
со непосредно читање на дела со оригинален статус, кои реално поради ка-
рактерот на содржината биле уништени. Постоењето на книжевни дела со

26 Stoyanov, The Other God, 172.

27 Anna Komnene, Alexiadis libri XV, 8, ed. by Ludwig Schopen (Bonn, 1839), 351-352.

116
оригинален богомилски статус го потврдуваат и подоцнежните извори, па
така Ефтимиј од Акмонија ги споменува „сатанските еподи“, кои се чита-
ле при обредот на светото крштевање, Ефтимиј Зигавен говори за „евха-
ристични молитви“28, а Симеон Солунски, пак, се осврнува на „молитви и
песни, достојни за презир“.29 Во контекст на автентичната богомилска кни-
жевност секако треба да се спомене и повеќетомната расправа на Констан-
тин Хризомала, под наслов „Златните слова Господови“, која по наредба
на Синодот на Цариградската патријаршија во 1140 година била спалена.30
Содржината на овој вид книжевност е непозната, но за разлика од онаа ини-
цијалната и програмска овде веројатно станува збор за книжевност со окул-
тистички карактер, наменета за кредото на богомилската елита, односно
за совршените. Кон овој вид книжевност богомилите имале исклучително
респективен однос, веројатно поради верувањето дека тука се содржани
најскриените догми на нивното учење, достапни за лимитираниот број на
припадниците на категоријата на совршените богомили.
Филозофските импликации како дел од развојот на богомилската идео-
логија во интелектуална смисла претставуваат посебен феномен. Колку за
илустрација примената на вегетаријанскиот начин на исхрана, освен рели-
гиозно-догматска и аскетска детерминираност имала и филозофска оправ-
даност, проследена преку метемпсихозата и трансмиграцијата на душите.31
Присуството на филозофските идеи и интерпретации во рамките на бого-
милската идеологија придонело учењето да ги заинтригира и претставни-
ците на византиската елита или како што известува Ана Комнина „големци“
и „виши духовници“. Типичен е примерот со Јован Итал. Како прoфесор по
филозофија, „Јован Итал првенствено ги запознал своите студенти со фило-
зофската мисла на Платон и Аристотел. Познато е дека покрај платонскиот
и аристотеловските концепти, тој држел предавања и за учењето на неопла-
тонистите, имено Проклиј, Порфириј и Јамблихиј“.32 Имајќи ги предвид
податоците од Комнина, општ е впечатокот дека Итал собрал мноштво слуша-
тели околу себе, главно луѓе „поврзани со политичката и духовната сфера на
28 Euthymius Zigabenus, Adversus bogomilos, ed. by Jacques Paul Migne, PG, t.130, (Paris 1866),
coll.1312, C 14-15;
29 Symeonis Thessalonicensis archiepiscopi, Adversus omnes haeresis, ed. by Jacques Paul Migne,
PG, t.155, 68 A.
30 Драгојловић, Богомилство на Балкану и у Малој Азији, т.II, 184; Yuri Stoyanov, The Hidden
Tradition in Europe (Penguin Group, 1994), 146-147; Веселина Вачкова, Богомилската
алтернатива, (София: Тангра ТанНакРа ИК, 2017), 238.
31 Идеите за тоа дека човечката душа може да содржи искуства од некој претходен
живот посредно се среќаваат во делото на Ефтимиј од Акмонија. Осврнувајќи се на
богомилскиот мит за вдахнување душа авторот констатирал дека „кога човекот се гневи,
тој е како змија, како куче, како мачка...“ Понатамошното објаснување се однесува на
ѓаволот, кој за да ја задржи спротивставената душа во телото јадел секакви нечисти
животни, кои подоцна ги исфрлил врз душата на Адама. Види: Маја Ангеловска-Панова,
„Историско-културолошкиот контекст на богомилството“, Филолошки студии, вол. V,
бр.1 (2007), 98.
32 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, translated by Elizabeth A. S. Dawes, (Cambridge, Ontario, 2000),
V, 1, 96.

117
 византискиот живот“.33 Согледувајќи ја сериозноста на состојбата на теренот
„императорот Алексиј I му наложил на својот брат Исак да ја преиспита содр-
жината на доктрините на Итал за присуството на било какви еретички теми
во неа. Како резултат на тоа, околу март 1082 година, неговите учења првично
биле потврдени од судот, по што резултатите од истрагата биле доставени до
патријархот Евстатиј Гарида за конечно да ги оцени Синодот. Патријархот
бил под големо влијание од Итал и неговото учење. Иако морал да придонесе
за подобрување на филозофот, тој речиси почнал да ги споделува неговите
нечесни мислења поради неговиот фатален шарм“.34 Споделувањето на ми-
слењата се однесувало пред сѐ на верувањето во метемпсихозата и прашање-
то околу нихилизмот кон иконите.
Не случајно императорската интервенција била повеќе од неопхoдна, заш-
то како што се вели во „Алексијадата“„лажните доктрини“ на Јован Итал „ги
зафатиле умовите“ не само на актуелниот патријарх Евстатиј Гарида, кој бил
веднаш сменет од функцијата, туку и на „премногу дворјани“.35 Ана Комнина
е децидна дека филозофот не ги претставувал традиционалните вредности
на византиското општество и како таков претставувал сериозна закана за
постојниот поредок, преиспитувајќи го кредибилитетот на многу прашања.
Како резултат на тоа „учењата на Итал се сметале за спротивни на доктрина-
та на Црквата и биле изразени во 11 анатеми, а самиот филозоф бил принуден
од царот на нивна јавна осуда од амбонот на Света Софија“.36 Впрочем, не слу-
чајна била и интервенцијата на императорот Алексиј I Комнин (1081-1118 год.),
чиешто дејствување имало чисто политичка позадина и сѐ повеќе се иден-
тификувало со цезаропапизмот како превентивен механизам за заштита на
Империјата од девијантните световни и духовни опасности. 37
Со истиот интензитет и веројатно помеѓу повисоките општествени слое-
ви богомилството продолжило да егзистира и во периодот на владеењето на
императорот Мануил I Комнин (1143-1180 год.), за што сведочат податоците
од Житието на Иларион Мегленски, кој на функцијата епископ на Меглен
бил во периодот помеѓу 1133 и 1142 година. Свесен за подемот на богомил-
ството и сѐ поголемиот број на приврзаници тој прибегнал кон стратегија
на „чести проповеди пред своите луѓе, поучувајќи ги и бодрејќи ги да се
придржуваат до вистинската вера“. Во колкава мера било присутно бого-
милството сведочи и тоа што византискиот император Мануил „за малку не
отстапи од нашата благочестива вера, ако не беше поткрепен и утврден со
догматските поуки од блажениот Иларион“.38

33 Magdalena Jaworska-Woloszyn, “John Italos Seen by Anna Komnene”, Peitho/Examina Antiqua

1, 5 (2014), 284.
34 Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, 97.
35 Jaworska-Woloszyn, “John Italos Seen by Anna Komnene”, 285.
36 Jaworska-Woloszyn, “John Italos Seen by Anna Komnene”, 285.
37 Ангеловска-Панова, Богомилството во духовната култура на Македонија, 80.
38 Добрила Миловска, Јован Таковски, Македонската житијна литература IX­XVIII век

118
 Кога се говори за Мануил Комнин секако треба да се истакне фактот дека
станува збор за елоквентен и образован човек, суверен во теолошките пра-
шања. Јован Кинам за него зборува како за особено опитен во толкувањето
на аристотеловските прашања, кои ги решавал на прилично лесен и еднос-
тавен начин. 39 Во таа смисла можно е да се претпостави дека афинитетот
на Мануил Комнин кон философските прашања и дебати, претставувале
солидна основа за неговиот интерес кон богомилството, кое бездруго во
својата суштина интегрирало аспекти и шпекулации од философски карак-
тер. Неговиот прагматичен ум сепак се издигнал над неговите афинетите
и во тенденцијата да направи јасна дистинкција помеѓу православието и
ереста тој наредил да се „очисти од стадото целата богомилска ерес и тие
што од срце им се покоруваат на благочестивите догмати, да ги прима и да
ги вбројува во избраното стадо, а оние што не се покоруваат и остануваат
во својата нечестива и одвратна ерес, да ги тера негде далеку од стадото на
православните“.40
Ова е веќе јасен индикатор дека богомилската идеологија ги заинтриги-
рала и претставниците на високите општествени слоеви, кои очигледно по-
чнале да стануваат свесни за недоследностите внатре во Црквата, особено
доведувајќи го во прашање моралот на духовништвото. Можно е да се пре-
тпостави дека вакви интенции постоеле и порано, зашто презвитер Козма
иако истапувал од позиција на црковен авторитет и против богомилите,
тој сепак не останал индиферентен на развратниот живот на владеачката
класа предупредувајќи: „О, пастири на божјите словесни овци , кои земате
млеко и волна од стадото, а не се грижите за овците. Каков одговор ќе имам
пред Божјиот суд, како ќе дадам отчет на големиот пастир над пастирите?...
А епископот е должен да го управува свештеникот и да ги поучува луѓето
кои му се доверени, но најпрво самиот треба да се чува од секакво зло...“.41
Значи од религија на угнетените во иницијалната фаза, меѓу другото на-
сочена и против феудализмот како општествен поредок, богомилството
еволуира во движење кое на некој начин го преиспитува феудализмот и
официјалното христијанство, иницирано токму од оние од „куќите на го-
лемци„ и „високи црковни достоинственици“.42 Логично се наметнува пра-
шањето, што е тоа во богомилската идеологија што придонело таа да биде
привлечна за византиското благородништво и да се стекне со атрибутот
на интелектуализмот. Според Оболенски, овој контакт на богомилството
со луѓето со повисок социјален статус во општеството се должи пред сѐ
на нивниот стремеж кон „теолошки шпекулации и различни философски
(Скопје: Менора, 2017), 137.
39 https://vapingday.ru/en/gas/manuil-i-komnin-yarkie-faky-iz-biografii-znachenie-manul-i. html
Пристапено на 19.9.2022 год.
40 Миловска, Таковски, Македонската житијна литература IX­XVIII век,138.
41 Велев, Беседа против богомилите, 107.
42 Alex., lib.XV,9, 358.

119
 теории од неправославна природа“.43 Подемот и продорот на богомилството
во рамките на пообразованото општество меѓу другото се должело и наин-
теракцијата со определени мистични трендови од масилијанско потекло.44
Всушност, философијата на богомилите, вклучително и на катарите на За-
пад претставува прва теорија на етичкиот глобализам и прв модел на една
универзална религија, којашто Е.Лазарова ја идентификува како евангел-
ски хуманизам,45 што дополнително придонесува за атрактивноста на апос-
тазата. Секој може да се издигне над социјалната предодреденост на своето
раѓање и да стане човек на честа и човек на книгата или автентично инте-
лектуално богат.46
Во таа смисла богомилството претставува прва сериозна реформација
на Истокот, со кое всушност започнало рушењето на стереотипите на офи-
цијалното христијанство, но и на феудализмот како општествен систем, кој
во голема мера се засновал на патријахални вредности. Тенденцијата да се
повикуваат единствено на текстовите на Евангелието, нудејќи автентична
интерпретација, како и едноставниот обреден систем дефинитивно било
во функција на рационализирање и извесни промени внатре во самото
христијанство. Всушност оваа ренесанса на гностицизмот требала да извр-
ши извесно влијание врз официјалната црква и сфаќањето за самата себеси,
кое драстично се сменило по институционализирањето на христијанство-
то, но повеќе во негативна смисла. Останува дилемата дали и колку успеала
во тоа! Егалитаризмот исто така претставувал значаен сегмент од богомил-
ската идеологија, кој секако имал позитивни импликации, особено во усло-
ви на класно општество какво што претставува феудализмот. Од тој аспект
богомилството пројавувало голема сличност со идеалот на ранохристијан-
ското монаштво, реализирано во пустинските предели на Мала Азија, Па-
лестина, Сирија итн., каде што биле евидентни тенденциите за еднаквост
во сиромаштијата, принцип којшто со сѐ поизразеното институционализи-
рање станал туѓ за протагонистите на Црквата, кои ги уживале бенефитите
на своите позиции во рамките на црковната хиерарихија.
Идејата за еднаквост на половите субјекти и функционирање на рамно-
правна основа е уште еден прогресивен елемент, кој во голема мера придо-
нел за неутрализирање на патријархатот во општеството и барем теоретски
повлијаел за можноста од редефинирање на статусот на жените.47 Колку и
43 Obolensky, The Bogomils, 202.
44 Obolensky, The Bogomils, 202.
45 Ерика Лазарова, Богомило­катарската философия като живяна етика (София: Аванг-
ард Принд, 2013), 231.
46 Лазарова, Богомило­катарската философия като живяна етика, 231.
47 Повеќе за проблематоката на ересите и родовите субјекти види: Маја Ангеловска-Панова,
„Средновековните ереси и родовите идентитети помеѓу бенефитите и морално-етичката
контроверза“, Зборник на трудови од Седмиот меѓународен симпозиум „Денови на
Јустинијан I“, ед. Митко Б.Панов (Скопје: Институт за национална историја-Скопје,
2020), 229-241.

120
да биле утопистички ваквите идеи и реално во пракса и на општествено
ниво не успеале да заживеат во препознатливите услови на средновековие-
то, сепак имале позитивен импакт во развојот на богомилската идеологија,
која независно од религиската и политичката детерминираност во текот на
сопствената еволуција се здобило и со интелектуален предзнак.

121
 11

Beyond Christian Ideology – Sketching the

Typology of the Bogomil Beliefs
BOJANA RADOVANOVIĆ, Radboud University Nijmegen /
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna
UDK 27-876.45”09/13”(093)

Abstract: This paper represents an outline of a more ample study in progress.

The main issues addressed fall under the scope of a wider research area revolv-
ing around the question of how the Bogomilism evolved over time. This paper
will try to delineate the outlines of the Bogomil-ascribed kaleidoscope of ideas
and concepts, judging by the accounts from the sources ranging from the tenth
to the fourteenth century. The image of the Bogomil-related beliefs which
emerges is by no means a homogenous one. On the contrary, these should bet-
ter be placed at the crossroads between apostolic Christianity, extra-canonical
strands, mystical theology, and even elements laden with some flavor of magic
and paganism – mostly related to the wider phenomena ascribable to lay reli-
giosity. Hence, some new research questions and angles from which we are to
observe and understand the Bogomil belief system emerge.

The questions revolving around the relationship between magic and religion
have extensively been scrutinized in scholarly circles.1 In the Middle Ages, sig-
nificant and variegated religious syncretisms occurred, and influenced the

1 A. A. Barb, “The Survival of Magic Arts,” in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the
Fourth Century, ed. Arnaldo Momigliano, 100–125 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 101. Some
of the most important councils in question were Synods of Laodicea, Toledo 681, of Trullo in
691/2, of Rome 743 and 826, Synod of Tours 813, Synod of Paris 829 and the Canon Episcopi in
ca. 900; papal bulls: Lucius III in 1184 issued Ad Abolendum, and Innocent IV Ad extirpanda in
1252.
122
perceptions of magic, heresy, and paganism, as well as their interconnections.
Heresiologists brought heresies in direct or indirect relation to magical rites, as
heresiarchs have not seldom been equated with magicians, and the church coun-
cils have dealt with these thorny questions at regular intervals.2
Before the age of Theodosius I (r.379–395), pagan religious practices were con-
demned as superstitions, and considered to have occupied a private sphere of
devotion.3 In the late 4th century, John Chrysostom (d. 407) warned of amulets,
charms, wishes, incantations, and accused the semi-Christianized peoples.4
Those who did not wish to repent were treated as apostates – and it is exactly
from him that the assimilation of treatment between heresy and magic stems.5
These were treated as crimen laesae maiestatis (high treason) in the time of Am-
mianus Marcellinus (d. between 391–400).6 In spite of the fact that the freedom
of expression for both pagan and Christian religion saw the day under Valen-
tinian I (r.364–375), capital punishment continued to be applied for those who
resorted to magic rituals or necromantic sacrifices.7 After the fourth century,
magic was left for treatment of canonists and theologians.8
In the Theodosian and Justinian Codes9, the emperors started issuing decrees
against numerous heresies: Jewish and Christian Gnosticism, Manichaeism,
Neopaganism, and others.10 In ancient Rome, no differentiation was made be-
tween religious, scholarly, and popular forms of divination, including haruspices,
astrologers, augures, which were all ascribed to the same group of criminal ac-
tions.11 The Theodosian Code condemned prophecy as well as the magical arts,
and equated heretics with pagans in the eyes of law, including the magical arts.12
In Byzantium, it was more often secular law (Theodosian and Justinian Codes)
which dealt with magical practices. For the church fathers, no real distinction
2 Yuri Stoyanov, The Other God: Dualist Religions from Antiquity to the Cathar Heresy (New Haven-
London: Yale University Press, 2000), 232–250.
3 Barb, “The Survival,” 108–109.
4 Marie Theres Fögen, “Balsamon on magic: From Roman Secular Law to Byzantine Canon Law”,
in Byzantine Magic, ed. Henry Maguire, 99–115 (Washington D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection, 1995), 105.
5 Fögen, “Balsamon on magic”, 105.
6 Cf. Barb, “The Survival,” 111.
7 Barb, “The Survival,” 110.
8 Fögen, “Balsamon on magic”, 103–104; cf. Barb, “The Survival”.
9 The Theodosian Code (Codex Theodosianus), was organized in a form of a compilation of the
Roman Law in the fifth century, by Emperor Theodosius II. It included legal precepts related
to the propagation of the Christian Creed from the times of Emperor Constantine. Neverthe-
less, it encompassed laws from earlier times as well. The Corpus Iuris Civilis assembled under
Emperor Justinian I (r.527–565) represented a sort of continuation of the Theodosian Code.
Both the Theodosian and Justinian Codes had a high impact on medieval policies, laws and
theology. One of the most important features these codices brought in, was the officialization
of the Christian religion and the dismissal of other religions as being illegal.
10 Barb, “The Survival,” 114.
11 Barb, “The Survival,” 120.
12 Theodore Mommsen and Paul Meyer, eds., Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmon-
dianis et leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes (Berlin: Weidmann, 1905, Re-print 1954,
1970), XVI.5.43, 869.
123
 between the white and black magic existed, that is, between goetia and theurgia,
as both were considered nefarious and founded upon the basis of idolatria.13
In the 10th century, Theodore, Metropolitan of Nicaea, advocated for the re-
pented Paulicians and other heretics in the Armeniakon Theme of Asia Minor to
be treated as pagans.14 In Byzantium of the 11th and 12th centuries, as well as during
the reign of the Palaiologan dynasty (1261–1453), the renewed interest in Hel-
lenistic and pagan traditions arose. The concepts involving magic have certainly
developed and evolved. Later, the influence from the West may have marked the
Byzantine attitudes to magic.15 Nevertheless, the information which circulated on
popular notions of magic and demonology was at times fluid and blurred. These
encompassed a vast field of various magical and divinatory practices, astrology,
and healing charms, among others.16
In Nomokanon, composed by Theodore Balsamon (1140–1199), church canonist
and Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, magic was often treated similarly to
heresy.17 In his commentary on canon 61 of the Council in Trullo (691/2) – which
put magic and divination in close connection to paganism or apostasy18 – Bal-
samon explains a link between a sorcerer and a heresiarch – comparable to oth-
er similar clichés in polemical literature – since both were accused for being the
progeny of Satan.19 In the High Middle Ages, in western Europe, magic was viewed
as a pact with demonic powers or allegiance to them, and as a sort of treason to
God; in Byzantium, heresy and magic were both seen as apostasy from faith.20 In
later sources, Patriarch Germanus of Nicaea (1222–1240) denunciated the “demon-
inspired Bogomils and their dark mysteries.”21 In the Code of Tsar Dušan, composed

13 Barb, “The Survival,” 106; see also my work “Poznoantički čudotvorac Apolonije iz Tijane i
ranohrišćanska predstava o svetitelju” [Apollonius of Tyana and the Late Antiquity vs Early
Christian concept of a charismatic figure], Srpska teologija danas 3, ed. B. Šijaković, 154–160
(Belgrade: University Press, 2012).
14 Bernard Hamilton and Janet Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World, c. 650–
c.1405 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), 112.
15 Richard Greenfield, “Magic and the Occult Sciences”, in The Cambridge Intellectual History of
Byzantium, eds. Anthony Kaldellis and Niketas Siniossoglou, 215–233 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2017), 232.
16 Cf. Paul Magdalino, “Occult Science and Imperial Power in Byzantine History and Historiogra-
phy (9th–12th Centuries)”, in The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, eds. Paul Magdalino and Ma-
ria Mavroudi, 119–162 (Geneva: La Pomme d’Or, 2006); Maria Mavroudi, “Occult Science and
Society in Byzantium: Considerations for Future Research”, in The Occult Sciences in Byzan-
tium, eds. Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi, 39–96 (Geneva: La Pomme d’Or, 2006); 39–96;
Greenfield, “Magic and the Occult Sciences”, 230.
17 Magdalino, “Occult Science”, 158–160.
18 Fögen, “Balsamon on magic”, 114.
19 Fögen, “Balsamon on magic”, 99–102.
20 Robert Mathiesen, “Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa: The Written Tradition”, in Byzantine Magic, ed.
Henry Maguire, 155–177 (Washington D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,
1995), 173.
21 Stoyanov, The Other God, 248; Hamilton and Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies, 267–275; Ge-
rhard Ficker, Die Phundagiagiten: ein Beitrag zur Ketzergeschichte des Byzantinischen Mittelal-
ters (Leipzig: J. A. Barth, 1908), 115–125.

124
between 1349 and 1354, certain magical practices were associated with heretics.22
Metropolitan Symeon of Thessaloniki (1410–1429) accused the Bogomils of having
served the Devil and practiced ecstatic rituals and incantations.23 However, some
rhetorical topoi were undoubtedly present in the descriptions of the Bogomil ritual
as we find it in the polemical literature, and undoubtedly, one of the most difficult
questions to answer is to discern when the employed observation in the polemical
literature was a rhetorical topos or a cliché only, and when the polemical descrip-
tions conveyed the exact and trustworthy account.

Potential links between Bogomilism and pagan/magical practices

In Slavia Orthodoxa, magical texts were seemingly quite surprisingly con-
demned on the basis of heresy, and not of magic.24 Ever since the tenth century
and the earliest accounts on the Bogomils, some of the elements indicating the
prophetic and esoteric elements within the Bogomil doctrine were mentioned.25
In the tenth century, Cosmas the Priest reported that the Bogomils resorted to
“dance and devilish songs.”26 Furthermore, the Bulgarian Bogomils were allegedly
in the possession of divination books with prophecies27; they believed in the ex-
istence of eight heavens, and referred to themselves as the inhabitants of Heav-
en.28 They would often meet in obscure, quiet, and far-remote places and held
their nocturnal congregations.29 The three distinct grades within the Bogomil
group existed: those of the listeners, believers, and the perfects. Additionally,
some indications that we have on the four main rituals they performed may offer
important “trails” for the existence of more esoteric practices.30

22 Stoyanov, The Other God, 248.

23 Stoyanov, The Other God, 248–249.
24 Even in Late Medieval Russia, heresy was denounced together with other practices judged anti-
ecclesiastical in nature, such as witchcraft and healing charms, see Mathiesen, “Magic in Slavia
Orthodoxa”, 162, 170–172.
25 This research topic will be dealt with more in detail in my forthcoming analysis.
26 Dimităr Angelov, Bogomilstvoto [Bogomilism] (Sofia: Bulvest–2000), 1993, 73, 75; see Michael
Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081­1261 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), 482–485.
27 Angelov, Bogomilstvoto, 75.
28 Euthymius Zigabenus, Narratio, c. 106, 18, in Ficker, Die Phundagiagiten, 87–125, at c. 106, 18, n. 41.
29 Angelov, Bogomilstvoto, 241–242; cf. Life of Hilarion of Moglen, in Emil Kałužniacki, Werke des
patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymius (1375–1393). With an Introduction by Ivan Dujčev (Lon-
don: Variorum Reprints, 1971), 27–58; see also Jean Gouillard, “Une source grecque du Synodik
de Boril: La letter inédite du Patriarche Cosmas,” Travaux et Mémoires 4 (1970), 361–374, at 372.
30 My forthcoming article “Quia me vestigia terrent: Isaiah’s Vision in the Bogomil Circles – on a
Trail of the Cosmic Ascent Journey?”, Proceedings of the International Conference ‘Cosmic As-
cent in Theory and Practice’, Trinity College Dublin 2021 (forthcoming 2022) deals with this
topic more in detail.

125
 As stated in a 12th-century catalogue of heresies Panoplia Dogmatica,31 composed
by a renowned theologian Euthymius Zigabenus at the request of Anna Comnena,
daughter of the Byzantine emperor Alexius I Comnenos (1081–1118), the neophyte
had to undertake the devilish oath during the Bogomil congregations.32 Euthymius
Zigabenus mentions a special rite, according to which the neophyte would turn to-
wards the East, with a Gospel placed on his head, and engage in prayer.33 Holy Spirit
would bestow the initiate with the capacity to foresee the future. Namely, the Bo-
gomils claimed that often not only in sleep, but also awake, they could see God as
an old bearded man, Son as a young man with only some beard, and the Holy Spirit
as a beardless youth.34 Apart from by Euthymius Zigabenus, allusions to doctrinal
secrecy and the gradual initiation procedures of the neophytes in the higher rank
of the Bogomil clique were also presented in Euthymius of the Peribleton’s Epistula
contra Phundagiagitas sive Bogomilos.35 In the mid-11th century, Euthymius of the
Periblepton in the diocese of Acmonia, conveyed the information on the admis-
sion of a dualist listener in the grade of believers conducted by the “teachers of evil”
who recited a secret “satanic incantation,” and were brought in connection with
Simon Magus, as well as wizardry, albeit indirectly.36 Similarly, the account on the
death of Basil, the Bogomil heresiarch as contained in Zigabenus’ treatise, reveals
that some level of association between the heresiarch and magic existed, since the
congregation was afraid that Basil would resort to magic and save himself from
the pyre.37 Moreover, according to Euthymius Zigabenus, the Bogomils referred to
themselves as magi.38 The Magoi were a tribe in ancient Persia, and their forefather
Zoroaster, the mythical sage and the first magos. In the beginning, magic (mageia)
originally referred to religion. It was only later that it came to oppose theourgia, a
form of magical religion cultivated by certain Neoplatonists from the second cen-
tury AD onward.39
31 The Panoplia Dogmatica offers the most extensive account on the Bogomils that had reached
us. The editions I refer to here include: Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia Dogmatica, ed. Jacques-
Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca 130:19–1362 (Paris: Imprimérie Catholique, 1857–1866), and John
Sanidopoulos, “The Rise of Bogomilism and Its Penetration into Constantinople. With a Complete
Translation of Euthymios Zygabenos’ ‘Concerning Bogomilism’” (Rollinsford, NH: Orthodox Re-
search Institute, 2011).
32 Ficker, Die Phundagiagiten, 24, 9ff.
33 Angelov, Bogomilstvoto, 247; Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia Dogmatica, ed. Migne, 45, anathema
11, and 56C; Ficker, Die Phundagiagiten, 37, 20.
34 Angelov, Bogomilstvoto, 248; Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia Dogmatica, ed. Migne, 56;
Euthymius Zigabenus in Sanidopoulos, The Rise of Bogomilism, 110–111.
35 Cf. Hamilton and Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies, 142–164, 180–207, 162, 194; Ficker, Die
Phundagiagiten, 3–86, 89–111; Euthymius Zigabenus, Panoplia Dogmatica, ed. Migne, 1289–
1331, 1317C; See “Abjuration formulas against the Bogomils”, in Paolo Eleuteri and Antonio Rigo,
Eretici, dissidenti, Musulmani ed Ebrei a Bisanzio (Venice: Il Cardo, 1993), 151, n. 30.
36 See Ficker, The Phundagiagiten, 3–86, 115–126; Hamilton and Hamilton, Christian Dualist Her-
esies, 142–164, at 149–150, and 154–155.
37 Stoyanov, The Other God, 245.
38 Stoyanov, The Other God, 245.
39 Mageia was at times viewed as a positive term, in opposition to goeteia, cf. Mathiesen, “Magic
in Slavia Orthodoxa”, 157.

126
 Consequently, judging by the polemical literature that has reached us, the key-
words which may bring some of the Bogomil views closer to magic and paganism
come mainly from the accounts on their demonology, demonic chants/incanta-
tions, and claims of prophecy.40 Magic incantations were well known throughout
the religious history of the ancient world and were frequently encountered in
Late Antique pagan charms.41 Тhe practice of incantation (chanting) was refuted
by John Chrysostom as being satanic in nature, or charm.42
According to Zigabenus, Basil, the Bogomil heresiarch, interpreted the Gospel
saying in a particular way, deducing that the demons should be honored, “…not
to gain their help, but so that they may do you no harm.” The Bogomils believed
that the demons inhabited the churches, and that they should be worshipped
(the demons), in order not to anger them. Apparently, the power of the demons
was impressive, according to the Bogomil world-view. “Neither Christ nor the
Holy Spirit with him can stand against this, since the Father still spares them
and does not take away their strength, but allows them the government of the
whole cosmos until the consummation. When the Son was sent down into the
world at the beginning, he asked for their complete destruction, but did not gain
his request through the goodness of the Father.” Zigabenus concludes that the
Bogomils have inherited this stance on the demons by the Messalians.43

Bogomils and lay religiosity

Judging by the information conveyed by the diversified source material, the
Bogomils were apparently brought into connection with some of the pagan-like
and superstitious beliefs and practices in the Byzanto-Slavic world.44
The Synod of 27th September 1325 preserved an account told by a monk Malachia,
deacon and cleric of the monastery Pantocrator in Thessaloniki, on an epileptic
monk Dositheus who searched a remedy for his illness. A certain Bogomil advised
him to drink contaminated Epiphany water.45 This is just an example of scarcely-
preserved accounts testifying on direct involvements of Bogomils in what seems
to be a reflection of lay religiosity embodied in healing/superstitious practices.
40 Sanidopoulos, The Rise of Bogomilism, 97, 104–105. The Bogomils were apparently known for
exerting control over demons, cf. Stoyanov, The Other God, 245.
41 Cf. Barb, “The Survival,” 121–125. These constituted a key segment of Neoplatonic, Greek,
Egyptian religious practices.
42 Barb, “The Survival,” 106.
43 Sanidopoulos, The Rise of Bogomilism, 104–107. The Bogomils were frequently brought into
connection with the more ancient heresy of the Messalians, which was most convincingly
disputed by Antonio Rigo, “Messalianismo = Bogomilismo. Un’equazione dell’eresiologia
medievale bizantina,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 56/1 (1990): 53–82.
44 Obolensky, Bogumili, 76, 259–267. The indications of syncretism and other forms of pagan
customs were also described in Life of Theodosius of Trnovo, as put forward in Obolensky,
Bogumili, 256–262.
45 Antionio Rigo, Monaci esicasti e monaci Bogomili (Florence: Olschki, 1989), 114–115; Carolina Cu-
pane, “La magia a Bisanzio nel Secolo XIV: Azione e Reazione”, Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen
Byzantinistik 29 (1980): 237–262, at 260, n.90. This topic merits a more detailed analysis and
will be dealt with more thoroughly in one of my forthcoming texts.

127
 However, similar hints do exist, as, for example, the Bogomils were also brought
in connection with the festivity of St. John’s Eve/Midsummer’s Eve (24th June). Ac-
cording to Dimitri Obolensky, this celebration which “included jumping through
the fire and ritual killing of human statue, was later brought into connection with
the Bogomil practice,” and the participants were accused of performing mystery
rites alike the pagan ones.46 Both of these festivals, Epiphany and St. John’s Eve,
originated in the Christian lore, but were marked with certain influx of magical
practices and beliefs, and probably imbued with pagan remnants.47
Another festivity with which the Bogomils were at times brought in connec-
tion to was Rusalia. It was a pagan religious tradition, also encountered among
the South Slavs particularly, and accounted for by Demetrios Chomatenos
(1217–1236), archbishop of Ohrid.48 According to Obolensky, it may have initially
sprung out of the Roman custom which consisted of paying honor to and com-
memorating the souls of the deceased. 49 Rusalia was celebrated on the Eve of
Epiphany, St. John’ Eve, and at the Pentecost, and involved some healing rituals
and specific ritual actions, including dance, chanting, and observation of the so-
called “inverted” behavior, which may have resonated particularly appealing to
the Bogomils.50 The Bogomils – or at least those displaying the more “esoteric” in-
clinations among them – may have felt attracted by these curious semi-magical
practices, situated somewhere at the cross-roads between religion and magic, lay
religiosity, paganism and superstition, as these may have born a certain level of
analogy with some of their own observations.

Bogomils and the Gnostic­leaning substratum and extra­canonical elements51

Pagan lay religiosity represented a possible means of transfer/import of Gnos-
tic-like and extra-canonical elements and as a reservoir of the previous traditions

46 Dimitri Obolensky, Bogumili: studija o balkanskom neomaniheizmu [The Bogomils: A Study in

Balkan Neo­manicheism]. Translated by dr. Živan Filippi (Zagreb: Hlad i sinovi, 2008), 76, 103,
247–248. See also the opposing view expressed by Gouillard, “Une source grecque du Synodik
de Boril,” 365, n.23.
47 These two are also semantically intertwined and I will explore this en detail in my forthcoming
work.
48 Александар В. Поповић, “Један византијски запис о празнику Русалија код Словена
(Chomatenus EP 120)”, Зборник радова Византолошког института XLIII (2006), 475–481.
49 Obolensky, Bogumili, 76–77; see also Драгослав Антонијевић, Ритуални транс (Београд:
Балканолошки институт САНУ, 1990), 147–188; however, Popović makes a distinction be-
tween the celebrations of Rusalia and the “Rusalna nedelja” (the Rusalna week), see Поповић,
“Један византијски запис о празнику Русалија,” 481; see also Цветелин Степанов, Религии
в езическа България (София: Парадигма, 2017), 150–158.
50 This very intriguing and complex topic exceeds the scope of this paper and will be deepened
in my future work.
51 See my previous works: “Female Imagery in Bogomil Myth, Exegesis, and Social Reality: An
Overview”, Slavonica, https://doi.org/10.1080/13617427.2022.2066428; “From ‘coats of skin’ to
the ‘robe of glory’: on the (ascent/descent) journey of allegory in the Visio Isaiae and Interroga-
tio Iohannis and beyond”, in: Proceedings of the Eighth International Scientific Symposium “Days
of Justinian I, ed. M.B.Panov, 155–165 (Skopje: University Press, 2021), and “Quia me vestigia
terrent” (Dublin, forthcoming).

128
and observances.52 Namely, the Bogomils have most likely combined apocryphal
legends and folk demonology.53 In their biblical exegesis, the Bogomils have most
likely re-deployed motifs of apocryphal provenance and based on Jewish sourc-
es.54 Additionally, the presence of the Gnostic threads in the Bogomil doctrinal-
textual tissue has been pointed to, as was the need to effectuate a more substan-
tial work on this issue.55

Bogomils and Hesychasm

Yet another religious theory and practice, which has probably left an influence
on the Bogomils, should be mentioned here. The Hesychast mystical tradition of
the Orthodox church, based on the contemplative Jesus prayer, came to the fore
and re-emerged during the Hesychast controversy in the 14th century between
supporters and opponents of Gregory Palamas (c.1296–1357/1359). Some of the
most important Hesychast elements could be related to the ascetic practice of
the Bogomils and include: the state of being “pregnant with spirit”, continuous,
contemplative prayer, ecstasy, prophecy, ascent, and the vision of God.56 More-

52 See David Gress-Wright, “Bogomilism in Constantinople,” Byzantion 47 (1977): 163–185, at 178,

on possible distinctions between Constantinopolitan and Balkan Bogomils.
53 Milan Loos, The Dualist Heresy in the Middle Ages (Prague: Československá akademie věd, 1974),
89–91; Gress-Wright, “Bogomilism in Constantinople,” 172–173, on the influx of Balkan pagan
substratum in the Balkan Bogomils.
54 The wide research field in the study of the transmission of the apocryphal literary strands offers
promising opportunities for deepening the here-proposed study, see: Yuri Stoyanov, “Diaboliz-
ing the Garden of Eden: Re-Interpretations of Jewish Pseudepigraphy in medieval Christian
Dualism,” in The Cosmography of Paradise, ed. Alessandro Scafi, 109–125 (London: The War-
burg Institute, 2016); Id., “Pseudepigraphic and Parabiblical Narratives in Medieval Eastern
Christian Dualism, and their Implications for the Study of Catharism,” in Cathars in Question,
ed. Antonio Sennis, 151–176 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016); Andrei Orlov,
“Selected Bibliography on the Transmission of the Jewish Pseudepigrapha in the Slavic Mi-
lieux,” in Selected Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha, ed. Id., 203–435 (Leiden: Brill, 2009);
Małgorzata, Skowronek, “Remarks on the Anathemas in the Palaea Historica.” Studia Ceranea
3 (2013): 131–144; William Adler, “Parabiblical Traditions and Their Use in the Palaea Historica,”
in Tradition, Transmission, and Transformation from Second Temple Literature through Juda-
ism and Christianity in Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium of
the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, eds. Menahem
Kister, H. I. Newman, M. Segal and R. A. Clemens, 1–39 (Leiden: Brill, 2015); Dylan Burns, “An-
cient Esoteric Traditions: Mystery, Revelation, Gnosis,” in The Occult World, ed. Christopher
Partridge, 17–33 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014).
55 The Sethian Gnostic treatises should be furtherly examined, as this line of investigation would
most likely offer the significant potential for ensuing investigation, see Garry Trompf, “Gnos-
tic Vicissitudes in Late Antiquity,” in The Gnostic World, eds. Garry W. Trompf, Gunner B.
Mikkelsen, and Jay Johnston, 271–282 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018); John D. Turner, “Sethian
Gnostic Speculation,” in The Gnostic World, eds. Garry W. Trompf, Gunner B. Mikkelsen, and
Jay Johnston, 147–155 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018), and Stephen Gero, “With Walter Bauer on
the Tigris: Encratite Orthodoxy and Libertine Heresy in Syro-Mesopotamian Christianity,” in
Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, eds. C. W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson, 287–307
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986).
56 The most thorough study of this topic is composed by Rigo, Monaci esicasti; Steven Runci-
man, The Medieval Manichee. A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1969), 96; Yuri Stoyanov, “Esotericism and Visionary Mysticism in Medieval
Byzantine and Slavonic Orthodox Pseudepigraphic and Heretical Literature,” in Esotericism,
Literature and Culture in Central and Eastern Europe. Proceedings of the Second Conference of

129
 over, the Bogomils – who appeared physically as monks ever since the earliest
times57 – and Hesychast monks occupied the same geographical areas: they were
to be found on the mount Athos, but also in Thessaloniki, and had evidently
come in contact, and shared some interesting mystical strands together, as thor-
oughly researched by Antonio Rigo.58 Importantly, the Athonite mystical tradi-
tion mirrors the earlier theological current attested among the Early Christian
theologians.59

Concluding remarks
Re-opening the question of religious fluctuating expressiveness, whilst bearing
in mind that the Bogomils may well have experienced certain interferences with
lay and popular religiosity of Byzantine and Slavonic religious landscapes, falls
into one of the main research lines of the interrelation between pagan and heretic
belief cultures and traditions. From the 13th century onwards, the Bogomils have
been put in connection to paganism and magic. Broadly observed, Bogomilism
in the 14th century Byzantium should not be viewed as a homogenous movement,
but should instead be placed together with other forms of alternative-dissident
religiosity, together with magic, paganism, and superstitious beliefs, ascribable
to Christian or non-Christian lore. Apart from that, the influx of Gnostic-leaning
and Hesychast mystical elements or the admixture of those with some Bogomil
mystically-inclined strands has been demonstrated. Another important obser-
vation to make is the difference between written testimonies on/against “high
magic” and the “low magic”, with the latter having made its way more easily to
the wider populace. Bogomilism had a tendency towards syncretism and may
have adopted or grew accustomed to other non-Orthodox forms of belief.60 Folk
magic intermingled with Christian and non-Christian elements, of native Slav or
foreign origin, and was most commonly conveyed by oral tradition.”61 In the 14th
c. Byzantium, inhabitants of middle and lower classes usually came in contact

Central and Eastern European Network for the Academic Study of Western Esotericism, ed. Ne-
manja Radulović, 13–28 (Belgrade: Čigoja, 2018); See G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Kal-
listos Ware, eds. and trans., The Philokalia. The Complete Text, IV (London: Faber and Faber,
1995). See also my articles “Spreading the Word: Oral Transmission of the Bogomil Teachings,
Its Symbolism, and Bublical Exegesis.” Studia Ceranea 11 (2021): 11–23, “Female Imagery,“ and
“Quia me vestigia terrent.”
57 Cosmas, in Hamilton and Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies, 116, 127; Rigo, Monaci esicasti,
132; Obolensky, Bogumili, 101ff, 127ff.
58 Rigo, Monaci esicasti, 134.
59 Cf. Alexander Golitzin, “‘Earthly Angels and Heavenly Men’: Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
Niketas Stethatos, and the Tradition of ‘Interiorized Apocalyptic’ in Eastern Christian Asceti-
cal and Mystical Tradition,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2001): 125–153; Jean Gouillard, “Quatre
process de mystiques à Byzance (vers 960–1143). Inspiration et authorité,” Revue des Études
Byzantines 36 (1978): 5–81, at 22–27; Theodore Sabo, “The Proto-Hesychasts: Origins of Mysti-
cism in the Eastern Church,” MA diss. (North-West University, 2012), at 22–67, and 178–210.
60 Cf. Greenfield, “Magic and the Occult Sciences”, 230-1; Mathiesen, “Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa”,
155.
61 Mathiesen, “Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa”, 171.

130
with magical practices, whilst the phenomenal difference between magic and
Christian rites was not always sharply discernible.62 In Slavia Orthodoxa, as well
as in Byzantium, it was apparently possible to practice both magic and Christian
rites.63 The Bogomil doctrine and practice may have shared some common traits
with folk traditions. In other words, to an unbiased observer, some Bogomil prac-
tices may have resembled to some specificities and particular behavior displayed
at popular religious festivals and it is up to the future research to try to establish
if this was just a phenomenal, typological analogy, or genealogical or structural
as well, with some indications, perhaps, of deeper overlapping and appropria-
tion. If we pursue this argument further, we may content to hypothesize that in
fact, the Bogomils may have fragmentarily merged with this segment of the pop-
ulation who practiced such pagan-like rites and partook in their conceptions,
superstitious in nature, which could partly explain the dissipation and gradual
fading away of this dualist heresy.64 Hence, maybe some of the Bogomils found
refuge in quasi-Orthodox, half-magical/pagan, and superstitious ritual practices
and beliefs. This would well align to Richard Greenfield’s observation, that “there
was undeniably the broad gray area between practices and attitudes that are or-
thodox Christian and those that are incontrovertibly unorthodox.”65
How did Bogomilism evolve through time? Apparently it was at its latter stage
that a mystically-inclined current, which has probably taken root earlier, became
more pronouncedly developed among the Bogomils, or in one of the Bogomil
branches. On the other hand, magical arts and pagan superstition were flourish-
ing in some parts of the late Byzantine world, including the Balkans, and the
Bogomils have, as it may seem, well fit within that Zeitgeist and spiritual climate
– the fact that may have precisely been facilitated by those very curious and
enigmatic elements in the Bogomil ritual and practice. Consequently, this paper
points to the new avenue of research on the Bogomils, focused upon the inter-
relation between lay religiosity and heresy, as well as upon the manner in which
these superstitious popular beliefs, highly laden with remnants of paganism,
poured into Bogomilism. Therefore, should we then make a difference between
the Balkan and the Byzantine Bogomils in this respect, given the fact that the
Balkan Bogomils were more expressively put into connection with and colored
by some nuances of popular religiosity?

62 Fögen, “Balsamon on magic”, 105–106, 114–115.

63 Cf. Mathiesen, “Magic in Slavia Orthodoxa”, 174: “…although against canon law (and often civil
as well), magic was generally treated as a crime comparable to homicide or the reprehended
kinds of sexual activity rather than to apostasy or treason…If, however, any kind of magical
practice might have been viewed as a form of apostasy or treason, one might suppose it to have
been magic that explicitly treated with demons, to persuade them to work one’s will.”
64 As precisely suggested by Obolensky, Bogumili, 263–265.
65 cf. Richard Greenfield, “A Contribution to the Study of Palaeologan Magic”, in Byzantine Magic,
ed. Henry Maguire, 117–154 (Washington D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collec-
tion, 1995), 148; Greenfield, “Magic and the Occult Sciences”, 219.

131
 12

Interrelations between Church Father Origen and

the Bogomils? 1

DICK VAN NIEKERK, Radboud University, Nijmegen

UDK 27-876.45:[27-4/.423.3:929 Ориген

Abstract: The Alexandrian Origen (~154-254) was a brilliant and gifted Church
Father whose love for writing was unstoppable to such an extent that he needed
seven secretaries to put the “fruits of his thought” to paper. Origen has always
been a controversial figure. On the one hand, he was a fervent advocate for
the ecclesiastical teachings. On the other hand, he was often drawn to gnostic
interpretations that were unacceptable in orthodox circles. Until now, Origen
is hardly ever mentioned in research on the sources of the Bogomils. Accord-
ing to the author of this paper, this is wrongly so. He presents five cases which
clearly indicate heterodox parallels between Origen and the Bogomils. These
are as follows: 1) the completely deviant perspective on the theotokos, the
Mother of God; 2) the allegorical way of interpreting the Bible; 3) the myth of
the Fall; 4) the beliefs regarding reincarnation; and 5) the particular interpreta-
tion of a key concept of the Pater Noster: Panem nostram supersubstantialem.
Solid proof that the Bogomils used Origen as a source cannot be provided.
However, by means of “circumstantial evidence”, the author attempts to shed
light on a plausible connection. He points to the role of the Paulicians, the
ideological background of the Iconoclastic Controversy, the crucial role of me-
dieval monastic libraries, and of the influential historian Isidore of Seville. This
is complemented with pointing out places where exchange of heterodox ideas
could have occurred: the school of Ohrid (Macedonia) and in Northern Italy.
1 I express my gratitude to Bojana Radovanović and Yentl Schattevoet (both Radboud University
Nijmegen) for reading this paper critically, for their useful remarks and suggestions.

132
 This theme requires prolonged investigations. The fruits of extended research
could lead to confirming the currently proposed thesis as an indisputable fact.

Introduction
Origen (Alexandria ~154–Tyre ~254) can be understood as a conveyer of Early
Christian ideology. He was one of the greatest authors of Early Christianity and
wrote about 2000 works. Nevertheless, he was accused of heretical beliefs, and
some of his writings – like those on the pre-existence of souls – have never been
accepted by the official Church. This is why he is sometimes called “a heretic in
the guise of a Church Father”. However, his great influence on some key authors
of Early Christian theology – such as Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory
of Nazianzus and Jerome – stands out. We may therefore state that he has shaped
some Early Christian theological notions – most notably those on allegorical ex-
egesis and asceticism – and we may perceive him in this light as an important
pillar of Early Christian theological ideology.
Some tenets of apostolic Christianity certainly represent the Bogomil dual-
ist Gnostic system. For example, the Origenic theme of the birth and growth of
Christ in the soul, therewith giving birth to the Word similar to a woman giving
birth. According to Euthymios Zigabenos, all Bogomils are the Mother of God
(theotokos) when they are receiving and promulgating the Word.
In order to uncover both the direct and indirect influence of Origen on the
doctrines of the Bogomils, the aim of this paper is firstly to analyse and map
some parallels between the Origenic ideology of Early Christianity and the Bo-
gomils, whereby the former influenced the latter. Secondly the transmission of
both orthodox and heterodox teachings will be discussed.

Origenism
Some preliminary remarks on Origen and the phenomenon of “origenism”:
The theological legacy of this illustrious Church Father is built for a signifi-
cant part on Platonism.2 The Church Father Eusebius explains that he not only
explored Platonism, but was also interested in the teachings of Pythagoras and
the Stoa.3 He remained a Christian nevertheless, also because he grew up with
the Bible and was well-versed in the Christian teachings to which he remained
faithful to the end.

2 For Origen I consulted: Origen, De Basis Onderzoek naar de fundamenten van geloof en wereld
[The Principles. Research on the foundations of belief and world], (translated by J. Berghuis),
(Budel: Damon, 2009); Ledegang F., Origenes Een experimenteel theoloog uit de derde eeuw [Ori-
gen. A third century experimental theologian] (Kampen: Kok, 1995); De Waele D., Ontluikend
Christendom Cultuurgeschiedenis van een nieuwe religie in de Grieks­Romeinse wereld [Flourish-
ing Christianity. Cultural history of a new religion in the Greco-Roman world] (Utrecht: Kok
Boekencentrum, 2021).
3 De Waele, infra Florishing Christianity, 425.

133
 He was the first to attempt to systematize the Christian faith in his magnum
opus Peri Archoon (Latin: De Principiis, The Principles; in Dutch “De Basis”) see
footnote 1.

His “theology” was partly developed in contrast with Gnosticism, which had
been the driving force behind the development of the theology of the Church of
Rome. The Church was forced to be taken accountable for their viewpoints based
on the arguments they used. Origen defended his Church passionately, distanced
himself firmly from the Gnostics more than once, but at the same time he invol-
untarily influenced Gnosticism to a great extent due to the ongoing disputes. He
was therefore granted the paradoxical epithet: the first among the orthodox and
the greatest of heretics.
When investigating Origen as the source or “influencer” of the Bogomils, we
must keep in mind that so-called Origenism emerged only after his death, and
that the majority of the views expressed in his book on the Principles4 indicate a
theology of seeking which is often expressed in posing two opposite views with-
out immediately drawing a conclusion. The use of the term Origenism requires
proper demarcation, because there are multiple types of Origenism.5
а) First the Origenism of Origen himself. It is the biggest part of his theology
which had been the fertile soil for the fourth century Church Fathers and was
written down in his Book on the Principles.
b) The alleged Origenism of the Anti-Origenists. These are texts written by op-
ponents some centuries after Origin’s death, which are sometimes contradictory

4 Passim note 1 1.
5 The Origen expert H. Crouzel has provided me guidance for this categorization: Henri Crouzel
S.J., Origène est-il la source du catharisme? Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique (Toulouse:
l’Institut catholique de Toulouse, 1979), Tome LXXX):3-28.

134
in nature. These are wrongly attributed to Origen, but always do refer to his
teachings.
c) The Origenism of the Egyptian and Palestinian monks – Evagrius Ponticus
(345-399) and his Kephalaia Gnostika is the most famous – who – sometimes
very delicately –developed the views of Origin further.
In this article, I will only refer to examples that, according to Crouzel, belong
to category a. In the next paragraphs, we will discuss five subjects in which the
tenets of this ideologist of Early Christianity possibly influenced – directly or
indirectly - the Bogomils.

Androgenous portrayal of the Bogomil ideal of theotokos,6 according to Nikos Chausidis

Theotokos: from Origen to the Bogomils

Theotokos translates to the Mother of God and it may have been coined as a
concept by Origen. Mary was initially known as the “new Eve”. This proved to be
a very potent denotation which was used for the first time by the most ancient
theologian of the Church, Irenaeus of Lyon (140-202). He was a student of Poly-
carp, who had been a pupil of the apostles. The disobedience of the old Eve was
equated with the obedience of the new one: “Unto me according to your Word.”
History has been inverted with Mary, as it were.7
It characterizes Origen’s wilfulness that he didn’t see much worth in this de-
notation for Mary.8 The concept theotokos was also used by Aristide and Hip-
polytus9 but Origen’s authority gives it the necessary additional weight. He
remarkably draws a rather negative image of Mary-Theotokos. For example, his
portrayal of the Theotokos during the important seasonal feast of Hypapante,
the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple (February 2). The Lucan pericope con-
tains one troublesome point: the words spoken by Simeon to Mary: “and a sword
6 Никос Чаусидис, Дуалистички слики – богомилството во медиумот на сликата (Скопје:
Лист, 2003): 293-322 [Summary in English: Nikos Čausidis, Dualistic Images: Pictorial
Representations of the Bogomil Movement].
7 The Dutch language has a wordplay for this historical change: Eva has become Ave.
8 Origène, Homélies sur saint Luc, Sources Chrétiennes, eds. Henri Crouzel, et al. (Paris: Éditions du
CERF, 1962), 250-263.
9 Gustave Bardy, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique XIV (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1899): 2334.

135
 will pierce your heart” (Lk 2:35a), with a negative interpretation by Origen in his
Homily 17 in the Gospel of Luke.10 Origen’s view was that if at the time of the Pas-
sion all the apostles had been scandalised by the events, then Mary would have
been scandalised too, as Simeon had prophesized. In fact – the argument contin-
ues – if she had not suffered it, Jesus would not have died for her sins. A similar
negative perspective on the Virgin Mary was also current among the Bogomils.
For instance, in the Discourse of Cosmas against the Bogomils: “If they had their
reasons, they would not claim that the most holy Mother of God has sinned….”11
and “they do not honour the most glorious and pure mother of Our Lord and God
Jesus Christ and utter madness against her.”12 Cosmas clarifies this statement by
explaining that this error is greater than all “their” (i.e. the Bogomils) other evils.
In this way, he indicates the extent to which Bogomils shared orthodox sensibili-
ties regarding the Blessed Virgin. In any case, Cosmas seems clearly troubled by
the Bogomil attitude – so alarmed in fact that he cannot discuss it at any length.13
It is important to note that some of the fourth century texts in which the Vir-
gin Mary is honoured also put emphasis on her role as a saintly human being.
“A letter preserved only in Coptic but probably written by the patriarch Athana-
sius describes Mary as the ideal model for Christian virgins. She was calm and
pure, modest, loved good works, and prayed constantly to God. She wanted to
make progress every day and worked tirelessly to improve her spiritual state.”14
The Virgin is presented as a model for excellent behaviour, but the author never-
theless stresses her human side, stating that her good works are not perfect and
that “bad thoughts” occasionally enter her mind. Such a description would be
unthinkable after the Council of Ephesus (431), when it was declared that she is
the Mother of Jesus, the Divine Human (Theotokos). Several centuries later, the
Virgin Mary (Theotokos) had become an irrefutable subject of devotion for the
Church, second only to Christ himself.
What was the meaning of the Theotokos for the later Byzantine Bogomils? A
Bogomil initiate does not need a Mother of God, as he or she is already a the-
otokos, birth-giver of God, as God is being born anew when preaching the Word
of God15, as Euthymios Zygabenos states. The Bogomil theotokos is superiorly

10 Homélies sur saint Luc infra 13: 256 and 258.

11 Infra note 24, Bernard Hamilton and Janet Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine
World, c. 650–c.1405 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), 131.
12 Ibidem, 123.
13 Michael Frassetto, “Pop Bogomil and Cosmas the Presbyter,” in: Heretic Lives Medieval Heresy
from Bogomils and the Cathars to Wyclif and Hus, ed. Michael Frassetto (London: Profile Books,
2007), 7-21.
14 Pauline Allen, “Portrayals of Mary in Greek Homiletic Literature (6th-7th centuries),” in:
The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium, ed. Leslie Brubaker and Marry B. Cunningham
(Farnham: Ashgate Publishing 2011), 79.
15 Dick van Niekerk, “De ware kerk van Christus zetelt in het hart van de mens, de optimistische
bevrijdingsboodschap van de bogomielen” [The True Church of Christ resides in the Heart
of Man. The optimistic Gospel of salvation of the Bogomils] (Deventer: Prana Magazine 170,
2009), 72 – 83.

136
immune to the temptations of the world and to evil. He is eternally connected
with divine existence16 and is also fuelled by it. He is perfected to a great extent
(savarshenstvo) and is therefore also called a “heavenly dweller”.17 Euthymios
Zygabenos states in his Panoplia Dogmatica: “They say that those of their faith, in
whom dwells what they think of as the Holy Spirit are all and are called Mother
of God. They bear the word of God and give birth to It by teaching. The first God
bearer had nothing more than they……”.18
Most remarkably though, is that this phenomenon is in accordance with the
mystical theme of Origen regarding the birth and the growth of Christ in the soul
which can result in the birth of the Word, similar to a woman giving birth to a
baby.19

The Bogomils on Reincarnation

The idea of reincarnation was considered unacceptable and therefore heresy
according to the ideology of the established Church. However, both Origen and
the Cathar-Bogomil ride roughshod over this: for them, there is room for the idea
of reincarnation focused on metemsomatosis.
On the surface, Origen’s stance on reincarnation is unclear: “We don’t believe
that souls transmigrate from body to body and to the body of wild animals,
like Pythagoras and Plato say .” This is the so-called metempsychosis, which he
doesn’t consider to be a Christian tenet. But he seems to consider the possibility
of human souls reincarnating solely in human bodies (metemsomatosis): “Sup-
pose that someone can prove that the non-corporal, rational nature, when rid-
den from the body, lives on on its own account and when enclosed in the body,
is in a worse state, and in a better state when the body is left behind, then the
corporal nature cannot be pristine, but must have emerged at intervals…..”.20 This
citation can definitely be understood as derived from the textual meaning of re-
in-carne – manifested in the flesh again.21
We fully agree with H. Puech22 that eschatology is an underdeveloped branch
of Bogomilism. There is only one Bogomil reference to reincarnation.23 The
16 Origen uses the Greek word aghios (holy) for such a person but with the older meaning “out of
the land/country; such a saint is in this world but not of this world” (Ledegang, Origenes, 60).
17 Katja Papasov, Christen oder Ketzer. Die Bogomilen (Stuttgart: Ogham Verlag 1983), 110.
18 The Paulicians – forerunners of the Bogomils - have another interpretation of the Mother of
God: “Jerusalem which is above, which Christ entered as a forerunner on our behalf” (according
to Peter of Sicily’s History of the Paulicians, in: Hamilton-Hamilton, Christian Dualist Heresies,
80, 81).
19 Cited from, Crépin, Infra note 47, Aux sources du catharisme, 431. See too: Crouzel, infra, Origène
est­il la source, 18.
20 Origen, Infra, De Basis [The Principles], IV 4,8 page 145.
21 Slavenburg J. and Van Schaik J., “Origenes” [Origen], in: Westerse esoterie en oosterse wijsheid
[Western Esotericism and eastern Wisdom] (Deventer: Ankh Hermes, 2010), 142-147.
22 Henri-Charles Puech et Andre Vaillant, Le traité contre les Bogomiles de Cosmas le prêtre (Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale 1945), 211-213.
23 Alexander Alexakis, “Was There Life beyond the Life Beyond? Byzantine Ideas on Reincarnation

137
 Bogomils believed that their “elected ones”, their theotokoi, do not die but are
changed (‘transmigrate’) as if asleep. They take of this covering of clay and flesh24
without pain, and put on the incorruptible divine stole of Christ. Becoming like
Him in form and body, they enter the Kingdom of the Father with an escort of
angels and apostles, and their abandoned body dissolves into dust and ash, and
will never rise again.”25
In other words: these theotokoi were supposed to discard their earthly bodies
upon death, which dissolved into dust in order to never rise again. They put on
the immortal garment26 of Christ, assumed the same form and body as Christ
when He entered the Kingdom of the Father.

Masters of Allegory
Even though the allegorical reading method was not invented by him, Philo of
Alexandria could qualify as such. Origen is known as “the uncontested master of
the allegorical method and of the allegory”27, especially when it comes to Bibli-
cal exegesis. However, the Bogomils were equally well-versed in allegory.28 The
source of Origen’s writings is “the triple lecture” of the Holy Speech/Language.
He used three layers of meaning. The “corporal” meaning is the most direct inter-
pretation, i.e. the “literal” or “textual” meaning; the “soul” meaning, which Origen
addresses only sporadically, is developed for those who are more advanced; the
“spiritual” meaning is for the perfected: it is in regards to expressions that refer
to Christ in a concealed manner and contribute to the spiritual development of
the reader or in order to give a symbolical interpretation of transcendent mat-
ters. Like a shadow, they refer to perfectly divine topics in non-physical, heavenly
spheres (IV 2.4 and 2.6.).29
The Bogomils also evidently used this method, most notably when they de-
scribe the credentes who crossed their path.30 They bring the New Testament to

and Final Restauration”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2002), 155-177.

24 For this designation of the physical body, Origen uses – a little bit ironic - the expression
“garments of animal skins” (Genesis 3.21).
25 Hamilton-Hamilton, 192.
26 This immortal garment is called “white clothes” in the Book of Revelations 3. 4 & 5: “They
will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. The one who is victorious will, like
them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out the name of that person from the book of life,
but will acknowledge that name before my Father and his angels.” Quispel’s comment: “Those
who remain chaste will receive a new glorious body – the ‘white robe’ – in the Kingdom of
God and live forever”, cf. Gilles Quispel, Het geheime boek der Openbaring [The Secret Book of
Revelation] (Amerongen: Gaade, 1979), 44, 45. The “Old Adam” leaves the Garden of Eden in
“garments of animal skins”, the “New Adam” enters God’s Kingdom in “white clothes”.
27 De Waele infra, Ontluikend Christendom, 424
28 About the allegorical method see: Jan Bor, “De verbeelding van het denken. Geïllustreerde
geschiedenis van de westerse en oosterse filosofie” [Imagining Thought. Illustrated history of
western and eastern philosophy] (Amsterdam and Antwerp: Contact, 1996), 48.
29 Origen, infra De Basis [The Principles], 2009, 342-43 and 344-45.
30 For the allegorical approach of the Cathars, we refer to the insightful article written by
Francesco Zambon, “L’interprétation cathare des paraboles Évangéliques: les deux arbres, la

138
life in a creative, allegorical manner that suits the contemporary situation of the
auditors and the faithful.31 Their symbolic topographical understanding of the
Bible appeals to the imagination in particular. Bethlehem (which literally means
“house of bread”) is understood as their own Bogomil church which provides
the truly living bread to humanity. Herod symbolizes the ruling Church which
spreads evil in the world, and as the assassin of the incarnated Word – the Logos.
The Bogomil path to initiation can be described with the following topographi-
cal concepts. Jesus – the Bogomil neophyte – leaves the orthodox church (Naza-
reth) and is reborn in Bethlehem, the Bogomil church. From there, he passes the
often-turbulent Sea of Galilee (the turbulence of life) and goes to Capernaum
(literally: “the city of Comforters”) where he receives the consolamentum (liter-
ally meaning “the sacrament of the Comforter”).32
For me, it is crystal clear that Origen inspired the Bogomils to use this similar
allegorical and spiritual approach. It applies to both of them that they are bring-
ing us from the level of simplistic “belief” to actual knowledge of the heart and
spirit, gnosis.

The Myth of the Fall

The core of the well-known Bogomil mythical story33 about the fall of Samael
– Satanael – is contained in Origen’s writing on Lucifer34, the initially good angel
who has become the “personification” of evil due to his apostasy. The motivation
for this follows the Bogomil myth, which is based on a Biblical verse to which
Origen also refers: “You said in your heart, I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise
my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly
(…) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the most High”
(Isa. 14. 13, 14).35
At the time of Early Christianity, this Origenic exegesis of pride, derived from
Isaiah, was widely used by renowned Biblical exegetes such as Eusebius, Atha-
nasius, Gregory of Nazianzus and, in the west, by Ambrosius and Jerome.36 This
interpretation was later rejected by, for instance, Basil and Augustine. However,
this did not prevent the spread of the name Lucifer (literally: “shining star”) as a

brebis et la drachme perdues,” in: 1209­2009 Cathares: une histoire à pacifier? ed. Anne Brenon
(Portet-sur-Garonne: Loubatières, 2010), 155-171.
31 Janet Hamilton, “The Bogomil Commentary on St Matthew’s Gospel”, Byzantion 75 (2005), 171
– 198.
32 Dick van Niekerk, infra The True Church of Christ resides in the Heart of Man, 2009.
33 Edina Bozóky, “Le ‘Livre Secret’ des cathares: un lien entre l’Orient et l’Occident,” Slavica
Occitania 16 (Toulouse: Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, 2003): 199-208.
34 Origen, De Basis [The Principles], I 5.5, 136 and 137.
35 Milan Loos, “Satan als Erstgeborener Gottes. Ein Beitrag zur Analyse des bogomilischen
Mythus,” Byzantinobulgarica III (Sofia: Éditions de l’Académie Bulgare des Sciences, 1969):
23-35.
36 Emile Turdeanu, “Apocryphes bogomiles et apocryphes pseudo-bogomiles,” Revue de l’Histoire
des Réligions 138-1 (Paris: Presse Universitaire de France, 1950): 22-52.

139
 designation for the devil in folk religion and apocryphal texts and it turned out
to be ineradicable. In fact, this interpretation had become very popular among
the Bogomils. They subsequently interpreted the remaining story in their own
characteristic fashion.
We can therewith distinguish three subsequent phases when it comes to the
use of the core myth. Firstly, the myth was current among the orthodox (Origen).
It was then rejected (Augustine), and was pushed back to appear only in apoc-
ryphal literature. Lastly, it was gratefully used outside the established Church by
light bringers such as the Bogomils and the Cathars.

The Key Phrase of the Pater Noster

The Bogomils are indebted to Origen in their interpretation of the key phrase
of the Pater Noster: “Give us today our daily bread” (panem quotidianum). Tphe
Bogomils used the wording “supersubstantial bread” (panem nostrum supersub-
stantialem) instead, which they had adopted from Origen.37 It is mentioned in
very old editions of the New Testament, known to Origen. He cites and comments
on Matthew 6:11 (“Give us today our supersubstantial bread”) and Luke (“Give us
every day our supersubstantial bread”)38 and he notices that “some people think
that it commends us to pray for material bread” but this is a “misconception”.39

The transmission of the teachings

After this – far from complete – discussion of the parallels between Origen and
the Bogomils, we are confronted with a crucial question: how was it possible for
the heritage of this severely denounced and highly supressed Origen to survive
the test of time for centuries?
In other words: could there be an intermediary between the last Origenists
of the sixth century and the tenth century Bogomils? Based on my studies, the
Bogomils do not give us any clues. Nor do the Old Slavonic texts translated by
the Preslav school.40 Even though they translated exegetic commentaries on the
Bible and the works of the Church Fathers, they had a strong preference for the
fourth and fifth century Fathers. There are no references to the controversial
Origen.

37 See John van Schaik, De Katharen Feit en Fictie [The Cathars. Fact and Fiction] (Kampen: Ten
Have, 2007), 75. Cf. for an elaborate discussion on the interpretation of supersubstantialem,
see our article: Dick van Niekerk, “Bogomils and Cathars and the fourth Petition of the Pater
Noster: Give us today our imperishable Bread”, in: Byzantium and the Heritage of Europe:
connecting the cultures Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium “Days of Justinian I”
ed. Mitko B. Panov (Skopje: Institute of National History, 2016): 89-97.
38 Origen, Het Gebed [The Prayer]. Translated by Peter Steur (Brugge–Utrecht: Desclée de
Brouwer, year of publication unknown), 84.
39 Origen: “For the bread that is given to us physically is not heavenly and its prayer is not great.”
(Origen, infra. Het Gebed, 84).
40 Geogre C. Soulis, “The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs,” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 19 (1965): 21-43, 35.

140
 It is clear that elements of the teachings of the dualistic predecessors of the
Bogomils, the Paulicians,41 also stem from Origen, like the good God as creator of
souls and the evil one as creator of bodies, their docetism42 and their adoption-
ism43. In a way, Paulicians have therefore developed some of the Origenic ideas
further. The Paulicians first emerged in the seventh century; the first mention
is in Armenia at the beginning of the eighth century. Up until the tenth cen-
tury, Paulicians are mentioned44. It was rightly then when the Bogomils started
to appear: the tract of Presbyter Cosmas against the Bogomils was published in
97245. Long before the Paulicians reached their “peak” in Byzantium, the Icono-
clastic Controversy broke loose with Iconoclastic “Pseudo Councils” in 754 and
815 whereby Origen played an undisclosed role. G. Florovsky discovered a lot of
Iconoclastic thought in the “Origenist substratum”: “Origenism was by no means
a dead issue by that time.”46 Paulicians and Iconoclasm are therefore certainly
indications that the teachings of Origen – although not out in the open – were
very much alive and employed. This is why we can draw a line – albeit paper-thin
– between the last Origenists of the sixth century and the first Bogomils in the
tenth century.
The monastic libraries across Europe are also of great importance in regards
to our theme here. Research on the catalogs shows that the work of Origen was
widely read up until the twelfth century; he is cited the most. This can be partly
attributed to the famous encyclopaedist and historian Isidore of Seville (560-
636), who, in the seventh century, was one of the first to work with the exegesis
and commentaries on the Bible of this Alexandrian sage in his Quaestiones in
Vetus Testamentum47. It was a great success in monastics circles, where it was
copied, complemented or abridged, and used freely. “One admired the great Al-
exandrian for his commentaries on the Bible and his spiritual interpretation of
the Holy Scripture which matched wonderfully well with the psychology of me-
dieval monks48.”
Lastly, it is useful to look at the places known to us which offered opportunities
for exchange of orthodox and heterodox beliefs. Origen would most certainly
41 Nina G. Garsoïan, “Byzantine heresy A Reinterpretation,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25 (1971):
87-113.
42 Docetism is the belief that Jesus had no true physical body but only seemed to have one.
Therefore, his true body was spiritual.
43 Adoptianism is the belief that Jesus was born human and became divine only when he was
adopted as God’s son later in his life, usually at the time of his baptism by John or on the cross.
44 Hamilton-Hamilton, infra, Christian Dualist Heresies, 114: Emperor John I Tzimisces (969-76)
settles Paulicians at Philippopolis.
45 Puech, H. et Vaillant, A., infra, Le traité contre les Bogomiles de Cosmas le prêtre, 1945.
46 George Florovsky, “Origen, Eusebius and the Iconoclastic Controversy,” Church History 19
(1950) 77-96: “The Orient was infected by origenic ideas of all sorts. It is striking Origen’s name
was never mentioned in the debates. Iconoclasts would have condemned themselves if they
dared to claim the authority of Origen.”
47 Albert Siegmund, Die Überlieferung der griechischen christlichen Literatur in der lateinischen
Kirche bis zum zwölften Jahrhundert (München: Filser Verlag 1949), passim.
48 Denis Crépin, Aux sources du catharisme (Paris: Libraire orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 2014), 447.

141
 surface there – like many dualistic theories – at the literary school of Ohrid, which
was a prominent place for debate in tenth century Europe49. Northern Italy would
also be a place where such exchanges took place. The Northern Italian “bishop”
who brought the Interrogatio Iohannis from Bulgaria to Italy is a well-known
example. In the tenth and early eleventh centuries already, most Northern Ital-
ian dignitaries came from Carolingian Northern Europe, because the intellectual
level was more advanced there. Carolingian literature was influenced by works
of John Scotus and Origen, which were also read in Italy. For instance, we know
from a future bishop of Turin that he copied sermons of Origen in Lyon.50

Conclusion
We can confirm that we were not able to provide conclusive philological or
historical evidence for the thesis that the Bogomils used the texts of Origen.
However, looking at the many places of parallels, the role of the Paulicians and
Iconoclasts, the significance of the monastic libraries, Isidore of Seville, and to
the mentioned opportunities for exchange, it seems very likely that the Bogom-
ils were familiar with Origen’s ideas. One could consider this as some kind of
“circumstantial evidence”. It will probably take many more years of thorough
research before the suggestions and hypothesis proposed here today could be
presented as facts.
This has mainly to do with the immense magnitude of the oeuvre of Origen
and with the almost inextricable way in which he is intertwined with (the history
of) religion. Strikingly, the following has been said about him: “No other thinker
has remained so ubiquitous out of sight.”!51

49 Maja Angelovska-Panova, Bogomilstvoto vo duhovnata kultura na Makedonija [Bogomilism in

Macedonian Spiritual Culture] (Skopje: Institut sa staroslovenska Kultura, 2004), passim.
50 Huguette Taviani, Naissance d’une hérésie en Italie du Nord au XIe siècle, Annales Economies –
Sociétés – Civilisation 29 (1974): 1224 – 1252, 1244
51 Walter Nigg, Tragiek en Triomf van het Geweten [Tragedy and Triumph of Conscience]
(Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Ploegsma, 1950), 52

142
 13

Положбата на византискиот император во

Црквата и импликациите врз Охридската
архиепископија
ЃОКО ЃОРЃЕВСКИ, Православен богословски факултет
„Св. Климент Охридски“, Скопје
UDK 321.18:27-732-05(495.02)
UDK 27-9:271.22(497.7)

Abstract: The paper is a contribution to the issue of the rights and position of
the emperor in Byzantium, which place him in a special position in the Church.
As the “Anointed by the Lord”, he was considered the most important church
member among the laity, as evidenced by the Nomocanon’s as well as some
patristic texts. The presentation also contains an overview of the imperial
active involvement in the life of the Church, as well as some of the imperial
decisions that mark the church history through the centuries, including the
decisive moments in the history of the Ohrid Archbishopric.

Идејата за државноста, власта и хиерархиската поставеност уште во

доцната антика и во средновековието, честопати била оправдувана со
религиски аргументи. Не била ретка појавата на деификацијата на власта,
кога на владетелот се гледало како на посредник помеѓу Бога и човекот.
И покрај големите и неизбежни разлики меѓу специфичните видовите
на уредување, како и на политичките идеологии, заеднички за сите нив
е примената на принципот на божественото потекло на власта. Посебно
присутен во доцната Римска империја, тој бил дополнително и надграден
и развиен во Византиската империја.1
1 Georgi Bakalov, “Religius Aspects of medieval State Ideology in the European Southeast”, in State
143
 Имајќи го предвид општествено-политичкиот контекст на првите векови
од христијанството, разбирливо е тоа што за тогашните христијани Црквата
и Државата биле сметани за две сосема различни институции, кои имаат
различни задачи, природа ода и структура. Со промената на историските при-
лики, се развивал и ставот по ова прашање.
Според подоцнежната христијанска интерпретација, Бог владее со светот,
а императорот, преку од Бога дадената власт, со луѓето и редот на земјата.2
Ваквото разбирање својата основа ја наоѓа во Евангелието, во зборовите кои
Христос упатени на Пилат: „не би имал никаква власт ако не ти беше дадена
одозгора“ (Јован 19,11; сп. Рим 13,1). Библискиот пример е елаборирани од
христијанските канонисти. Во нивните списи, византискиот император се
трансформира во главен христијански владетел, кој има легитимната власт
„која му е дадена од Бога“ (затоа и секој обид за напад врз него се смета не
само за криминален чин, туку и за грев).3 Тој однос меѓу земната и свеште-
ната власт во Византиската империја е разгледуван и толкуван од бројни
личности низ историјата, барајќи ја идеалната поврзаност меѓу власта на
императорот и онаа на свештенството, обете божествени институции кои
имаат функција да ги запазат редот и хармонијата, одраз на божествениот
ред на небесата.4 Тоа што Црквата не го примила одозгора, го примил импе-
раторот, а императорот не го примил тоа што го примила Црквата. Притоа,
Црквата не е власт, ниту извор на власта.5
Едно забележано сведоштво од ѓаконот Агапит го продлабочува разми-
слувањето за местото на императорот во заедницата: „Како што окото е
всадено во телото, така и императорот е поставен во светот... Неговата дол-
жност е да се грижи за сите луѓе како за членови на своето семејство, за да
напредуваат во доброто, а не во злото“ (PG 86, 1177).6 Според тоа, правата,
одговорноста и улогата на императорот, положбата која ја зазема и задача-
та која му е доделена според божанската промисла, јасно го разликувала од
останатите членови на Црквата.
Во обид да се истакне власта на императорот во Црквата, може да се за-
бележат определени религиозни титули кои му се даваат на императорот,
како што се „Божји помазаник“ или „жива икона на Христос“.7 Секако, импе-
раторот требало да се одликува со силна вера и одлучна ревност, па затоа
and Church: Studies in Medieval Bulgaria and Byzantium, ed. VasilGjuzelov and Kiril Petkov,
Sofia 2011, 32-34.
2 Токму затоа и Црквата сметала дека е должност да се следи империјалното водство во
секуларната област, види Deno J. Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire:
A Reconsideration of the Problem of Caesaropapism”, Church History 34 (1/1965) 387. Bakalov,
“Religius Aspects of medieval State Ideology in the European Southeast”, 35.
3 Bakalov, “Religius Aspects of medieval State Ideology in the European Southeast”, 36.
4 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 382.
5 Миодраг Петровић, „Положај и права византијског цара у Цркви“, Теолошки погледи 4
(1971) 311.
6 Петровић, „Положај и права византијског цара у Цркви“, 308.
7 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 384.
144
уште светите отци на царот му даваат многу епитети, како што се „најпо-
божен“, „христољубив“,„богољубезен“, „цар ереј, архиереј“, и др. На пример,
учесниците на Трулскиот собор, во поздравниот говор му се обратиле на
Јустунијан како на „најпобожниот христољубив цар“8. Како „Христов викар
на земјата“9, императорот е повикан да служи на државата и на народот.
Тој е привремен викар на Бога на земјата сè до денот на Второто Христово
доаѓање на земјата.10
Византија, како и другите средновековни држави, никогаш не поседувала
пишан устав кој би ги сумирал основните ингеренции на владеење и нивна-
та поделба на авторитет. Не постои официјален документ кој ги набројува
специфичните права на императорот, ниту, пак, има официјален документ
кој ќе ги стави написмено императорските права, или барем дел од нив,
оние кои се однесуваат на Црквата. Но, за нашето прашање извори наоѓаме
во граѓанските и црковните закони, како едиктите на императорите, но-
моканоните и актите од локалните или екуменските собори. Има и збир-
ки со толкувања на големите канонисти, како оние на Зонара, Валсамон,
Хоматијан, и пред се, на Матија Властар, кои со време примиле полуофи-
цијална сила на закон.11 Валсамон смета дека императорите, „бидејќи се по-
мазаници Господови“, се стекнуваат во Црквата со посебни права.12 Димитриј
Хоматијан, во одоговорот на Кавасила вели дека „царот е помазаник Господов
поради царското помазание“.13 Во историјата на црквното право е востановен
поголем број на канони, врз основа на кои Црквата се обраќа со барање до
државната власт, која се одликува со „христијанска благочестивост“. Отците
на Картагинскиот собор (419) востановиле дека „треба да се замолат благо-
честивите цареви целосно да се исфрлат од употреба остатоците од идоли-
те по Африка“ (58 канон). На истиот собор, во насока на решавање на други
проблеми, се вели: „Се востановува, од нашиот собор да се прати писмо до
властите на Африка... па таму, каде по градовите се презира епископскиот
авторитет, со снага на власта и грижата и христијанската вера, да се испита
што се случува“ (67 канон).14
Врз основа на овие канони, како и на подоцнежни закони, византиските
цареви биле задолжени да се грижат за верата во Црквата. Потврди за тоа
се наоѓаат дури и во неколку царски изјави. Така, Валенитијан и Маркијан
(450-457) им пишувале на „сите богољубиви епископи: Првенствено и пред
8 G.A. Rallis – M. Potlis, eds. 2, 295-299.
9 Йоанис Караянопулос, Политическата теория на визнатийците (София: Универ-
ситетско издателство «Св. Климент Охридски», 1992), 36.
10 Bakalov, “Religius Aspects of medieval State Ideology in the European Southeast”, 37.
11 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 383.
12 G.A. Rallis – M. Potlis, eds. 2, 467 и 3,44.
13 G.A. Rallis – M. Potlis, eds. 5,429. Миодраг Петровић, „Положај и права византијског цара
у Цркви“, 308.
14 Слични канони се донесени и претходно на Сардискиот собор (7-9 и 21 канон), како и
потоа на Антиохискиот собор (11 канон).

145
 сè водиме грижа за светата православна вера“ (Мansi VI, 557). Јустинијан
(527-565), во своето обраќање до патријархот Мина, вели: „Нашата ревност
секогаш била и е, со сите средства да ја запазиме чиста христијанската вера
и состојбата на најсветата Божја католичанска и апостолска Црква; оваа
грижа ја сметаме за прва, над сите останати“ (Migne PG 86,945). Јован Ком-
нен се запрашува: „Што е покорисно и поважно за моето царство од тоа да
се запази Црквата од секоја навреда и злоупотреба“ (Zepi, JGR, 1, 363)?15
Впрочем, оваа византиската политичка теорија може да се каже дека за-
почнува со Евсевиј Кесариски, црковен советник на Константин Велики.
Според неговото мислење, изворот на целата власт, и религиозната, и секу-
ларната, доаѓа од Бога. Божествениот Логос, Христос, е врховен Првосвеш-
теник и Цар на земјата, соединувајќи ги во Себе царството и свештенството.
Кога Христос го напуштил светот, власта е поделена на две сфери: духовна-
та, која им била предадена на апостолите, и граѓанската власт на цезарот.
А како претставник на Бога над Неговото царство на земјата, императорот
е одговорен за редот во империјата, за спроведување на правдата, за одр-
жување на мирот... Како што Евсевиј укажува, императорот е оној кој го
врамува земното владеење според моделот на божествениот оригинал на
небесата.16
Од друга страна, пак, ваквото истакнување на божанското потекло на зем-
ната власт на императорот водело и до делумна потчинетост на Црквата
пред световната власт, што била причина многу еминентни црковни лич-
ности да излезат со остри одговори. Така, на пример, свети Јован Дамас-
кин јасно вели дека лаикот треба да биде послушен на императорот во сè
што се однесува на световниот живот, но работите на Црквата се исклучиво
во доменот на црковните собори. Обновувачот на византиското монаш-
тво, свети Теодор Студит, има сличен став: „За сето она што се однесува во
Црквата, надлежни се свештениците и учителите; на царот му приличи да
се грижи за работите надвор од Црквата. Во таа смисла и апостолот запи-
шал: Едни од вас Бог постави во Црквата, прво апостоли, второ пророци,
трето учители (1Кор 12,28). Тука императорот не е спомнат“.17 Како пома-
заник Господов, императорот може да делува во Црквата само како пома-
гач. Тројната функција на учење, свештенодејствие и пастирствување, Бог
не ја дал на царевите, туку на апостолите и нивните наследници, соглас-
но Божјата наредба: „Пазете на себе и на своето стадо коешто во коешто
Светиот Дух ве постави за епископи да ја пасете Црквата на Господа Бога“
(Дела 20,28; 16,4).18 При истакнувањето на божественото потекло на власта
на императорот во доменот на земната власт, и нему му било јасно дека, и
15 Петровић, „Положај и права византијског цара у Цркви“, 314.
16 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 384. Резиме на некои аспекти од
политичката мисла на Евсевиј Кесариски, види кај Norman H. Baynes, “Eusebius and the
Christian Empire”, Annuaire de l’institut de philology et d’histoire orientalis 2 (1933-34) 13-18.
17 Bakalov, “Religius Aspects of medieval State Ideology in the European Southeast”, 40.
18 Петровић, „Положај и права византијског цара у Цркви“, 310.
146
покрај сите привилегии, не му припаѓа духовната власт.19 Значајно се чини
и сведоштвото на ѓаконот Лав, кој на императорот Јован Цимискин му ги
припишува зборовите: „Јас признавам две моќи во животот: свештенство-
то и империјата; Создателот на светот на едните им ја доверил грижата на
душата, на другиот, пак, грижата за телото. Ако не биде повреден ниту еден
дел, добросостојбата на светот е сигурна“.20 Исто така, Лав VI ќе забележи:
„бидејќи politeia е сочинета, како човекот, од делови и членови, најважните
и најнеопходните делови се императорот и патријархот“.21 Потоа, VI новела
на Јустинијан и 18 наслов од Epanagogue водат кон законска заснованост
на односот меѓу двете најголеми власти и авторитети. Треба да се истакне
и тоа дека, и покрај тоа што императорот бил член на Црквата, а патријар-
хот граѓанин на империјата, државата секогаш имал доминантна улога.22
Голем број на закони и објави од водечките каноничари ја потврдуваат те-
оријата за блиската соработка меѓу императорот и патријархот за доброто
на империјата. Но, од друга страна, пак, конфликтот меѓу императорот и
патријархот не бил редок, кога, со мали исклучоци, тие се надминувале спо-
ред волјата на императорот.23
Империјална привилегија во доменот на црковната администрација,
која, до самиот крај на империјата, императорите секогаш ја практикувале,
е да свикуваат екуменски собори. За да биде соборот валиден, бил потребен
потписот на императорот.24 Меѓу правата дадени на императорот од Црква-
та е и она за спроведување на соборските одлуки.25
Како заштитник на Црквата, императорот имал многу активна, па дури
и доминантна улога во нејзината организација и администрација. Најиз-
разитата карактеристика во оваа област е неговата власт да го назначува
вселенскиот патријарх. Императорот го избирал патријархот од листа со
три имиња, предложени од Синодот на Цариградската патријаршија. Ако
ниту еден не му се допаѓал, тогаш тој би предложил друг, кој преку санкција

19 Некои византолози, под впечаток на тоа што значи да се извршува огромна власт и
контрола од страна на византиските императори врз и во Црквата, императорскиот
авторитет го опишуваат како „цезаропапизам“, во смисла на концентрација на
граѓанската и религиозната власт кај едно лице, како кога тој би бил и император, и
папа. Импликацијата е, впрочем, да се прикаже Црквата како оддел на Државата. Сепак,
најголемиот дел од историчарите се мошне внимателни при употребата на ваквата
терминологија. Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 381.
20 Ernest Barker, Social and Political Touhgt in Byzantium (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 21.
Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 382.
21 Barker, Social and Political Touhgt in Byzantium, 92; Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the
Byzantine Empire”, 382.
22 Bakalov, “Religius Aspects of medieval State Ideology in the European Southeast”, 40.
23 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 382.
24 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 389.
25 За предлогот на Константин Велики во врска со терминологијата со која се опишува
односот меѓу Синот и Отецот види Архиепи́ скоп Аве́ркий Таушев, Семь Вселенских
соборов (М., СПб, 1996), 11.
147
 на Синодот би бил назначен за патријарх.26 Не помалку важна е и неговата
власт (во пракса, не во теорија), да го симне патријархот од тронот. Како и
да е, и во тој случај тоа станувало со потврда од страна на Синодот.27
Императорот, исто така, имал право да го инаугурира патријархот. Инау-
гурацијата се случувала во палатата на императорот во присуство на досто-
инственици од Црквата и Државата.28 Императорот лично го објавувал
резултатот од изборот, со зборовите: „по Божја милост и нашето Височе-
ство, кое од неа произлегува, издигнат е (името) да биде патријарх на Кон-
стантинопол“. Потоа императорот на патријархот му давал крст, пурпурна
наметка и панагија, како ознака за неговата нова служба, по што следела
литија со патријархот низ улиците на престолнината.
Понатамошните привилегии на царот во областа на црковната админи-
страција и организација, и во теорија и во пракса, се состоеле во негова-
та моќ да ги прераспредели епархиите во согласност со политичката или
црковната потреба, правото да преместува епископи од една епархија во
друга и да го промени степенот или честа на епархиските седишта. Како
што вели канонистот Зонара: „Царот може да издигне епископија во мит-
рополитско седиште, да го ослободи [епископот] од другите митрополити
и да ги прераспредели епископските области“.29
Освен црковно-правните, императорот имал и литургиски привилегии
поради посебната позиција што ја имал императорот во христијанското
општество како претставник Божји на земјата и како „жива икона Христова“.
Византиската црква не го смета за обичен лаик и затоа му се дадени одредени
посебни привилегии и во овој домен. Иако не можел да извршува никакви
свети тајни, тоа не му пречело да носи облеки слични на тие на епископот и
да има посебно место при богослужбата во храмот.30 Најчесто споменуваната
литургиска привилегија на императорот била таа тој да може да влезе во ол-
тарот на црквата, каде што се извршуваат светите тајни.. Византискиот импе-
ратор, исто така, можел да проповеда пред собраниот народ во црквата. Така,
на пример, Лав VI Мудриот со задоволство ги произнесувал своите беседи
пред византиското население за време на црковните празници.31
26 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De ceremoniis, PG, 112 col. 564-566. Pseudo-Codinus, De officiis, PG,
156, col. 116-117). За арбитражата на императорот во изборот на патријархот види Vitalien
Laurent, “Le rituel de l’investiture du patriarch byzantine au debut du XVe siècle” во Bulletin
Sect. Hist. Acad. Roum., 28 (1947) 218-32. Според Louis Bréhier “L’investiture des patriarches
de Constantinople au Moyen Age” Studi e Testi, 3 (Rome, 1946), 368-372, правото на избор на
патријархот по IX и X век бил признаен во пракса, ако не со правен акт.
27 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empirе”, 388.
28 Steven Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1968), 55.
29 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empirе”, 389.
30 На Халкидонскиот собор во 451 година, императорот Маркион бил поздравен како
свештеник и цар, но тоа не значи дека му бил доделен свештенички статус, нему или на
кој било друг византиски император.
31 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 390.

148
 Уште повпечатлива империјална привилегија била можноста да се при-
честува на ист начин како и свештениците, односно сам да се причести
директно од путирот и дискосот. Потоа, тој можел да го благословува собра-
ниот народ во црквата со трикири (на начин како што тоа го прави епис-
копот), а, исто така, да кади со кадилница. Познатиот византиски канонист
од дванаесеттиот век Теодор Валсамон, чиј став е генерално проимперија-
листички, вака ги опишува повеќето од овие литургиски привилегии на
императорот: „Православните императори (кои ги избираат патријарсите)
со повикување на Света Троица, стануваат Христови Помазаници, па кога
и да сакаат можат да влезат во светиот олтар, да кадат и благословуваат со
трикирите, како епископот. Исто така, им е дадено да им проповедаат на
луѓето ...“.32
И на крај, мора да ја споменеме посебната привилегија на императорот, а
тоа е неговото помазание за време на неговото крунисување, по примерот
на цар Давид во Стариот завет. Некои сметаат дека оваа практика на импе-
ријално помазание првпат се појавила кај Византијците при крунисување-
то на Теодор I Ласкарис на почетокот од XIII век во Никеја, како резултат од
влијанието на блиската Латинска империја во Цариград. Според една друга
теорија, оваа византиска пракса, да се помаза „царот и автократор“ е прису-
тна уште под Василиј I (IX век). Како и да е, мора да се забележи дека дури и
чинот на царското крунисување и придружното помазание биле подложени
на одредено црковно ограничување. Имено, патријархот би можел одбие да
го круниса царот ако тој прво не го потврди своето исповедување на верата
(коешто, секако, не значело дека Црквата имала право да го избере царот).33
Според најубедливото мислење, при крунисувањето патријархот дејству-
вал во својство на вториот најважен „цивилен“ службеник на империјата,
додека на придружната церемонија на помазание функцијата на патријар-
хот била првенствено свештена. Како што е наведено, помазанието при
крунисувањето (ако се случило) било привилегија само на императорот,
и овој чин помогнал дополнително да се издвои од сите други луѓе и да
му даде печат на божествено одобрување на неговото владеење34. Сепак, и
покрај овие импресивни привилегии на императорот, без оглед на акцен-
тот ставен врз нивната важност од страна на некои современи историчари,
мора да се признае дека императорот на крајот секогаш останувал лаик за
Црквата.35
Императорските привилегии во однос на Црквата во престолнината ќе
бидат употребени и употребувани и во однос на Охридската архиепископи-
ја. Врз тие основи, кога во 1018 година византискиот император Василиј II
32 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 391.
33 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 391-392.
34 Се чини веројатно дека мирото од светата тајна крштение и помазание било различно од
она што се користело на церемонијата на царското помазание.
35 Geanakoplos, “Church and State in the Byzantine Empire”, 397.

149
 го освоил Самуиловото царство (976-1018), тоа станало дел од Византиската
империја, а за црковно седиште го задржал Охрид, основајќи ја Охридска
Архиепископија како самостојна автокефална црква, независна од Цари-
градската патријаршија. Со тоа Охрид станал повеќе црковен, отколку воен
и граѓанско административен центар.36 При одредувањето на границите и
јурисдикцијата на Охридската Архиепископија, императорот го користел
своето право, власт и авторитет, издавајќи три документи, т.е. сигилии.37
Основањето на автокефалната црква во Охрид требало да води кон интегра-
ција на населението во византиската империја. Затоа, како прв архиепископ
бил поставен Јован, Словен по потекло, за кого поголемиот дел од денешните
истражувачи го признаваат за архиепископ, па дури и за патријарх на Саму-
иловата црква. Тоа значело дека, и византискиот император, и византиската
црква му го признаваат неговиот највисок ранг во Самоиловата држава, 38 но
и дека само императорот, а не патријархот, поседувал право да го назначи
архиепископот, исто, како што го назначувал и цариградскиот патријарх.
Впрочем, позицијата на поглаварите на автокефалните цркви на Охрид и Ки-
пар биле потенцијално скоро како оние на цариградскиот патријарх.39
Подоцна, во времето на охридскиот архиепископ Димитриј Хоматијан ќе
следи изградување на едно скоро патријаршиско црковно уредување на ав-
токефалната Охридска црква, како резултат на тогашните политички при-
лики.40 Имено, по состојбите кои ги причинила Четвртата крстоносна војна
(1202–1204), како што е и падот на Цариград на 13 април во 1204 година, на
Балканскиот полуостров настапиле нови политички промени. Следела по-
делба на Империјата и создавање на нови држави на Балканот и во Мала

36 Günter Prinzing, “A quasi Patriarch in the State of Epiros: the autocephalous Archbishop of
“Boulgaria” (Ohrid) Demetrios Chomatenos”, ЗРВИ 51 (2004) 168.
37 Во овие документи детално се опишани епископиите кои припаѓале под јурисдикција на
Охридската архиепископија: охридска, костурска, главенишка, мегленска, битолска, стру-
мичка, морозвидска, велбуждска, средишка, нишка, браничевска, белградска, сремска,
скопска, призренска, липљанска, сервијска, дристарска, видинска, рашка, орејска, чер-
нишка, химарска; следуваат Митрополијата драчка, Епископијата дринополска; во про-
должение следува нечитливо име на некоја Епископија, и на крај Епископиите: ботротска,
јанинска, козилска, петарска, ригонска, стажска и веријска. За жал, не е сочуван оригина-
лот на овие документи, но сепак текстот се пренесува преку хрисовулите на Михаил VIII
(1272). Види Αγγελική Δεληκάρη, “1000 χρόνια από την ίδρυση της Αρχιεπισκοπής Αχρίδος,“ https://
antonisparas.blogspot.com/2018/10/1000_1.html?view=flipcard. За сигилиите на Василиј II
и идентитетот на Охридската архиепископија, види Mitko B. Panov, “Ohrid Archbishopric
and Ecclesiastical Identity in Byzantium,” во Proceedings оf the 8th International Symposium on
Byzantine and Medieval Studies “Days of Justinian I”, Skopje, 13­14 November, 2020, ed. Mitko B.
Panov (Skopje: INI, 2021), 82-92.
38 Angeliki Delikari, “Die Situation in Nord-West Makedonien wärend der Regierung des Basileios
II, die sogennante Kirche des zaren Samuel und die Gründung des Erzbistums von Ohrid,” во
во Европейският Югоизток през втората половина на Х – началото на XI век: История
култура, Международна конференция, София, 6­8 Октомври, 2014, ed. Васил Гюзелев,
Георги Н. Николов (София: Българска Академия на науките, 2015), 241-242.
39 Günter Prinzing, “A quasi Patriarch in the State of Epiros: the autocephalous Archbishop of
“Boulgaria” (Ohrid) Demetrios Chomatenos”, ЗРВИ 51 (2004), 168.
40 Prinzing, “A quasi Patriarch in the State of Epiros: the autocephalous Archbishop of “Boulga-
ria”, 168.

150
Азија.41 Поделбата предвидена со договорот била краткотрајна, па дури и
не била целосно применета.42 Во секој случај, падот на Константинопол и
раслојувањето на Византиската империја претставува пресврт не само во
односите Исток-Запад, туку и во историските случувања во Европа и Сред-
ниот Исток.43 Во времето на Хоматијан, територијата на Охридската архи-
епископија главно е дел од Епирското деспотство, а неговото поставување
за архиепископ се случило за време на следниот епирски владетел, Теодор
Дука Комнен (1214-1230). Всушност, тој станува архиепископ Охридски во
време кога губењето на византискиот суверенитет на Истокот беше пре-
дизвикал хаос и неред во политичките, општествено-економските и вер-
ските работи во регионот.44 Хоматијан е назначен од императорот, иако
Цариградската патријаршија сметала дека е потребно да има контрола врз
изборот на претстојателите на Охрид, па затоа и реагирала при изборот на
Димитриј Хоматијан на архиепископскиот трон за Охрид.45
На Епирската држава и одговарало автокефална архиепископија која би
приличела на патријаршиско седиште,46 па затоа и не ѝ пречело интензив-
ното придодавање на „Јустинијана Прима“ кон титулата на охридскиот ар-
хиепископ, со што јасно се претендирало дека Охридската архиепископија
е директна наследничка на славната автокефална црква. Единствено во
времето на Хоматијан од целата византиска епоха може да се насети фор-
мирање на квази патријаршиски авторитет на охридскиот архиепископ,

41 Скиптарот на Византиското царства бил пренесен од Цариград во Никеја, каде се

зацврстил Теодор I Ласкарис, а други грчки држави биле Епирското деспотство,
раководено од Михаил I Ангел (1204–1215) и Трапензунтското царство на чело со
браќата Комнен, Алексиј и Давид, внуци на византискиот „крвопролевач“ Андроник I.
Никеја и Епир постојано ќе се натпреваруваат за враќање на Константинопол со цел
да ги обноват правата за наследство врз престолот на Источното Римско царство. На
Балканот настанале латинските држави: Атинското војводство, Ахајското кнежевство,
Солунското кралство и Царството Романија (Латинско царство). Сп. Ивана Коматина,
Црква и Држава у Српским земљама од XI до XIII века (Београд: Историјски институт,
2016), 228.
42 Дејан М. Џелебџић, Друштво у Епирској држави прве половине XIII века (Београд 2012,
докторска дисертација), 1.
43 Eleonora Naxidou, “Latin West in the Eyes of the Orthodox East: The Paradigm of the Archbis-
hop of Ohrid Demetrius Chomatenus“, Црквене студије 15 (2018) 330.
44 „Постојат идеалисти кои наивно веруваат дека ако само народите во светот би можеле да
се запознаат еден со друг, ќе има засекогаш мир и добра волја. Ова е трагична заблуда.
Навистина е можно образуваните мажи и жени да уживаат во друштвото и обичаите
на туѓинците и да чувствуваат симпатија кон нив. Но, поедноставните луѓе, кои се
наоѓаат во земја, чиј јазик и навики им се неразбирливи, се чувствуваат загубени и
огорчени. Така беше и со илјадниците крстоносни војници и поклоници кои поминаа
низ Византиската империја во 1096 и 1097 година. Тие почнаа да го спасуваат источниот
христијански свет, но кога дојдоа во земјата на источните христијани, тие ги сметаа
за чудни и недобродојдени. Јазикот беше неразбирлив, големите градови непознати и
раздразнувачки. Црквите изгледаа поинаку... Ниту, пак, луѓето се радуваа да ги видат
своите спасители“ (Ѕteven Runciman, The Eastern Schism. A Study of the Papacy and the
Eastern Churches during the XIth and the XIIth centuries (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1955), 79-80.
45 Αγγελική Δεληκάρη, “1000 χρόνια από την ίδρυση της Αρχιεπισκοπής Αχρίδος“.
46 Prinzing, Demetrii Chomateni, Ponemata Diaphora, 2002, 17.

151
 од причини што околностите биле поволни како никогаш пред или потоа.
Хоматијан го обновил архиепископскиот синод и му го променил името и
функцијата во т.н. Synosos endemousa, односно „постојан Синод“, правејќи
така супститут во Епир на Синод кој постоел само при пратријаршиската
столица од 10-11 век (PD 34).47
Централен црковно-политички настан во службата на архиепископот
било царското помазание поврзано со крунисувањето на императорот Те-
одор Дука во Солун во 1227 година, акт кој претставува логичка консеквен-
ца на објавувањето на владетелот како император. Хоматијан го извел
крунисувањето, секако, поткрепен со одлука на Синодот составен од сите
епископи во епирската држава.48 Конфликтот меѓу Епир и Никеја се по-
веќе се вжештувал. Никеја никогаш не го признала новиот владетел, додека
патријархот Герман II протестирал за преземањето на пурпурните одори
од страна на Теодор, истакнувајќи дека не е можно да има два императо-
ри за една империја, како што не е можно да има ниту два патријарси. Со
овој став, макар и индиректно, се признавало дека никејскиот император
и цариградскиот патријарх на Хоматијан гледале како на втор патријарх.49
Тоа воедно значи дека воспоставениот и со векови градениот однос меѓу
императорот и црквата во престолнината на Византија, во даден истори-
ско-политички контекст, успеале да се пресликаат и во односите помеѓу
императорот и столицата на автокефалната Охридска црква.

47 Prinzing, “A quasi Patriarch in the State of Epiros”, 170 и 176.

48 Prinzing, “A quasi Patriarch in the State of Epiros”, 174.
49 Оттаму и писмената преписка меѓу патријархот Герман II и Хоматијан. Во својот од-
говор, патријархот прашува, од каде правото на охридскиот архиепископ да го помаза
императорот и од каде му е мирото, кое сега го користи за да го подели единството
на патријаршијата (PD 113). Хоматијан му одговорил детално во 1228/1229 (PD 114),
кога укажува на посебните политички околности како и одлуките на политичките
и црковните тела во епирската држава. Притоа, тој се повикува на 131 Јустинијанова
новела, каде овдешниот архиепископ се спомнувал веднаш после римскиот папа и
цариградскиот архиепископ. Неговата аргументација кулминира во прашањето: „Ако
сега ги имаме папските привилегии во нашата епархија, зошто се смета за новотарија
ако ние, исто како и папата, го помазаме императорот“? (PD 22-25, 114), Günter Prinzing,
“A quasi Patriarch in the State of Epiros”, 174-175.

152
 14

Одразот на верската идеологија на Михаил VIII

Палеолог врз Охридската архиепископија
ВИКТОР НЕДЕСКИ, Православен богословски факултет
„Св. Климент Охридски“, Скопје
UDK 271.22(497.7):[2:316.75

Abstract: The participation of representatives of the Byzantine emperor

Michael VIII Palaeologus at the Council of Lyon in 1274. was a diplomatic
triumph for the emperor. His acceptance of all the demands of the Pontifical
throne prevented the organization of a crusade of the Western countries
against the still unstable restored empire. But the ecclesiastical and theological
consequences of the political goals of the emperor’s religious ideology shook
the empire for almost a decade. In this new ecclesiastical-political situation
in the already united Byzantine Empire, the question arises as to the position
of the Ohrid Archbishopric regarding the religious ideology and policy of
Michael VIII towards Western Christianity and how these processes reflected
on the Ohrid throne.

Учеството на претставниците на византискиот император Михаил VIII

Палеолог на Лионскиот собор во 1274 г. претставува еден дипломатски
триумф за императорот. Прифаќањето од негова страна на сите барања
на Папскиот престол, спречило организирање на крстоносна војна на
западните земји против сè уште нестабилната возобновена империја. Но,
црковните и богословските последици од политичките цели на императо-
рот ја потресле внатрешноста на империјата во времетраење од речиси една
деценија. Неспорните придобивки на политички план од овој дипломатски
потег не успеале да го неутрализираат разочарувањето за предавството на

153
 отечкото предание кое се јавило кај најголем дел од православните. Ова
резултирало со противење кон обединувачката политика на императорот.
Така, иако обединувањето на православната Црква со Папскиот престол
било торжествено објавено на четвртата седница на соборот на 6 јули 1274
г., соборните одлуки никогаш не биле прифатени од православните, со
исклучок на една мала група на императорски соработиници и ерарси на
чело со патријархот Јован Век.
Во ваквата новонастаната црковно-политичка ситуација во веќе обеди-
нетата Византиска империја, се отвора прашањето за тоа каква била пози-
цијата на Охридската архиепископија во однос на унијата со западното
христијанство, имајќи предвид дека повеќето нејзини поглавари во мина-
тото имале негативен став кон ваквото прашање. Прашањето за тоа дали
Охридскиот престол ја прифатил Лионската унија би било полесно разре-
шено доколку се утврди кој ја возглавувал Охридската архиепископија во
времето на унијата.
По походот на севастократорот Јован Палеолог кон Епир и помошта што
архиепископот Константин Кавасила1 ќе ја даде при заземањето на Охрид
во 1259 г., по повеќегодишното заточеништво во Никеја, тој ќе биде вратен
на Охридската катедра, каде што веројатно ќе остане сè до упокојувањето.
За последен пат архиепископот Кавасила се споменува на една Христова
икона која ја подарил на соборниот архиепископски храм Света Софија во
Охрид во 1262/63 г. кога тој веќе бил во длабока старост (над 70 години).
Фактот што точната година на упокојувањето на свети Константин Ка-
васила останува непозната, го отвора прашањето за тоа дали тој сè уште
бил на Охридскиот престол во времето на унијата, односно во 1274 г. или,
пак, на него седел некој негов наследник. Она што е биолошки факт е
1 Библиографија поврзана со свети Константин Кавасила: Louis Petit, „Le Monastère de
Notre Dame de Pitié en Macédoine“, Известия Руского археологическаго института в
Константинополе, 6/1 (1900): 96; August Heisenberg, ed., Georgii Acropolitae opera, (Lipsiae:
B.G. Teubner 1903), 166-167; Иван Снегаров, История на Охридската архиепископия, I,
(София: Академично издателство Проф. Марин Дринов), 1995, 211 и 280-282, Цветан
Грозданов, „За св. Константин Кавасила и неговите портрети во светлината на новите
сознанија“, Живописот на Охридската архиепископија, (Скопје: Македонска академија
на науките и уметностите 2007), 39-59; Donald M. Nicol, Το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου 1267­1479,
(Αθήνα: Ελληνική Ευρωεκδοτική, 1991), 138; Αθανάσιος Αγγελόπουλος, „Το γενεαλογικόν δένδρον
της οικογενείας των Καβασιλών“, Μακεδονικά 17 (1977): 367-396; Константинос Нихоритис,
Славистични и българистични проучвания, (Велико Търново: Праксис, 2005), 77-88;
Ιωάννης Ταρνανίδης, „Η αρχιεπισκοπή Αχρίδας ανάμεσα στο οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο και στον
σλαβικό κόσμο“, in Η Μακεδονία κατά την εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, συμπόσιο Β΄, ed. Θεόδωρος
Ζήσης et al. (Θεσσαλονίκη: Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης, 1992), 566-567; С.
Николова, „За един непознат препис от службата на св. Наум Охридски“, Хиляда и
осемдесет години от смъртта на св. Наум Охридски, ed. Михаил Бъчваров et al. (София:
БАН, 1993), 31-54; Николай Д. Овчаров, Проучвания върху средновековието и по­новата
история на Вардарска Македония, (София: Университетско издателство „Св. Климент
Охридски” 1994), 89; Deno J. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michel Palaelogus and the West 1258­1282,
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1959), 16-46; Κ. Γ. Πιτσάκης, „Κωνσταντίνος Καβάσιλας
μητροπολίτης Δυρραχίου, αρχιεπίσκοπος Αχρίδος, προσωπογραφικά προβλήματα“, in Μεσαιωνική
Ήπειρος (Πρακτικά επιστημονικού συμποσίου Ιωάννινα 17­19 Σεπτεμβρίου 1999), ed. Κωνσταντίνος
Ν. Κωνσταντινιδης (Ιωάννινα: Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων, 2001), 151-229; Виктор Недески, Свети
Константин Кавасила, житие, богослужба, акатист, (Охрид: Канео, 2015).

154
дека упокојувањето на Кавасила настапило не долго по неговото послед-
но спомнување, имајќи предвид дека во тој период свети Константин бил
доста возрасен2. Што се однесува, пак, на прашањето кој е наследникот на
Кавасила, традиционалното мислење, кое се провлекува од Голубински3
преку Гелцер4 и Снегаров5 сè до некои современи автори, е дека по свети
Константин на Охридскиот трон доаѓа архиепископот Јаков Проархиј, по
потекло од Пелопонез. Меѓутоа оваа теза низ призмата на современите
сознанија е доста проблематична, особено по истражувањето на живо-
тот и делата на Јаков Проархиј од страна на италијанскиот византолог
S. G. Mercati6. Имено, архиепископот Јаков бил современик на византи-
скиот философ Никифор Влемидис, кој му посветил еден свој трактат за
исходењето на Светиот Дух. Оваа творба на Влемидис е добро позната и
до сега е издадена повеќепати7, а сочувана е во пет ракописи8. И самиот
патријарх Јован Век раскажува за оваа творба посветена на архиеписко-
пот Јаков. Според најновото датирање на ова писмо-трактат од страна на
Mercati, тоа е напишано помеѓу 1250 г. и 1254 г. или поточно околу 1253 г.
Од содржината на овој текст дознаваме дека во времето кога е напишан
Јаков веќе го имал напуштено архиепископството и живеел повлечено
на Света Гора Атонска9. Постои обид Јаков Проархиј да се поистовети со
еден истоимен игумен на Великата Лавра од 1293 г.10 но, овој став денес се
прима многу внимателно11. Ако ова датирање на творбата на Влемидис е
точно, тогаш архиепископството на Јаков Проархиј во Охрид треба да се
постави пред 1253 г. или пред 1250 г., а не во седумдесеттите години на XIII
век. Уште една потврда за ваквиот став се и откриените творби на архие-

2 За хронолошките настани од животот на свети Константин Кавасила види: Недески,

Свети Константин Кавасила, 13-72; Πιτσάκης, „Κωνσταντίνος Καβάσιλας“, 183-210.
3 Евгений Голубинский, Краткий очерк истории православных церквей Болгарской,
Сербской и Румынской или Молдо­Валашской, (Москва: В Унив. тип., 1871), 125-126.
4 Heinrich Gelzer, Der Patriarchat von Achrida, (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903), 12-13.
5 Снегаров, История, 211-212.
6 Silvio G. Mercati, „Sulla vita е sulle opere di Giacomo di Bulgaria“, ИБАИ, 9 (1935): 165 – 176.
7 За различните изданија види: August Heisenberg, Nicephori Blemmydae curriculum vilae
et carmina, (Lipsiae: Teubneri, 1896), L; Општо за H. Влемидис види: Karl Krumbacher,
Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, (München: Verlag Der Wissenschaften, 1897), 93, 94,
445-49.
8 Heisenberg, Georgii Acropolitae opera, XLIX.
9 Според посоченото погоре сведоштво на патријархот Јован Век, Јаков некогаш бил
истакнат охридски архиепископ (ἀρχιεπίσκοπον τῷ χρόνῳ ἀναδειχθεντα), но со цел да
постигне побогоугоден живот (διὰ δὲ βίου θεοφίλειαν) се оддалечил да живее отшелнички
на Света Гора. Heisenberg, Georgii Acropolitae opera, XLV: „qui cum Blemmydae epistolam
acciperet, in Atho monte iam diu ab officii negotiis remotus tranquillam vitam monachicam
degit“. Mercati, „Sulla vita е sulle opere“, 172, смета дека Влемидис не би му ја посветил на
Јаков својата творба доколку тој претходно не бил на висока црковна позиција.
10 Bonju S. Angelov, „Deux contributions à l’histoire de la culture médiévale bulgare. 2. Donation
de l’archeveque d’Ohrid Jacob du XIIIe s“, Byzantinobulgarica, 4 (1973): 83-88.
11 Πιτσάκης, „Κωνσταντίνος Καβάσιλας“, 206.

155
 пископот Јаков кои се датираат не подоцна од средината на XIII век12, а за
кои во минатото се сметаше дека се изгубени13.
Уште една, овој пат богословска заблуда, е тоа што Никифор Влемидис, а
следствено и Јаков Проархиј се претставуваат како заштитници на прола-
тинските ставови на патријархот Јован Век. Но, внимателното проучување на
творбите на Влемидис покажува дека тој бил противник на латинското раз-
бирање на исходењето на Светиот Дух ex patre filioque14. Според тоа и самиот
Јаков Проархиј не треба да биде сметан за приврзаник на движењето за унија
со Римската црква, уште повеќе што и во неговите творби тој ги пофалува
византиските војсководци за победите извојувани над Латините. На основа
на мислењето дека Јаков е приврзаник на латинските богословски ставови,
многумина истражувачи во минатото го поставуваа неговото архиепископ-
ство во време на Лионската унија, односно после свети Константин Кавасила.
Поместувањето на Јаков Проархиј од традиционалното место во каталог
на архиепископите од наследник во претходник на Кавасила, го отвора пра-
шањето: кој е наледникот на свети Константин Кавасила на архиепископ-
скиот трон? Голубински15, а следствено и Гелцер16, по свети Константин и
Јаков спомнуваат некој Адријан, кој во изворите се среќава единствено кај
Доситеј II Ерусалимски. Доситеј не кажува ништо за времето на неговото ар-
хиепископство, па според тоа Адријан, треба да се поистовети со познатиот
Охридски архиепископ од XII век, Јован – во светот Адријан Комнин17, син
на севастократорот Исак Комнин18. Двајцата следни познати архиепископи
12 Silvio G. Mercati, „Iacobi Bulgariae Archiepiscopi opuscula“ in Bessarione. Rivista di studi
orientali Bd. 33 (1917): 73 – 89, 208 – 227. За жал ова истражување, кон кое авторот имал
намера да го додаде dissertatio de Iacobi vita et scriptis останало недовршено: ракописот
заедно со сè што било испечатено бил украден кон крајот на војната. Cf. Иван Дуйчев,
Българско средновековие. Проучвания върху политическата и културната история на
средновековна България, (София: Издателство Наука и изкуство, 1972), 229, фус. 17.
13 Снегаров, История, 280.
14 Heisenberg, Georgii Acropolitae opera, XXXVI-LIV: „De libris περὶ ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ ἀγίου
πνεύματος“ XXXVIII-IX; укажување за различните искажани мислења: XLII: „Latinis,
qui spiritum sanctum ex patre filioque procedere dicebant veheinentissime abversatus
est, spiritum enim putat solo ex pa’re procedere, apparere vel praeberi per filium“; XLIII-IV:
„videmus igitur eum neque δι᾿υῖοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον dixisse neque omnino vocem ἐκπορεύεσθαι
admisisse, quamquam certe magnum interest inter illud δι᾿υῖοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον et ἐκ τοῦ υῖοῦ
ἐκπορευόμενον, quoi solum verum esse Latini arbitrabantur....“; LIV: „Blemmydes igitur, id quod
Veccus ipse concessit, additamentum illud καὶ ἐξ υῖοῦ nunquam probavit. cum autem propius
quam plurimi aequalium ad Latinos accessisset, quasi viam demostravit, qua ingressus Veccus
ad dogma Romanum et ad unionem pervenit. certe tarnen longissima via fuit, nam secundum
Blemmydam pater solus est origo, filius medium procedendi, secundum Veccum et Latinos
pater filiusque origo sunt spiritus“. Православието на Влемидис го брани и Αλέξανδρος Δ.
Ζώτος, Ἰωάννης ὁ Βέκκος πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Νέας Ρώμης ὁ λατινόφρων, (Ἐν Μονάχωι
1920), 20, 21.
15 Голубинский, Краткий очерк, 126.
16 Gelzer, Der Patriarchat, 13.
17 Günter Prinzing, „Wer war der "bulgarische Bischof Adrian"?“, Jahrbücher für Geschichte
Osteuropas, 36 (1988): 552-557
18 Gelzer, Der Patriarchat, 8-9; Jean Darrouzès, Notitiae episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopoli-
tanae: texte critique, introduction et notes, (Paris: Institut français d'études byzantines, 1981),
93 и 145.

156
Генадиј и Макариј, добро се лоцирани кон крајот од векот19. Првиот во 1289
г., е кандидат за патријаршискиот трон во Константинопол како поранешен
Охридски20, а вториот се среќава во ктиторскиот натпис на црквата Богоро-
дица Перивлепта во Охрид од 1295 г. и на свадбата на српскиот крал Стефан
Урош II Милутин со Симонида, ќерката на Андроник II Палеолог во 1299
г.21 Меѓутоа помеѓу спомнувањето на Генадиј и последното спомнување на
Кавасила постои период од повеќе од две децении, што секако не го решава
проблемот околу претстојателот на Охридската црква во овој период. Тоа,
пак, што Генадиј се истакнува како антилатински писател22 го прави невоз-
можно неговото присуство на Охридскиот трон во времето на Лионската
унија – период во кој и свети Константин Кавасила би требало да е упокоен.
Значајно е да се нагласи и тоа дека првите индикации за развој на култ око-
лу ликот на свети Константин Кавасила се среќаваат токму во времето на
архиепископството на Генадиј, што е уште една потврда за антилатинско-
то расположение и на архиепископот Кавасила, на што укажуваат и други
аргументи23. Така, помеѓу архиепископството на овие двајца архиепископи
треба да се побара трета личност која би била на Охридскиот престол во
времето на унијата.
Прашањето за наследникот на Кавасила делумно го расветлува Георгиј Па-
химер кој во 1273 г. го споменува архиепископот Керамеас Охридски24. Стану-
ва збор за солуњанецот Теодор Керамеас кој отсуствува од традиционалните
каталози на Охридските архиепископи. Теодор Керамеас е познат по својот
завет од 1284 г. кога се јавува како поранешен архиепископ. Овој документ е
сочуван во манастирот Велика Лавра на Света Гора25. Значајно е да се напоме-
не дека во 1977 г. кога е публикуван текстот на заветот, издавачите поставува-
ат теза дека Теодор Керамеас е поранешен Солунски митрополит. Но, во 1982
г. истите автори го менуваат својот став и го поистоветуваат Теодор Керамеас
со поранешниот Охридски архиепископ Керамеас, кај кого, како што пишува
Пахимер, во 1273 г. прибегнал Јован Палеолог, братот на императорот Миха-
ил VIII, по битката кај Неопатрија26. Овој податок укажува на тоа дека во оваа
19 Gelzer, Der Patriarchat, 13.
20 За ова види целосна библиографија: Hans-Georg Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur im
byzantinischen Reich, (München: Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 1959), 679, фус 1.
21 Πιτσάκης, „Κωνσταντίνος Καβάσιλας“, 210.
22 Сè уште непубликуваната творба на Генадиј Охридски е сочувана во Cod. Graec. 256 во
Баварската државна библиотека во Минхен со наслов: Σύνταγμα Γενναδίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου
Βουλγαρίας ἐκ διαφόρων χρήσεων ἀναντιρρήτων τῆς θείας γραφῆς, τῆς τε παλαιᾶς καί τῆς νέας
ἀνατρέπον καί καταβάλον τήν λατινικήν δόξαν.
23 Недески, Свети Константин Кавасила, 55-57.
24 „Ὁ δέ δεσπότης καί οἱ σύν αὑτῷ, γυμνοί τῶν ἁπάντων ὄντες, παραβαλόντες τῷ Αχριδῷν Κεραμεᾶ, θέᾳ
ὄντως ἐλεεινή καί δακρύων ἀξίᾳ, περιστέλλονται τε ὡς εἱκός παρ' ἐκείνου τοῖς εὑρεθεῖσι καί ὡς οἷόν
τε θεραπεύονται“ A. Albert Failler (ed.), Georges Pachymérès Relations Historiques, II, (Paris:
Institut français d'études byzantines 1984-1999), 433.
25 Paul Lemerle (ed.) et. al., Actes de Lavra II. De 1204 à 1328, (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1977), 29.
26 Failler, Georges Pachymérès, 432-433; Albert Failler, „Chronologie et composition dans l’Histoi-
re de Georges Pachymérès“, Revue des études byzantines 39 (1981), 192, 202.

157
 година, а следствено и наредната кога е склучена Лионската унија, Теодор Ке-
рамеас со сигурност веќе бил на Охридскиот престол.
Блискоста на семејството на Теодор Керамеас со императорот Михаил
VIII Палеолог се гледа и од тоа што во времето на овој император, Николај
Керамеас – братот на Теодор се среќава како апографеас во регионот на
Солун и доместик на западните теми. На оваа функција Николај се среќава
од нешто пред 1270 г. па сè до 1284 г.27 Според тоа, најверојатно во приближ-
но истиот период неговиот брат Теодор се наоѓал на тронот на Охридската
архиепископија, непосредно по упокојувањето на Кавасила. Блискоста со
императорот Михаил VIII, секако наведува на тоа дека Теодор бил привр-
заник на идејата за унијата. Најверојатно, токму тој е и анонимниот Охрид-
ски архиепископ благодарение на кого во 1272 г. императорот Михаил VIII
ја издава хрисовулата за привилегиите на Охридската архиепископија за
сметка на Пеќката и Трновската28, што имало за цел да го утврди ставот за
унијата на Балканските територии. Секако, овој ефект не би можло да биде
постигнат во времето на Кавасила, кој бил противник на ваквиот став.
Доколку се претпостави дека за доделувањето на привилегиите на Охрид-
ската архиепископија императорот Михаил VIII чекал на нејзиниот прес-
тол да седне човек кој ќе биде приврзаник на неговите идеи за унија со Рим-
ската црква, тогаш почетокот на архиепископството на Теодор Керамеас
треба да се бара кратко пред 1272 г. Бидејќи до сега не се познати податоци
за уште некој архиепископ од овој период за кого би се претпоставило дека
бил на Охридскиот престол во годините кои остануваат помеѓу последно-
то спомнување на свети Константин Кавасила во 1262/3 г. и хрисовулата на
Михаил VIII, тогаш останува веројатноста дека свети Константин поживеал
уште неполна деценија по неговото последно спомнување, а евентуално до-
колку неговото упокојување се случило нешто порано, Охридскиот престол
останал испразнет неколку години, додека императорот не ја пронашол со-
одветната и нему сродна личност за оваа катедра.
Наведените факти укажуваат на тоа дека Охридската архиепископија
возглавувана од архиепископот Теодор Керамеас во 1274 г. ја прифатила Ли-
онската унија, а официјален црковен Охрид останал верен на унијата сè до
нејзината пропаст. Доаѓањето на антилатинот Генадиј на Охридскиот прес-
тол по Теодор Керамеас е сосема логичен историски факт, со што се дава
историски издржана разврска на настаните во Охрид кои вака поставени се
во склад и со глобалното црковно расположение во Византиската империја
во втората половина на XIII век.
27 Овој податок се среќава во заветот на Теодосиј Скаранос кон светогорскиот манастир
Ксиропотам, според кој Михаил VIII за апографеас „го назначил Керамеас“ (όρισεν τον
Κεραμέα). Cf. Jacques Bompaire (ed.), Actes de Xéropotamou, (Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1964), 81. За
хронологијата види: Rezension Walther, „Rezension zu Actes d’ Esphigmenou“, JÖB 24 (1975),
309; Nicolas Oikonomides (ed.) Actes de Docheiariou, (Paris: P. Lethielleux 1984), 105.
28 Gelzer, Der Patriarchat, 13; Καλλίνικος Δελικάνης, Τα εν τοις κωδίξι του πατριαρχικού αρχειοφυλακίου
σωζόμενα επίσημα εκκλησιαστικά έγγραφα τα αφορώντα εις τας σχέσεις του Οικουμενικού
Πατριαρχείου προς τας εκκλησίας Ρωσσίας, Βλαχίας και Μολδαβίας, Σερβίας, Αχρίδων και Πεκίου
1564-1863, (Κωνσταντινούπολη: Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο, 1999), 1033.
158
 15

Justinian I as the Best of Architects. The Image of

the Emperor in the “On Buildings” of Procopius of
Caesarea
MAGDALENA GARNCZARSKA, Jagiellonian University, Krakоw
UDK 72:2-523.4:[929 Јустинијан I

Abstract: “At any rate the Emperor, disregarding all questions of expense, ea-
gerly pressed on the begin the work of construction, and began to gather all
the artisans from the whole world” (Aed. 1.1.23, trans. H.B. Dewing). In this
way, Procopius of Caesarea began his story of building a new Church of the
Holy Wisdom in Constantinople. However, in On the Buildings, the emperor
appears not only as a foresighted ruler and benefactor who simply provides
financial resources for the construction of new buildings. According to the
vision created by Procopius, Justinian is much more significant and indis-
pensable. Therefore, the author portrayed the emperor as de facto the best of
architects. Then, whenever there were critical technical concerns (such as with
one of the arches; Aed. 1.1.68–78), it turned out that only Justinian could solve
them. Hence, the emperor constantly and discreetly watched the erection of
the different foundations and always supported the builders with advice. Of
course, we are dealing here with the image propaganda spread by Procopius
because, in this text, it was the construction activity that served (as pars pro
toto) to form the appearance of Justinian as the perfect ruler. Albeit, the stan-
dard praise was not enough for Procopius. Thus, he presented the emperor as
actually the best of architects. Such an image of Justinian emerges from the
anecdotes quoted by Procopius throughout his work.

159
 The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is a complex of various buildings,
erected around “ὁ μὲν οὖν βασιλεὺς ἀφροντιστήσας χρημάτων ἁπάντων ἐς τὴν οἰκοδομὴν
σπουδῇ ἵετο, καὶ τοὺς τεχνίτας ἐκ πάσης γῆς ἤγειρεν ἅπαντας.”1 In this way, Procopius
of Caesarea began his story of building a new Church of the Holy Wisdom in Con-
stantinople. However, in On the Buildings (Περὶ κτισμάτων), the emperor appeared
not only as a foresighted ruler and as a benefactor providing financial resources for
the construction of new buildings. According to the vision created by Procopius,
Justinian was someone much more influential and indispensable.2
Procopius of Caesarea (ca. 500–?) is a writer particularly significant in the con-
text of the reign of emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565). His importance is evidenced
by his being considered one of the most reputed Greek historiographers in his-
tory: “Two of the four are, of course, indisputably Thucydides and Herodotus;
and most Hellenists would probably allow Polybius the third place. As for the
fourth place, in the humble opinion of the writer of this Study it should be as-
signed, not to Xenophon, but to Procopius.”3 This high rank of Procopius as a his-
torian is related to his History of the Wars (Ὑπὲρ τῶν πολέμων λόγοι or Ἱστορίαι),4
an eight-volume work on the military struggles of the Byzantine Empire with the
Persians (books I–II), the Vandals (books III–IV) and the Goths (books V–VIII).5
A peculiar “supplement” to his opus magnum is a short Secret History (Ἀνέκδοτα
or Ἀπόκρυφη ἱστορία).6 Against this background stands out On the Buildings (Περὶ
κτισμάτων), a text devoted to the building activity of Justinian.
As John Bagnell Bury notes: “An amazing change came to pass in the attitude
of Procopius between the year in which he composed the Secret History and ten
years later when he wrote his work on the Buildings, in which he bestows on the
policy and acts of the Emperor superlative praise which would astonish us as
1 Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia. Vol. IV. De aedificiis libri VI, rec. Jakob Haury, ed. stereotypa
correctior addenda et corrigenda adiecit Gerhard Wirth, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et
Romanorum Teubneriana 1.1.23 (Monachii–Lipsiae: K.G. Saur Verlag, 2001). All Greek citations
are quoted after this edition. Hereafter Aed.
“At any rate the Emperor, disregarding all questions of expense, eagerly pressed on the begin the
work of construction, and began to gather all the artisans from the whole world”; Procopius,
On Buildings, trans. Henry B. Dewing with the collaboration of Glanville Downey (Cambridge,
MA–London: Harvard University Press, 1954), repr. with revisions, (Loeb 343), 1.1.23. All English
citations are quoted after this edition.
2 Günter Prinzing indicated that in post-Justinianic Byzantium, Justinian’s building activity was
perceived as one of the most significant factors affecting perceptions of his reign; see idem,
“Das Bild Justinians I. in der späteren Überlieferung der Byzantiner vom 7. bis 15. Jahrhundert,”
Fontes Minores 7 (1986), 2.
3 Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History, Vol. VI (Oxford–London: Oxford University Press, 1939),
74 (note 1).
4 The most currently on History of the Wars: Philip Rance, “Wars,” in A Companion to Procopius
of Caesarea, ed. Mischa Meier, Federico Montinaro (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2022), 70–120.
5 On military aspects in Procopius’ works, see especially Conor Whately, Procopius on Soldiers and
Military Institutions in the Sixth­Century Roman Empire (Leiden–Boston: Brill 2021), (History of
Warfare 134); idem, Battles and Generals. Combat, Culture, and Didacticism in Procopius’ Wars
(Leiden–Boston: Brill 2016).
6 The most currently on the Secret History: Rene Pfeilschifter, “The Secret History,” in A Compa­
nion to Procopius of Caesarea, ed. Mischa Meier, Federico Montinaro (Leiden–Boston: Brill,
2022), 121–136.

160
coming from the author of the History of the Wars, even if the Secret History had
been lost or never written.”7
Generally, On the Buildings is believed to be the last work in the oeuvre of Pro-
copius.8 Perhaps the author wrote it around 550 or later in the years 558–559 or
560–561.9 Apart from the issue of ambiguous dating, researchers are particularly
interested in the problem of the genre of the work. This text eludes clear-cut inter-
pretations: it is a hallmark of the Byzantine literature of the first half of the sixth
century. Since it was a period of combining genres, as well as changes consisting,
among others, in departing from some old literary forms (for example, epic) and
restoring others, e.g., the epigram, the fictional letter or the classicising historiog-
raphy, and the flourishing of new ones like hagiography, ecclesiastical history, and
the world chronicle.10
The text is most often considered “βασιλικòς λόγος”.11 However, it concerns one

7 John B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire. From the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of
Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565), Vol. II (London: The Macmillan Company, 1923), 428.
8 Recently, it has been indicated that there were two versions of On the Buildings. The first edi-
tion was completed in 551, and its expanded version in 553–554: Brian Croke, “The Search for
Harmony in Procopius’ Literary Works,” in A Companion to Procopius of Caesarea, ed. Mischa
Meier, Federico Montinaro (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2022), 36, 53–55; Max Ritter, “The Byzantine
Afterlife of Procopius’s Buildings,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 75 (2021), 144–145; Federico
Montinaro, “Power, Taste and the Outsider: Procopius and the Buildings revisited,” in Shifting
Genres in Late Antiquity, ed. Geoffrey Greatrex, Hugh Elton, the assistance of Lucas McMahon
(London–New York: Routledge, 2015), 193–194; Geoffrey Greatrex, “Perceptions of Procopius in
Recent Scholarship,” Histos 8 (2014), 103–104; Federico Montinaro, “Byzantium and the Slavs in
the Reign of Justinian. Comparing the Two Recensions of Procopius’s Buildings,” in The Pontic-
Danubian Realm in the Period of the Great Migration, ed. Vujadin Ivanišević, Michel Kazanski
(Paris: Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, Beograd: Arheološki Institut, 2012), 104–105.
9 The issue of dating is the foremost problem scholars raise, so a significant part of the research
is devoted solely to this question. A detailed discussion of it was presented, among others, by
Geoffrey Greatrex, “Procopius: Life and Works,” in A Companion to Procopius of Caesarea,
ed. Mischa Meier, Federico Montinaro (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2022), 66–69; Geoffrey Greatrex,
“Perceptions of Procopius in Recent Scholarship,” Histos 8 (2014), 101–104; idem, “The Date of
Procopius’ Buildings in the Light of Recent Scholarship,” Estudios bizantinos 1 (2013), 13–29;
Denis Roques, “Introduction,” in Procope de Césarée, Constructions de Justinien Ier, intro.,
transl., comment., maps and index Denis Roques (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2011), 52–59;
Piotr Ł. Grotowski, “Pochlebca czy oszczerca? Janusowe oblicze Prokopiusza,” in Prokopiusz
z Cezarei, O budowlach, transl., intro., explanations and comment. Piotr Ł. Grotowski
(Warszawa: Prószyński i S-ka 2006), 62–64; James A.S. Evans, “The Dates of Procopius’ Works.
A Recapitulation of the Evidence,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 37 (1996), 303–306.
See also Juan Signes Codoñer, “One History... in Several Instalments. Dating and Genre in
Procopius’ Works,” Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici 54 (2017), 3–26.
10 Margaret Mullett, “The Madness of Genre”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992): 237. See also:
Michael Whitby, “Procopius’ Buildings and Panegyric Effect,” in A Companion to Procopius
of Caesarea, ed. Mischa Meier, Federico Montinaro (Leiden–Boston: Brill 2022), 137–151; Mary
Whitby, “Procopius’ Buildings, Book I. A Panegyrical Perspective,” Antiquité Tardive. Revue
Internationale d’Histoire et d’Archéologie (IVe–VIIe siècle) 8 (2000): 45–57; Ruth Webb,
“Ekphrasis, Amplification and Persuasion in Procopius’ Buildings,” Antiquité Tardive. Revue
Internationale d’Histoire et d’Archéologie (IVe–VIIe siècle) 8 (2000), 67–71.
11 This term – although the phrase “λόγος εἰς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα” appears much more often in the
texts – refers to panegyrics (ἐγκώμια) in honour of rulers on special occasions. The principles of
their creation were to be codified by Menander Rhetor in his textbook On Epideictic Speeches
(Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν). See Alexander P. Kazhdan, Elizabeth M. Jeffreys, “Basilikos logos,” in The
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, Vol. 1, ed. Alexander P. Kazhdan (New York–Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991), 267.

161
 aspect of Justinian’s reign – his constructions12 – which is a unique feature among
the famous imperial encomia.13 Furthermore, the text is very diverse in terms
of its literary structure, which is extremely extensive, as it contains elaborate
ekphraseis (ἐκφράσεις) and long lists of places in the form of catalogues without
commentary. All this results not only in a blend of genres but also in a variety of
rhetorical forms14 and an almost encyclopaedic richness of content.15 The author
himself spoke of his work as a work of historiographic character, supplement-
ing the information in the History of the Wars: “ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν ἄλλων τὰ πλεῖστα ἐν
ἑτέροις μοι συγγέγραπται λόγοις, ὅσα δὲ αὐτῷ ἀγαθὰ οἰκοδομουμένῳ δεδημιούργηται,
ἐν τῷ παρόντι γεγράψεται.”16 Nevertheless, in this case, Procopius centred solely
on Justinian as a builder (οἰκοδομούμενος). In a nutshell, all these described above
features determine the exceptionality of On the Buildings compared to other an-
cient and Byzantine texts.
A solid emperor had to build, and Roman emperors were well known for their
architectural commissions. However, Procopius created this one of the many
activities of a perfect ruler the centre of his work On the Buildings. There, the
author presented Justinian as a flawless emperor: pious and concerned about
the affairs of his subjects. For Procopius, the best proof of these valued quali-
ties of the emperor were sacred and public buildings that Justinian sponsored.17

12 Helen G. Saradi discussed the late antiquity descriptions of cities and their buildings as a part
of praises of various people (for example, rulers, bishops and governors); see Helen G. Saradi,
The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century. Literary Images and Historical Reality (Athens: Society
of Messenian Archaeological Studies, 2006), 49–68. The tradition of writing praises of cities in
Greek literature is characterised by Jean Bouffartigue, “La tradition de l’éloge de la cité dans le
monde grec,” in La fin de la cité antique et le début de la cité medievale de la fin du IIIe siècle a
l’avènement de Charlemagne. Actes du colloque tenu à l’Université de Paris X­Nanterre les 1, 2 et
3 avril 1993, éd. Claude Lepelley (Bari: Edipuglia, 1996), 43–58; and in Latin one: Pierre Riché,
“La représentation de la ville dans les textes littéraires du Ve au IXe siècle,” in La fin de la cité
antique, 183–190.
13 See especially Elodie Turquois, “Technical Writing, Genre and Aesthetic in Procopius’,” in
Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity, ed. Geoffrey Greatrex, Hugh Elton with the assistance of
Lucas McMahon (Farnham–Burlington: Routledge, 2015), 219.
14 See Elsner, “The Rhetoric of Buildings,” 35–49.
15 See Turquois, “Technical Writing,” 230.
16 Aed. 1.1.12. “However, most of the Emperor’s other achievements have been described by me
in my other writings, so that the subject of the present work will be the benefits which he
wrought as a builder.” Glanville Downey indicated that posterity would understand this re-
mark as an allusion to the Secret History, but his contemporaries could find it as a reference
to the History of the Wars because the Secret History was not published during its author’s
lifetime; Procopius, On Buildings, 6–7, note 2. See also Jakob Haury, “Prokop und der Kaiser
Justinian,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 38 (1937), 5. He believed that this passage regarded the
Secret History. Cf. Aed. 1.10.2–3.
17 Cf. “Πολλὰ δὲ ῥίπτειν καὶ ἐς θαλαττίους οἰκοδομίας τινὰς ἠξίου, βιαζόμενος τὸ τῶν κυμάτων ἐς ἀεὶ ῥόθιον.
ἐκ γὰρ τῆς ἠιόνος ταῖς τῶν λίθων ἐπιβολαῖς ἐπίπροσθεν ᾔει φιλονείκως ταῖς ἐκ τοῦ πόντου ἐπιρροαῖς
<ἔχων> καὶ καθάπερ ἐξουσίᾳ πλού<του> πρὸς τὴν τῆς θαλάσσης ἀντιφιλοτιμούμενος δύναμιν.”
Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia. Vol. III. Historia qvae dicitvr arcana, rec. Jakob Haury, ed.
stereotypa correctior addenda et corrigenda adiecit Gerhard Wirth (Monachii–Lipsiae: K.G.
Saur Verlag, 2001), (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), 8.7–8.
In this passage of the Secret History, Procopius found Justinian’s offshore structures a waste
of money. Then, he complained that the emperor used to erect senseless buildings (ἀνοήτοις
οἰκοδομίαις); Historia qvae dicitvr arcana, 11.3. See also ibidem, 19.6; 26.23–25; 26.33.

162
Undoubtedly, in this text, the author created a propagandistic image of the em-
peror.18 According to it, Justinian was an ideal ruler, a true man of providence,
even ὁ τῆς οἰκουμένης οἰκιστὴς (the founder of the civilised world), as the historian
called him.19
It seems that the existing literary patterns were insufficient for Procopius.
Therefore, he generated the appearance of Justinian as directly involved in the
construction of buildings and the founding of new cities. Regarding this idea, the
imperial contribution was not limited to providing financial resources. Hence,
the author used to emphasise that Justinian was not only generous but also com-
mitted to each construction personally: literally, from foundations to roofs. While
it is apparent that the emperor would not be able to oversee all of his construc-
tions in such a direct way, Procopius repeatedly used to describe his individual
involvement. Thus, the ekphraseis and lists of buildings in the text look like just
an excuse to praise the emperor, the central figure of all descriptions.
In short, Procopius depicted Justinian not just as a founder and money provid-
er but as an absolute mastermind of all construction projects. In the context of
the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople, we read: “οὐ χρήμασι δὲ αὐτὴν
ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐδείματο μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πονουμένῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ τῆς ψυχῆς
ἀρετῇ.”20 Hence, Justinian was able to solve the most serious technical problems,
and architects only supported him. They could always count on the emperor’s
advice when difficulties began to overwhelm them. A telling example of this liter-
ary strategy is the story of the erecting of supports in the Hagia Sophia Church.21
As Procopius recounted, during the construction of the monumental arches in
the church, one of them proceed to collapse under its own weight. Therefore, the
building was in danger of a construction disaster, and the builders were forced
to withdraw helplessly because they could not solve this crucial problem. Then,
it emerged that only Justinian could end this severe crisis. The emperor, inspired
by God, provided an effective cure for crushing support. He ordered the work-
ers to finish building the arch: “αὐτὴ γάρ, ἔφη, ἐφ’ ἑαυτῆς ἀνεχομένη τῶν ἔνερθεν
πεσσῶν οὐκέτι δεήσει.”22 The idea proved to be suitable, so the danger was over.

18 Philip Rousseau, “Procopius’s Buildings and Justinian’s Pride,” Byzantion 68, 1 (1998), 121–130,
pointed out that On the Buildings is a text in which the author expressed his hostility towards
Justinian in an almost as aggressive way as in the Secret History. A similar stand – but concern-
ing the entire legacy of Procopius – is presented above all by Anthony Kaldellis, Procopius of
Caesarea. Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2004). Cf. Croke, “The Search for Harmony in Procopius’ Literary Works,”
31–34, 53.
19 Aed. 4.1.17.
20 Aed. 1.1.67. “But it was not with money alone that the Emperor built it, but also with a labour of
the mind and with the other powers of the soul.”
21 See Aed. 1.1.68–74.
22 Aed. 1.1.71. “For when it rests upon itself, he said, it will no longer need the props (pessoi) beneath
it.” Cyril Mango (The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1456. Sources and Documents (Toronto–
Buffalo–London: University of Toronto Press, 1993), 77, note 102) found that “There can be no
doubt that the eastern arch was built on a centering; what happened, however, is that as the
voussoirs were being laid, the piers started tilting laterally.”

163
 The emperor, a little later, also advised on cracking arcades.23 Therefore, it is clear
from the text that without his help, the erecting of the most magnificent church
in Byzantium would not have been successful.
Another building problem was the risk of flooding in the fortress city of Dara
in northern Mesopotamia. The court builders (μηχανικοί) Anthemios of Tralles
and Isidore of Miletus24 proposed some solutions, but neither seemed reasonable
enough.25 During the flood, Chryses of Alexandria, a master-builder (μηχανοποιός)
responsible for this region, was outside the city. However, God communicated
to him the fix in a dream: “ὄψιν δὲ ὀνείρου τοιάνδε εἶδεν. ἐδόκει οἱ ἐν τῷ ὀνείρῳ τις
ὑπερφυής τε καὶ τὰ ἄλλα κρείσσων ἢ ἀνθρώπῳ εἰκάζεσθαι μηχανήν τινα ἐπαγγέλλειν τε
καὶ ἐνδείκνυσθαι, ἣ ἂν διακωλύειν τὸν ποταμὸν ἱκανὴ εἴη ἐπὶ πονηρῷ τῆς πόλεως μηκέτι
μορμύρειν.”26 Then, he immediately sent a letter with an appropriate response and
drawings to the emperor himself. Justinian, however, regardless of Chryses’ letter,
indicated the solution and sketched the barrier (ἀντιτείχισμα).27 Three days later,
the letter arrived, and it turned out that Chryses had offered the same solution
as the emperor: “ἐκράτει τοίνυν ἡ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπίταξις, ὑποχωρούσης μηχανοποιῶν
σοφίας καὶ τέχνης. καὶ γίνεται ὁ Χρύσης αὖθις ἐν πόλει Δάρας, ἐπιτεταγμένον οἱ πρὸς
τοῦ βασιλέως ὑποτελέσαι τὰ γεγραμμένα σπουδῇ τῇ πάσῃ, καθάπερ ἡ τοῦ ὀνείρου
ὑποθήκη ἐπήγγελλεν.”28
The emperor also had to contend with other problems related to water.29 As
an example; it is worth mentioning the story of the water supply in Constan-
tinople. Procopius noted that the capital suffered from a shortage of drinking
water, especially in summer. To overcome this difficulty, Justinian was to enlarge
the room under the imperial basilica, transforming it into a cistern (ἔλυτρον) to
store water for the summer drought. Thus, the emperor gave further evidence of
23 See Aed. 1.1.74–78.
24 According to Procopius, Justinian esteemed them highly (Aed. 1.1.24–26): “Ἀνθέμιος δὲ Τραλλιανὸς,
ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ τῇ καλουμένῃ μηχανικῇ λογιώτατος, οὐ τῶν κατ’ αὐτὸν μόνον ἁπάντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ
προγεγενημένων πολλῷ, τῇ βασιλέως ὑπούργει σπουδῇ, τοῖς τεκταινομένοις τὰ ἔργα ῥυθμίζων, τῶν
τε γενησομένων προδιασκευάζων ἰνδάλματα, καὶ μηχανοποιὸς σὺν αὐτῷ ἕτερος, Ἰσίδωρος ὄνομα,
Μιλήσιος γένος, ἔμφρων τε ἄλλως καὶ πρέπων Ἰουστινιανῷ ὑπουργεῖν βασιλεῖ. Ἰουστινιανῷ ὑπουργεῖν
βασιλεῖ. ἦν δὲ ἄρα καὶ τοῦτο τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ τὸν βασιλέα τιμῆς, προκαταστησαμένου τοὺς ἐς τὰ
πραχθησόμενα χρησιμωτάτους αὐτῷ ἐσομένους. καὶ αὐτοῦ δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως τὸν νοῦν εἰκότως ἄν τις
ἀγασθείη τούτου δὴ ἕνεκα, ὅτι δὴ ἐκ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐς τῶν πραγμάτων τὰ σπουδαιότατα τοὺς
καιριωτάτους ἀπολέξασθαι ἔσχε.” Cf. Historia qvae dicitvr arcana, 21.9–25. There, Procopius
pointed that Justinian used to induct offices to the worst villains.
25 See Aed. 2.3.7–8.
26 Aed. 2.3.3–4. “And he saw a vision as follows. It seemed in his dream that a certain creature
of enormous size and in other respects too mighty to resemble a man, prescribed and gave
directions for a certain device which would be able to prevent the river from again running
wild to the ruin of the city.”
27 See Aed. 2.3.8–9.
28 Aed. 2.3.14–15. “So the Emperor’s plan won the day, while the wisdom and skill of the master-
builders yielded place to it. And Chryses again went to the city of Daras, with instructions
from the Emperor to carry out with all zeal the scheme which had been described, just as the
intimation of the dream had dictated.”
29 See Jordan Pickett, “Water and Empire in the De aedificiis of Procopius,” Dumbarton Oaks Pa­
pers 71 (2017), 95–126.

164
his care for the inhabitants of the city.30 However, in this case, the historian gave a
completely different account in the Secret History. He noted that the emperor did
not care at all about the broken aqueduct, even though people lacked water and
the baths were closed. The author even accused the ruler of deliberately harming
people and even wanting them to die.31
Justinian also helped when there was no marble for the columns for a church
dedicated to the Mother of God (the so-called New Church) in Jerusalem. First,
he marked the place and dimensions of the building.32 Then, according to Pro-
copius, he even selected oxen to pull carts with colossal stone blocks.33 So things
turned out well because the emperor was clever and pious.34 Eventually, there
was a need to acquire large columns, but no suitable quarry was nearby. Hence it
seemed as if the builders would bring them from some distant land.35 The emper-
or, however, did not want to wait that long. Then God showed him deposits of the
appropriate stone: “λίθου φύσιν ὁ θεὸς ἐπιτηδείως ἐς τοῦτο ἔχουσαν ἐν τοῖς ἄγχιστα
ὄρεσιν ἔδειξεν, ἢ οὖσάν τε καὶ κρυπτομένην τὰ πρότερα, ἢ νῦν γενομένην.”36 Thanks
to divine intervention, the church was completed. In this way, the historian also
pointed out to the audience that Justinian was an excellent emperor, since God
always supported him.
Significantly, Justinian’s entire architectural activity followed the will of God,
who always assisted the ruler and worked miracles that confirmed his satisfac-
tion the acts of the emperor. Saints, grateful for new churches and shrines, also
showed mercy to Justinian. For example, when Justinian built in Constantinople
a new church for the Apostles, the saints appreciated the magnificent structure
that the emperor had dedicated to them and miraculously unveiled the chest
containing the relics of the saints Andrew, Luke, and Timothy. “σώματα γοῦν
<τῶν> ἀποστόλων Ἀνδρέου τε καὶ Λουκᾶ καὶ Τιμοθέου ἄδηλά τε καὶ ὅλως κρυφαῖα
τὰ πρότερα ὄντα τηνικάδε πᾶσιν ἔνδηλα γέγονεν, οὐκ ἀπαξιούντων, οἶμαι, τὴν
βασιλέως πίστιν, ἀλλ’ ἐπιχωρούντων αὐτῷ διαρρήδην ὁρῶντί τε αὐτοὺς καὶ προσιόντι
καὶ ἁπτομένῳ τῆς ἐνθένδε ὠφελείας τε καὶ περὶ τὸν βίον ἀσφαλείας ἀπόνασθαι.”37 Ac-
cording to the historian, this event clearly showed the gratitude of the saints for
the emperor. Procopius also added that the divine (τὰ θεῖα) always accompanied
30 See Aed. 1.11.10–15.
31 See Historia qvae dicitvr arcana, 26.23–25.
32 See Aed. 5.6.1–4.
33 See Aed. 5.6.12.
34 See Aed. 5.6.16.
35 See Aed. 5.6.17–18.
36 Aed. 5.6.19. “God revealed a natural supply of stone perfectly suited to this purpose in the near
by hills, one which had either lain there in concealment previously, or was created at that
moment.”
37 Aed. 1.4.18. “At any rate the bodies of the Apostles Andrew and Luke and Timothy, which
previously had been invisible and altogether concealed, became at that time visible to all men,
signifying, I believe, that they did not reject the faith of the Emperor, but expressly permitted
him to see them and approach them and touch them, that he might thereby enjoy their
assistance and the safety of his life.”

165
 people and cherished them when they had a prayerful emperor.38 A similar story
occurred during the construction of the Church of the Holy Peace.39 Then, ma-
sons (λιθοδόμοι) found a chest with the relics of the soldiers of the Twelfth Le-
gion. The historian interpreted this discovery as a sign of godly favourableness:
“ὅπερ ἐξήνεγκε λεληθὸς τέως ἐξεπίτηδες ὁ θεός, ἅμα μὲν πιστούμενος ἅπαντας ὡς
τὰ βασιλέως ἀσμενέστατα ἐνδέδεκται δῶρα, ἅμα δὲ καὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τὴν ἀγαθοεργίαν
ἀμείψασθαι διατεινόμενος χάριτι μείζονι.”40 A bit later, the emperor, exhausted by
fasting, fell ill and regained his health only due to these relics from which mi-
raculous oil drained. For Procopius, it was another indication of God’s apprecia-
tion for Justinian.41
Moreover, Justinian raised not only new constructions but also repaired old
and neglected ones. He used to find them himself and then restore them. For ex-
ample, this was the case with the Church of Archangel Michael in Constantino-
ple. “Τοῦ δὲ ἀρχαγγέλου Μιχαὴλ ἱερὸν εὗρεν ἐν Βυζαντίῳ βραχύ τε καὶ ἀφεγγὲς ἄγαν
καὶ ὡς ἥκιστα τῷ ἀρχαγγέλῳ ἀνεῖσθαι πρέπον πρὸς σενάτορός τινος τῶν πατρικίων
ἐν χρόνῳ γεγενημένον τῷ ἔμπροσθεν, κοιτωνίσκῳ οἰκίας ἀτεχνῶς ἐμφερὲς οὐδὲ λίαν
εὐδαίμονος. διὸ δὴ καθεῖλε μὲν αὐτὸ ἐς τὸ ἔδαφος ἐκ τῶν θεμελίων, ὡς μή τι αὐτῷ τῆς
προτέρας ἀκοσμίας ἀπολειφθείη. εὐμέγεθες δὲ τεκτηνάμενος κατὰ τὸν νῦν φαινόμενον
τρόπον, ἐς κάλλος μεταβιβάζει θαυμάσιον οἷον.”42 The emperor considered the origi-
nal building too small and too dark, totally improper for its patron. Relatedly, he
replaced it with a new one, large and striking. As Procopius indicated, Justinian
loved to rebuild churches, especially in the capital.43
Another important field of imperial care for the state was the construction
of city fortifications. A significant example was Dara. There, the Roman Empire
bordered on the Persian state, constantly exposed to hostile attacks.44 As Procop-
ius noted, Justinian first raised the wall, reduced the battlements, and repaired

38 See Aed. 1.4.24.

39 See Aed. 1.7.4–5.
40 Aed. 1.7.5. “And God brought to light this chest, which thus far had been forgotten, with an
express purpose, partly to assure all men that He had accepted the Emperor’s gifts most gladly,
and partly because He was eager to repay this great man’s beneficence with a greater favour.”
41 See Aed. 1.7.6–16.
42 Aed. 1.3.14–16. “He found a shrine of the Archangel Michael in Byzantium which was small and
very badly lighted, utterly unworthy to be dedicated to the Archangel; it was built in earlier
times by a certain patrician senator, quite like a tiny bedroom of a dwelling-house, and that,
too, of the house of one who is not very prosperous. So he tore this down, even to the lowest
foundations, so that no trace of its earlier unseemliness might remain. And increasing its
size to the proportions which it now displays, he transformed it into a marvellously beautiful
building.”
43 E.g. Aed. 1.4.25–26; 1.6.2–3; 1.6.5–6; 1.8.2–14.
44 See, e.g. Elif Keser Kayaalp, Nihat Erdoğan, “Recent Research on Dara/Anastasiopolis,” in New
Cities in Late Antiquity. Documents and Archaeology, ed. Efthymios Rizos (Turnhout: Brepols,
2017), 153–175; Michael Whitby, “Procopius’ Description of Dara (“Buildings” II 1–3),” in The
Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East. Proceedings of a Colloquium held at the University of
Sheffield in April 1986, Vol. 2, ed. Philip Freeman, David Kennedy (Oxford: British Institute of
Archaeology at Ankara, 1986), 737–783; Brian Croke, James Crow, “Procopius and Dara,” The
Journal of Roman Studies 73 (1983), 143–159.

166
some of the towers.45 In addition, he had to build a ditch (τάφρος) in a new way
(τρόπῳ ἑτέρῳ). “ᾗ δὲ αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἄνεμον νότον ἡ πλευρὰ τέτραπται, μαλθακή τε
οὖσα καὶ γεώδης ἡ χώρα καὶ πρὸς διώρυχας εὔκολος ἄγαν, εὐέφοδον ταύτῃ ποιεῖ τὴν
πόλιν. τάφρον οὖν ἐνταῦθα μηνοειδῆ, εὔρους τε καὶ βάθους ἱκανῶς ἔχουσαν ἐπὶ μακρῷ
κατορύξας, ἑκάτερον αὐτῆς τῷ προτειχίσματι τὸ πέρας ἐνῆψεν, ὕδατος μὲν αὐτὴν
διαρκῶς ἐμπλησάμενος, ἄβατόν τε παντάπασι τοῖς πολεμίοις καταστησάμενος, ἐν
μοίρᾳ δὲ αὐτῆς τῇ ἐντὸς προτείχισμα θέμενος ἕτερον.”46 Justinian was to carry out
similar construction works in other cities, mainly in Syria.47 Thanks to them, as
the historian wrote, the state borders became better protected.
In summary, Procopius portrayed the emperor as de facto the best of archi-
tects. Then, whenever there were grave technical difficulties, it turned out that
only Justinian could solve them. Hence, the emperor constantly and discreetly
watched the erection of the different constructions and always supported the
builders with advice. Of course, we are dealing here with the image propaganda
spread by Procopius because, in this text, it was the building activity that served
(as pars pro toto) to form the appearance of Justinian as the perfect ruler. How-
ever, the standard praise was not enough for Procopius. Thus, he presented the
emperor as actually the best of architects. Such an image of Justinian emerges
from the anecdotes quoted by Procopius throughout his work On the Buildings.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the historian noted that the emperor was a
true man of providence, entrusted by God to oversee the Empire.48

45 See Aed. 2.1.14–22.

46 Aed. 2.1.24–25. “But on the side which is turned toward south, the soil is deep and soft and
consequently easy to mine, so that it makes the city assailable on this side. So in that place
he dug a crescent-shaped moat, with sufficient breadth and depth and extending to a great
distance, and joined either end of this to the outworks and filled it amply with water, rendering
it altogether impassable for the enemy; and on its inner side he set up another outwork.”
47 See, e.g. Aed. 2.4.22–24; 2.5.1; 2.5.2–9; 2.6.1–9.
48 See Aed. 2.6.6.

167
 16

The “status quo” at the Church of the Holy

Sepulchre in Jerusalem and its connection with
architectural appearance of the shrine
ELENA LAVRENTYEVA, The Russian State University for the
Humanities, Moscow
IRINA CHIRSKOVA, The Russian State University for the
Humanities, Moscow
UDK 94:[726:271(569.44)
UDK 271(569.44):[726:340.13(091)

Abstract: It is well known the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem has
a great architectural history. Its “status quo” evolved in parallel with build-
ing stages of the shrine and its architectural appearance became more and
more complicated. This report consider a number of legislative acts, most of
which have been published in scholar literature, relative to the formation of
the “status quo” at the Holy Land and, in particular, at the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher. Following the times these acts has aimed at regulating the legal sta-
tus of Christian communities of different denominations. For the first time
an attempt made to follow developments on intense periods of the struggle
between Christians for the right to own shrines in the Church of the Holy Sep-
ulcher. Examining this issue its relations with restoration works of the shrine
could be shown. Also one can approximately identify the role played by each
of the communities in its influence on the architectural appearance of the
Church. Results of this research will allow to determine the influence degree
of the “status quo” on the architectural appearance of the shrine.

168
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is a complex of various buildings,
erected around Golgotha and the tomb of Christ by the efforts of representatives of
diverse Christian denominations in different times. It is believed that it was erected
in the 4th century by the order of Emperor Constantine. From written sources it is
known the architectural shrine was seriously damaged several times: in 614 during
the invasion of Jerusalem by the Persian king Khosrow Parviz; in 805/812 and 937 –
under the Abbasids; in 966 – by the decree of Jerusalem ruler as-Sinajiya; in 1008(9)
– by decree of the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. The Church of the Holy
Sepulchre was rebuilt in the first half of the 12th century, after the Frankish knights
conquered Jerusalem during the first crusade. Gradually the shrine lost its medieval
appearance in the course of fragmentary restoration works evidenced by records
in legislative firmans. Moreover, because of a two-day fire in 1808, when about
two-thirds of the medieval building was destroyed, some walls and ceilings were
rebuilt during the restoration of 1809–1810 under the direction of N. Komnenos.
Its appearance also changed seriously after the last major restoration in 1960–
1977, carried out in parallel with the archaeological excavations of V. C. Corbo.
Nevertheless, in Middle Ages every time the Church was restored, craftspeople
from different places and of various Christian communities were involved. Thus,
the preserved medieval sculptural decoration of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher
(capitals, moldings, friezes, voussoirs, lintels, – most of them are spolias) become
unique markers of the Christian communities guarding the Holy Shrine through
the centuries. Despite the large volume of scientific literature about architectural
members of the shrine, not all of the capitals, friezes and moldings have been the
subject of independent research.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is located in the Christian quarter of the old
city of Jerusalem. Nowadays it forms a single complex with the buildings adjacent
to it. The complex is located on a relatively small area and includes buildings of
different times, types and denominations. These are the Greek monasteries of
the Holy Sepulcher Brotherhood, St. Charalampos, Abraham; the Gethsemane
Compound; the Franciscan Monastery; the Armenian Monastery of St. John;
Coptic Monastery of St. Anthony; the Ethiopian Monastery of Deir al-Sultan; the
Russian Alexander Compound; as well as the al-Khanqah al-Salahiyya Mosque
and the Mosque of Umar.
At the same time, it must be said that the Holy Sepulcher and Golgotha were
carefully guarded even before the construction of the Church. Christians who
revered the shrine sought to be close to it, with the exception of periods of
persecution by the Roman emperors. The protection and defense of the shrine
was led by James, the apostle from 70 (33 – c. 62), then Simeon, the apostle from
70 (c. 62 – 107) and further according to the list of the first Jerusalem bishops.
Only after approximately 300 years, during the reign of Constantine the Great,
the shrines were enclosed into the church space that was completely different
from the modern one.

169
 From the time of Byzantine province Palæstina Prima (before 638), very
fragmentary and laconic descriptions of the shrine have been preserved in
chronicles and guidebooks written by historians and pilgrims. According to
them, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher consisted of two main buildings (the
rotunda and the basilica), separated by a courtyard, in the fence of which was
Golgotha, and surrounded by chapels and ancillary buildings. A written source
(4 c.) reports that “…in that province some of the people know both Greek and
Syriac, while some know Greek alone and others only Syriac” and moreover, there
were “the Latins here, who understand neither Syriac nor Greek”, and “other
brothers and sisters knowing both Greek and Latin, who translate into Latin
for them”.1 From this period, some architectural sources are preserved, mostly
capitals. However, its motley diversity tells us about the constant completion of
the church complex by joining new chapels, and the diversity of the architectural
traditions of different Christian lands. Thus, we can see the capitals that
continued the tradition of antiquity belongs to the Corinthian style (4 c.). The
trapezoidal capitals created by the order of the Byzantine Emperor Mauricius
(585–602) are characterized by a minimal floral decoration. Each side has an
individual monogram. Four of them deciphered by L. de Seigny as the names
of imperial family members: “ΜΑΥΡΙΚΙΟΥ” – the emperor Mauricius himself,
“KΩNΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΗΣ” – his wife, “ΘΕΟΔΟΣΙΟΥ” and “ΤΙΒΕΡΙΟΥ” – his two sons.
This fact once again confirms that to the turn of 6 and 7 centuries the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre was under protection of the Byzantine emperor.

Trapezoidal capital (Corbo, 1981. Vol. 2. Pl. 21; Vol. 3. Ph. 42)

Trapezoidal capital (Corbo, 1981. Vol. 2. Pl. 21; Vol. 3. Ph. 43)

1 This paper does not discuss the widely debated issue of the authorship of this written source.
Egeria’s Travels: BAPTISM [Mystic Catechisings].
170
 The capital of the laid arcade in the Golgotha zone2 is similar to Maurician
capitals iconographically: cubic shape, symmetrical bas-relief, where the center
of the composition is the image of an equal-pointed Greek cross inserted into
the circle.3 Nevertheless, the proportions are different. According to its stylistic
characteristics the Golgotha’s capital can be attributed to the Palestine region,
presumably the end of 6 century.

The southern wall of the Golgotha area, looking south (Katsimbinis, 1977: pl. C)

Ethiopian chapel. Photo of the capital from another side (Photo by E. Lavrenteva)

Supposedly, the restoration markers of the church complex after Persian

invasion in 614 are capital of the so-called arcade of Virgin Mary and the capital
in the southern courtyard almost identical to the first one.4 They are relate to
the basket-shaped capital type of the Syro-Palestinian region, when the capital
2 This arcade is also belonged to the northern wall of the Ethiopian chapel of the 12th century
dedicated to Tetramorph.
3 Christos Katsimbinis, “The Uncovering of the Eastern Side of the Hill of Calvary and Its Base:
New Lay-out of the Area of the Canons’ Refectory by the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate,” Liber
Annuus (1977), 27, pl. C.
4 This capital is distinguished from the capital inside the Church only by a medallion with a
flower inside of it, not the cross.

171
 usually consists of two parts: the lower one imitates a wicker basket; the upper
one is an arrangement of elements of both a Corinthian capital and capital of the
Christian area. It seems this capitals could have been created in 620-s, i.e. during
the restoration of Modest the bishop of Jerusalem, during the reign of Emperor
Heraclius.5

Basket-shaped capital (Photo by A. Kazaryan)

Basket-shaped capital (Photo by E. Lavrenteva)

Another exceptional feature of the Golgotha chapel is two Byzantine folding

capitals, which are part of the structure of the 12th century basilica.6 They cannot
be found anywhere else in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. These capitals have
the same folded shape using openwork technique as the Byzantine capitals of the
Church of Sergius and Bacchus in Constantinople (530s). Though the same type
of folded capitals adorn the columns of Qubbat al-Silsilah (Dome of the Chain)
on the al-Haram al-Sharif (c. 691); and the facade of San Marco in Venice (before
1092). It can be assumed the capitals were created on a model that came from
Justinian’s Byzantium. However, considering that the same type capital adorns

5 Armen Kazaryan, Church architecture of the Transcaucasian countries of the 7th century: For­
mation and development of tradition. 2 vol. (Moscow: Locus Standi, 2012), 442–443, 475.
6 It is possible that the capitals may be late copies installed during the 20th century restoration,
but this information has not been verified.
172
the masterpiece of Muslim architecture on the Al-Aqsa Compound, it can be
assumed that capitals of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre date back to the 7th
century. It is also striking there is no mention of them in the scholar literature.

Two folding capitals at the area of the Golgotha (second storey) (Photo by E.
Lavrenteva)

Folding capital of the Qubbat al-Silsilah, Jerusalem, c. 691 (Photo by E. Lavrenteva)

The conquest of Jerusalem in 638 by Caliph Umar ibn Al-Khattab and the
inclusion of the city in the Rashidun Caliphate did not affect the external and
internal appearance of the Church complex, which already was rebuilt under
Emperor Heraclius. However, a charter was drawn up, known under the name
“Ahtiname”. It spelled out the rights of Christians in the Holy Land. On the Mount
of Olives, the charter was handed over to patriarch Sophronius the Sophist, thus
becoming the first document regulating the rights to own the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher. The text testified that Christians received complete and absolute
security in regard to their lives, churches, beliefs and all places of pilgrimage that
belong to them inside or outside the city. Among this, one of the main objects
of protection was the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The charter indicated that
Georgians, Abyssinians, Franks, Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Nestorians, Jacobites,
and Maronites would refer to the specified patriarch. The original “Ahtiname”
as a shrine was kept by the caliphs, later by the sultans. Its sealed copy, written
in the judicial acts in Mehkem (spiritual court), was issued to the servants of

173
 the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. It is not known for certain where the original
Ahtiname is kept now.
The rules established by the charter of Ahtinameh were also observed after
the Rashidun Caliphate, when Jerusalem became part of the Umayyad Caliphate
(661–750), as well as during the period of the Abbasid Caliphate (750–945), the
Fatimid Caliphate (969(?)–1099). By that time monastic communities of Greeks,
Georgians, Armenians, Copts, Syrians could reside in the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre.
Written sources testify to the restoration of the great dome above the Holy
Sepulchre itself by Patriarch Thomas and Macarius, a wealthy resident from Bura
(Egypt). It is also known that in 881 under Patriarch Elijah III Jerusalem churches
were restored once more time.7
While the Abbasid Caliphate had lost its positions eventually ceded the Holy
Land to the Fatimids, the church complex of the Holy Sepulcher was destroyed
twice in the 10th century (937 and 966). From this period, the spolia-capitals
of St. Helena underground chapel well preserved: two capitals like a wicker
basket resembling the shape of a scyphos, and another two capitals are of the
Corinthian style. According to the stylistic analysis, these capitals are belonged to
the Abbasid period (750–945). They could have been made for the Church of the
Holy Sepulcher, otherwise they could been brought from the destroyed buildings
of Jerusalem. For example, D. Pringle suggested that these basket-shaped capitals
originally adorned the buildings of the Al-Aqsa Compound.8

Underground chapel of St Elena: Abbasid capitals supporting pendentives (750–945)

(Pringle, 2007: pl. x)

7 It is still not confirmed if the shrine was restored by the Byzantine emperor Basil the Macedo-
nian in 886.
8 Denis Pringle, The churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: a corpus with drawings by
Peter E. Leach (New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 44–45.

174
 Yet again only from written sources we know about next period of serious
restorations. The church complex was restored from 966 to 1005. Patriarch
Christodolus II restored the altar and the doors of the Church of the Resurrection
(presumably Rotunda Anastasis), but he died prematurely. Then, under Patriarch
Thomas II, the complex was restored by a Jacobite from Iraq (or Iran), named
Alij-ibn-S.var, nicknamed Ibn-al-Hammar. He restored a lot but was killed before
the work was completed. Under Patriarchs Joseph II and Orestes, the syncellos
Sadaki-ibn-Bishra was the main architect who built the dome and completed
the complex with the exception of the “jamal of St. Constantine”. The so-called
“jamal”9 was rebuilt after the departure of Orestes to Constantinople under
Arsenius, the patriarch of Alexandria (Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al­Antākī). Restored church
complex of Holy Sepulchre, just as before, consisted of a complex of structures
united by a courtyard. The specifics of their location suggested that the rotunda
of the Resurrection could only be reached through the Basilica of Constantine.
There is a high probability that monastic buildings adjoined the complex,
separating it from the city space. In the scholar literature, there are no indications
of architectural sources, related to this period. Nevertheless, we can assume this
period characterized by the involvement of Syrian and Egyptian (Alexandrian)
architect members. Architectural fragments that could be attributed to this
period according to its style have been preserved in the modern church complex.
Namely, there are modern Ethiopian churches of Tetramorph and the Archangel
Michael, as well as capitals later used in crusader courtyard. However, this is only
the author’s hypothesis, and this issue needs further consideration.
However, shortly after the completion of the restoration works, it was destroyed
by the order of Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah in 1008(9). The destruction
was accompanied by looting. It was almost immediately followed by restoration.
The caliph, regretting what he had done, issued a decree to restore the Christian
shrine. The newly rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulchre could not recreate the
beauty and grandeur of the destroyed one. Changes in the appearance of the
church complex are not possible to establish currently. There is only indirect
information that the Basilica of Constantine was never restored, since instead of
it the pilgrims called separately the Church of Calvary, the Temple of the Lord,
the Prison, the Grotto of the Holy Cross, as well as the courtyard of the Church
and the atrium of the Lord’s Temple. As for the courtyard located between the
rotunda and the destroyed basilica, one should agree with the opinion of V.
Vasilevsky, who thought the yard itself were built up and never mentioned in
written sources.10 Unfortunately, only a few architectural sources survive from

9 Jamal (transl. from Arabic) – camel. According to a Russian researcher N.A. Mednikov this term
is most likely the name for a special type of roof that looks like a camel’s hump. He even made
an analogy with the French expression “toit en dos d’âne” (a roof in the form of a donkey’s
back, i.e. a roof sloping on both sides)]”
10 Vasiliy Vasilevsky, “Notes to the Russian translation of Epiphanius,” Orthodox Palestinian bul­
letin 2(11), 1886, 3–64.

175
 this period – three huge non-spolia capitals preserved in the structure of the
Franciscan monastery northern courtyard. Two capitals are included into the
triforium of the chapel of St. Mary adjacent to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre;
and the third one – into the wall of Rotunda Anastasis. Nothing is written about
them in research literature.

Eleventh-century cushion capitals with lilies. The Franciscan monastery northern

courtyard (photo by E. Lavrenteva)

After the Great Schism of 1054 and the First Crusade, the Church of the
Holy Sepulcher underwent a significant change. For the Frankish knights the
church acquired the significance of the coronation place for the rulers of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem.11 In general, the changes of the Church consisted in the
fact it was rebuilt in such a way that all the main shrines (Golgotha, the Holy
Sepulcher, the Stone of Unction and nearby churches where relics were kept)
were integrated into a space of one huge building. Then, in the first half of the
12th century, the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulchre was expanded with new
buildings of Canons monastery, among which were a refectory, living quarters,
and a courtyard (where the Ethiopian monastery is now located).
There were many various capitals created for the twelfth-century basilica.
Among them were preserved: - Corinthian style capitals of embedded columns
used in ambulatory and the northern nave support column; - figurative capitals
of embedded columns and piers used in the Basilica northern nave and in the
night stair at the ambulatory.

11 Jaroslav Folda, The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1098–1187 (Cambridge University
press, 1995), 130–137.

176
 Capitals of different styles in the Prison of Christ (photo by E. Lavrenteva)

Capitals of the crusader restoration. Northern gallery above the “arches of the Virgin”
(Corbo, 1981: vol. 3, pl. 172)

We can see the unified decorative program in the Prison of Christ, where
capitals of different styles are on their places. In addition, there are very unusual
capitals of the crusader restoration at the second level of northern gallery. The
figured capital can be found at the Latin Patriarch’s chapel (unfortunately, the
face has not preserved). Crusader plain capitals12 of the bell-tower and can be
compared with capital of the Patriarch chapel and with capitals of Armenian
Cathedral church of St. James the Great.

12 These capitals are dated by J. Folda to the second half of 12th century.

177
 Crusader plain capitals of the bell-tower

Crusader plain capital of the Elbow column in the nartex of Cathedral church of St.
James the Great (Pringle, 2007: pl. XCVII)

Capitals of individual Corinthian style and “windswept foliate capitals of

medieval Byzantine type” were made for the famous south façade that had
unique decorated program. Architectural sources shows how with the arrival
of the crusaders to Jerusalem the Latins decreed their church order and their
patriarchs at the Holy Sepulcher. They needed to show it visually. Thus, the
architectural appearance of the shrine is more than ever better suited as a base
for the visual display of who resides within the walls of the Church
Jerusalem re-entered the Ayyubid Sultanate of Egypt after October 2, 1187, when
Salah ad-Din, sultan of Egypt and founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, forced the
crusaders to leave the holy city. Following the example of Umar, he preserved the
Church of the Holy Sepulcher, returning it to its former owners, the clergy of the

178
Orthodox faith, whose representatives for that time period were Arabs, Greeks and
Georgians. However, the leadership in the Temple was given to the local Arabs.
For some time, the Arab clergy, along with the Greek and Georgian, remained the
only guardian of the shrine of Jerusalem, however, both the Greeks and Georgians,
considered “foreign aliens”, were carefully removed from the bishopric.
The chronological classification of spolia-capitals reveals four different-time
groups of capitals: - the middle of the 4th century, to which the capitals belong
exclusively to the Corinthian style; - the turn of the 6th and 7th centuries, which
includes trapezoidal capitals with a symmetrical pattern. Folding capitals made
in openwork technique also belong to the end of the 6th century; - by the 20-s
7th century it was made basket-shaped marble capitals in the Syro-Palestinian
region; - to the rule of the Abbasid dynasty (750-945) there are basket-shaped
and pseudo-Corinthian capitals.
The location of 12-th century capitals tells that the basilica was built not at
once. There are several zones we can define: - ambulatory where identical
capitals are used, - south façade which represent one-time program; - northern
gallery with Romanic style capitals that could be a note of the building stage
before ambulatory and south façade were created; - and the bell-tower decorated
with colonetts crowned with plain capitals dates to the end of the 12 century.
However, none of the above capitals has been thoroughly studied, which opens
up new perspectives in the research of the architectural history of the Church of
the Holy Sepulcher.
The location of capitals can help to clarify the building stages of the Church of
the Holy Sepulchre. And here we can see that the common thesis of the building
stages is not complete and needs improvement; there are some lacks that should
be consider, e.g., the restoration of bishop Modest in the 20s of the 7 c., also
the restoration during Abbasid rule (8-10 c.) and also the building process of the
basilica.
Contradictions between confessions and their presence in the Church
influenced the changes in its structure and should have had a certain impact on
its external and internal appearance, as well as on the space around it. For the
Christian world, the issue of staying close to the shrines located inside the Church
(the Holy Sepulcher, Golgotha, the Stone of Unction) is extremely important.
Therefore, the problem of the “status quo” in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher
is extremely relevant, painful, debatable and requires a delicate approach to its
study.

179
 17

Politically motivated Preservation of Cultural

Heritage
ROZMERI BASIC, The University of Oklahoma, Norman
UDK 930.85:726.033.2:[27-876.7(479.22)
UDK 930.85:726.033.2:[27-876.7(560.118)

Abstract: According to Jaś Elsner, the Byzantine strategy of iconoclasm “in

the first place, involves not simply the breaking, but also the setting up of
images; it is a process of creation as much as destruction.” Furthermore, he
continues, “the use of images as a discourse in society to make statements
… either political or theological, was prevalent and completely normal”
(“Iconoclasm as Discourse: From Antiquity to Byzantium,” The Art Bulletin,
Vol. XCIV.3 (2012): 373–4). In addition to these statements, I believe that
there is another, perhaps more “innovative” and rather indirect approach,
namely the ongoing destruction of “unpopular” cultural heritage by means
of improper conservation and preservation that are regularly approved and
conducted by local authorities. This paper discusses selected examples of
Byzantine monuments in present-day Istanbul and in the country of Georgia,
where several significant structures have lost their World Heritage status
after removal from UNESCO’s list of protected monuments as a result of
“irreversible (reconstructive) interventions.” I argue that these activities are an
appropriation of the iconoclastic politically motivated processes mentioned
by Elsner, and are employed to distort or diminish the importance of the
culturally diverse legacies of the past.

180
As the war between Russia and Ukraine escalates, the world is repeatedly
an unwilling witness to the loss of human life and the destruction of cultural
heritage. At the very beginning of the conflict, one immediate action was the
public call to remove (and destroy) any Russian monuments from the territory of
Ukraine.1 It is amazing that in all the horror of the impending doom, there are local
individuals ready to eradicate any visual reminder of the present enemy. It is all
essentially iconoclasm at work. As the political leadership desperately searches
for some immediate “success,” removal or destruction of public monuments and
structures brings immediate emotional victory in a dire situation. It seems that
in this century, cultural heritage vandalism has become a norm in political and
religious conflicts across the globe. It started with the “performance” watched
worldwide of the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddha statue in Bamiyan Valley,
Afghanistan, in 20112 and concluded with the conversion of the Church (officially
Museum) of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul into a mosque in 2020.3 I mention these
two famous monuments that are very well known because of their universal
popularity and because of the large audiences that loudly protested these events.
However, there are many similar actions that are also politically motivated, but
with fewer witnesses to raise any concerns.
With the recent movement in the United States of Black Lives Matter,
established in 20134 in response to official police brutality in handling the African
American population, it became obvious that there is a lack of proper training
of the police force. In addition to the proposed reforms that will be eventually
implemented—but slowly because of the overall sensitivity of the issues—to
satisfy the immediate emotional need to change, the population turned to the
past and public monuments of Confederate generals who were honored for many
different reasons, but with their support for slavery being the focus. When the
image of the unfortunately killed George Floyd was projected on the base of the
1890 statue of General Robert E. Lee on Monument Avenue, Richmond, Virginia,
on June 8, 2020, it resulted in the removal of the statue and its destruction (Fig.
1). According to the NPR, it is estimated that around 900 “unwanted” public
monuments have been or will be removed, and eventually destroyed.5

1 “Ukraine demolishes Kiyv monument symbolizing friendship with Russia.” Accessed June 28,
2022. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2022/04/27/ukraine-demolishes-kyiv-monu-ment
-symbolising-friendship-with-russia.
2 “The Death of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.” Accessed June 28, 2011. https://www.mei.edu/pub
lications/death-buddhas-bamiyan.
3 “Turkish court hears case to convert Hagia Sophia into mosque.” Accessed June 10, 2022. https://
www.al-monitor.com/originals/2020/07/turkey-court-case-hagia-sophia-convert-mosque-
istanbul.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI07bj9pzQ-AIVhfdRCh3mUQ6gEAAYAiAAEgLI8_D_BwE.
4 “Black Lives Matter Movement.” Accessed June 28, 2022. https://library.law.howard.edu/civi
lrightshistory/BLM.
5 “Nearly 100 Confederate Monuments Removed in 2020, Report Says; More Than 700 Remain.”
Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/23/970610428/nearly-100-confedera
te-monuments-removed-in-2020-report-says-more-than-700-remain.

181
 Figure 1. An image of George Floyd is projected onto the base of the statue of Confederate
general Robert E. Lee on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia on Monday, June 8,
2020 (Photo: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/nation-world/floyd-face-projected-
confederate-monument/507-27098f96-5cac-44bb-bf67-8bf0ab05c568).

My concern is related to the very physical act of taking away particular works.
Destroying public monuments does not change the horrific fact that slavery
existed and many human lives were lost because of the insane leadership of the
past. On the other hand, I strongly agree with Leslie Stephens, who created a poster
“about the dangers of politically motivated destruction of monuments”6 (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. This poster by Leslie Stephens highlights the dangers of politically motivated
destruction of monuments (Photo: http://uclconversationsonconservation.blogspot.
com/2011/12/have-you-seen-this-monument.html).
6 “Conversations on Conservation of Cultural Heritage.” Accessed June 28, 2022. http://
uclconversationsonconservation.blogspot.com/2011/12/have-you-seen-this-monument.html.
182
 Furthermore, Stephens insists that “public monuments constitute part of
our cultural identity [and] teach us about our values and ideals.” Although it is
impossible to delete horrific past events, I agree with Stephens that we need
them “to educate and memorialize aspects of our history for better or for worse.”7
I believe that the solution is not to destroy—since national leaderships clearly
espouse temporary values—but to establish, as in the case of the Citadel Museum
in Berlin, an institution that collects and displays controversial and unflattering
works.8 Jürgen Zimmerer, professor of global history at the University of Hamburg,
suggests that rather than erasing all monuments, they should be used to critically
examine history. This can be done by laying them down, or placing them upside
down, and in this way, everyone passing by would be forced to engage with the
monument in question.”9 It is easy to understand the desire to get immediate
emotional satisfaction from smashing an unpleasant reminder of the troubling past
or present, but there is an obligation to future generations who need to make their
own judgments and not simply be fed “selected” information. There are so many
examples from the past that some decisions have caused enormous devastation
of cultural monuments and artifacts, among which the most striking example
is that of the Chinese Cultural Revolution between 1966 and 1976 involving the
destruction of libraries, monuments, and religious and archaeological sites. By
the end of Cultural Revolution, existing records show that in Beijing alone, some
4922 out of 6843 sites had been destroyed and that the Forbidden City only barely
survived10.
Unfortunately, there are many other activities where politicization of cultural
heritage may cause permanent damage. For example, there is the case in the
former Soviet republic of Georgia and its 11th-century masterpiece of architecture,
the Bagrati Cathedral in Kutaisi. The famous Cathedral of the Dormition of the
Mother of God was commissioned in 1003 by King Bagrat III (978–1014), the ruler
who created the first united Georgian kingdom.11 The Cathedral was in poor shape
and it was decided to hire Italian designer Andrea Bruno to restore the monument
to its previous glory.12 However, the reconstruction proposal was rejected in 2012
by the World Heritage Committee who objected that there were “irreversible
interventions of the structure,” in addition to the use of inappropriate materials
such as reinforced concrete, a cast concrete dome, and stonework that covered

7 Ibid.
8 “The Museum Where Racist and Oppressive Statues Go to Die.” Accessed June 22, 2022. https://
www.atlasobscura.com/articles/museum-of-toxic-statues-berlin.
9 Ibid.
10 “Cultural Revolution.” Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.history.com/topics/china/
cultural-revolution.
11 “Bagrati Cathedral: A Landmark of Georgian Architecture.” Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.
euronews.com/travel/2018/06/04/bagrati-cathedral-a-landmark-of-georgian-architecture.
12 “Cattedrale Bagrati.” Accessed June 22, 2022. https://www.ergondesign.it/en/portfolio-item/cat
tedrale-bagrati-2/.

183
 the original stone facade.”13 Consequently, the Cathedral lost its status as a World
Heritage monument. However, that did not stop local leaders from honoring Bruno
with many top awards for further “enhancing” the interior with glass and steel
additions, and creating the external staircase in the same materials (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. External staircase in glass and steel as designed by Andrea Bruno; view
from the northwest (Photo: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-
journal-of-cultural-property/article/abs/reconstructing-the-sacred-the-controversial-
process-of-bagrati-cathedrals-fullscale-restoration-and-its-world-heritage-delisting/
B8048773BF4338C57D254DA76C5E674D).

Another country that has a notorious record for its “flexible” approach to
preservation and conservation of public monuments, especially Byzantine
heritage, is Turkey (or recently officially Turkiye). The most appropriate
explanation for the recent movement of converting museums into mosques is
given by Robert G. Ousterhout, Professor Emeritus of Art History at the University
of Pennsylvania. In an interview with Kate Fitz Gibbon of Cultural Property News
on September 15, 2020, Ousterhout commented that he was very disturbed with
“the way of prevalent thinking that the past does not belong to us.”14 He talked
13 “Reconstructing the Sacred: The Controversial Process of Bagrati Cathedral’s Full-scale Resto-
ration and Its World Heritage Delisting.” Accessed June 28, 2022. 11.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-cultural-property/article/abs/recon-
structing-the-sacred-the-controversial-process-of-bagrati-cathedrals-fullscale-restoration-and-its-world-
heritage-delisting/B8048773BF4338C57D254DA76C5E674D.
14 “Interview with Robert G. Ousterhout: The Preservation and Reconversion of Kar iye
Camii.” Accessed June 28, 2022. https://culturalpropertynews.org/interview -robert
-g- ousterhout-the-preservation-and-reconversion-of-kariye-camii/.

184
about President Erdogan whose country is economically in a dire situation and
therefore seeks to avoid addressing the real difficult issues. Instead, Erdogan
offered immediate emotional satisfaction to his citizens with the conversion
of the Museum of Hagia Sophia into a mosque, as the climatic, cleansing
moment when the president fulfilled the promised act of re-Islamization or de-
Westernization of the country. He single-handedly erased almost 1500 years of
the monument’s history in a selfish desire to emphasize only the neo-Ottoman
orientation of the structure as that of “an alternative national identity”15 (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. A prayer program held at Hagia Sophia Mosque ahead of Friday prayers, the
first to be held in 86 years, on July 24, 2020 (Photo: https://asiatimes.com/2020/07/first-
muslim-prayers-held-in-hagia-sophia/).

The supremacy of Erdogan in deleting one part of the country’s cultural

heritage is a bold and risky political action. He clearly overlooked the fact that
some monuments are so significant that they affect a broader population beyond
Istanbul and its visitors; that is, they have universal value to humanity. However,
although the conversion of the Museum of Hagia Sophia into a mosque was
met with global protests, many previous conversions of Byzantine monuments
have passed with little protest. The museums of Hagia Sophia in Iznik and
Trabzon built in the 13th century were converted into mosques in 2011 and 2013.
The Museum of the Holy Saviour in Chora, the so-called 14th-century “Sistine
Chapel of Byzantium,” was turned back into a mosque in October 2020 (Fig. 5).
15 “Erdogan’s Turkey.” Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/
Erdogans_Turkey.

185
 Figure 5. The photos show that the 14th-century mosaics and frescoes of the Church of
the Holy Saviour in Chora were covered over (Photo: https://www.asianews.it/news-en/
Istanbul,-first-Islamic-prayer-in-Chora:-Christian-frescoes-and-mosaics-covered.html).

Other significant Byzantine archeological sites and ruins are scattered around
Istanbul and their poor state is a constant painful reminder of neglect toward the
unwanted cultural heritage of the past. The most notorious example is the site of the
Church of St. Polyeuktos from around 520, whose columns and broken capitals have
lain for centuries scattered in the old center and are in use for casual daily activities
(I can only imagine that its patron, Anicia Juliana, is turning in her grave) (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Daily activities atop the remains of the Church of St. Polyeuktos (Photo:
https://www.livius.org/articles/place/constantinople-istanbul/constantinople-photos/
constantinople-church-of-s-polyeuktos/).

186
 The scope of this paper limits the number of many works that are in a poor
state I would like to mention, not only in Istanbul but across the country. There
is a duality of emotions regarding the official Turkish approach to restoration
and conversion of public, especially Byzantine, monuments. Sometimes it seems
“safer” to ignore the works, as in the case of St. Polykleitos than to “fix” them in
the manner of the Theodosian land walls from 408 and 413 on Sulukule Street
in the Topkapi area of Istanbul. Many sections of the walls were restored during
the 1980s with financial support from UNESCO, but the work was carried out so
inadequately that in the process some historical evidence was destroyed, and
the use of inappropriate materials and the unskillful quality of work are easily
recognized. The reconstructed sections have collapsed on a regular basis (Fig.
7).16

Figure 7. A section of the Theodosian land walls on Sulukule Street in the Topkapi area
of Istanbul that collapsed in 2020 (Photo: https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/05/04/
byzantine-wall-in-constantinople-collapses-as-turkey-continues-to-let-historical-sites-
go-into-disrepair/).

There is overall agreement among scholars concerned about the cultural

heritage of Turkiye that historic buildings and structures, especially Byzantine
examples, have been subjected to disastrous restorations. There is even a
newly coined term for this manner of work, to restroy (i.e., to both restore and
destroy).17 Unfortunately, there is no stopping the continuing activity of the

16 “Byzantine Wall in Constantinople collapses.” Accessed June 27, 2022. https://orthodoxtimes.

com/byzantine-wall-in-constantinople-collapses/.
17 “Destroying Istanbul to ‘Restore’ It.” Accessed June 26, 2022. https://www.theatlantic.com/

187
 local authority in charge of Istanbul public works. Many monuments are on the
list for restoration and, of course, there is much apprehension about the final
results. Among them are the 4th-century Valens Aqueduct and the 11th-century
Boukoleon Palace, whose restoration is complete or will soon be. In addition, the
precious Church of St. John of the Studion of around 450 is in line for restoration
this year. Perhaps, this is the time to hope that Turkiye’s economic situation
will soon improve and life will bring some emotional balance and stability to
Erdogan’s presidency so as to focus on improving other areas of human activity
for his citizens.
To conclude, I cite historian Foti Benlisoy who warned that “metropolitan cities
like Istanbul must embrace their multicultural legacy, both in its urban fabrics as
well as its cultural diversity and create a safe place for all.”18 Otherwise, the city’s
identity could be permanently altered. I would add that his statement may be
applied to other countries and their leaders who ultimately want to decide what
we should to remember. With so-called popular “official political vandalism”
at work, they push to remove, erect, or alter public monuments and thus make
decisions for future generations about how to remember our past instead of
insisting on deeper and genuine understanding of the same.

international/archive/2019/03/modern-istanbul-destroy-restore/585373/.
18 “Erdogan’s Turkey.” Accessed June 28, 2022. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/
Erdogans_Turkey.
188
 18

Византиски цркви и манaстири во Македонија –

товар или капитал за иднината?
ПАНЧЕ ВЕЛКОВ, Фондација Македонида, Скопје
UDK 726.54:[27-526.62:7.025.1/.4(497.7)”10/14”
UDK 726.54(497.7:495.02)”10/14”

Abstract: An important part of the precious Byzantine world heritage is to be

found in Macedonia. Of special importance in the country are the preserved
fresco paintings in the mediaeval churches painted from the eleventh to the
fifteenth century and have so far represented a well-preserved cultural register
unique by its historical, aesthetic and stylistic values. Unfortunately, due to
pure management, lack of an adequate policy and the constant never ending
political turmoil in the country, Macedonian churches and their wonderful
frescoes are under serious threat. The paper explores the problem of main-
tenance and conservation of Byzantine churches in Macedonia and in partial
the role that the non-governmental organizations like Makedonida foundation
can play in the process of preservation of this valuable world heritage.

Културното наследство на државата Македонија е малку познато иако има

долга и богата историја. Покрај големите грабежи на движното културно
наследство во минатото, нашата земја ја поседува една од најзначајните
збирки на икони во светот, споредливо со збирките во Москва и во Синај.
Македонските икони потекнуваат од средниот век – од византискиот пе-
риод од XI до XV век, но исто и од пост-византискиот период од XV до XVIII
век. Според нашето цврсто убедување, најважното културно наследство на
Македонија се фреските од византиските цркви и манастири. Голем дел
од македонските фрески, насликани во периодот од XI па се до почетокот

189
 на XIV век, се со извонреден квалитет, многу добро зачувани и може да се
вбројат, заедно со фреските во Косово и Грција, во најзначајните уметнич-
ки достигнувања пред почетокот на ренесансата во Европа. Илустративен
пример се светски познатите фрески од црквата Св. Пантелејмон во Нерези
– како што е Оплакувањето Христово насликано во XII век.
Средновековното византиско културно наследство во Македонија е рела-
тивно добро зачувано. Повеќето византиски цркви до денешен ден не се
изменети и најчесто не се ни реновирани. Овој однос кон сакралното кул-
турно наследство се должи на односот кон религијата во периодот на со-
цијалистичка Југославија. Во споредба со државите од источниот блок каде
што се забележува зпоставување, пренамена и дури уривање на црквите, во
Југославија црквите се задржаа како музеи кои истовремено беа достапни
за верски обреди, со должна почит кон религиозната традиција и културата.
Државата се грижеше за заштита на црквите со интервенции од кои по-
веќето беа скромни и често беа спроведувани со модерни техники и ме-
тријали, кои штп не одговараат на традиционалниот начин на градба и жи-
вописување. Со малку исклучоци на пример црквата Св. Софија во Охрид,
повеќето од црквите во Македонија не претрпеа значајни зафати во архи-
тектурата или фрескоживописот. Затоа црквите и манстирите во Македо-
нија се во голема мера автентични. Тоа значи дека истите и денес се такви
какви што биле во времето кога биле подигнати и насликани.
Средновековните цркви и манстири во Македонија денес претставуваат
релативно добро одржана целина, единствена по својот карактер и значење.
Но релативнита изолација и историска маргинализација на Македонија во
XIX и XX век парадоксално придонесе за зачувување на културното наслед-
ство од една страна, но резултира пак од друга страна црквите и нивните
фрески до ден денешен да не бидат уредно документирани и истражени.
Ситуацијата во последните дваесетина години е влошена затоа што јавниот
и институционалниот интерес од политички причини наместо да се фоку-
сира на средовековната традиција повеќе или помалку се фокусираше на
античкото културно минато.

Сопственост и заштита на сакралното културно наследство: право,

обврски, кемпетентции
Набргу по осамостојувањето на Република Македонија како самостојна
држава во 1991 година црквите и манастирите се вратија на Македонска-
та православна црква. Меѓутоа одржувањето на спомениците и конзерва-
цијата и понатака остана одговорност на државата додека црквата како нов
споственик и останува само обврската за одржување на објектите. Бидејќи
едното од другото често пати не може лесно да се раздели, црквата не е во
можност да се повика на одговорност. На црквата не и е прироритет одр-
жувањето на историското културно наследство. Македонската православна

190
црква е една млада за жал се уште во православната екумена целосно не
признаена иституција, која функционира со ограничен организационан и
финансиски капацитет. Во постјуголсовенска Македонија, црквата се кон-
цетрираше приоритетно на повторно заживување на манастирските заед-
ници и возобновување на монашкиот живот. Христијанското население,
кое во социјалистичко време научи да го цени новото и модерното, се чини
дека често пати ги преферира и повеќе ги цени новите цркви отколку ста-
рите и запоставените објекти. При тоа тешко и од практични причини да се
одржува и тоа што е старо, пред се имајќи го во предвид ограничениот број
на конзерватори во државата кои би ги одржувале и конзервирале црквите
од средниот век.
Што се однесува до организирањето на заштитата на културното наслед-
ство треба да се има во предвид дека Македонската држава го превзема ин-
ституциналниот систем за заштитна на Југославија. Овој семи-централен
систем се состои од една централна институција, денешниот Национален
центар за конзервација со седиште во Скопје, и шест регионални „нацио-
нални“ центри за заштита на културното наследство во Скопје, Охрид, Би-
тола, Прилеп, Струмица и Штип без јасни поставени разграничувања во
компетентноста помеѓу централата во Скопје и регионалните центри. За
еден конкретен културен споменик на одредено место нема целосно јасни
законски одредби која институција е надлежна.
Што се однесува до црквите и манастирите ситуацијата е уште покомпли-
цирана затоа што не е направен современ инвентар на сите цркви и мана-
стири, заштитени како културно добро. Исто се однесува и на средновеков-
ните цркви и манастири. Ниту црквите како сопственици, ниту државните
институции коишто се одговорни за заштита на спомениците не успеаа до
сега да изготват список на културните споменици што треба да се заштитат
и да го објават. Категоризацијата на културните споменици којашто исто
така потекнува од времето на Социјалистичка Југославија во голема мера
се уште има важност и истовремено отвара многу прашања.
Сето ова укажува на тешкотиите поврзани со заштита на средновековни-
те цркви и манастири во Македонија, како во организационен така и во
институционален поглед. Меѓу најзначајните цркви и манастири, со сигур-
ност се бројат и византиските цркви, и за нив решение може да се бара во
реализација на проекти со помош на странски партнери, како во поглед
на финансиска така и на експертска помош. За жал, ваквите закони не до-
зволуваат странските институции да ја превземат одговорноста за заштита
на културните споменици. Водењето на проектот за заштита мора да биде
превземено од една на македонски државни институциите за заштита на
споменици.
Затоа не е зачудувачки што сите позначајнни византиски цркви во држа-
вата се во загрижувачка состојба. Како типичен пример може да се спомене

191
 манастирот Трескавец во близина на Прилеп, еден од позначајните спо-
менични објекти во Македонија со посебно иториско и духовно значење.
Манастирот посветен на Успението на Богородица, од XIII и XIV век1 се на-
оѓа во драматична состојба. Во овој момент постои опасност од уривање на
црквата. За сега институциите кои што се одговорни за заштитата на ком-
плексот се зафатени со изградба на обемен сместувачки капацитет околу
црквата. Други средновековни цркви, како на пример црквата Св. Ѓорѓи во
селото Старо Нагоричане од XIV век2, се во опосност поради несоодветно
направената реставрација со армиран бетон со што фреските во деловите
од куполите во црквата веќе се изгубени. Оваа црква беше дел од еден Ев-
ропски проект за регионална соработка на Балканот со многу голем буџет.
По десетгодишни дискусии, одредени анализи и ангажман на многу сове-
тници, но не и фреско – конзерватори, покривот на црквата беше попра-
вен, но никој не се осуди да ги допре фреските.
Треба да ги споменеме и организаторските проблеми во врска со проек-
тот. Делегацијата на Европската Унија во Скопје беше одговорна за финан-
сирање на целосниот проект. Но не беше консултирана за важечките маке-
донски прописи, коишто не предвидуваат спроведување на такви проекти
со активно учество на странски партнери. Така што се доведе до застој на
полуготовиот проект за конзервација.
Сепак треба да се спомене дека има и ретки исклучоци, како на при-
мер црквата Богородица Перивлепта во Охрид од 1295 година3. Фреските
се насликани од Михаил и Евтихиј, истите зографи коишто ја живописа-
ле и црквата Св. Ѓорѓи во Старо Нагоричане. Црквата беше многу оштете-
на поради погрешно спороведени конзервации, покривот протекуваше и
фреските беа во катастрофална состојба. По повеќегодишна медиумска
кампања и пристисок од јавноста (не помалку и од организацијата Маке-
донида). Владата успешно ја конзервираше црквата. Црквата има нов кров
и фреските се целосно исчистени и конзервирани. Црквата Св. Богодорица
Перивлепта беше заштитена од Националниот центар за конзервација во
Скопје со целосните организаторски можности и персонал на институција-
та. Финансиски проектот беше поддржан од фондовите за заштита на кул-
турни споменици на Американската амбасада во Скопје којашто настапи
како донатор4.

1 Сашо Коруновски и Елизабета Димитрова, Византиска Македонија: историја на умет-

носта на Македонија од IX до XV век (Скопје: Детска радост, 2006), 112 - 115
2 Elizabeta Dimitrova, Gordana Velkov, Seven Medieval Churches in the Republic of Macedonia
(Skopje: Makedonida, 2014).
3 Коруновски и Димитрова, Византиска Македонија, 150
4 Panche Velkov, “The Concept of Authenticity in Byzantine Churches: the case of Republic of
Macedonia”, во Zbornika radova sa naučnog skupa «Niš i Vizantija» 11. ed. Miša Rakocija (Niš:
Univerzitet u Nišu, 2012), 485 – 493, 477

192
 Улогата на невладините организации – примерот на Македонида
Културното наследство на Република Македонија, а посебно сакралното
наследство т.е. византиските цркви и манастири, се не само од национално
туку и од посебно регионално и европско значење коешто треба да се заш-
тити и зачува. Не смееме да дозволиме Македонската православна црква и
Македонската влада да го запостават ова наследство. Мислиме дека невла-
дините организации (НВО) во оваа ситуација треба да имаат значителна
улога. Улогата на НВО ќе биде објаснета на примерот на Македонида, нев-
ладина организација која работи во доменот на образованието и заштита-
та на културното наследство во Македонија. Организацијата е основана во
1998 година како консеквенца на еден успешен проект во Скопје. Проектот
е наречен „Едно училиште – еден споменик“ и имаше за цел културното на-
следство да го вгради во образованието на младите генерации во Македо-
нија. Проектот беше подржан од Советот на Европа, Светскиот фонд за заш-
тита на спомениците од Њујорк како и фондацијата Napoli Novantanove од
Неапол. Неговиот успех се гледа во тоа што проектот подоцна беше импле-
ментиран во Бугарија и Србија – сега веќе под раководство на Македонида.
Во последниве години Македонида работеше на промовирање на сакрал-
ното културно наследство на Македонија, како во државата така и интер-
национално, преку медиумски кампањи, изложби и предавања на познати
македонски професори и експерти во полето на историјата на уметноста и
заштитата. Тука треба да се споменат Деновите на културното наследство
на Македонија, кои беа во организација на Македонида во соработка на
партнерскиот град на Скопје – Дрезден; потоа изложбата во градската биб-
лиотека Берија во Џенова; предавање во Мајнц и институтот за славистика
на Универзитетот Хумболдт во Берлин; изложба и предвање во Центарот
за Евроазиски и Источноевропски студии во Чикаго, бројни предвавања во
Универзитетот Фон Гетинген во Париз, како предавања и изложби во Каен
во Нормандија итн. Овие проекти Македонида ги водеше во соработка со
локални организации од различни провиненции од земјата, како на при-
мер со Институтот Отворено општество – Македонија, Министерството за
културна на Република Македонија, Градот Скопје, Универзитетот Св. Ки-
рил и Методиј – Скопје и др.
Посебно внимание Македонида посветува на објавување на книги за са-
кралното наследство на македонски, англиски, француски со подршка на
Министерстовото за култура на Македонија, Ричард Дрихаус фондацијата
од Чикаго, како и со помош на приватни донации.
Македонида иницирала и спровела повеќе проекти за конзервација кои
што беа спонзорирани од Светската фондација за заштита на спомениците
на културата, секогаш во партнерство со локалните институции, како на при-
мер конзервирањето на пештерската црква во Радожда од XIII век฀. Проектот
се состоеше со конзеврација на пештерската црква посветена на Архангелот

193
 Михаил, која се наоѓа високо во карпите над селото Радожа и Охридското езе-
ро. Со текот на конзевацијата беше решено најмладиот слој на фрескоживо-
пис од XIV век, да се отстрани за на овој начин да се открие најстариот слој на
фрески од XIII век со извонреден кавлитет. На тој начин беше обновено един-
ството и целовитоста на оригиналната иконографска програма од XIII век.
Другиот проект којшто организацијата го спороведува од 2016 година во
соработка со Институтот за христијанска археологија и византиска исто-
рија при Универзитетот Гетинген, се однесува на конзервација на црквата
Св. Ѓорѓи во селото Курбиново на Преспанското езеро, црква која потекну-
ва од средно – византискиот период т.е. од XII век. Благодарение на техно-
логијата и финансиската подршка од Макс Планк институтот во Гетинген,
дојдоа студенти од Гетинген и изготвија современа фото документација на
фреските. Во тој период иконостасот и другите литургиски елементи беа
отстранети од цкрвата поради конзевација, со што се овозможи сеопфат-
на ликовна документација без визуалени пречки. Фотографиите бе прика-
жани на изложба за Курбиново во музејот во Битола во јуни 2017 година.
Изложбата беше под покровителство на Министерството за култура на Р.
Македонија. Понатамошни изложби се планирани во Скопје и Германија.
Од 2020 година, здружението е во фаза на подготовка на регистар на сред-
новековните цркви во Македонија, прво во Охрид и околината, а понатаму
и во остананите делови на државата. Во текот на теренските истражувања
во Охрид и охридско – струшкиот регион беше извршен увид на 28 средо-
вековни цркви. Од 28те цркви, 13 се внатре во градот Охрид, а останатите
надвор. На некои од црквите беше забележано дека се потребни конзева-
торски – реставраторски зафати. Регистарот на средновековни цркви нас-
коро ќе биде достапен на јавноста во вид на веб-страна, кога ќе се сумираат
сите резултати од теренските активности. Проектот е финансиски подр-
жан од фондацијата Ричард Дрихаус од Чикаго. Во 2022 година е издадена
и книгата „Seven Churches in Ohrid” како последна во едицијата на книги
водичи, од кои претходно се издадени: Skopje: Seven Monuments of Art and
Architecture – 2009, Seven Medieval Churches in Republic of Macedonia – 2014,
Seven Churches in the Regions of Pelagonia, Mariovo and Prespa – 2019 (https://
makedonida.org).

194
 19

Science and Ideology in the Middle Ages

GIUSEPPE MAINO, University of Bologna / New York Academy
of Sciences
UDK 930.85:[316.75:001(100)”653”

Abstract: A long journey, in space and time, from the Far East to Europe, from
China to India to the Balkans, from the Byzantine empire to the Islamic and
therefore Ottoman ones, allows us to recognize some similarities, analogies and
common patterns that indicate like ideology - totalitarian systems of govern-
ment and in any case of an absolutist type both political and religious - have
ended up stifling creativity and in particular the scientific spirit. After exception-
al advances and achievements in science and technology, all these civilizations
experienced a sudden stagnation and a rapid decline in these crucial sectors,
while Western Europe, so divided and fragmented and diverse, produced the
great scientific revolution of the modern age.

The “Needham’s Grand Question”, also known as “The Needham’s Question”, is

a well-known and long-standing problem in the history of science. It reads as:
Why had China and India been overtaken by the Western world in science and
technology, despite their earlier successes? The British biochemist, historian and
sinologist known for his scientific research and writing on the history of Chinese
science and technology, Joseph Needham, went on to consider another quite
different question, equally important, and centered his historical research on it:
“Why, between the first century BC and the fifteenth century AD, Chinese
civilization was much more efficient than occidental in applying human
natural knowledge to practical human needs?”1.
1 Joseph Needham, The Grand Titration. Science and Society in East and West (London: Allen and

195
 Similar questions can be asked about the role played by science and the
technological innovation that derives from it in the context of the Byzantine
and Islamic civilizations in the Middle Ages, compared to what was the great
scientific revolution then implemented by the West. Undoubtedly, the causes of
the decline and lack of development of the scientific revolution in the Byzantine
and subsequently Islamic world, after brilliant beginnings, are to be found in
multiple factors, social economic and cultural, in conflicts and invasions, in trade,
in the migration of scholars, in the diffusion and translation of scientific works
of the classical Greek and Hellenistic tradition in the Western world. Complex
factors, difficult to define and all interacting with each other: but, certainly,
also the different ideologies, the result of historically determined cultural and
religious factors, have had a heavy influence.

Fig. 1. Cover of the first edition of Renan’s book, Averroès et l’averroïsme. Essai historique,
Paris, A. Durand, 1852.

In his now classic study on Averroes (fig. 1),2 the French philosopher,
philologist, historian of religions and writer, Ernest Renan (1823 - 1892), argues
that the history of science and philosophy of the Middle Ages was divided into
two distinct periods since the introduction of Arabic texts in Western European
schools. His picture is simple but convincing; before this event, Western scholars
had only the scant fragments of the teachings of the Roman schools contained
in the compilations of Marziano Capella, Bede and Isidore of Seville and only the
vast diffusion of these texts ensured the transmission of knowledge. Following
the rediscovery of ancient science, through Arab commentaries and, to a certain
extent, also through the original Greek science texts that the Romans had
reduced to a synthetic form, Western culture underwent a radical transformation
according to Renan.
A role that is anything but negligible in the process of introducing Islamic and
specifically Andalusian science to Europe was played by the Jewish translators
Unwin, 1969), 190.
2 Ernest Renan, Averroès et l’averroïsme. Essai historique (Paris: A. Durand, 1852).

196
who worked in southern France during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,
even if the greatest translator from Arabic was without any doubt the Italian
Gherardo da Cremona, who worked most of his life in Toledo.
Of the three contiguous cultures - Byzantine, Islamic and Western - which
enjoyed the support of strong political powers in the Middle Ages, the first was
the one that began most brilliantly, although Byzantine science underwent a
rapid decline from the beginning of the 12th century. The purpose of this work
is a first investigation aimed at elucidating the relations, both positive and
negative, between ideology and science in the Byzantine and Islamic realities in
the Middle Ages.

The Needham’s Question

Joseph Needham (1900-1995) was a brilliant British biochemist who had
obtained a doctorate from Cambridge University in 1925, specializing in
embryology and morphogenesis3. Later, Needham developed an interest in
China, and after visiting this country several times wrote his impressive books
on Science and Civilization in China in 24 volumes4.
In this monumental work, Needham posed the problem, known as “Needham’s
Question” or “Needham’s Grand Question”, previously mentioned. The answer -
however not conclusive - proposed by Needham himself relies on the Chinese
ideology based on the doctrines of Confucius.
Needham leaned towards social and religious explanations. As John Derbyshire
observed5, “the scholar-bureaucrats who ran imperial China were educated
in Confucianism, a doctrine so intensely concerned with human affairs, with
statecraft and the cultivation of right conduct, that it had no room left for
interest in the natural world. The principal outlet for the religious impulses of
educated Chinese people was Buddhism, which regards the natural world as
an illusion… There was an alternative retreat in Taoism, Needham argued; but
while not world-denying, Taoism was quietist and action-denying. The notion of
exploiting nature for man’s benefit is alien to the spirit of Taoism”.
In Taoism, the yin-yang classification suggests the idea that opposites are needed
in order for harmony to exist. Taoism, also known as Daoism, is a philosophy
that originated in ancient China and is derived from Lao-Tzu’s writings. The
background of Taoism, also known as the Way, are the First Principle, the yin and
yang classification and the wu-wei concept.

3 See for a biography of the scientist, Simon Winchester, The Man Who loved China (New York:
Harper Collins Publishers, 2008).
4 The Science and Civilisation in China series is the work of Joseph Needham and an international
team of collaborators, and is published by Cambridge University Press in seven volumes.
From volume 4 onwards each volume is divided into a number of parts. The project is now
proceeding under the guidance of the Publications Board of the Needham Research Institute,
chaired by Christopher Cullen.
5 John Derbyshire, “In Search of Chinese Science,” The New Atlantis 24 (2009), 75-84.
197
 Fig. 2. The black and white yin and yang symbol

Yin and yang (fig. 2) are ancient Chinese concepts that gradually developed
over time, since thousands of years in the past. The oldest records of the actual
philosophy behind the yin and yang come from the Western Zhou dynasty in
the 9th century in a book titled I Ching or, as many Western audiences know
it, the Book of Changes6. Essentially, the yin-yang philosophy believes that two
cosmic deities work in tandem to govern the universe, two energies that are
polar opposites and can be observed through nature if we take the time to slow
down and observe our surroundings.
The concept really began increasing in popularity from 800 BC to 200 BC. Since
then, it has influenced almost every aspect of Chinese culture from martial arts
and science to literature selections, political beliefs, and the daily minutiae of the
Chinese people’s lives. Many beliefs probably stem from popular philosophers
running with and adapting the ideas of yin and yang in their own lives, including
Confucius.
Other explanations of the Needham’s question rely on:
- Political reasons.
Since the exertions of the First Emperor in the late third century B.C., China
has been a unified state for long periods, alternating with as many relevant
periods of division operations, but none of them produced a stable system of
independent nation-states such as existed in Europe from the High Middle Ages
onwards. It was the competition between Europe’s nation-states that kept wits
sharp and fresh insights valuable. Basically, this is the interpretative line that was
first proposed by David Hume.
The great unified despotic empires of the pre-industrial age were stagnant by
contrast, as pointed out7 by Robert Wesson (1920 – 1991), a distinguished scholar
in political science, natural science and philosophy of the Stanford University.
Moreover, Wesson put forward the late Roman and Byzantine empires as
instances. He calls the latter “exceptionally uncreative,” and points out that the
Byzantine trading port of Galata, controlled by the Genoese, was by the end of the
fourteenth century producing seven times as much revenue as Constantinople,
6 Consulted text (in Italian): I Ching. Il libro dei mutamenti. With a preface of C. G. Jung, R. Wil-
helm (curator), B. Veneziani and A. G. Ferrara (translators) (Milan: Adelphi, 1995).
7 Robert G. Wesson, The Imperial Order (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).

198
the imperial capital. The parallel with Chinese treaty ports like Hong Kong is
hard to miss.
- Religious causes.
A few Christian apologists argue that the concept of nature formed by the
Greeks, then carried forward and developed by the medieval Scholastics,
prepared the way for the scientific method in the Western world, not in China.
- Racial reasons.
Unfortunately, in the past alleged and unmotivated racial differences have
also been appealed to explain this problem: lack of Asian creativity, with either
biological or cultural origins.
- Wars and invasions.
Present-day Chinese tend to blame the Manchus, a primitive Siberian people
who seized the empire in 1644 and ruled it until 1911. This is implausible, as the
curves for innovation and creativity were plainly turning down at least a century
before the Manchus showed up — and this in the Ming, an entirely Chinese
dynasty.
- Environmental causes.
Another line of thinking suggests that gaps in civilizational achievement are
due to agricultural resources, climate, and other environmental factors. This
works for Africa and the Americas, but not really for East Asia, whose geography
is too similar to Europe’s one.
- Marxist social and economic explanations.
Edgar Zilsel (1891 – 1944), an Austrian historian of ideas and philosopher of
science, argues in turn that science of the kind that led to the modern world
could only take firm root when capitalism emerged in Western society: “The
whole process was imbedded in the advance of early capitalistic society, which
weakened collective, magical thinking, and belief in authority and which
furthered causal rational and quantitative thinking”.
A quite different explanation, within the framework of a marxist economic
approach, has been proposed by Karl August Wittfogel (1896–1988), a German
sociologist and sinologist, well-known for his hypothesis of the “hydraulic
theory” on the birth of Asian state societies, under the strong influence of Karl
Marx and Max Weber. He suggested that China was despotic because of the need
for water control, in particular the need to build dykes, prevent flooding and in
general control the Yellow River on the great northern plain8.
Despite all these attempts, more or less well founded and, in some cases,
certainly stimulating, the problem raised by Needham is still unsolved, even
the subject of numerous and in-depth continuous studies also by contemporary
scholars.

8 Karl A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1957).

199
 Perhaps a Chinese scholar’s considerations such as those argued by Xie
Yonggang9 deserve to be mentioned at the conclusion of this brief discussion:
Looking at the “Needham Problem” from the perspective of development,
it is perpetually more difficult to address, especially compared to previous
issues in historical development. These preceding inquiries have merely been
domestic questions, but the “Needham Problem” is international in scope and
persists into the future. As the late Chinese physicist Qian Linzhao asserted,
“The Needham Problem is not something we can ignore; rather, it requires
deep reflection and research.” However, most of the research that has been
done before is the product of impulsive interest rather than studied, long-
term commitment. China has never fallen short of thinkers, so what we really
need now is to review our past research thoroughly and meticulously, while
continuing to advance our research paradigm; we must avoid impatience and
the single-minded pursuit of short-term material gains. This, I believe, is the
attitude we should adopt towards “The Needham Problem”.

Extension of the Needham’s Grand Question

The Needham’s Question was proposed in respect of China, but it applies
equally to India: Why had China and India been overtaken by the Western world
in science and technology, despite their earlier successes?
What happened in the history that made the development of science and
technology in India less important (after the great burst of scientific creativity in
ancient days), while in the West it became more important?
This is Needham’s Grand Question for India, yet to be solved too.
Markandey Katju, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India and chairman
of the Press Council of India, expresses its doubts and perplexities about the
possibility of a simple solution to the question, which certainly requires
multidisciplinary tools and investigation on correlations among multiple factors,
not only ideological - political and religious - but also economic, historical,
geopolitical and environmental ones, etc.:
In ‘Sanskrit as a language of Science’ I have attempted an answer, but I am
myself not convinced of the correctness of my own theory. I have suggested the
geographical factor, but is this convincing? I am myself not sure about my own
view. Were there other cultural, economic, or historical factors? A lot of scientific
investigation is called for10.
But not only for the Indian situation…
Undoubtedly, the causes of the decline and lack of development of the scientific
revolution in the Byzantine and subsequently Islamic world, after brilliant
beginnings, are to be found in many factors, social economic and cultural, in
9 Xie Yonggang, “‛The Needham Problem’: still an open question,” Chinese Social Sciences Today 209
(2011).
10 This was a speech delivered by former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju at the Indian
Institute of Science, Bengaluru, in 2009.
200
conflicts and invasions, in trade, in the migration of scholars, in the diffusion and
translation of scientific works of the classical Greek and Hellenistic tradition.
Complex factors, difficult to define and all interacting with each other: But
certainly, also the different ideologies, the result of historically determined
cultural and religious factors, have had a heavy influence, as summarized in
Table I for the considered civilizations.

Civilization Ideology - Religion

China Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism

Inedia Caste system, Hinduism, Vaidika and Pauranika principles

Byzantium Roman Empire and Christian Church

Islam Religious state, Quran and hadith

Table I – Ideological factors affecting the decline of science in some civilizations

Crosscultural interactions
Indian science interacted with China, Persia, Arabia, contributing and
occasionally borrowing.
In the 810s years, the Caliph Harun al-Rashid established in Baghdad the
famous “House of Wisdom”11; it employed scholars from Europe and Asia to
translate scientific texts — Greek and Indian ones especially — into Arabic.
The House of Wisdom (Arabic: ‫ةمكحلا تيب‬‎, romanized: Bayt al-Ḥikmah),
also known as the Grand Library of Baghdad, refers to either a major Abbasid
public academy and intellectual center in Baghdad or to a large private library
belonging to the Abbasid Caliphs during the Islamic Golden Age.
The House of Wisdom was then founded either as a library for the collections
of the Caliph Harun al-Rashid in the late 8th century (then later turned into a
public academy during the reign of Al-Ma’mun) or was a private collection
created by Al-Mansur (reign 754–775), to house rare books and collections of
poetry in both Arabic and Persian. The House of Wisdom included a society of
scientists and academics, a translation department and a library that preserved
the knowledge acquired by the Abbasids over the centuries. They also researched
and studied alchemy, which was later used to create the structure of modern
chemistry. Furthermore, linked to it were also astronomical observatories and
other major experimental endeavors.

11 Jim Al-Khalili, The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave us
the Renaissance (New York/London: Penguin Press, 2010).

201
 Institutionalized by Al-Ma’mun, the academy encouraged the transcription of
Greek philosophical and scientific efforts. Additionally, he imported manuscripts
of important texts that were not accessible to the Islamic countries from Byzan-
tium to the library. The House of Wisdom was much more than a library, and a
considerable amount of original scientific and philosophical work was produced
by scholars and intellectuals related to it. This allowed Muslim scholars to verify
astronomical information that was handed down from past scholars.
On February 13, 1258, the Mongols entered the city of Baghdad (fig. 3), starting a
full week of pillage and destruction. With all other libraries in Baghdad, the House
of Wisdom was destroyed by the army of Hulagu during the Siege of Baghdad. The
books from Baghdad’s libraries were thrown into the Tigris River in such quantities
that the river ran black with the ink from the books. Nasir al-Din al-Tusi rescued
about 400,000 manuscripts which he took to Maragheh before the siege.
Surely, if calamitous events such as these are not sufficient to alone explain
the decline of scientific creativity in the Islamic world (or Chinese or Indian one,
where even episodes of war and destruction of cultural heritage are common and
well documented historically), they have not contributed little and must be taken
into consideration among the many causes underlying the answer to the general-
ized Needham’s Question.
Otherwise, how to interpret the decline of scientific thought in places, civiliza-
tions and periods that were so productive and even revolutionary in the develop-
ment of new original concepts and methods of analysis of the natural world, start-
ing from the language of mathematics?

Fig. 3. Mongols besieging Baghdad in 1258, circa 1430, Bibliothèque nationale de France,
Département des Manuscrits, Division orientale, Supplément persan 1113, fol. 180v-181.
202
 One of India’s greatest scientific achievements is the decimal place-value
system of numeral notation (fig. 4), called hisāb al-hind in Arabic. Interesting
etymologies are: shūnya (zero, emptiness) —> sifr in Arabic (emptiness) —>
hence, “cipher”.
Al-Khwarizmi compiled Indian texts, wrote on the Indian decimal numeral
system and on algebraic algorithms. Translated into Latin, al-Khwarizmi’s works
relayed some of India’s advances to Europe. His own Latinized name, Algoritmi,
was origin of the word “algorithm”.
The Chinese mathematician Yi Xing (I-Hsing, 7th-8th century a.C.) knew
Indian mathematical texts and referred to them.
In the 8th century a.C., three families of Indian astronomers settled in China
and held important positions in the astronomical bureaus of the Tang dynasty;
Gautama Siddha wrote a 120-chapter book on the Chinese and India systems,
introduced the Indian decimal notation, elements of trigonometry, etc.
Our decimal place-value system of numeral notation, the foundation of
advanced mathematics, therefore originates in India; it is mentioned in a first-
century work by the Buddhist philosopher Vasumitra and a Jain cosmological
work Lokavibhāga of 458 a.C.. It gradually spread across India and was later taken
to Europe by the Arabs.

Fig. 4. One of the first inscriptions using the decimal place-value system (Sankheda,
Gujarat, dated 346 Chhedi era or 594 a.C.). The first zero is recorded in an inscription of
578 a.C. at Urlam (Andhra Pradesh).

The main Indian religions are Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism; but great
importance recovered both Islamic Sufi and Bhakti movements, whose spirit
of resignation and reconciliation, emotion and acceptance adversely affected
critical temper and scientific research in India during the second millennium,
according to many scholars.
203
 One of the reasons why science in India did not have a career comparable to
that of post-Renaissance Europe is often attributed to the rise of devotionalism
and mysticism as also indifference. Indian tendency to accommodate conflicting
opposites have been mentioned as one of the causes of the declining scientific spirit.
As previously discussed with reference to the influence on scientific
development by the Chinese ideology, the theory of reconciliation of opposites
played a major role. In the East (e.g., Tantric Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism), the
Law of Opposites, or the Principles of Polarity, states that the Play of Reality
always manifests two sides, or two poles, and the difference between these two
seemingly diametrically opposed poles is merely a matter of degree. According
to this doctrine, every truth is half false and everything is and is not at the same
time. The ‘universal principle of the reconciliation of opposites’, for the union
of the two poles, or pairs of opposites, is to be found in the thing itself. In the
Eastern traditions this union is found in the experience of Satori (Zen Buddhism),
Nirvana (Buddhism) and Moksha (Hinduism).
Eight reasons for the decline of science in India have been argued12, which partly
coincide with what has already been highlighted about civilization in China:
1. In the period India remained an agricultural society, no new challenges
arose to create new knowledge to help solve new problems. Only two major
developments were in the area of paper technology and the development of
military weaponry technology.
2. Scientific activity and knowledge remained a preserve of the élite.
3. The pluralistic tradition of Hinduism as the faith failed to generate a unified
pursuit of knowledge.
4. The religious prejudices and the linguistic arrogance may have also come in
the way of the evolution of a single tradition.
5. The philosophic and theoretical framework being different, the Vedic logic
on one hand and the Ptolemaic, the Euclidean and the Aristotelian logic on the
other became a major block, since both were associated with religion.
6. It also appears that the two different processes continued to operate during
the period: one towards the integration of the two traditions, and the other
keeping them apart.
7. Lack of institutionalisation of education was also a handicap.
8. Changes of dynasties and kings with different approaches to knowledge
even within a dynasty also came in the way of continuous growth of institutions
and spread of knowledge within an institution.

A Needham­like question
How did it come about that the Byzantines were unable to build upon the
ancient learning and use it as the basis for new discoveries?
12 Abdur Rahman, A Perspective of Indian Science of Tenth ­ Eighteenth Centuries, in Science
Philosophy and Culture. Multi Disciplinary Explorations (Part I), ed. D. P. Chattopadhayaya and
Ravinder Kumar (New Delhi: PHISPC, 1996), 396-426.

204
 The imperial University of Constantinople (also known as University of the
Palace Hall of Magnaura) was founded in 425 or, perhaps, originally in the time
of Constantine I. This university, which underwent numerous reorganizations
in the course of its history, concerned itself entirely with secular subjects, to the
exclusion of theology, which was taught in the Patriarchal Academy. But even
the latter offered instruction in the ancient classics and did not fail to include
literary, philosophical, and scientific texts in its curriculum.
They attained significant results in many areas, especially in the construction
of city walls, in ecclesiastical architecture, in the production of the “Greek fire”
(the prototype of modern gunpowder), and in an ingenious use of the automata
of Hero of Alexandria to produce the miraculous singing birds, roaring lions, and
rising throne, which mystified and enchanted visitors to Constantinople.
Ioannes Philoponus, in the sixth century, made a significant advance by
rejecting the Aristotelian notion that it was impossible to produce a vacuum
(Contra Aristotelem13). He also anticipated Galileo’s experiment which proved that
weights dropped from the same height will reach the ground at approximately
the same time, and that their speed of descent does not depend upon the ratio
of their weights14.
Ioannes Italus or Italos was Calabrian in origin, and came to Constantinople,
where he became a student of Michael Psellus in classical Greek philosophy.
He succeeded Psellus in his position as head of the philosophical school.
Subsequently, some of his tenets were found heretic in 1076-77 by Patriarch
Cosmas I of Constantinople, and in 1082 he was personally condemned, having
come into conflict with Emperor Alexios I Komnenos.
Byzantine science would undoubtedly have reached even greater heights, had
it not been for the debilitating force of traditionalism, as many scholars claim.
This conservative instinct manifested itself most markedly in political theory
and theology, in the realm of both of which the overpowering and stultifying
effect of authority precluded freedom of thought or inquiry.

Concluding remarks
As we have seen above, there are no easy and simple answers to the Needham
question. Such social phenomena are multidimensional and therefore multi-
causal. However, in addition to political, social, economic and local causes, a
very simple model can explain the different trends of scientific achievements in
Eastern and Western world.
Various social forces are working in a society to find out persons endowed with
extraordinary curiosity and independent thinking and to provide them with
13 Cfr. Ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis libros De generatione et corruptione commentaria / Johannes
Philoponus; edidit Hieronymus Vitelli (Berolini: Reimer, 1897).
14 Maria Varlamova, “Philoponus on the Nature of the Heavens and the Movement of
Elements in Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World,” Scrinium: Revue de patrologie,
d’hagiographie critique et d’histoire ecclésiastique 14,1 (2018), 446-461.

205
 necessary freedom to develop their personal abilities to make new inventions
in science and technology. Here, as the history of science shows, the intellectual
freedom is the most relevant among all the human rights.

Fig. 5. Bloom of science in the world

Fig. 5 shows the sudden, almost traumatic, change of direction - and

methodological approach - in scientific and technological progress, where the
decline, then the stagnation and in fact the disappearance of all important
innovations and discoveries in the civilizations just discussed and for which
poses the Needham’s Question, the Western world takes over and, at these dates,
specifically Europe with its various states, religious confessions, philosophical
conceptions, in an increasingly rapid and efficient evolution of science in
technological and knowledge results (fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Growth of science versus time (in arbitrary units).

206
 This last graph therefore clearly shows how, given the very rapid exponential
development of science in the Western world, in fact - in the short span of years
- the scientific culture and the relative weight in terms of knowledge produced
by other civilizations, even if they had not known decline or stasis, would have
disappeared in importance and significance in the face of the impressive growth
of Western scientific thought in the modern age.
Therefore, Needham’s question should perhaps be modified in the sense:
Why at a certain point in history, European civilization experiences such a rapid
development of science as it had never been recorded in the past, such as to obscure
the activities carried out in all other geographical contexts and historians?
Perhaps, an interesting indication was recently proposed by Michael Strevens,
when he states that science is an “alien” form of thought and, to understand its
belated appearance on the human scene with the characteristics of exponential
growth just shown, it is necessary to realize the intrinsic strangeness of the
scientific method. A method essentially based on irrationality, paradoxically, and
to which Strevens gives the name of the “iron rule of explanation”15.
Despite all the difficulties, the Eastern civilizations (China, India and the
Islamic world) and also the Byzantine Empire until its fall did not forget the
scientific development, but the growth has always maintained a linear trend. In
Europe, on the other hand, for many reasons, political, economic and above all
ideological, science has undergone an exponential development which - after
an initial period up to the XVI century of near stasis - has rapidly overcome and
practically eclipsed that in progress in other countries.

15
Michael Strevens, The Knowledge Machine. How Irrationality created modern Science (New
York/London: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2020).
207
 20

The dynamic nature of Byzantine education

VÁCLAV JEŽEK, Prešov University

UDK 37.011.33:2(495.02)
UDK 316.74(495.02)

Abstract: The aim of this contribution is to point to the dynamics of education

in various Byzantine contexts. We emphasise, that what underlines the
educational theory in Byzantium is a referential point to something abstract
or transcendent or something related to the Christian God. Here there
are commonalities between the Graeco-Roman paideia and the Christian
educational system, both of which viewed reality as a steppingstone to a
higher realm or goal in a process of dynamic movement. Education was a
process of anagogical ascension, which prevented education from being a
mere method of collecting data and information. Here we search for “method”
and methodology within Byzantine educational models, which are key for any
understanding of the dynamic nature of Byzantine education and its difference
from modern educational systems. Finally, we emphasise that there is no real
opposition between “intellectualism” and spiritual concerns in Byzantium just
as there was no opposition between practice and theory. In fact ,the intimate
unity of practice/theory, intellectual knowledge/spirituality marks the main
characteristics of Byzantine education.

In this short contribution we want to emphasise the common goals of Byzantine

and pagan Graeco-Roman education. These entail a dynamic unity between con-
tent and form, between theory and practice resulting in the overall emphasis on
the way one thinks. In reality there was never any opposition between secular
or spiritual education in Byzantium in this context. Both traditions emphasise

208
critical thought and thinking, and differed only in the overall goals and founda-
tional material.
Already Greek philosophy realised that dialectics or any other scholarly or edu-
cational methods for that matter must point to truth, or at least to open one’s ho-
rizons to truth and its quality. Here truth is not a relativistic term but linked with
happiness or fulfilment of humanity as such. As some scholars have been arguing
even the most abstract forms of reasoning, syllogism and logic in authors such as
Aristotle do not simply strive to win an argument, but to attain validity, truth.1
Both Aristotle and Plato just as any ancient philosopher realised the potency
of education to attain freedom. We can quote from the allegory of the cave of
Plato to set the scene of the goal of education understood as a kind of libera-
tion. If education is truly understood as liberation, this is its primary goal also in
Christianity. In this regard the Byzantine tradition was very adamant in claiming
that this or that form of education had to potential to enslave or liberate. Here
we can quote from Plato who observes: “Then, if this is true, our view of these
matters must be this, that education is not in reality what some people proclaim
it to be in their professions (518c) What they aver is that they can put true knowl-
edge into a soul that does not possess it, as if they were inserting vision into
blind eyes.” “They do indeed,” he said. “But our present argument indicates,” said
I, “that the true analogy for this indwelling power in the soul and the instrument
whereby each of us apprehends is that of an eye that could not be converted to
the light from the darkness except by turning the whole body. Even so this organ
of knowledge must be turned around from the world of becoming together with
the entire soul, like the scene-shifting periact in the theatre, until the soul is able
to endure the contemplation of essence and the brightest region of being. (518).
And this, we say, is the good, do we not?” “Yes!”.”2
Plato’s ideas here expressed in the allegory of the cave would be perfectly ac-
ceptable in the Byzantine Christian framework, if indeed education is not to be
understood as a mere storage and indoctrination of data and information. In
contrast to Plato, and his situation of the cave, the Christian Byzantine mentality
would further see education as a never-ending process of joy, where God would
be a constant attracting force yet insurmountable by human means of compre-
hension. This emotional goal or aspect of education (including love here) is the
contribution of Byzantium. The Divine can never fully be comprehended, which
however “guarantees” dynamism and endless joy a process of “glory to glory” to
use the phrase of Gregory of Nyssa. Further the divine in a way communicates
itself, this kenotic and communicatory aspect of God or Jesus Christ, is a clear
and plain (parresia) communication.

1 Evelyn M, Barker, Aristotles Reform of Paideia, in Παιδεια. Accessed July 22, 2021. https://www.
bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBark.htm
2 Plato, Republic, in Plato in Twelve volumes, volumes 5 and 6, trans. by Paul Shorey (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University press, William Heinemann, 1969), 7.

209
 In a discussion of Byzantium, it is useful to identify processes of “institutionali-
sation”. After all, identifying educational institutions is the key for mapping any
forms of development. The precise form of institutional Byzantine education is
subject to debate.
Here institutionalisation can have various meanings. Either as a development
of new and solidified educational institutions (with a positivistic tone) such
as universities, colleges etc., or it could also have a negative meaning as a form
of decreasing liberty and freedom but also creativity. This negative limitation
of freedom can be occasioned by the tendency to “define”, to “structure”. Both
meanings are true for the Byzantine context.
But institutionalisation here is not only related to student numbers, or the con-
struction of solid schooling systems, but to other important issues, such as the
solidification of teaching material and methods, thereby potentially decreasing
the role of flexibility and improvisation. Further institutionalisation means con-
trol, a control either from the state or any other institution. This of course is also
valid for the church context.
Education in Byzantium was undoubtedly furthered especially by individual
teachers. Not so much perhaps by the institution, which is the reason why there
are scant sources on Byzantine institutional education. Here in this context, we
may state, that good teachers were set apart by their ability to “interpret” to ex-
plain. Here we can mention Christian examples, such as the catechetical school
in Alexandria. What sets apart authorities such as Philo of Alexandria, Origen,
or Clement of Alexandria from other teachers of their period is their ability to
“interpret”. Here exegesis and the ability to offer good explanation or “original”
interpretation is the mark of excellence in education.
It is obvious, that one of the main goals of education was to enable one to at-
tain a good public career. This obviously limits ones desire for “pure thought”, if
he or she desires a career. Here we can discern a kind of antagonism between
those who “solely” were educated in order to advance their careers and the “true
philosophers”.
In the Christian perspective this is clearly seen in the funerary oration of
Gregory of Nazianzus towards his brother Caesarius, where Gregory mentions
the high public career of his brother, which however is not the “real” career
God wants or Gregory wanted for his brother: “I had often admonished him be-
fore, when I was angered that his notability of nature should be devoted to inferior
pursuits and his philanthropic soul should be continually immersed in public af-
fairs even as the sun is hidden by a cloud.”3
For Gregory, education is not limited to attaining a good public career, but
should offer something more, it should give us internal fulfillment and happi-
ness. The primary goal of education is to liberate one’s own self.

3 Gregory of Nazianzus, “Funerary oration on his Brother, St. Caesarius“, in The Fathers of the
church, ed. Roy J. Deferrari (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953),
15.
210
 Earlier writers such as Clement of Alexandria, perhaps following Greek philo-
sophical traditions stressed that one of the main goals of education was to strive
to reveal the underlining “unity” or “truth” or even beauty of reality by a method
that we can argue reminds us of a peeling of the layers of a fruit were we want
to get to the core. But perhaps this process has a negativistic connotation for
appreciating “all reality”, and we may ask as to whether the layers covering this
“core of unity and truth” are in their own right also worthwhile legitimate forms
of educational enquiry or to use Clements term analysis? Are “corporeal” things
or layers generally important or just a mere stage or level to be overcome? Here
it seems, that the later Cappadocian conception of beauty in all things or Byzan-
tine “humanism” generally would offer us a form of liberation from these nega-
tive aspects of education merely understood as be it theological “deduction”.
Here we may quote Clement of Alexandria: “We may understand the purifi-
catory rite by comparison with confession, and that of the initiated visionary
by analysis (ἀναλύσεως), advancing to the primary concept, beginning (through
analysis) with the things which lie beneath it…. If we remove position, we con-
ceive of unity itself. If then we abstract (ἀφελόντες) all corporeal things, as well
as the so-called incorporeal things, we may cast ourselves into the greatness of
Christ (τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ Χριστοῦ), and from there we move into the immensity of
holiness: we may thus somehow attain a concept of the all-powerful, knowing
not what he is, but what he is not (οὐχ ὅ ἐστιν)”.4
Clement of course realises the importance of the concept of eternity and un-
circumscribed nature of God in terms of our journey, but the tension between
static and dynamic elements in education and purification is perhaps not fully
explored. Are we simply going to stop at a certain point and continue no further
(Gods undefinable essence) or are we simply going to travel endlessly not really
reaching our goal? Where does education stand here? Clement draws on Christ
here, but Christ is an ultimate unity of the spiritual and material.
The pagan authors also disdained in this context mere “career orientated educa-
tion” as not offering this “core” of truth and values. Anyone who achieved “true
knowledge” could not really apply it anywhere not even on a diplomatic mission.
Thus the non-Christian writer Eunapius mentions a certain Eustathius, who was
apparently a great rhetor and philosopher. He reached such fame that even the Ro-
man emperor who at that time was “wrapped up in the books of the Christians, sent
for him” decided to send him on a diplomatic mission to Persia. At first successful
in dazzling Sapor by his knowledge, ultimately the mission fails, because the ruler
apparently descends back into ignorance (here symbolised by the magi).
We read: “Thus Eustathius became his companion at table, and by his elo-
quence won such influence over him that the king of Persia (here mentioned
as Sapor) came within an ace of renouncing his upright tiara, laying aside his
purple and bejewelled attire, and putting on instead the philosophers cloak of

4 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.11.71.2-3, trans. R. Mortley, in From Word to Silence, vol. 2 The
way of negation, (Bonn: Hannstein, 1986), 42.
211
 Eustathius; so successfully did the latter run down the life of luxury and the
pomps and vanities of the flesh,… bring down those who loved their bodies. But
this was prevented by certain magi who happened to be at the court, and kept
asserting that the man was nothing but a mere conjuror.”5
The same quoted Eunapius also mentions the appreciation of a philosophical
education by a father who sends his son for studies and who initially is horrified
by the selection of the son to study philosophy.
Thus, in relation to a certain Aedesius the Cappadocian we can read: “Aede-
sius the Cappadocian succeeded to the school of Iamblichus and his circle of
disciples. He was extremely well born, but his family was not possessed of great
wealth, and therefore his father sent him away from Cappadocia to Greece to
educate himself with a view to making money, thinking that he would find a trea-
sure in his son. But on his return, when he discovered that hew was inclined to
philosophy he drove him out of his house as useless. And as he drove him forth,
he asked: “Why, what good does philosophy do you?” Whereupon his son turned
round and replied: “It is no small thing, father, to have learned to revere one’s
father even when he is driving one forth.” When his father heard this, his called
his son back and expressed his approval of his virtuous character…Moreover his
father eagerly, encouraged his son to go, and rejoiced exceedingly as though he
were the father of a god rather than of a mere man.”6
The teacher both in the pagan and Byzantine tradition is a gateway to higher
things and his or her reputation rests on this ability to form and “raise” students,
by teaching them to “think”. In the later period Psellos in his letter to Psephas (S
198), boasts the following: “I, who have adorned Constantinople with logoi, who
have sent the reputation of my education to the borders of the oecumene, with-
out ignoring any part of schooling, using only my natural capacity as a teacher
for every kind of instruction; I who alone have- it must be said, let the slanderers
be aggrieved- investigated the different fields of knowledge…, who carry, as the
only one in all, the title of teacher!”7 (S 198 (491.26-492.8). It is obvious that the
emphasis here is on critical thinking. Psellos investigates various fields and offers
this knowledge as a teacher.
One important feature linking the pagan and Byzantine Christian world was
the issue of the teacher understood as a holistic spiritual and theoretical mentor.
Drawing on an earlier period, we may offer the example of Porphyry who had a
teacher called Longinus before he settled with Plotinus. Both teachers according
to Eunapius gave him a much needed “holistic” spiritual and practical educa-
tion by developing his spiritual personhood. He observes: “After Porphyry, s early

5 Eunapius, Lives of the philosophers and Sophists, transl. W. C. Wright, (1921), https://www.te-
rutallian.org/fathers/eunapius_01_intro.htm.
6 Ibid.
7 Floris Bernard, “Educational Networks in the Letters of Michael Psellos“, in The Letters of Psel­
los, Cultural Networks and Historical Realities, ed. Michael Jeffreys and Marc D. Lauxtermann
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 15.

212
education (here we can mention Longinus spoken about before- note by present
author) had thus been carried on and he was looked up to by all, he longed to see
Rome, the mistress of the world, so that he might enchain the city by his wisdom.
But directly he arrived there and became intimate with that great man Plotinus,
he forgot all else and devoted himself wholly to him… Then overcome by the
force of his teachings he conceived a hatred of his own body and of being hu-
man, and sailed to Sicily… kept on to Lilybaeum; this is that one of Sicily’s three
promontories that stretches out and looks toward Libya. There he lay groaning
and mortifying the flesh, and he would take no nourishment and “avoided the
path of men”. But great Plotinus “kept no vain watch” on these things, and either
followed in his footsteps or inquired for the youth who had fled, and so found
him lying there; then he found abundance of words that recalled to life his soul,
as it was just about to speed forth from the body.”8 This passage is a remarkable
testimony to the teacher/pupil relationship but more importantly the idea of
knowledge linked with practice.
A similar allegiance to a teacher or relationship to a teacher in this sense is
seen in the later writer Psellos who feels a deep connection to his former teacher
Mauropous. “You should know that you alone, are the father of my words, and
the mentor of any virtue, that can be found in me, and the initiator of more di-
vine matters, and I will not forget any of these things,” (S 183, at 466.30-467.6).9
Here we can see a beautiful connection between the word “paidagogos” and vir-
tue. The teacher offers virtue and introduction to divine things.
Not all was always well and as Anna Comnene recalls teachers could have led
people astray. Importantly this is because they could not “argue” or think. In her
book the Alexiade she speaks about a certain heretic Nilus, who appeared ac-
cording to her account shortly after the condemnation of the dogmas of Italus.
This Nilus was some sort of self-educated man, who endangered the peace with
his teachings. She writes: “He was quite uninitiated into Hellenic culture, and
never even had a teacher who might from the start have explained to him the
deep meanings of the Divine writings; and although he had studied the writings
of the saints very closely, yet through never having learnt the art of reasoning
he went astray about the meaning of the writings. He had seduced a far from
ignoble body of followers….”10
This account is important, since it demonstrates that what set Nilus apart was
not the simple lack of education on his part or some form of ignorance or lacu-
nae in knowledge, but a methodology or in other words the ability or disability
to “reason”, to critically reflect on the material at hand.
8 Eunapius, Lives of the philosophers and Sophists, transl. W. C. Wright, (1921), https://www.
terutallian.org/fathers/eunapius_01_intro.htm.
9 Floris Bernard, “Educational Networks in the Letters of Michael Psellos,“ in The Letters of Psellos,
Cultural Networks and Historical Realities, Michael Jeffreys and Marc D. Lauxtermann, eds.,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 19.
10 Anna Comnene, Alexiad, Book X, Second battle with heresy, The Cuman War, First Crusade (1094­
97), trans., Elizabeth A. Dawes (London : Kegan Paul, 1928), 149.

213
 It is possible to stress, that some inherent tensions in Byzantine education re-
sulted in a seeming conflict between secular and spiritual education in some
Byzantine authors. However, we may argue that this was not the result of a con-
frontation between the secular/spiritual or pagan/Christian contexts, but al-
ready emanated within the Christian and pagan philosophical understanding of
Education itself. Many contemporary scholars perhaps are all too ready to re-
duce this conflict to a simple formula of uneducated Monks attacking educated
individuals and secular education, which seems not to be the case.11 Rather the
inherent tensions involving goals, content and form of education itself as a sys-
tem, coupled with a theistic and ideological format necessarily set the stage for
tensions or opposition between authors.
For example, in his hymn 21, Symeon the New Theologian has reservations
about who will reach salvation in Christ and believes, that the following will not
have such an easy path to salvation:

Not the rhetors or the philosophers,

Not those who study the writings of the Hellenes,
Not those who read pagan writings,
Not those who lead a theatrical life
Not those who talk in a polished and sophisticated manner
Nor those who receive great titles, (55-60)12

What needs to be said here is that the criticism is not against education or
knowledge as such, but against false or worthless teachings. Furthermore, edu-
cation is coupled with action. Those that lead a theatrical life and receive great
titles, are people who presumably follow a certain path based on their beliefs or
education. Thus the attack is against improperly constructed theory which pre-
sumably entails bad practice.
Generally, Symeon the New Theologian just as many other writers with similar
spiritual concerns may at first glance appear as an anti-intellectual or anti educa-
tional writer. But we may argue, that Symeon is not rejecting knowledge or educa-
tion as such. He is rejecting a “way” of education, or “false” content of education.
The idea of truth/substance or authentic content is pretty much present in
John Chrysostom’s introduction to the Gospel of John. According to John the

11 For example, some sources seem to confirm this argument. Thus Niketas Stethatos mentioned
that Symeon the New Theologian had a basic education and shunned secular education.
Niketas Stethatos, Vie de Siméon, le Nouveau Théologien (949­1022), ed. Irénée Hausherr (Rome:
Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1928). On Symeons lack of education, see Martin
Hinterberger, “Ein Editor und sein Autor: Niketas Stethatos und Symeon Neos Theologos“,
in La face cachée, de la littérature byzantine. Le texte en tant que message immédiat, ed. Paolo
Odorico (Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des
hautes études en sciences sociales, 2012), 247-64, 252-8. Floris Bernard, Writing and Reading
Byzantine Secular Poetry, 1025­1081 (Oxford: Oxford University press, 2014), 96, 158.
12 Symeon Neos Theologos, Hymnen ed, Athanasios Kambylis (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruy-
ter, 1976), 170; Bernard, Writing and Reading Byzantine Secular Poetry, 157.

214
rhetoricians desire an audience, they are not concerned with truth or content.
The Christians offer something else they offer an embodiment of truth linked
with Christ. The words of the Christians are thus not empty, they are no mere
entertainment but offer nothing less than salvation. Christ implies movement
“to him” that is thought. Christ has authority because he has “substance”.
Chrysostom observes: “Again; those who are skilled in rhetoric do just the same
with respect to the sophists, for they too have their theaters, and their audience…
And if in the case of rhetoricians, musicians, and athletes, people sit in the one
case to look on, in the other to see at once and to listen with such earnest atten-
tion; what zeal, what earnestness ought you in reason to display, when it is no
musician or debater who now comes forward to a trial of skill, but when a man
is speaking from heaven, and utters a voice plainer than thunder? For he has
pervaded the whole earth with the sound; and occupied and filled it, not by the
loudness of the cry, but by moving his tongue with the grace of God.”13
Chrysostom further speaks of Christ as a person who is not hiding behind a
mask, in other words he is “substance/truth itself”. “Now will he appear before
us, not acting a part, (for with him there is nothing counterfeit, nor fiction, nor
fable), but with unmasked head he proclaims to us the truth unmasked”.14
The emphasis of Symeon the New Theologian whom we mentioned above just
as the emphasis of other writers in his tradition is, that method does not come first
before truth, but truth reveals the method to be adopted in order to discover truth.
This simple axiom characterises Byzantine Christian Education, but also many
forms of pagan education.
Speaking in relation to Symeon, the method would result from as we have
implied above “participation” (κατά μέθεξιν) in God. Participation is not a static
concept and is an endless process. If one participates in God, he or she moves
to him and the more one moves the more one can discern true reality through
“light”. This light is like a methodological instrument, which offers a taxonomy
for the human being in which he or she can discern reality. Symeon writes: “God
is Fire. And the soul of each of us is a lamp. And so, just as the lamp remains
completely darkened before it participates in the fire kindled,… For everything
should be examined and revealed by the Light. And so, if the lamp of ones soul is
still in such a state, that is, non-participating in the divine fire, that person needs
a guide and a lamp”.15 Here we have a clear statement of methodology. The fire or
13 John Chrysostom, „Homily 1 on the Gospel of John, 1“, trans. by Charles Marriott. in Nicene and
Post­Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14, Ed. by Philip Schaff, (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
Publishing co., 1889), Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight, <http: //www.
newadvent.org/fathers/240101.htm>. Accessed 06, 07, 2021.
14 Some scholars have reassessed the sources and believe, that not all which appears as an attack
on eloquence is really a rejection of eloquence as such. For example, Mauropous does not
detest the schede as may be judged by his writings see Bernard, Writing and Reading Byzantine
Secular Poetry, 263.
15 Symeon the New Theologian, „Catechetical discourses“, 33.8-19, Siméon le Nouveau Théologien,
Catéchèses, introd. Texte critique et notes par Basile Krivochéine, trad. Joseph Paramelle, 3
(Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1965), 248-250.

215
 light are means through which we see clearly. Presumably the problem with the
“Greeks” in Simeon’s views is that they do not see properly, because their light
leads to falsehood. We may permit ourselves to extend this notion of Symeon
to education itself. Indeed for Symeon, the basic educational method has to be
linked with this all purifying light, which does not negate reality but “sorts it out”
in a proper way or manner. But seeing this light means participating in it. It is no
automatic process of classification. The light of Christ is different from pagan
“lights” because Christ descended to us. He initiates.
Another idea, which is important here, is the notion of movement. Our basic
“uncertainty” about truth and truth in people or objects means that we are con-
stantly in a state of spiritual flux going “beyond” facts or realities (seeking their
substance, truth, or love), while at the same time not denying their truthfulness
(since every creature is a creature of love of the love of God). The journey is in a
way a unity of the apophatic and kataphatic method. The problem is that even
if “truth” or “love” is in every creature of God, the creature does not and cannot
fully express God on its own without reference to other creatures and creations.
Education and spirituality are thus characterised by constant movements of dis-
covery in a never ending dynamism and interaction. Truth is relational and not
static. This means education is relational and dynamic.
Psellos from the same milieu as Symeon often understands the issues in the
same way even if differently expressed. For example, Jeffreys and Lauxtermann
have rightly commented on Psellos use of the term μεταβολή (variation, change,
adaptation), which testifies to the deeper issues of morality, spirituality and theory.
As they observe, “Whereas in other writers, it denotes the skill of rhetorical varia-
tion, for Psellos it is more than just a literary guidance, on how to write a poem, an
essay, or a letter. In his view, it is a moral imperative, for true philosophers to be
flexible and versatile if they wish to better the societies, they live in: moral firm-
ness is admirable outside the domain of politics, but if one truly engages with this
world, one has to adapt oneself constantly to changing circumstances, all the while
sticking to ones inner principles but without always appearing to do so”.16

Conclusion
What characterised the more ancient environments, or the Byzantine world
is undoubtedly an emphasis on the internal relationship between theory and
practice. Regardless of one’s belief, whether Christian or not, there was a percep-
tion that all theory, all educational theory, had to be linked with practice. Educa-
tion was no mere data or knowledge collection. In both the pagan and Christian
tradition what was important was the relationship to virtue (here broadly un-
derstood). Education had a clear goal, which was delineated by its “uplifting”
anagogical character. Paideia did not entail a mere sporadic and aimless collec-
tion of data or facts, but it had to transform the human being.
16 The Letters of Psellos, ed. Jeffreys and Lauxtermann, 8.

216
 The unique contribution of the Byzantine world in terms of education is a stress
on dynamism, which is linked with both pagan and Christian spiritual notions
and categories. Paradoxically, in contrast to many atheist criticisms, spirituality
is in fact not a step to backwardness or unscientific means, but on the contrary
the main motor for scholarly or scientific enquiry, and dynamism, because it is
based on the inherent “uncertainty” in the reality around and of its truthfulness.
As we have seen both pagan and Christian Byzantine educational systems em-
phasise “thinking” and critical thinking if critical thinking is understood as not
something being limited by form and data but looking “beyond” form to the core
or substance of reality.

217
 21

Образовната идеологија во Византија

АНЕТА ЈОВКОВСКА, Православен богословски факултет
„Св. Климент Охридски“, Скопје
UDK 37:316.75(495.02)
UDK 342.1:299.5(495.02)

Abstract: In Byzantine society, which throughout its thousand-year history has

followed the path of eternal salvation, the word “culture” also meant “education,
teaching and upbringing in order to lead a certain way of life.” Byzantine
theologians have always had a deep respect for knowledge and recognized the
special value of education, and above all they valued knowledge in the field of
grammar and rhetoric. Without such knowledge, they argued, it was impossible
to understand the Scriptures, to acquire the skills to argue with pagans and
heretics, and even more to create original works in the field of spiritual
literature. It is important to note that Byzantine education, unlike Western
education, was not in the hands of the church. Although certain ecclesiastical
disciplines were taught in Byzantine schools, they remained generally secular.
The education system itself was very reminiscent of the ancient. Therefore, the
gradual disappearance of pagan beliefs did not contribute to the disappearance
of ancient literature and philosophy. They have passed through the centuries
and survived to our time.

Античката традиција која играла голема улога во културата на византиското

општество била особено стабилна на полето на образованието и просвету-
вањето. Веројатно затоа училиштата во Византија, за разлика од западните,
не ѝ биле подредени на црквата. Се разбира, во нив се изучувале поедини

218
црковни дисциплини, но во целина тие останале секуларни, а самиот об-
разовен систем бил доста близок до античкиот. Како идеал на образована
личност во Византија се сметала личноста која се здобила со традиционал-
но хеленистичко образование комбинирано со христијански православен
светоглед. Изворите ни дозволуваат да заклучиме дека во Византија нема-
ло општествени ограничувања на образованието и дека секој што сакал и
имал финансиска можност, можел да се школува.1 Образованието не било
бесплатно, со исклучок на манастирските и дворските училишта.
Првата фаза од образованието ги опфаќала училиштата за описменување
каде што учениците се стекнувале со основно образование. Степенот на
описменување траел две до три години, а децата почнувале да учат на пет
или седумгодишна возраст. Византиската школа за описменување била,
всушност, христијанизирано продолжение на хеленистичкото основно
училиште. Наставата овде се изведувала со помош на учебници создадени
во грчко-римско време. Образованието било секуларно. Дури и во некои
Константинополски цркви постоеле световни училишта.2
Обидувајќи се да ја совладаат античката наука, византиските учители
и педагози направиле многу за да го зачуваат културното наследство од
минатото. Затоа, посебно внимание се посветувало на списите на грчко-
римските мислители, нивното толкување и коментирање.3 За разлика од
хеленистичката традиција на образованието, во содржината на основното
византиско образование недостасувала физичката обука на децата, а му-
зиката и мелодекламацијата биле заменети со црковно пеење. За повеќето
деца основните училишта биле првата и последната фаза од организирано-
то образование.
Византијците можеле да се стекнат со напредно образование во приват-
ни, државни и црковни гимназии. Речиси сите деца од граѓанската елита
поминувале низ овој степен на образование. Во Византија се верувало дека
секој образуван човек треба да ја совлада „старогрчката наука“, која го отво-
ра патот кон философијата и теологијата.4
Философијата, која се изучувала во различни степени, во зависност од
видот на училиштето, била поделена на теоретска и практична. Теоретска-
та вклучувала математички квадриум, односно аритметика, геометрија,
астрономија, музика и физиологија. Наставата по практична философи-
ја била ограничена на изучување на етиката, политиката и економијата.
Понекогаш логиката и дијалектиката биле вклучувани во философијата.
Наставната програма од средното образование во најдобрите училишта
1 Athanasios, Markopoulos “Education”, in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, ed. Eliza-
beth Jeffreys, John Haldon and Robin Cormack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 786.
2 Александр П. Каждан, Византийская культура Х­ХII вв (Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя,
2006), 46.
3 Сергей С. Аверинцев, Поэтика ранневизантийской литературы (Москва: Coda, 1997), 56.
4 Robert Browning, “Literacy in the Byzantine World” in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Vol.
Issue 1 (Cambridge University Press, 2016) 39–54.

219
 содржела и изучување на историјата. Поголемо внимание било посветено
на граматиката, реториката, дијалектиката и поетиката.5 Целта на поучу-
вањето се состоела во формирање на општа култура и елоквентност, како
и развој на мислењето кај младите луѓе. Карактеристично е тоа што до VII
век, во средното образование наставата се изведувала според антички при-
рачници за граматика и реторика.
Следната фаза на византиското образование била високата школа. Ге-
нерално, создавањето на висок степен на образование е карактеристична
црта на византиската цивилизација. Секако, од IV до VI век во Византија
продолжиле да функционираат античките виши училишта, зачувани од вре-
мето на доцниот хеленизам во Александрија, Антиохија, Атина, Кесарија и
некои други градови. Овие провинциски виши школи го создале и одржу-
вале образовното ниво на империјата во целата нејзина екумена. Посебно
бил висок престижот на градот Александрија каде науката и образованието
имале славна историја. Наставната дејност во овие школи ја спроведувале
хеленистички образовани философи, кои наследството на грчко-римската
цивилизација од областа на педагошкото знаење го пренеле во новата ера.
Специфичноста на византиската педагошка мисла се состоела во спојување
и преплетување на античките педагошки идеи со идејата за воспитување на
личноста во духот на христијанството.6
Педагошките погледи и идеи кои придонеле за појавата на првата високо-
образовна институција во државата биле изразени од најпознатите црков-
ни отци: свети Василиј Велики (330 - 379), свети Григориј Ниски (335 - 394),
свети Јован Златоуст (344 - 407), преподобен Максим Исповедник (580 - 662),
свети Јован Дамаскин (675 - 753) и Симеон Нов Богослов (949 - 1022).
Античката идеја за човекот како „микрокосмос“, христијанските мисли-
тели од IV и V век (свети Василиј Велики, свети Јован Златоуст и други) ја
надополниле со идејата за двојноста на човековиот внатрешен свет. Тие
гледале на човечкото тело како седиште на душата и сметале дека најви-
соко во душата е умот, „духовната проникливост“, која го отвора патот кон
богопознанието. Душевните способности не само што е неопходно да се во-
спитуваат, туку потребно е и да се насочат кон постигнување на вистински
повисоки цели, бидејќи, според свети Василиј Велики, во реалниот живот
способностите на човекот стануваат „добри или зли“, во зависност од нив-
ната примена во одредена ситуација. Свети Василиј Велики во есејот „Како
младите можат да имаат полза од паганските книги“ делувал како мудар
педагог, кој кај своите ученици развивал способност критички, но добро-
намерно да се поврзат со наследството од минатото. Тој сметал дека глав-
ниот метод на воспитанието треба да биде развојот на самопознанието на
5 Robert H. Robins, The Byzantine Grammarians. Their Place in History (Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter, 1993).
6 Athanasios Markopoulos, “In search for ’Higher education’ in Byzantium,” ЗРВИ 50-1 (2013), 29-
44.

220
човекот преку негово продлабочување во сопствениот внатрешен свет. Ум-
ствениот развој на човекот свети Василиј го ставил на прво место: сѐ мора
да подлежи на анализа и независно разбирање.7
Свети Јован Златоуст, еден од најпознатите проповедници на Источна-
та Црква, имал огромно влијание врз формирањето на византиската пра-
вославна педагошка мисла. Земајќи го предвид античкото наследство, тој
промовирал такви методи на воспитание како што се предупредувањето и
беседа. Златоуст покажал пример како наставникот треба да се обраќа кон
личноста на секој ученик поединечно, да го гради својот говор разбирли-
во, емотивно и визуелно да ја открива содржината на поучувањето. Глав-
ниот извор на знаење, според свети Јован Златоуст, треба да биде Светото
писмо.8
Во VI и VII век продолжила линијата на соединување на хеленистичките
и христијанските педагошки идеи. Така, преподобен Максим Исповедник
(според традицијата која доаѓа од античкиот свет) го разбирал човекот
како микрокосмос, како поврзувачка врска помеѓу телесното и духовното.
Тој дошол до заклучок дека човекот треба да се формира хармонично. Рам-
нотежата и редот во надворешниот свет и во целиот универзум зависат од
постигнувањето на внатрешната хармонија на човекот. Според преподобен
Максим Исповедник, гревопадот на човекот е причина за прекинување на
врската помеѓу земното и небесното. Оттука, задача на образованието и во-
спитанието е да ја врати оваа врска, да ги урамнотежи сетилните и духовни-
те принципи, така што ќе овозможат човекот да не падне под нивото кое му
е достапно, туку да се развива во согласност со неговата двојна природа.9
Понатаму, голем придонес за развој на педагошката мисла во Византија
дал свети Јован Дамскин кој со право се смета за првиот христијански
средновековен схоластик. Неговите идеи изразени во трактатот „Извор
на знаењето“ влијаеле на западноевропската теологија, особено на ставо-
вите на Тома Аквински. Овој трактат претставува збирка на философски,
богословски и педагошки идеи во кои е развиена мислата за неопходноста
од универзално, енциклопедиско и богословско образование. Свети Јован
Дамаскин верувал дека при образованието треба да се обрне големо вни-
мание на интелектуалниот развој на човекот. „Ништо не е подраго од зна-
ењето, бидејќи знаењето е светлина на словесната душа; незнаењето, пак, е
темнина. Како што отсуството на светлина е темнина, така и отсуството на
знаење е темнина на умот“, напишал тој.10 Природно-научните информации
добиени од античката литература свети Јован Дамаскин ги припишува на
7 Види, Василий Великий, святитель, Избраные творения (Москва: Издательство Сретен-
ского монастыря, 2006), 347-349.
8 Види, Иоанн Златоуст, святитель, Увещеваю вас, возлюбленные. Избранные беседы (Мос-
ква: Отчий дом, 2008).
9 Види, Тунберг Ларс, Микрокосмос и посредник: Теолошка антропологија светог Максима
Исповедника (Шибеник: Истина - Епархија далматинска, 2008).
10 Sveti Jovan Damaskin, Istočnik znanja (Beograd: Jasen, 2006), 54.

221
 световното знаење, а нивното усвојување го смета за почетна фаза на учи-
лишното образование. Според неговото мислење, вистинското знаење за-
почнува со одговори на прашањата поврзани со христијанската доктрина.
Во погореспоменатиот трактат, користејќи современа терминологија, тој
нашироко разгледува психолошки и педагошки проблеми, а попатно дава
и методски препораки за одредени наставни теми. Педагошките идеи кои
ги изложил тој влијаеле врз формирањето на новиот систем на високото
образование кој ќе содејствува со духот на времето.11 Одличен чекор во оваа
насока направил императорот Теодосиј II (401-450), кој и самиот имал по-
знавање не само теолошките, туку и на световните науки: астрономијата,
математиката, историјата, сликарството и други. Со името на императорот
Теодосиј II се поврзуваат два исклучително важни настани во византиска-
та историја: отворањето на првата државна виша школа и објавувањето на
Теодосискиот кодекс како претходник на Јустинијановиот кодекс. Пред тоа,
образованието било приватно или општинско, но не и државно иако списо-
ците на наставниците во училиштата биле одобрувани од страна на царот.
Така, во 425 година Теодосиј издал указ според кој била отворена високо-
образовна институција во главниот град и го добила името „Аудиториум“.
Тој бил, всушност, првиот средновековен европски универзитет. Самото
име зборува за главниот метод на наставата – предавања и коментари од
страна на наставниците кои биле наречени „конзули на философијата“.12
Тамара Рајс сугерира дека вишите школи во Византија се појавиле уште во
III век. Еве како таа го опишува ова: „Христијанскиот центар за високо об-
разование бил основан во Александрија во III век. Наскоро и во Кесарија се
отворила Христијанска академија. По неа следеле центри на христијанско-
то просветлување во повеќето големи градови на истокот на империјата.
Константин I придавал големо значење на образованието. За да обезбеди
администрација со образовани службеници, тој основал академија во но-
виот главен град. Константиновите наследници на престолот ја споделиле
неговата грижа и внимание за оваа институција. Но, само Теодосиј II, во 425
година, ја претворил Константинополската академија во сериозен универ-
зитет контролиран и поддржан од императорите.“13
Кадарот на оваа суштински прва виша школа во Византија го сочинувале
31 професор: пет ретори и десет грчки граматичари, тројца ретори и десет
граматичари за латински јазик, двајца правници и еден философ. Сите биле
владини функционери и им било забрането да поучуваат на друго место, а
во исто време, другите наставници, поради тешка казна и протерување од
11 Шарль Диль, Основные проблемы византийской истории (Москва: Иностранная лите-
ратура, 1947), 53.
12 Зинаида Г. Самодурова, “Школы и образование,” во Культура Византии. IV – первая
половина VII вв. ред. Зинаида В. Удальцова, Сергей С. Аверинцев (Москва: Наука, 1984),
470
13 Тамара Т. Райс, Византия. Быт, религия, культура (Москва: Центрполиграф, 2006),
218-219.

222
престолнината, немале право да отворат свои училишта во Константино-
пол. Освен тоа, наставниците од Теодосиевиот универзитет биле обврзани
да бидат христијани, за разлика од најстариот центар на науките во импе-
ријата – Платоновата академија во Атина, каде што паганските хеленисти
изучувале и предавале класична грчка философија.
Во Константинополската виша школа, седумте основни уметности се изу-
чувале според системот создаден во времето на паганството, а подоцна ус-
воен од византиските школи. Тие обично се нарекуваат „седум слободни
уметности“ и се поделени во две групи: тривиум и квадриум. Тривиумот
вклучувал граматика, реторика и дијалектика, а квадриумот: аритметика,
геометрија, астрономија и музика. Поимот „филологија“ не постоел во Ви-
зантија. Развојот на филолошките науки главно се одвивал преку процесот
на проучување и коментирање на делата од античката и ранохристијанската
литература. Граматиката немала значење во современата смисла на зборот,
туку вклучувала и лексикографија и метрика. Постоеле посебни граматички
трактати. Најзначајните од нив ги напишал Георги Жировски, кој држел пре-
давања по граматика на Константинополскиот универзитет кон крајот на VI
или почетокот на VII век.14 Зачувани се предавањата и на Георги Хировоск,
кој ги коментирал делата на Теодосиј Александриски и Дионисиј Тракиски
(обајцата живееле околу 100 година пред Христа). Лексикографијата сѐ уште
не била толку важна гранка на знаење како во следните векови. Во оваа област
може да се издвојат двојазичните речници: грчко-латински, латинско-грчки
и коптско-грчки, кои биле издадени поради потребите во меѓународните од-
носи на империјата. Неопходно е да се забележи и речникот што во ракопи-
сите му се припишува на александрискиот патријарх Кирил, кој е составен
кон крајот на V век или во почетокот на VI век. Овој речник бил доста ценет
и служел како неопходен водич во обработката и составувањето на новите
лексички помагала. Во Константинополската виша школа се изучувале и фи-
лософијата и теологијата како „наука над сите науки“.
Постепено оваа школа, како важна државна институција, ги засенила, а
потоа ги потиснала провинциските виши школи од официјалниот живот на
образовната заедница. Во 529 година, Јустинијан ја затворил Платоновата
академија во Атина како гнездо на ереси. Така бил воспоставен државниот
монопол на универзитетското образование во Византија. Интересни пода-
тоци за историјата на ова училиште ни дава Соколов, кој оваа образовна
институција ја нарекува „Византиска Академија“. Но, првиот период на
оваа Византиска Академија не траел долго. Императорот Фока (602-610) не
бил наклонет кон науката и образованието и ја затворил школата, отстра-
нувајќи ги нејзините наставници од главниот град. Сепак, неговиот наслед-
ник, императорот Ираклиј (610-641) имал многу покровителски став кон
науката и набргу по стапувањето на Тронот, со помош на учениот патријарх

14 Markopoulos, “In search for ’Higher education’”, 32.

223
 Сергеј (610-638), ја обновил Византиската Академија и ја довел оваа школа
до процут. Тоа траело до почетокот на иконоборството.15
Кога започнало иконоборското движење во Византија, академијата
претставено од нејзините наставници и студенти, останала верна на учење-
то на Црквата и пристапила да ја брани школата од ерес. Оваа околност
послужила како причина за Лав III да ја затвори Академијата и во текот на
целиот период на иконоборството, оваа образовна институција не постое-
ла. Честа да ја возобнови Византиската академија, како самостојна образов-
на институција, со цел наставен кадар и голем број студенти, му припаднала
на цесарот Варда, кој управувал со Византиската империја од име на својот
внук императорот Михаил III.16 Според Соколов, Варда ја обновил Акаде-
мијата и ги назначил за наставници најдобрите научници од тоа време.17
Сепак, Рајс има поинакво мислење за ова прашање. Таа смета дека об-
разовната институција создадена од Варда не била обновување на првата
Византиска академија, туку била сосема нова виша школа, која ги продол-
жила традициите на византиското образование. Таа пишува: „Во 856 година
цесарот Варда, вујко и прв министер на Михаил III, одлучил дека на глав-
ниот град му треба втор универзитет. Тој го основал во дворецот Магнор
и можеби поради фактот што веќе постоел религиозен институт, оставил
да се изработи исклучиво секуларна наставна програма. Многу студенти
учеле на овој универзитет до X век кога бил затворен, веројатно по налог
на Василиј II.18 Варда великодушно ги наградувал наставниците за нивната
работа и многу се грижел за успехот на византиската младина која студира-
ла на Академијата. Образованието било бесплатно. Од редот на учениците
на оваа Академија излегле квалитетни византиски научници, кои потоа се
посветиле на развојот на разни науки и ја ширеле светлината на знаењето
во други градови на империјата. Наставната програма подоцна била про-
ширена со додавање на теолошки предмети, чие изучување се сметало за
неопходно за секој византиски „мудрец“.
Некое време дидаскал на Академијата бил познатиот Фотиј, кој преда-
вал теологија. Тој дополнително придонел за просперитетот на Византис-
ката академија и ја раширил нејзината слава низ целиот Исток. Според
Рајс, со падот на Александрија, Бејрут и Антиохија, Византиската акаде-
мија се покажала како единствен универзитет достапен за христијаните.
До IX век на оваа Академија студирале доста странци: претставници на
Истокот, Словени, Грузијци, Ерменци и нешто подоцна и Италијанци.19

15 Иван И. Соколов, Лекции по истории греко­восточной церкви, В 2-х т. Т. 1 (Санкт-Петер-

бург: Издательство Олега Абышко, 2005), 370.
16 Высшая школа Михаила III, пристапено на 05.11.2021, http://www.russika.ru/termin.
asp?ter=2037
17 Соколов, Лекции по истории греко­восточной церкви, 370.
18 Райс, Византия, 220.
19 Райс, Византия, 222.

224
 Треба да се истакне дека Константинополската академија не била само
образовна институција, туку се занимавала со развој на теолошките, фи-
лософските и другите науки. Исто така се стремела и кон практична цел:
подготовка на просветлени личности за Црквата и државата кои поната-
му станувале митрополити, судии или други државни служби, а некои се
посветувале на наставата во византиските школи. Соколов забележува дека
во понатамошната историја на Константинополската академија особено се
значајни заслугите на императорот Константин IX Мономах (1042-1064), кој
Академијата ја преселил од дворецот во Магнавр во манастирот „Св. Геор-
гиј“ во Мангани, кој самиот го изградил. Тука отворил четири одделенија на
кои ги назначил најдобрите научници во тоа време.20 Меѓутоа овој факт Рајс
повторно го оспорува и Академијата создадена од Константин Мономах ја
нарекува „третиот универзитет“ основан во 1045 година во Константино-
пол. Таа забележува дека на овој универзитет се образувале единствено сту-
денти за државната служба и судството.21
Во врска со горенаведеното, важно е да се забележи дека во Византиската
империја правното образование секогаш имало значајна улога затоа што
правниците биле потребни во државниот апарат. Долго време пред Кон-
стантинополскиот универзитет да започне да обучува правен персонал,
правото било еден од главните предмети и во атинската и александриската
школа. Навистина, наставниот метод во овие школи страдал од некомплет-
ност, а казненото право и судството воопшто не се изучувале. Како резултат
на ова образование, студентите не се здобивале со практични вештини. Во
меѓувреме, потребата од оние кои ја познавале правната практика се зго-
лемила поради неопходноста за изучување на правота од страна на идните
јавни службеници. Затоа Универзитетот во Константинопол започнал да
обучува специјалисти од областа на правото и последователно, само пра-
вниците кои се обучувале на овој Универзитет можеле да се занимаваат со
правната практика.22
Во Западна Европа, во тоа време, се создавале универзитети со самоу-
правно уредување, додека во Константинопол вишата школа и понатаму
останала подредена под власта на императорот. Константин IX Мономах
ги регулирал сите активности на вишата школа – правните, медицинските,
философските, па дури и патријаршиската школа.
Во Константинополската виша школа, во времето на нејзиниот врв (XI-
XII век), се предавало првенствено платонска и неоплатонска философи-
ја, коментари и критики на грчки текстови, како и коментари на делата на
црковните отци, со метафизика како метод за проучување на природата,
философијата, теологијата, медицината и музиката. Како главна форма на
20 Соколов, Лекции по истории греко­восточной церкви, 373.
21 Райс, Византия, 224.
22 Александр П. Каждан, Византийская культура Х­ХII вв. (Санкт-Петербург: Алетейя, 2006),
238.

225
 поучување се јавува расправата. Идеалот на оваа школа бил енциклопедис-
ки да се образуваат државни и црковни кадри. Нивото на образование на
оваа школа може да се согледа според активностите на нејзините студен-
ти. На пример, словенските просветители Кирил (Константин Философ) и
Методиј биле студенти на оваа школа, а подоцна организирале школи во
словенските земји. Оваа виша школа престанала да работи дури кон крајот
на XII век, а во 1261 година била повторно обновена од императорот Михаил
VII Палеолог. Така, со одредени прекини во зависност од тешките надво-
решни и внатрешни услови во историјата на Византија, Академијата посто-
ела речиси сѐ до нејзиниот пад.
Создавањето на оваа школа, која се сметала за секуларна образовна ин-
ституција, од една страна овозможила да се сочуваат традициите на хе-
ленското образование во Византија, а од друга страна имала значително
влијание врз развојот на образовниот систем во православните земји, па
дури и во исламскиот свет.
Треба да се истакне дека покрај високите школи, во империјата постоеле
и „домашни академии“, кои обединувале образовани луѓе групирани околу
еден покровител – философ. Оваа традиција потекнува од грчко-римски-
от свет и античките философски школи. Една таква „домашна академија“
била создадена од страна на солунскиот архиепископ Евстатиј, кој, откако
се школувал во Константинопол и почнал да служи како ѓакон во црквата
„Света Софија“, станал и наставник. Домот на Евстатиј во главниот град ста-
нал своевидно училиште за млади студенти, а подоцна прераснал во центар
каде се собирале најдобрите умови во градот и младите кои се стремеле
кон знаење. И покрај желбата на Византијците за високо световно образо-
вание, овде никој не се откажал од богословското образование. Но, виското
богословско образование, по правило, било овозможено во манастирите.
Важната улога на манастирите по однос на образованието продолжила до
XV век.23
Традицијата на монашките форми на образование датира од крајот на
грчко-римската цивилизација кога во источните провинции на Римската
империја почнале да се создаваат христијанските училишта. Учениците и
предавачите живееле во еден дом формирајќи „братство“. Ваквата форма
сѐ уште не претставувала манастир, но сепак овие заедници биле блиски до
подоцнежните манастири и училиштата приклучени до нив. Главен пред-
мет на поучување било Светото писмо и се изучувало во текот на три годи-
ни. Кон тоа се спроведувал паралелно и курс за описменување.
Длабоката религиозност на Византијците, нивното познавање на догмите
на христијанската доктрина, библиските книги, делата на црковните отци и
други религиозни текстови принудиле многу истражувачи да размислуваат
за егзистирање на посебна духовна школа во која се изучувала теологијата.

23 Лев П. Карсавин Культура средних веков (Москва: Книжная находка, 2003), 28.

226
Меѓутоа, со поголем степен на веројатност може да се зборува за Патријар-
шиска академија дури кон крајот на IX век кога во Константинпол била ор-
ганизирана духовна школа. Наставната програма на оваа институција била
фокусирана на библиската егзегеза, односно на толкувањето на псалмите,
посланијата на светиот апостол Павле и евангелијата. Заедно со ова, неј-
зините слушатели се здобивале и со реторичка обука. Студентите на оваа
школа се здобивале и со знаење од областа на световните науки. Така, Ми-
хаил Италик, наставник по евангелие, држел часови и по квадриум, односно
аритметика, геометрија, музика и астрономија, а се одржувале предавања и
по механика, оптика, медицина и философија.24 Во Патријаршиската акаде-
мија предавале најистакнатите дејци на византиската култура од крајот на
XI и почетокот на XII век, кои се јавуваат како автори на многу литературни
и педагошки дела сочувани и до наше време. Најистакнати меѓу нив биле
Евстатиј Солунски, Никифор Василак, кој составил учебници по историја,
митологија, реторика и теологија и Михаил Италик, кој напишал бројни
трактати од различни научни области. Многумина од нив, по завршувањето
на својата професорска кариера, ги зазеле највисоките црковни функции и
станале епископи, митрополити, а некои и патријарси.
Но, и покрај контролата на Црквата врз активностите на образовни-
те институции, световната насока на образованието продолжила да биде
карактеристика на византискиот образовен систем. Дури и во училишта-
та кои постоеле при црквите се предавале световни дисциплини без чие
познавање во Византија не можело да се замисли образован човек. Така,
низ целото постоење на Византиската империја, мирно коегзистирале
световното и богословското образование надополнувајќи се едно со дру-
го. И ова преплетување на различни гранки на културата на човештвото ѝ
дало уникатен правец на православната византиска цивилизација, која се
одликувала со антички светоглед, особена насоченост кон воспитанието,
комбинација на световните елементи во образованието со христијанската
доктрина и образование под авторитетот на владетелот.

24 Виталий Г. Безрогов, Традиции ученичества и институт школы в древних цивилизациях

(Москва: ПИМ, 2008), 238.

227
 22

Можностите за осврт на идеологијата,

религијата и магијата низ византискиот
светоглед
МАРИЈА ТОДОРОВСКА, Филозофски факултет,
Универзитет „Св. Кирил и Методиј“, Скопје
UDK 316.75:2(495.02)
UDK 930.85:[2:133.4(495.02)

Abstract: In the text an attempt is made to analyze the mere possibility for
an account of ideology and religion in the context of the study of the Middle
Ages and of Byzantology, specifically in a worldview where magic is persistent,
although disallowed. The difficulty of the task is further amplified by the
ambivalence of the concept and meaning of ideology, and its relationship with
both religion and magic. The text briefly offers some definitions of ideology
as well as some of ideology’s main characteristics, attempting to determine
whether they would be properly applicable to the categories of religion and
magic. While some features are shared by religion and magic, and by ideology
and religion, the interplay of the three categories is fruitful, but ambiguous.
Some overlapping aspects of the structure of ideology and religion are shown,
and the similarities between the goals of ideology and of magic are underlined.
The text briefly shows that magic’s transformations, persistence and worth
in the byzantine culture, and its complex relationship with religion play an
important role in its positioning within the discussion about ideology in the
byzantine religious setting.

Прашање е како да се говори за идеологијата во врска со византологијата и

истражувањето на средниот век, без да се говори за историско-политички
228
или социјални прашања, туку преку религијата, но притоа без да се на-
влегува во историско-политичко-социјалните рамки и импликации (на
функционирањето) на религијата. Ваквата задача се чини невозможна,
или барем мошне тешка. Затоа, овој текст се обидува да нафрли идеи за тоа
како воопшто би можело да се маневрира низ овие категории. Проблемот
на религијата и идеологијата е плуриперспективен и интердисциплинарен,
и секое површно пристапување би било интелектуално нечесно. Пробле-
мот на религијата, магијата и идеологијата, пак, ја додава и разновидноста
и плуриперспективноста на теориите за магијата,1 правејќи го површното
пристапување уште понеуспешно.
Еден од првите проблеми што се појавува кога се говори за идеологијата е
амбивалентноста на концептот. Вториот проблем, во контекст на темата на
симпозиумот, е поврзувањето на концептот со периодот на средниот век, без
да се дозволи надвиснувањето на анахронизмот. Во широка смисла, идеоло-
гијата може да се смета за политичка или социјална филозофија, во која важ-
носта на практичните принципи е еквивалентна на важноста на теоретските
принципи. Покрај ова, може да се генерализира дека les raisons d’etre na иде-
ологијата се да го објаснува и да го менува светот. Значи, идеологијата е ин-
терпретативна и интервенирачка. За Дестит д’Траси, кој прв пат го употребил
терминот „идеологија“, тоа било име за науката на идеите, произлезено од
мислата на Лок и на Кондијак.2 Во корпусот на големи идеи за инставрацијата
на науката и подобрувањето на пристапот кон (стекнувањето на) знаењето,
Бејкон сметал дека поентата на науката е да го зголеми човекото познание и
да го подобри животот на луѓето. Оваа идеја јасно се одразува, или се развива,
во идеите на Д’Траси за идеологијата, чија цел е да ги расчисти предрасудите
и да му ослободи слободен пат на разумот. Како образовна рамка ова функ-
ционирало сè до околностите што довеле до новото, пежоративно значење на
терминот, кога les idéologues почнале да бидат обвинувани за воените пора-
зи.3 Токму на овој начин концептите стануваат амбивалентни.4

1 Во овие околности, за религија се смета оранизиран систем на верувања, учења и дејству-

вања кои се однесуваат на трансцендентното, свето или божествено подрачје. Магијата
подразбира дејствување со кое се очекува да се изврши влијание врз односите и наста-
ните во светот, преку повикување и користење на моќите поврзани со натприродното,
непрофано, подрачје.
2 Д’Траси немал намера „идеологија“ да се однесува само на психологијата на Лок и
Кондијак, секако. Идеологијата не требало да биде само „позитивна“, туку корисна,
Antoine Destutt de Tracy, “Memoire sur la faculté de penser,“ Mémoires de l’Institut national
des sciences et des arts I (Paris: Institut national des sciences et des arts, 1796), 323.
3 За омразата на Наполеон кон концептот, кај Emmet Kennedy, “‘Ideology’ from Destutt De
Tracy to Marx,” Journal of the History of Ideas Vol. 40, no. 3 (Jul. – Sep., 1979), 353-368.
4 Самиот Траси бил совршено свесен за амбивалентноста на концептот, сведочејќи и на
тоа како бил (не)прифаќан. Тој сметал и дека не може да се претера со вниманието кон
илузиите кои некои зборови ги произведуваат, затоа што ништо подобро не покажува
колку е општо и конфузно нивното значење, Antoine Destutt de Tracy, Élémens d’idéologie,
Troisième partie, Logique (Paris: Coursier, 1805), 429.

229
 Општо говорејќи, во историјата на филозофијата деветнаесеттиот век може
да се смета за доба на идеологијата. Гледајќи наназад, периодот го каракте-
ризирало процутување на идеи кои од претходните периоди се разликувале
според параметри кои, од денешен аспект, се чинат „идеолошки“. Тешко дека
во византискиот или западноевропскиот средновековен светоглед би може-
ле да се идентификуваат карактеристики на мислата кои на таков начин се
разликуваат од претходните периоди. Од историско-филозофски и религи-
олошки аспект е несоодветно такво нешто да се очекува, впрочем, небаре се
прекорува духот на времето за потфрлање во неговиот развој. Ова не значи
дека во периодот нема линии на мислата и културата кои од сегашен аспект
би можеле да се сместат во широкото множество на она што се определува
како идеологија, напротив. Но, треба да се има предвид контекстот, односно
дека иако секој подоцнежен концепт може да се примени на секој претходен
период, не секогаш периодот може да биде сместен во границите и разгледан
низ механизмите (на разработката) на тој поим, не без извесни прилагоду-
вања или дури незауздан анахронизам склон кон прокрустови развлекувања
или касапења на содржината.5 Концептот идеологија до денес останува про-
блематичен, бивајќи контроверзен, разновидно употребуван и користен во
различни цели. Во општа и претерано широка смисла смисла, под „идеоло-
гија“ може да се смета која било теорија ориентирана кон дејствување, или
каков било обид да се пристапи кон заедницата, односно социјалното уреду-
вање, низ рамката на некаков систем на идеи. Во потесна смисла, идеологија-
та може да се сведе на неколку главни карактеристики.
Идеологијата вклучува теорија која го објаснува човековото искуство
на надворешниост свет; вообичаено формулира некаква цел и програма,
во општи и апстрактни термини, давајќи ги насоките на социјалното и
политичкото организирање; остварувањето на тие насоки може да дове-
де до конфликт, поради нарушувањето на редот на нештата; поради тоа се
јавува потреба од извесен (мерлив) степен на посветеност, и т. н. Со тоа
што овие карактеристики може да се забележат во различни системи, како
позитивизмот,6 комунизмот, различни типови на социјализам, национали-
зам, нацизам и фашизам, кои доминанто се зачнуваат и развиваат низ де-
ветнаесеттиот и дваесеттиот век, впечатокот е дека идеологијата процутува
во период во кој секуларните светогледи ја истиснуваат религиозната вера.7
5 Така, на пример, не може уредувањето на Калиполис да биде сметано за комунизам, ниту
може системот на клиенти и патрони, специфичен за општествените услови во периодот
на римската империја, да биде сметан за еднаков на подоцнежниот феудализам. Тоа
што еден одреден аспект на некоја општествена состојба има исти или слични премиси,
не значи дека е методолошки соодветно да се изедначуваат сличните ситуации во
општества кои се разликуваат по времето, местото и устројството.
6 За критиката на Конт на концепцијата на Траси, Kennedy, “‘Ideology’ from Destutt De
Tracy to Marx,” 365. Кенеди формулира дека за Конт, сензационалистичката идеологија
на Траси, која се обидувала да ја замени метафизиката, е само неологизам за истиот
метафизички потфат.
7 За Хегел идеологијата е лажна свест – луѓето играат улоги како инструменти на

230
 Ова може да се чини како соодветна претпоставка, доколку самата рели-
гија не биде разгледана низ претходно наведените главни карактеристи-
ки на идеологијата, и не се заклучи дека мошне добро се вклопува во тие
рамки. И магијата и религијата се однесуваат на, односно се повикуваат на
моќите на сфери отаде (или покрај) профаната. И магијата и религијата
перформативно интервенираат врз стварноста (само што самоувереноста
на магијата значи дека од неа се очекува брзо задоволување на барањата
од таквата интервенција). Обете функционираат низ правила и параме-
три на однесувањето, но постојат разлики во искусувањето на последици-
те на прекршувањето на правилата. Магијата може да се смета за вид на
религиозност, а религијата инкорпорира магиски мехнизми. Сепак, во ју-
део-христијанската традиција односот на религијата кон магијата оди од
претпазливо негодување кон накострешено анихилирање. Во оваа смисла,
ако, во смела ментална вежба секоја од нив се замисли како засебна идео-
логија, меѓу нив истовремено ќе постои блага демаркација и јасно неприја-
телска спротивставеност.
Под претпоставката дека идеологиите може да се сметаат за групни схе-
ми, структурата на идеологиите би можела да се разгледа низ: членството
(односно низ прашањата околу тоа кои се и какви се членовите); дејствата
(што се прави, како се дејствува, кои се очекувањата); целите (причините за
дејствувањето, поентата што се сака да постигне); вредностите и нормите
(корпусот на главните вредности, како се оценуваат сопствените и туѓите
вредности, што треба и што не смее да се прави и т. н.); позицијата и ре-
лациите на групата (како позиционирањето на групата се одразува на неј-
зиното дејствување и на релациите со другите); изворите и средствата (со
што, и од каде, на социо-политички-филозофски план, располага групата).8
Идеологиите, според ова, може да се сместат во истата категорија како
религиите (и обратно). И едните и другите се потполни системи што под-
разбираат знаење, верување и принципи на однесување. Не значи дека по-
ради тоа што се однесува на трансцендентното, религијата само може да
има идеи за тоа какво општеството треба да биде, без да има практични по-
литички средства за нивно постигнување, затоа што не може да се оддели

историјата, чие вистинско значење им останува скриено. За Маркс не може да се

тврди дека го презел терминот „идеологија“ од Хегел, туку од кумулативната употреба
низ триесеттите и четириесеттите години од деветнаесеттиот век, и, специфично, од
Траси (Kennedy, “‘Ideology’ from Destutt De Tracy to Marx,” 366). Маркс не го употребува
поимот само пежоративно. Општо земено, марксистичката концепција за идеологијата
е амбивалентна. Ако, како во случајот на класното општество, социјалното суштество е
заболено, социјалната свест ќе ја рефлектира реалноста на изопачен начин. Но, ако се
работи за здраво социјално постоење, тогаш и социјалната свест ќе биде здрава. Според
ова, „идеологија“ може да се однесува на лажна, но и на вистинита свест, Gustav A. Wetter,
“The ambivalence of the Marxist concept of ideology,” Studies in Soviet Thought 9(3) (1969):177.
За амбивалентноста на концептот изворно кај Маркс, и сосема накратко во подоцнежниот
марксизам, кај Wetter, “The ambivalence of the Marxist concept of ideology.”
8 Teun A. van Dijk, Ideology – A Multidisciplinary Approach (London-Thousand Oaks-New Delhi:
Sage Publications, 1998), 69-70.

231
 функционирање на политиката и религијата. Религијата во Византија, иако
не може да се генерализира, поради бројните теолошки дивергенции и
конфликти, е стожерен дел на византиската политика. Во оваа смисла, кога
социјалното и политичкото уредување е неопходно религиски базирано и
устроено, неважно е дали религијата се определува како идеологија.
Една од главните карактеристики на идеологијата, како што беше форму-
лирано во концепт-предлогот на овој симпозиум, е дека подразбира објас-
нувачка теорија за човековото постоење и надворешниот свет, односно,
дека таа е општото верување на луѓето за нивниот свет. Идеологијата, беше
воведно споменато, е интерпретативно-трансформативна: го објаснува
светот и го менува преку директно, неодложено дејствување според утврде-
ни принципи. Точно тоа е и поентата на магијата. Ова не значи дека визан-
тиската и западно-средновековната, доминантно езотерична магија, треба
да биде сметана за идеологија, туку само се посочува дека магијата, општо
земено, и идеологијата, исто така општо земено, во суштина имаат иста цел.
Зачетокот на современото истражување на магијата главно се врти околу
претпоставената спротивставеност меѓу магијата и религијата, и магијата
и науката (иако во обата пара постојат и значајни поклопувања на идеите,
принципите и механизмите). Според Тајлор, магијата претставувала една
од првите и најпримитивни форми на верувањe.9 Сепак, Тајлор сметал и
дека магијата, всушност, се потпира на рационални функции.10 Идејата и
кај Тајлор, и особено потем кај клучниот автор од овој суб-корпус на тео-
риите за религијата, Фрејзер, е дека магијата забележува врски меѓу наста-
ните исто како науката. Грешката е ва тоа што човекот почнал погрешно
да заклучува дека асоцијацијата во мислите би подразбирала и фактичка
врска во искуството на надворешниот свет, односно идеалните врски да ги
смета за реални врски.11 Според Фрејзер, религијата го зела местото на ма-
гијата, а науката го зела местото на религијата. Според Фрејзер, магијата е
слична на науката, освен погрешното разбирање на каузалните врски, од-
носно примената на принципот post hoc, ergo propter hoc.12 Иако магијата
греши во асоцијацијата на идеите, таа е прото-наука. Магијата е слична на
науката во практичните аспекти и во „автоматската природа“ на нејзините
дејства, според Мос.13 За Малиновски магијата не значи неразбирање на ка-
узалните врски. Тој ја гледа магијата како начин да се намали анксиозноста
во ситуациите на непремостливата човечка биолошка инсуфициентност. И
магијата и религијата се свети дејства.14 За Еванс-Причард верувањето во
9 Edward Burnett Tylor, Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philo­
sophy, Religion, Language, Art and Custom (London: Murray, 1891), 112.
10 Tylor, Primitive Culture, 115-116.
11 Tylor, Primitive Culture, 116, 119.
12 James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (Electronic version,
Wordwordth, London, 1890) (Auckland: The Floating Press, 2009), 124.
13 Marcel Mauss, A General Theory of Magic (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972), 86.
14 Bronislaw Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion (Glencoe: The Free Press, Glencoe, 1948),
232
„вештерството“ е вид на природна филозофија која служи да ги објасни на-
станите и врските, и општо кажано, да го уредува животот. Одредено анти-
социјално однесување привлекува сомнежи за вештерство и може да доведе
до обединување.15 Во оваа смисла интересно е што фокусот се поместува
на социјалниот поттик на обвинувањата за вештерство, со што магијата се
смета не за јадро, туку за епифеномен на социјалната тензија. На овој начин
вниманието треба да се обрне кон изворот на создавањето на конфликтот.
Обвинувањата на магијата за опасност, штетност и погубност се тесно
поврзани со верувањето во демонските моќи. Во христијански контекст,
магијата се смета за штетна на верувањето. Познати се верувањата дека до-
говорот меѓу човекот (кој сака да стане маѓепсник) и некаков штетен нат-
природен дејствител, или дури самиот ѓавол, се предуслов за поседувањето
и манифестацијата на магиските моќи. Пактот (имплицитен или експлици-
тен) меѓу човек и злите духови или демони, го овозможува волшебништво-
то. Пактот е експлицитен кога волшебникот (односно потенцијалниот
волшебник) повикува демонска помош, а премолчен кога без чинови на
призивање на демони, човек изведува чин со цел да предизвика нешто што
или не следи природно, или не се очекува како резултат на директната ин-
тервенција на Бог (колку и да е ова непрецизно).
Ако волшебникот повика демони, тие доаѓаат при него. Во официјална-
та христијанска религија на Византија, општо говорејќи, ваквата демонска
помош е недобредојдена, непосакувана. Помошта која се бара од демонот
покажува дека се бара, всушност, помош од божјиот непријател. Ако рели-
гијата се смета за идеологија, и ако магијата се смета за идеологија, тогаш,
во нивната најрадикална спротивставеност, и занемарувајќи ги споделува-
ните принципи и механизми, тие се конфликтни „идеологии“. Сепак, спо-
делените карактеристики не исчезнуваат.
Некои од ритуалите на Грчките магиски папируси се стремат кон исти-
те резултати како иницијациите во мистериските религии или ритуалите
како крштението или други модерни ритуали на премин. Може да се твр-
ди дека магијата се наоѓа во самото срце на христијанството, особено ако
замислиме дека тоа се посведочува низ неизвалканиот светоглед на при-
мордијалниот верник. Верувањето во чудесното лекување исто така има
магиска основа. Се верувало дека сенката фрлена од св. Петер врз заболе-
ните на улиците, или директниот физички контакт на престилките и ма-
рамчињата со телото на св. Павле би било доволно за да го изведе чудото
на лекувањето. Уште повеќе, самиот чин на човековото искупување преку
светата тајна крштение (чинот на иницијација) подразбира набркување на

pass; Марија Тодоровска, “Принципите на магијата во разбирањето на потеклото на

религијата,“ Годишен зборник на Филозофскиот факултет 68 (2015), 12, 14.
15 Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic Among the Azande (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976), 19, pass.

233
 сите зли духови од катехуменот.16 Магиски принцпи се содржат и во функ-
ционирањето на светата тајна причест: лебот и виното се претвораат во са-
мите тело и крв Христови преку строги перформативни ритуали, кои, кога
не би биле набљудувани во христијански контекст, не би отскокнувале во
магиски (примордијални или современи езотерични) околности.
Секако, комплексот на принципите не може да се преслика, затоа што
постои дистинкцијата меѓу светото лекување и штетната магија. Како што
забележува Каждан, меѓутоа, не може да се очекува конзистентност од Ви-
зантијците кога ги формулирале интерните дефиниции, затоа што разлака-
та меѓу добрите и злите чуда за нив било подрачје на нејасност и конфликт.17
За просечниот граѓанин, кој не бил теолог, тенката линија меѓу магијата и
вистинската религија била замаглена.
Верувањето во чуда имало психички придобивки, но, од друга страна, на-
дежта за свето чудо (излекување или друга неочекувана среќа) било при-
дружено со неминовниот страв од (потенцијално штетно) маѓепсништво.
Широко и потенцијално плодно поле за истражување би било прашањето
за тоа како Византијците разликувале меѓу свети и демонски натприродни
појави, меѓу чуда и магиски трикови, меѓу посетите од светците или наез-
дите од злите суштества. Покрај ова, во полето на материјалната култура,
интересна е дистинкцијата меѓу паганските амајлии и светите реликвии од
христијанските свети места.
Магијата била присутна, иако правно била осудувана. Во смисла, црквата
не можела едноставно да превиди дека магијата постои, односно да негира
дека магијата постои, но секогаш ја осудувала. Во светоглед на прифатени
волшебнички реликвии, магија и чуда, ангели и демони, верувањето во чу-
десноста на иконата и т. н., тешко се прават дистинкции меѓу различните
позиции. Магијата може да биде опишана како штетна, како нешто што по-
вредува и уништува, или како корисна, доброугодна, во зависност од тоа
дали ги вклучува ѓаволот и неговите зли демони, или се работи за припи-
шување на чудото на божествената сфера, на Бог и неговите дејствители,
ангелите и светците. Маѓепсниците кои применувале демонски сили за да
ги постигнат нивните злобни цели биле сериозна закана, исто како убијци-
те или бунтовниците, и биле подложни на смртна казна.18
16 Harry J. Magoulias, “The Lives of Byzantine Saints as Sources of Data for the History of Magic in
the Sixth and Seventh Centuries A. D.: Sorcery, Relics and Icons,” Byzantion Vol. 37 (1967), 228.
17 Alexander Kazhdan, “Holy and Unholy Miracle Workers,” in Byzantine Magic, ed. Henry Magu-
ire (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1995), 74.
18 The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, 16 – Magicians, Astrolo-
gers, and all other like Criminals (De Maleficis et mathematicis et ceteris similibus), 9.16.4 in
Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions: A Translation
with Commentary, Glossary, and Bibliography (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952).
Повторено и во Кодексот на Јустинијан – ниедна личност не смее да консултира харуспекс
или астролог (математичар, нумеролог) или претскажувач (hariolus), а изопаечните
учења на гледачите и пророците (vates) ќе замолчат. Халдејците и волшебниците, и
сите оние кои обичните луѓе ги сметаат за маѓесници (malifici, дејствители на злото),
поради големината на нивните злосторства, нема да се обидуваат што било да сторат.

234
 Подрачјето на византиската магија не е често научно разгледувано. Сто-
жерното дело на Торндајк, Историја на магијата и експерименталната
наука ја занемарува областа.19 Како што формулира Мегуајер, ако магијата
преживеала од доцната антика кон средновековеието, се поставува пра-
шањто за тоа каде и во кои форми преживеала. На магијата ѝ се потребни
и оние кои „ја прават“ и оние кои ја „конзумираат“. На сличен начин, и об-
винувањата за магиско дејствување ги вклучуваат и обвинетите и обвину-
вачите.20 Византијците сметале дека магијата е значаен фактор во нивниот
живот, што, веројатно допринело кон нејзиното преживување.
Како еден пример на комплексноста на византиската перцепција на ма-
гијата може да се наведе пристапот на раните црковни отци кон проблемот
на магијата преку злокобните моќи на урокливото око. Тие јасно ги делеле
моќите на човечко и натприродно дејствување, и обрнувале внимание на
верувањето во злото око (или урокливо око). Според нивните ставови, ѓа-
волот бил тој кој ја предизвикувал штетата, а не завидливите луѓе, иако би
можело да се тврди дека ѓаволот се манифестирал низ, односно ги користел
љубоморните да му ја завршат работата. Црковните отци како св. Васил, св.
Јероним, и св. Јован Хрисостом, кои ги разгледувале способностите да се
нанесе штета преку злото (или завидливо) око, сметале дека се подразбира
постоењето на наезди на зли сили.
Како што Дики покажува, иако црковните отци се едногласни во нивното
осудување на магиското дејствување, не се сигурни околу прашањето дали
воопшто се работи за проблем. Инаку кажано, тие ги осудуваат волшебни-
ците како измамници и шарлатани, но понекогаш способноста за урочу-
вање ја земаат како реална закана.21 Магијата е дело на ѓаволот, и во тоа
нема сомнеж, но нејаснотијата е во врска со кредибилноста на заканата.
Така, тие се несигурни дали демонските сили кои волшебникот ги впрег-
нува да му помагаат се навистина корисни, или само создаваат илузија на
промена, само привид на (демонска) помош.22 Ако се консултира Библија-
та, осудите на магијата и не се претерано обилни,23 така што, можеби отци-
те биле под влијание на паганските погледи кон злото око.

Љубопитството на сите луѓе за претскажувањето ќе престане засекогаш, Codex Iustini-

anus, Vol. II, 9, 18, 5 in S. P. Scott, The Civil Law, XIV-XV, Cincinnati, 1932. Accessed 01 May
2022. https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/CJ9_Scott.gr.htm#18.
19 Во илјадниците страници од неколкуте книги нема византиски автори. Се споменува
св. Василиј (Велики), но повеќе во контекст на неговото толкување на Битие (Lynn
Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science – During the Frist Thirteen Centuries of
our Era, vol. I (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929), 481-494.
20 Henry Maguire, “Introduction,” in Byzantine Magic, ed. Henry Maguire, 2-3.
21 Matthew D. Dickie, “The Fathers of the Church and the Evil Eye,” in Byzantine Magic, ed. Henry
Maguire, 10.
22 Ibid.
23 За забранетата магија и инстантно достапната некромантија, на пример, доволен е поз-
натиот пример за вештерката од Ендор.

235
 Вреди да се спомене Хомилијата за зависта на св. Василиј, во која се
повикува на За зависта и омразата од Плутарх.24 Така, пишува св. Васи-
лиј, телата во добра состојба, дури и оние кои се во цутот ка својата фи-
зичка форма и младост, се трошат и опаѓаат под влијание на злокобната
фасцинација; тие ја губат својата супстанција, затоа што смртоносно ис-
текување доаѓа од завидлите очи. За св. Василиј ова е вулгарна бабина де-
ветина. Сепак, тој тврди и дека кога демоните кои чувствуваат омраза кон
она што е добро ќе се сретнат со луѓе со предиспозиции и претпочитања
слични на нивните, ќе ги употребат за да си ги унапредат сопствените
цели.25
Светот на магијата и мистицизмот бил дел од културното наследство за
византиските дејци од единаесеттиот и дванаесеттиот век, потсетува Да-
фи.26 Признавањето на важноста варирало, на пример, од запознаеноста
на Ана Комнина, до длабинското знаење на Михаил Псел. Во секој случај,
се забележува обврзаноста да се земе предвид постоењето на магијата на
ваков или онаков начин.27 Магијата очигледно перзистира, се менува и се
прилагодува, пркоси на климата на нетрпеливост и анихилирање. Ова не
значи дека таа едноставно може да се смета за идеологија која ѝ опонира на
христијанската религија на империјата.
Идеологијата се состои од идеи, верувања, разбирања, ставови и т. н., сме-
та Хамилтон, таа ги претставува подлежечките когнитивни претпоставки
на верувањето, или целосната структура на умот.28 Идеологијата е помал-
ку или повеќе кохерентен систем или схема; се асоцира со партикуларна
група, класа или колектив во рамките на поширокото општество, или се
асоцира со целото општество, или целата заедница. Покрај тоа, Хамилтон
идентификува дека идеологијата ја нагласува важноста на една партику-
ларна класа или група; е функционална на некаков специфичен начин;
содржи изјави на факти, односно изјави за кои се смета дека се вистинити;
содржи изјави од нормативен карактер, кои изразуваат вредности, норми и
слично; се труди да ги објаснува нештата; и употребува, односно се основа
врз, филозофски идеи, аргументи и теории. Идеологијата, понатаму, се од-
несува на општеството, човекот и неговото место во светот; таа е, исто така,
разбирањето на индвидуата или на групата за нејзиното место во светот. Во
врска со неа има страст или емоционална посветеност, како и затвореност

24 За долгот кон De Invidia од Плутарх во За зависта на св. Василиј, примери на поклопувачки

форумлации кај Dickie, “The Fathers of the Church and the Evil Eye”, 19. n. 30. За врската
меѓу Хрисостом и Плутарх во споредба со св. Василиj и Плутарх, op. cit., 23-24.
25 Basil, “Hom. de Invidia,” PGr 31: 380B–381B.
26 John Duffy, “Reactions of Two Byzantine Intellectuals to the Theory and Practice of Magic:
Michael Psellos and Michael Italikos,” in Byzantine Magic, ed. Henry Maguire, 83.
27 Анализата на влијанието на магиските корпуси, особено на Халдејските пророштва врз
опусот на Псел, кај Duffy, op. cit., 84-94.
28 Malcolm B. Hamilton, “The Elements of the Concept of Ideology,” Political Studies XXXV (1987):
20.

236
кон аргументи или докази против нејзините парадигми. Идеологијата, про-
должува Хамилтон во резимирањето на главните точки, открива извесен
изоморфизам или дуплираност на реалноста во секојдневниот живот и
симболичкото подрачје; се состои од, или содржи, лажни, извртени, пре-
терано симплифицирани, заблудени или погрешни изјави; и изјави кои се
непотврдени или непотврдливи, но кои се застапуваат без потреба од до-
каз. Идеологијата поттикнува извесни интереси, служи на интереси, или
одразува нечии интереси. Таа е, додава, „несвесно мотивирана“, поттикнува
или принудува на дејствување. Често поттикнува социјална промена, дури
од радикален вид, наеднаш (ова значи дека е револуционерна). Идеологија-
та, исто така, се труди да ја спречи промената и да ја задржи социјалната
устроеност.29 Имајќи ги предвид овие главни точки, дефиницијата на иде-
ологијата која Хамилтон ја предлага е дека таа е систем на идеи, верувања
и ставови кои во колективот се сметаат за вистинити, кои застапуваат од-
редена схема на социјални односи и устројства, и се насочени кон оства-
рување, постигнување, оправдување и одржување на одредени начини на
однесување и дејствување.30
Сосема слободно и неусетно во оваа дефиниција може да се вметне тер-
минот „религија“ како дефиниендум. Дефиниендумот „магија“, пак, не би
бил соодветно опфатен со дел од овие елементи, како акцентот на посто-
ењето како систем (иако секоја партикуларна езотерична магија функ-
ционира во себеизграден и доволно конзистентен систем), и акцентот врз
поврзаноста со, односно влијанието на колективот. Колку повеќе нешто
бива одбегнувано или репресирано, помалку може да пролиферира, особе-
но не на самоуверен и безбедно плоден начин. Затоа, со оглед на тоа што би
недостигал еден од конститутивните елементи на дихотомијата, религијата
(во Византија, или општо земено каде било), и магијата (амбивалентната,
одржлива и покрај сè, трансформирлива, корисна и штетна, антрополошки
и културолошки значајна), не би можеле да бидат сметани за спротивставе-
ни идеологии.
Беше направен обид да се смести (говорот за) идеологијата во контекст
на прашањето за тоа дали религијата и магијата (во Византија – иако таа
генерализација е фрустрирачки несоодветна) може да се сметаат за спро-
тивставени идеологии. Како и во речиси сите вакви прилики, можностите
за идентификување на сличности и разлики на концептите зависат од нив-
ното дефинирање и разбирање. Така, беа посочени ситуациите во кои, со
задршка и претпазливо може да се говори за религијата како идеологија,
за магијата како идеологија, и за религијата и магијата како спротивста-
вени идеологии, имајќи ја предвид културната атмосфера на византискиот
светоглед.

29 Hamilton, “The Elements of the Concept of Ideology”, 21-22.

30 Hamilton, op. cit., 38.

237
 23

Constantine, Sylvester, Procopius: Studies of

Manuscript Traditions in Russia in the 19th and
early 20th century and their Relevance to the Study
of Justinian’s Reign
DMITRI STAROSTIN, State University of St-Petersburg
UDK 091:003(470:495.02)”18/19”

Abstract: This paper describes a project of editing text related to the history
of Byzantium by a lesser-known Russian scholar M. N. Krasheninnikov (1865-
1932). One of main achievements which have been underappreciated was his
own stemma of manuscripts in which he considered as highly important the
Vatican ones and downgraded Scaliger’s, Florentine, and Paris manuscripts.
Because of this he was able to produce a publication of text that contained
some fragments unused by K. W. Dindorf, J. Haury, and D. Comparetti. A passage
on Amalasunta (532-534) coming into an agreement with the “magi” and the
description of their rituals, their early morning prayer as the foundation of
the Easter and of their community showed the theological and moments that
either Procopius or an anonymous scribe in the 10th, 13th or 14th century
wanted to see associated with this historical treatise. But even if it was added
by much later scribes, it nevertheless suggests that the theme of the correct
celebration of the Easter was at least considered by Byzantine scholars as
deeply connected to the work of Procopius. Constantine, Sylvester, Procopius
(in the manuscripts which had begun to appear from the 9th century) were
found by this Russian scholar to represent key elements of Byzantine Christian
political discourse, but were also full of blank spots and caused the most
questions. It is therefore interesting that they were heuristically found by a

238
 person whose Russian education allowed him to possess a neutral attitude to
critical topics.

The days of Justinian were the time critical for its changes in power struc-
tures and cultural paradigms on the passage from Late Antiquity to the early
middle ages. It was in this context of interest of producing an edition of the
key source on this period, De bellis, that would be collated from all available
manuscripts that one interesting Russian project emerged but failed to be
finished or to become a model publication for all further Russian scholars of
Byzantium, that of M. N. Krasheninnikov (1865-1932). This study will address
his story of publishing Procopius’ De bellis and show how this scholars inter-
est in finding key texts on the early history of the Eastern Roman empire and
on Byzantium led him to finding and investigating other important texts,
the Life of Constantine and Helena and the Life of Pope Sylvester.
Before I will embark on the discussion of M. N. Krasheninnikov’s work, a general
outline of Russian advances in the field of publishing Byzantine sources is needed.
Despite the fact that the Procopius’ treatise “On the wars” had been published since
the 17th century, it turned out that by the end of the 19th century the mainstream
redaction that had been collated by K. W. Dindorf and accepted by most of the
scholars working in the field was still thought to be unreliable because book 5 with
key information on the agreement between Zeno (474-475, 476-491) and Theoderic
the Great ca. 487 found no place in the Regesta (chronography) produced by E. de
Muralt.1 This may have been caused by the general distrust in the edition of Pro-
copius by Dindorf that had been shared by many Russian scholars of that period.
Moreover, book 5, containing the description of the war with the Goths, the series
of events critical for reshaping the image of imperial authority in the East after the
collapse of Ravenna emperor’s authority in the West.
From the late 1870s M. N. Krasheninnikov became one of the first and foremost
authorities on the manuscript traditions of the early medieval Byzantium, such
as that of the treatise “On the Wars” of Procopius of Caesarea. He was one of
those Russian scholars of Byzantium who helped construct in the 19th century
a very strong school of Byzantine studies. The works of modern Russian schol-
ars who uncovered many archival materials containing both finished projects
and unfinished work, often of very high degree of readiness, and systematized
the large corpus of work, put M. N. Krasheninnikov in the cohort of the “third
generation” of specialists in Byzantine history and texts.2 He worked in the end

1 Edvard von Muralt, Essai de chronographie byzantine pour servir à l’examen des annales du
Bas-Empire, et particulièrement des chronographes slavons, de 395 à 1057 (Paris: Orient-
Édition, 1963), 125-145.
2 The first two having been exhaustively described by Igor P. Medvedev, “From the history of
Byzantine studies in Saint-Petersburg (Iz istorii Sankt-Peterburgskogo vizantinovedeniia)”, in
Russian.

239
 of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, when many of significant proj-
ects on Byzantine texts like those of E. Muralt, A. Kunik and others had been
finished. This Russian scholar started his work in the situation when the critical
texts on the origins of Rus’ had already been published. But he managed to take
as the topic of his research the text of Procopius of Caesarea’s “On the wars”,
which had a dubious history of possibly having some early information on the
Slavs. He went in to these field of studies because after the publication of the
text of this historical treatise by Dindorf new manusrcipts were found by schol-
ars. Apart from M.N. Krasheninnikov, D. Comparetti and W. Haury also made
renewed efforts which led to their publications of the text.3 In 1884 and 1887 he
received a stipend from the Russian ministry of education as one of the working
specialists in Byzantium and a student of one of the critically acclaimed Clas-
sicists and Byzantologists, V. K. Ernstedt. In the last decade of the 19th century he
published articles on his findings in the manuscript tradition of these treatises.
M. N. Krasheninnikov decided to divide the manuscript tradition based on the
“second decade” and not on the whole of the text. His main point was in separat-
ing the manuscripts that were kept in the papal archives and also in Paris from
those that had originated in Florence, the manuscripts that were used in the fun-
damental ways by the publisher of Procopius D. Comparetti.
The manuscripts that M.N. Krasheninnikov used were the following:

1. A = Ambrosianus A 182 sup., fol. 177r—182 (p. 609,16—628,13 in Dindorf’s

edition), 15th century.
2. (not used by Haury) a = Romanus Angelicus 25 (olim C. 4.3), fols. 235—242.
3. 𝔄 = Ambrosianus A 182 sup., fol. 1—8, 25—177r and 184—187.
4. 𝔞 = Ambrosianus A 182 sup., fol. 188r (642,9—643,4).
5. B = Bruxellensis 11301—16, fols. 103v—138v, selections from the 2nd tetrade
start at fol. 121r.
6. b (not used by Haury) = Barberinianus II, 2, fols. 43r-47r = a, fols. 235-240.
7. β (not used by Haury) = Lexicon Vindobonense.
8. 𝔅I (not used by Haury) = Bruxellensis 11317—21, fols. 147v—178v, extracts
from the 2nd tetrade start at 159r. (Ch. Justice. Anecdota Bruxellensia III: Le
«codex Schottanus» des extraits «de legationibus». Gand, 1896).
9. 𝔅II (not used by Haury) = Bavaricus Monacensis 185, fols. 290—320.
10. C (not used by Haury) = Monacensis 267, fols. 169v—228v.
11. D (not used by Haury) = Vaticanus Palatinus 413, fols. 109v—144v, extracts
from the
3 Procopius Cesariensis, De bellis II: Bellum Gothicum, ed. Wilhelm Dindorf, Corpus scriptorum
historiae Byzantinae, 2,2 (Bonn: Weber, 1833); Domenico Comparetti, La Guerra Gotica. Testo
Greco emendato con traduzione italiana a cura di D. Comparetti, Fonti per la storia d’Italia.
Scrittori. Secolo VI (Roma: Forzani, Tip. del Senato, 1895); Procopius Caesariensis opera omnia,
ed. Wilhelm Haury, vol. 2. De bellis, Libri V-VII I (Lipsiae: B. G. Teubner, 1900); A recent edition
of the hitherto unknown 13th-century manuscript Maria Kalli, The Manuscript Tradition of
Procopius’ Gothic Wars A Reconstruction of Family y in the light of a hitherto unkown Manuscript
(Athos, Lavra H­73), Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 205 (Berlin: Teubner, 2004).

240
 2nd tetrade start at fol. 126v (the manusrcipt belonged to Julius Pacius de
Beriga and was sold to Heidelberg Univercity in 1591).
12. 𝔇 = Ambrosianus A 52—55 sup. that contains only the 2nd tetrade of the
“On the wars”.
13. E (not used by Haury) = Parisinus 1038 (Medic.-Reg. 2913), fols. 186—190,
which
contains 4 additional letters of Justinian.
14. e (not used by Haury) = Vaticanus 1353, fol. 220 (p. 114,5—116,8 in Dindorf),
which
contains the letter of Belisarius regarding Justinian. 14( a). ε = Etimologicum
magnum (De bellis 8,22, Dindorf p. 576,15—17).
15. 𝔉 = Florentinus Laurentianus 9, 32, fols. 212-218.
16. G (not used by Haury) = Ambrosianus N 135 sup., fols. 490r—539v, the
second tetrade
starts at 509r. The editor believed that this manuscript was the archetype of all
manuscripts of de legatis gentium ad Romanos.4
17. Γ (not used by Haury) = Vaticanus 73, fols. 59, 77, 83, 100, 113, 168 = Dindorf
117sq,
153sq, 165sq, 199sq, 225sq, 335sq.
18. H (not used by Haury) = Hispanus Escurialensis R.III.14, similar to BCD.
19. ℌ (not used by Haury) = Escurialensis R.III.13.
ℌI = Escurialensis R.III.21.
20. L = Laurentianus 69.8 (except fol. 3r).
21. Λ = Laurentianus 69,8, fol. 3r.
22. 𝔏 = Leidensis, legat. Scalegeriani 5.
23. M = (Mediceus) Laurentianus 69,8, fols. 32v and 33r, Dindorf p.77,8—82,11.
24. 𝔐 = Monacensis 87, fols. 1—249r, with the help of the edition of D.
Comparetti.
25. N (not used by Haury) = Neapolitanus II C 32, which contains from fol. 337
on the excerpts from De bellis.
26. 𝔑 = Monacensis 513, fol. 350r—699v.
27. 𝔫 = Monacensis 513, fols. 700—711
28. O = Vaticanus Ottobonianus 82.
29. o (not used by Haury) = Ottobonianus 192, fols. 198 (196) r — 200 (198)v.
30. P (not used by Haury) = Parisinus suppl. gr. 607A„ fols. 31r—37r and
40v—42r.5
31. PI = Parisinus 1702.
32. πI (not used by Haury) = Escurialensis I. Θ. 4 (Originally I. B. 4).
33. πII+III (not used by Haury) = Escurialensis IIII. H. 6—8 (originally III.Γ.1—3.
4 Mihail N. Krasheninnikov, “K kritike teksta vtoroi tetrady Ὑπὲρ τ ν πολέμων Prokopiia
Kesariiskogo,” Vizantiiskii Vreminnik 5 (2-3 1898): 446.
5 Attributed to about 950 Panagiotis Manafis, Re)writing History in Byzantium: A Critical Study of
Collections of Historical Excerpts (London: Routledge, 2020), 49-51.

241
 In this case M. N. Krasheninnikov admitted that what he called πI , the 1st volume
of De bellis, books 1–4, could potentially be identified as the “lost” manuscript
H, the manuscript that had been finished on June 27, 1574. But he considered it
unlikely.6
34. 𝕻 = Parisinus 1703, which M. N. Krasheninnikov split into 2:
𝕻I — folios 1—88, to Dindorf 328,3 — first half of the 14th century.
𝕻II — folios 89—165, from Dindorf p. 328,3, written by a later hand no earlier
than the middle of the XV century.
35. 𝔭 (not used by Haury) = so-called fragmentum Pithoeanum («Procopii
Caesarensis Rhetoris ex. lib. VIII. Hist. locus...»
36. 𝔔 (not used by Haury) = Vaticanus Palatinus 410, fols. 206r—257v.
𝔔 I = Vaticanus Palatinus 411.
𝔔 II = Vaticanus Palatinus 412.
The editor noticed that the complex of these 3 manuscripts was nearly a twin
of Munich
manuscript 𝔅II and is very close to Brussel variant 𝔅I .
37. ℜ = Parisinus 1699 («Regius» Maltrait).
38. 𝔯 = Mazarinus 1297, fol. 172v.
39. Σ = Suida.
40. 𝔖 = Vaticanus Reginae Suecorum 84.
41. 𝔗 (not used by Haury) = Parisinus 1701.
42. U = Vaticanus 152, fols. 312v—316v.
43. UI = Vaticanus 152, fols. 1—2 and 137—141r.
44. u = Vaticanus 152, fols. 222, 229, 309—312v, 316v—319v.
45. V = Vaticanus 1690.
46. W = Vaticanus 152, fols. 150—308.
47. 𝔚 = Vaticanus 1301.
48. ζ = Ioannis Zonarae lexicon.

This list suggests that in comparison to J. Haury, M. N. Krasheninnikov used

the manuscripts that contained the “Constantinian excerpts on the embassies”,
which gave a better perspective on the textual tradition of the letters that consti-
tuted parts of the text of Procopius’ De bellis. These excerpts, which were dubbed
as “imperial reordering of the past ”by recent studies,7 had been deemed partic-
ularly important by M. N. Krasheninnikov. He was keen not to discard their text
as an awkward rewriting. He seemed to have believed that they might have bet-
ter transmitted the original text of Procopius’ quotations of these very letters.8
In addition, W. Haury had not used several manuscripts in his publication, like

6 Krasheninnikov, “K kritike,” 456.

7 Andreas Németh, Imperial Systematization of the Past: Emperor Constantine VII and his Histori­
cal Excerpts (PhD diss., Central European University, 2010), 33; Manafis, (Re)writing History
in Byzantium, 49.
8 Krasheninnikov, “K kritike,” 452.

242
the one from Naples that D. Comparetti and M. N. Krasheninnikov were able to
access and investigate. Of particular interest for the investigation of M. N. Krash-
eninnikov’s editing and publication of the second decade of Procopius’ Wars are
the variant readings that he found in the Vatican manuscript 152, fols. 150-308,
that differ from those found in the “Florentine” and “Scaliger’s” ones. Generally,
the method the Russian scholar employed was to take Dindorf’s edition and to
improve it in the apparatus with the readings from the L, v, and W manuscripts.
It was also the tactic generally used by D. Comparetti in his edition and transla-
tion, so M. N. Krasheninnikov followed the practice used by European scholars
of his age, whom he must have much respected based on his commentaries. The
Vatican and the Naples manuscripts must have been the ones that Dindorf had
been unable to use and which Krasheninnikov took an advantage of knowing.
M. N. Krasheninnikov decided to shift the relative weight of the manuscripts:
for example, where W. Haury and D. Comparetti used Vaticanus graec. 1301 (ca.
15th century), Krasheninnikov opted in favor of Vaticanus graec. 152, fols. 150-
308. Moreover, he collated some excerpts (mostly letters) from Parisinus suppl.
Graec. 607, a very early manuscript copied in the 10th century, to complement
the text of Procopius in book 5, 2-3.9 These excerpts, he noted, might have been
true to the original text of Procopius rather a retelling by the scribe in his own
words. In other words, even at first sight M. N. Krasheninnikov’s edition of Pro-
copius shows how complex the editing and publishing history of Procopius’ text
were: 3 editors took up their own perspective on the relative importance of the
manuscript and used each their own stemma and principles of selection for the
final text.
One of the particular situations that illustrates the importance of the manu-
scripts discovered by the Russian scholar and published by him is the story of
Roman defense from the barbarians and the creation of the barbarian kingdom
in Italy in the late 5th century. Especially interesting is the story of Amalasunta
(regent in 532-534), whose actions were critical for ensuring the passage of au-
thority from her father Theoderic the Great to her son Athalaric. The version
that M. N. Krasheninnikov used for his corrections was largely built on the 14th-
century manuscripts of Procopius Vaticanus 1690 and Vaticanus 152 (the latter of
which contains 2 redactions of different provenance).10 One of the key elements
of M.N. Krasheninnikov’s argument is his insistence on the importance of the
ms. Vaticanus 152, fol.150-308, to which he assigned the letter W in his list and
in the manuscripts’ stemma. He emphasized that this 14th-century manuscript
had important additions to the manuscript he deemed to be one of the best and
one of the earliest ones, Vaticanus 1690 (13th century) (V in his notation). He
specifically believed that the manuscript Vaticanus 152 (W) had an independent
meaning for the history and critique of the text in those lines of the text where it
9 Krasheninnikov, “K kritike,””452; Attributed to about 950, cf. Manafis (Re)writing History in
Byzantium, 49-51.
10 Krasheninnikov, “K kritike,” 460-461.

243
 differed, or rather, where it, as M. N. Krasheninnikov believed, filled in the lacu-
nae of the Vaticanus 1690.11 This point of view differed from that of the European
publisher of Procopius W. Haury, who knew these two manuscripts, but who did
not assign an independent importance to redaction W. This illustrates why the
Russian scholar’s approach to text made him think that his edition was a fuller
rendition of the text. M. N. Krasheninnikov also used the manuscript from Na-
ples (Neapolitanus II.C.32), of 14th century, of which Haury did not get the hold.
One of the most intriguing elements of the text that was edited by M N.
Krasheninnikov is that it has fragments that come from the manuscripts of
Procopius’ history but which never became part of the text copied in Florence
and of the one used by Scaliger that is kept in Leiden. One of such passages
is found in the edition of the Russian scholar, the passage that had not been
found by any of the earlier publishers because of the authority of the Florentine
scribes and of those who produced the Scaliger’s version. This passage came at
the end of chapter 2 of book 5, but it was designated as chapter 4 even though
later Krasheninnikov did have another chapter 4, common to all other editions.
The main historical value that the passages he had found and incorporated into
the text had for understanding of the history of Amalasunta was their role as
different from the main stemma and the Vatican 1690 and 152 variants of the
text. He discovered that in these manuscripts the story of Athalaric’s teacher
Theodatus was missing, and that instead these manuscripts contained a story of
Amalasunta coming into an agreement with the “magi”. Where in the traditional
manuscripts she was described as leaving for Ravenna, which was followed by
the description of pious Theodatus (Dindorf) or of the Goths (Haury), in these
manuscripts was replaced by a description of these rituals of the “magi”, from
which we learn that their cult was based on early morning prayer, during which
each and every participant rose to praise the Sun. Even though one may think that
this description had something to do with the cult of Mithras, it is much more
likely that this was a description of one of the critical tensions in the celebrating
the date of Easter. This passage should not necessarily assigned to the 6th century
because it could have appeared in the 10th or in the 14th century. But even if it
was added by much later scribes, it nevertheless suggests that the theme of the
correct celebration of the Easter was at least considered by Byzantine scholars as
deeply connected to the work of Procopius.
But the interest to Procopius brought M. N. Krasheninnikov first to the
“Constantinian excerpts on the embassies” and then to the “Life of Constantine”
and to the “Life of Pope Sylvester”. In doing so he first turned to the work that
his teacher Victor Ernstedt, a professor of St-Petersburg University in the late 19th
century, was doing. Those days the classical edition is that of M. Guidi, BHG 364,
which was published in 1907.12 Guidi considered the earliest redaction to be in
11 Krasheninnikov,“K kritike,” 472.
12 Michelangelo Guidi, “Un bios di Constantino,” in Rendiconti della Reale Accademia Nazionale
de iLincei. Classedi scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, serie 516 (1907), BHG 364.

244
the manuscripts Ox. Bodl. Clark. 44, BNF Gr. 1453, Ox. Th. Roe 9, Ox. Bodl. Seld. 46,
Vallicelliani C. 34, and Vat. Gr. 1079. He took BNF Gr. 1453 for the archetype, which
he believed to surpass all other sources. Ernsted had been doing the collations
of these manuscripts in the 1880-1890s. But he differed from Guidi in believing
Vat. Gr. 1079 to be the best manuscript. It is interesting that he also differed from
Guidi in making a copy of the ms. BNF grec. 1608, which he compared with G
Vat. 974, Vat. 975, Roma, Bibl. Vallicelliana C. 34, getting the text with a long list of
variant readings. Thus the work of Ernstedt and his student Krasheninnikov was
original. The attempt of M. N. Krasheninnikov, the student of Victor Ernstedt,
to publish their version of the Vita in 1908 failed.13 In the archival documents of
the latter one can find a ready text of Vita Constantini, based on the manuscript
Vat. Gr. 1079, fol. 187v-222 (Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Fond
1117. Register 1. Folder 17. Folios12-73), which I have published in a monograph.
Later on, in 1915, he published a report of their work on the manuscripts of
the Life of Constantine, from which one can learn that Victor Ernstedt, M. N.
Krasheninnikov and another student of the former collated 92 manuscripts.14
The final version was described in his article.15 There the system of redactions
is described as follows:
«I. Praxagoras. II. Nicephoros Gregoras. III. Ignatius Selybriensis. IV.
Constantinus Acropolita. V. Euthymius. VI. S.Demetrii Rostoviensis (slav.). VII.
An excerpt from the Life of monk Alexander. Patmos 257. VIII. A. Cod. Athous.
IX. B – Angelico-Hierosolymitana (Cod. Hierosyl. Bibl. Patr. Sabaiticus 366, fol.
9Sqq., Cod. Romanus bibl. Angel. Gr. 22 (olim D. 3. 10). X. C – Parisinus 1534 et
Barocc.142. XI. D – Monac. 366 et Petrop. 94. XII. E. XIII. <Slavic version>. XIV. F.
Epitome α (Vatic. Gr. 1572.). XV. G. XVI. H – St.Sophia Church 1321,f. 452, I/II. XVII.
K – Synaxar. CP697, 34 St.Sophia 463,I – 463v.,I,2). XVIII. L – Petropol. Gr. 227 et
240. XIX. M – Migne PG117, 468CD. XX. N. Slavic St.Sophia 452,II-452v, I. XXI. O
– Vatic.822. XXII. P – Vat. 1991 Λόγος δια λαμβάνων… XXIII. Q – Cod. Dresdensis
DA33. 112-179v».
One can notice that the main redactions in the last, final stemma of versions
(BCDEFGHKLO) remained the same, but several new ones were added to the
list. One of the critical new additions was the manuscript Cod. Dresdensis DA33,
112-179v, which allowed the scholar to get a full picture of the history of the text
and formulate a more profound hypothesis about its form.
A study of the Life of Constantine brought M. N. Krasheninnikov to the study
of a related text, the life of Pope Sylvester. The text they uncovered after doing
a total search of the manusrcipts related to the Life of Constantine, the Life
13 Igor P. Medvedev, “Ob odnom neosushchestvivshemsia proekte izdaniia zhitii Konstantina
Velikogo v Vizantiiskom Vremennike,” in Albo dies notanda lapillo: kollegi I ucheniki G. E.
Lebedevoi, ed. A. V. Yakubskii (Saint-Petersburg, 2005), 128–132.
14 Mihail N. Krasheninnikov, Prodromus syllogae vitarum laudationumque sanctorum Cons-
tantini et Helenae matris eius graece atque slavice mox ededendarum (Derpt: Tipografia K.
Mattisena, 1915).
15 Krasheninnikov, Prodromus, 47-81.

245
 of Pope Sylvester, was a particularly relevant one in the context of the time of
Constantine because one of the manuscripts that contained it, Paris BNF grec.
1448, claimed that it was an original work of Eusebius of Caesaria. It was the
short Greek version of the life of pope Sylvester that was published only once by
Laurentius Surius (1523-1578) in his De probatis Sanctorum in 1570-1578.
Thus in the course of his studies in Europe M. N. Kratheninnikov, who was
very keen of finding scientific priority, found three topics for research which best
characterize some open questions of Byzantine political self-representation.
Constantine, Sylvester, Procopius (in the manuscripts which had begun to
appear from the 9th century) were found by this Russian scholar to represent
key elements of Byzantine Christian political discourse that was at the same
time based on partly inauthentic manuscripts. These were the topics that had
drawn the attention of scholars and were well-studied, but were also full of blank
spots and caused the most questions. It is therefore interesting that they were
heuristically found by a person whose Russian education allowed him to possess
a neutral attitude to critical topics.

246
 24

Ἄρχετε βουκολικᾶς. Византиската еклога по

примерот на буколиката од Планудес
МАЌЕЈ ХЕЛБИГ, Независен истражувач, Катовице

UDK 82-1339495.02)
UDK 821.14'04(495.02)

Abstract: The main aim of this paper is to present how Bucolic poetry was
represented in the Byzantine literature. It is rather well known that since
its occurrence as a new literature genre, that can be seen in the poetry of
Theocritus in 3rd century BC, the Bucolic poetry never gained as big attention
as other forms of literature, sill the pastoral poetry of Antiquity was able to
leave the mark on the literary works of poets of next generations. The paucity
of Bucolic in the Byzantine literature is often remarked, with just a few
examples of free-standing pastorals from later period of the Empire. However,
the Byzantine literature shown the large interest in the work of Theocritus
and later Greek Bucolic poets as Moschus and Bion, which is visible in quite
big number of Bucolic motives inserted in other genres, not only in poetry,
but especially in the Greek Romance. Though in the main sense the genre
never got that attention as in earlier periods, but the revival of Bucolic was
done in Byzantium not by the pastorals themselves, but through the other
texts, where the Bucolic themes and imaginary served as transition to rural
landscapes and simplicity of herdsmen’s life. In this paper I will focus on the
Planudes text form 13th century, that was written in the form of mime, as a
dialogue between a farmer and his friend. This text stands for one of the few
examples of so called pure Bucolic poetry of the Byzantium. The poem itself
consist of 270 hexameters, which is a typical metre for Pastoral, sanctioned
247
 by the tradition, though some scholars say that the Byzantines preferred the
easier iambic trimeter. The Theocritean-inspired bucolic themes resurfaced
in the non-pastoral forms, still there are few texts from the Byzantine period
that can and should be classified as Bucolic poetry, one of them is the
hexametrical poem by Planudes.

Буколиката, позната уште под називите идила, еколга или пастирска песна1,
никогаш не добила доминанта позиција во поетското творештво ниту во
антиката, ниту во другите епохи, но сепак од своето појавување предизви-
кала голем интерес од страна на поетите, што овозможило да се истражат
својствата на жанрот и промените коишто се случувале низ вековите. Во таа
смисла, треба да се спомене дека буколиката како вид поезија се среќава во
коментарите на големи автори како на пр. Теокрит или Вергилиј, кадешто
поконкретно се објаснува за кој вид поезија станува збор. Од времето на
своето појавување, во 3 век пред нашата ера, само неколку автори решиле
да ѝ се постветат, а меѓу познатите се среќаваат имињата на Теокрит, Мос-
хос, Бион, Вергилиј, Калпурниј Сикулиј, Немезјан, Енделехиус или Плануд.

Митичниот пастир Дафнис како творец на пастирските песни

Секако треба да се истакне дека буколиката како жанр не била инвенција
направена само од хеленистичката поезија, но идиличните елементи, иако
сами по себе не сочинуваат книжевна форма, можат да се најдат преку веко-
ви дури и во хебрејската писмена традиција како на пр. Книга на Рут, така
и во грчката епика после Хомер. По традицијата првенство во креирање на
жанрот во старогрчката книжевност му се придава на митичниот пастир
Дафнис2.
Според изворите, Дафнис бил син на Хермес и некоја непозната нимфа,
се родил на Сицилија, под ловорово дрво од кое го зел името (гр. δάφνη -
ловор). Воспитан бил од страна на нимфи, од кои научил пастирство. Се
одликувал по својата убавина и бил сакан од страна на нимфите, боговите и
смртниците. Од боштвото Пан научил да игра сиринга, а играјќи ги различ-
ните песни, го измислил пастирскиот стил3. Дафнис се заљубил во нимфата
Номија, на којашто ѝ ја ветил вечната верност, но ја изневерил со сицилис-
1 Słownik terminów literackich, ed. Michal Głowiński et al. (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1976), 403-405.
Некои истражувачи на теорија на книжевноста ги разликуваат термините пастирска
песна, еклога и буколика, сепак чини се дека постепено се губат разликите во значењето
и сега споменатите термини се гледаат како синоними: Słownik rodzajów i terminów
literackich, red. Gregorz Gazda, Słowinia Tyniecka-Makowska (Kraków: Znak, 2006), 96-99;
198-199; 698-700.
2 Bénédicte Daniel-Muller, “La poésie hellénistique.” in Les Lettres grecques. Anthologie de la lit-
térature grecque d’Homère à Justinien, ed. Luigi-Alberto Sanchi (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2020),
1070.
3 Pierre Grimal, A Concise dictionary of Classical Mythology, ed. S. Kershaw (Oxford: Basil Blac-
kwell, 1990), 130.

248
ката кралица и затоа налутена Номија го заслепила пастирот. Од тоа време
Дафнис пеел тужни песни, а потоа извршил самоубиство.
Во грчката книжевност пред хеленистичкиот период ликот на Дафнис не
се појавува во поезија, освен Стезихор од Химера за којшто зборува Клавдиј
Елијан во своето дело Различни истории:

ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὰ βουκολικὰ μέλη πρῶτον ᾔσθη, καὶ εἶχεν ὑπόθεσιν τὸ πάθος τὸ κατὰ
τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ. καὶ Στησίχορόν γε τὸν Ἱμεραῖον τῆς τοιαύτης μελοποιίας
ὑπάρξασθαι4

Од тоа прво се створени пастирските песни, во коишто се пееше за гу-

бењето на видот на Дафнис: а Стезихор од Химера го направел пронаоѓач
на тој вид поезија.

Сепак, според Јанина Лавињска-Тишковска само во александриската пое-

зија митичниот пастир влегол во интерес на писателите, а тоа било предиз-
викано од страна на самиот Теокрит, освен него за Дафнис исто така збору-
ваат Соситеј или Хермезијанакс, сепак полската истражувачка забележува
дека само Теокрит го споменува губењето на видот5. Името на Дафнис во
грчката поезија не се појавува пред хеленистичкиот период.

Генезата на пастирска песна т.н. буколика

Голем проблем за истражувачите на буколиката претставува нејзината
генеза. До ден денес, не е јасно од каде жанров го бира својот почеток. За
разлика од другите видови поезија за буколиката не кажуваат ништо ниту
Платон, ниту Аристотел, Хорациј исто така не ја споменува во својата Ars
poetica. За првата класификација во општата античка книжевност буколи-
ката морала да чека до 4 век од нашата ера, до трактатот De arte grammatica
libri tres од Диомед. Од друга страна, пак, изворите кои го овозможуваат по-
знавањето на жанрот се коментарите на поетите кои решиле да пишуваат
пастирски песни. Помеѓу тие коишто се целосно сочувани до нашето време
на грчки јазик ги издвојуваме Scholia in Theocritum vetera, а на латински од
Сервиј In Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica commentarium, исто така и анонимни-
те Scholia Bernensia. Според изворите тој вид поезија доаѓа од народно тво-
рештво поврзано со пастирство.
Тука треба да се истакне дека според текстовите има две генези спартан-
ска и сицилиска: првата го поврзува потеклото на буколиката со 3 Персиска
борба и инвазијата на Ксеркс на грчката територија, додека во случајот на
сицилијанската генеза, условите во коишто била создадена пастирска пес-

4 Claudii Aeliani Varia historia, ed. Mervin R. Dilts (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1974), 118-119.
5 Janina Ławińska-Tyszkowska, “Mityczni pasterze bukoliczni,” in Bukolika grecka (Wrocław:
Ossolineum, 1981), 47.

249
 на биле сосема различни, се зборува за борба против чума во градот Сира-
куза (за времето на владеење на Хиеро 1 Постариот).
Според веќе споменатиот Диомед спартанската генеза на буколиката
се поврзува со агресијата на Персијците во континенталната Грција. Во
градот Каријај постоела годишна традиција каде што хор на девици пеел
благодарните песни во чест на боштвото Артеми. Заради стравот од пер-
сискиот напад не било возможно да се најдат луѓeто да го извршат празни-
кот. Всушност, благодарение на пастирите, коишто се враќале од селото,
традицијата можела да продолжи, што Диомед го опишува на следниов
начин:

Tunc itaque pastores ex rure in urbem convenerunt et, ne ritus sacrorum

interrumperetur, pastorali carmine composito deae honorem celebraverunt,
unde est bucolismus dictus.6

Кога пастирите од околните села дошле во градот, во соодветната пастир-

ска песна ѝ се поклониле на божицата, да не се прекине овој свечен оби-
чај. Од тоа дошол називот буколика.

Како што веќе е истакнато, сицилиската генеза на еколгата е поинаква.

Според доказот од страна на римскиот граматичар, во времето пред Хиеро
1 Постариот да станел крал на Сиракуза, градот бил зафатен од чума. Жите-
лите на Сиракуза пробале да се спасат преку молбите до божицата Артеми-
да. На крајот ја усмириле божицата и преку неа се отстраниле од несреќата,
заради што ја нарекле Спасителка. Според Диомед, тоа го даде почетокот на
некој обред поврзан со селани кои пееле по повод на победата над чумата.
Самиот ритуал Диомед го карактеризира на следниов начин:

Erat panis magnus omnium ferarum imagine completus et uter cum vino et
foliis cum omnium leguminum genere; inerat et corona in capite et in manu
pedum clavatum; atque ita victorum omnium fores multitudo circumibat,
carmen in victoriam quam adepti fuerant canebant et de eo folle limina
frugibus spargebant.7

Имало огромен леб со обрасци на сите диви животни, исто така и винкса
кожа и торба со секој вид зеленчук. Учесниците на главите носеле венци,
а во раце држеле потковани овчарски бастуни. Така што толпата ја окру-
жувала портата од сите победници, пеела викториски песни и сипела по
куќите зеленчук од торбата.

6 “Diomedis Artis Grammatice libri tres” in Grammatici Latini, vol.1, rec. H. Keil (Leipzig: B.G.
Teubner, 1857), 486.
7 “Diomedis Artis Grammatice libri tres”, s. 487.

250
 Некои од селаните биле викани лидијасти или буколиасти и според Ди-
омед го прошириле обредод низ Италија, Лидија и Египет. Најверојатно
оделе низ градови и села, молејќи ги боговите со песна за успех и благосос-
тојба. Отткука обредите биле наречени буколика.
Не е возможно да се докаже која од презентираните теории е вистинската
причина за формирањето на новиот жанр на поезијата, но сигурно е дека
книжевниот вид од типот на буколиката е поврзан со својот народен прет-
ходник преку присуството на богови, растенија и некои елементи од фолк-
лор кои се гледаат во структурата на жанрот.

Развојот на жанрот низ вековите во грчката и римската книжевност

Како што е веќе кажано, првиот од грчките поети којшто ја ставил пастир-
ската песна во книжевните рамки бил Теокрит од Сиракуза. До наше вре-
ме сочуван е збир на неговата поезија која се состои од 33 идили, од нив
вистински буколики се 8 и преку нивната анализа се гледа фиксираната
структура што ја гради литературната пастирска песна т.е.:

- фигури на пастирите во определана хиерархија: краварот, овчарот и

козарот
- пеачки конкурс (агон) помеѓу двајца пастири каде пеат за љубовта кон
девојка или момче
- описот на т.н. пријатно место (locus amoenus) со детален преглед на
природата во околина на пастирите (најчесто со голем број видови рас-
тенија).

Податоците за самиот автор на буколиката не се сигурни и она што се

знае за него доаѓа или од неговата поезија, или од епиграм на Артемидор,
првиот издавач на буколиките. Според епиграмот Теокрит доаѓал од Сира-
куза и бил син на Праксагорас и Филина, се занимавал со домашното тво-
рештво:

Ἄλλος ὁ Χῖος, ἐγὼ δὲ Θεόκριτος ὃς τάδ’ ἔγραψα

εἷς ἀπὸ τῶν πολλῶν εἰμὶ Συρακοσίων,
υἱὸς Πραξαγόραο περικλειτᾶς τε Φιλίννας·
Μοῦσαν δ’ ὀθνείαν οὔτιν’ ἐφελκυσάμαν.8

Друг оној од Хиос, но јас Теокрит, којшто го напиша тоа

јас сум еден од многуте Сиракузијци,
синот на Праксагорас и преславната Филина;
но никаква странска муза не ме подлаже.

8 Scholia in Theocritum vetera, ed. Carl Wendel (Stutgardiae: B.G. Teubner, 1967), 6. Епиграмот
исто така се наоѓа во Палатинската антологија [AP IX 434].

251
 Сепак, најраните писмени извори за поетот се состојат од уводот до ко-
ментарите и фрагментот од Книгата на Суидас. Авторот на византискиот
лексикон дава подетални информации. Според него, Теокрит доаѓал или од
Сицилија, или од Кос, како што велат некои (Συρακούσιος, οἱ δέ φασι Κῷον), ги
напишал славните буколични песни на дорискиот диалект (Δωρίδι διαλέκτῳ).
Во овој контекст, треба да се додаде, дека Суидас набројува три буколични
поети и тоа се: Теокрит, Мосцхос од Сицилија и Бион од Смирна.
Врз основа на она што се знае за Теокрит можно е да се направи и следна-
та хронологија: тој бил роден во Сицилија околу 315-310 пред нашата ера, го
напуштил дворот на Хиерон II околу 275 и си заминал на Исток, поконкрет-
но на островот Кос, местото на раѓање на Птолемеј II Филаделф и таткови-
ната на Филетас, освојувач на александриската поетска школа. Патувањето
го завршил во Александрија во Египет, но не се знае со сигурност дали тој
останал на кралскиот двор до крајот на својот живот, или се вратил на Кос
или Сицилија. Најверојатно умрел околу 250 пред нашата ера9.
Уште помалку податоци има за грчките наследници на Теокрит, т.е. по-
етите Мосхос и Бион. Книгата на Суидас на крајот на житопис на Теокрит,
ги споменува имињата на двајца абтори кои се занимавале со буколиката
т.е. Мосхос и Бион. Суидас ги вклучува авторите како делот од т.н. буколич-
ната тријада Теокрит-Мосхос-Бион. Под зборот Μόσχος Книгата истакнува
дека тој бил вториот од поетите коишто се занимавале со буколиката и бил
ученик на граматичарот Аристарх. Истата информација ја донеле и антич-
ките коментари.
Врз основа на тоа, веќе цитираната полска истражувачка, Јанина Ла-
вињска-Тишковска, заклучила дека Мосхос живеел во втората половина од
2 век пред нашата ера, по род бил од Сиракуза, ученик на Аристарх од Са-
мотрака10. Тука треба да се додаде дека Аристарх, после Аполониј Ејдограф,
бил поставен на чело на александриската библиотека во 175 п.н.е. и со неа
управувал до својата смрт во 145 п.н.е.11. Самото име Мосхос се чини дека
е псевдоним и во принцип означува млад бик, се смета како соодветен за
авторот на пастирската поезија. Изворите не даваат поконкретни податоци
дали името е вистинско или не. Релевантното филолошко образование ја
потврдува разновидноста на неговото творештво кое се состоело од епи-
лија, идили, епиграми. Познати се неговите дела Ерос бегалец, Мегара, и
сочувано под неговото име (неавтентично) епицедиум за Бион.
Информациите за третиот од грчките автори на идилата се уште пома-

9 Daniel-Muller “La poésie hellénistique.” , 1070-1071.

10 Janina Ławińska-Tyszkowska, “Autorzy utworów bukolicznych.” in Bukolika grecka (Wrocław:
Ossolineum, 1981), 47.
11 Мостафа Ел-Абади, “Музејот и библиотеките.” in Животот и судбината на старата
александриска библиотека, прев. Ж. Демниева (Скопје: Македонска цивилизација, 1997),
90.

252
ли. Во веќе споментатите извори се истакнувна само тоа дека тој бил од
Смирна, од некое градче познато какко Флоса. Се претпоставува дека бил
најмлад од трите поети и е автор на епитаф на Адониј, делумно сочувана
песна за венчање на Ахилеј и Дејдамија и околу 17 фрагменти цитиранни
од страна на Стобајос12. Бион бил последиот од грчките авотри на пасторал-
ните песни.
Сепак, буколиката морала да чека до 1 век п.н.е. за повторно да се појави
во книжевноста, овој пат на латински јазик во творештвото на римскиот
писател Публиј Вергилиј Маро. Неговите пастирски песни претставуваат
не само прв зрел поетски обид, туку исто така и формализација на жанрот.
Изумот на Теокрит бил изведен од фолклорот, воведување во поезијата пас-
тири-пеачи и правење од селото земја на утопискиот мир. Вергилиј до овој
свет вовел и повеќе политички проблеми, но пред сѐ пасторалната идила
ја воспоставел во формалната рамка на жанрот. Во таа смисла треба да се
наспомене дека кај Теокрит природата била еден од најважните елементи
на структурата на песната. Неговиот однос кон реалноста не дава еднаков
пример во сета античка книжевност. После него, ниеден автор на идилата
не покажувал способност да го изгради прикажаниот свет на делото толку
детално во рамките на растенијата кои се појавуваат во описите на приро-
дата, па го немал таквото знаење на природата што би можел правилно да
го изгради прикажаниот свет на своите песни. Деталноста и соодветноста
на природата пренесена во буколиката предизвикале прашања дали Теок-
рит ја знаел ботаниката и според Алис Линдсел генијален во тој дел на свое-
то творештво:

No poet, I think, unless he had an entire familiarity with his plants, could have
mentioned so many, so quietly, in so few lines. For here they are, the eighty-
seven, multiplied in many instances by two, and in some by as many as seven
or eight, never bursting out of their setting, but introduced with an assured
hand, each as wanted, each in its right place.13

Во римската буколика од Вергилиј, Калпурниј Сикулиј или од Немезнијанус

се гледа јасно отстапување од природниот реализам во корист на конвенција
и стварање на нереална, т.н. Аркадија, како место кај живеат пастирите14.

Дактиличен хексаметар како главна стиховна мера на буколиката

Теокрит во своите идили користел дактиличен хексаметар кој после него
станал задолжителна мера на буколиката, особено кај неговите наследници
т.е. Мосхос, Бион и кај римските автори Вергилиј, Калпурниј и Немезјан, а

12 Daniel-Muller “La poésie hellénistique,” 1083.

13 A. Lindsell, “Was Theocritus a Botanist?” Greece & Rome vol.6, 17 (1937): 81.
14 P. Laurens, Histoire critique de la literature latine (Paris: Belles lettres, 2016), 44.

253
 од римскиете автори единствено Енделехиус Ретор решил да користи ли-
рично метрум т.е. сфиската строфа15. Дактлиличниот хексаметар претставу-
ва една од најстарите мерки во грчката поезија, пред сѐ тој е главната мера
на епосот, но се користел исто така и во дидактичката поезија, во химните
и пророштвата. Таа мерка се состои од 6 стапала т.н. дактили - ᴗ ᴗ , послед-
ното стапало е секогаш со каталекса (му недостасува еден краток елемент),
што ја дава следната схема: - ᴗ ᴗ ˈ - ᴗ ᴗ ˈ- ᴗ ᴗ ˈ - ᴗ ᴗ ˈ- ᴗ ᴗ ˈ - x
Според метрично правило секои две кратки елементи можат да се пре-
творат во еден долг, т.е. секој дактил може да стане спондеј - -.
Во дактиличниот хексаметар има исто така определени места за пауза,
т.н. цезури и диерези, кои му овозможуваат на рецитаторот/пеачот да земе
здив и тие се:
- пентемимер (машка цезура)
- ката тритон трохајон (женска цезура)
- хефтхемимер
- тритхемимер
- буколична диереза16

Треба да се наспомене, дека старогрчкиот јазик не е баш соодветен за го-

лемите поетиски дела напишани во хексаметар, бидејќи зборовите содр-
жуваат или премногу голем број на кратките силаби, или премногу долги,
или долгите и кратките се распространети/ распроделени/ на таков начин
што го оневозможуваат градеењето на стихот без дополнителни промени17.
Сепак, дактиличниот хексаметар останал како традиционалната мера за
пастирската песна до крајот на антиката.
Од 5 век од нашата ера целосно исчезнала разликата во должината на гр-
чките самогласки, што било база за сета античка метрика. Иако и византис-
ката поезија дури до 15 век се обидувала да имитира и користи достигну-
вања на квантитативните мери18, превземани од антиката, сепак, тоа нема
никаква поддршка во тогашниот современ јазик. Византиската метрика од
10/11 век користи главно петнаесетосилабичен versus politicus како имита-
ција на јамбичен тетраметар19.

15 За возмаожните причини на промена на стих види: Maciej Helbg, “De mortibus boum
– sielanki ostatnie starcie.” Scripta Classica 6 (2009): 125-135; Tadeusz Gacia, “De mortibus
boum – ekloga o ocaleniu w czasie zarazy. Przybliżenia literackie i teologiczne z dodaniem
przekładu.” Vox Patrum 78 (2021): 141-156.
16 James W. Halpron, Martin Ostwald, Thomas G. Rosemayer, The Metres of Greek and Latin poetry
(Strand: Methuen & CO Ltd, 1963), 10-12.
17 Helena Sądejowa “Daktyle” in Metryka grecka i łacińska, ed. Maria Dłuska, Władysław Strzelecki
(Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1959), 16-17.
18 Gianfranco Agosti “Late Antique Poetry and its Reception” in A Companion to Byzantine Poetry,
ed. W. Horander, A. Rhoby, N. Zagklas (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 134.
19 Helena Sądejowa “Rozwój i upadek greckiej metryki iloczasowej” in Metryka grecka i łacińska,
ed. Maria Dłuska, Władysław Strzelecki (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1959), 70.

254
 Буколика во византиската книжевност
Буколиката во византиската поезија исчезнала. После Теокрит во Грција
и Вергилиј во Рим нема автори кои би можеле да стигнат до таквото ниво
во своето творештво, така што буколиката на некој начин постоела во дела-
та од Калпурниј и Немезјан, кои за жал го немаат таквиот квалитет. Сепак,
што се однесува на ваизантиската поезија, видливо е целосно непостоење
на пастирската песна во книжевноста, освен два примера од 13 и 15 век20,
што практично значи дека грчката буколика, како вид поезија, после Теок-
рит немала толку голема застапеност. Тука треба да се истакне, дека, иако
идилата не фукнционирала како посебен вид поезија, во византиската кни-
жевност, особено во романот, очигледен е огромниот интерес и познавање
на буколичните мотиви21.

Идила на Плануд
Како што споменавме, во византиската книжевност постојат само два
примери на буколиката, еден од нив произлегол од перото на Максим Пла-
нуд (гр. Μάξιμος Πλανούδης). Плануд инаку роден во Никомедеја (1255- околу
1305), бил теолог, преведувач и академик, еднa од најучените личности на
своето време. Во 1285 под името Мануил влегол во манастирот Акаталепт,
а во 1296 учествувал во царската делегација во Венеција22. Добро владеел со
латинскиот јазик.
Од филолошкиот аспект Плануд бил автор на огромен број дела: писма,
збирки, учебници, коментари кон античките поети, преводи од латинските
автори, но еден од најважните, кој доаѓа најверојатно од неговата страст за
собирање на ракописи е антологијата на епиграми која опфаќа 2400 поеми,
распределени во 7 волумени. Сепак, од перспектива на прилогов едно од
најзначајните дела е коментарот до идилите од Теокрит, што се чини дека
можело да стане причина по којашто Плануд решил да ја напише и својата
буколика, која претставува мошне интересн пример на дактиличната пое-
зија во Византија.
Текстот на идилата соджи 270 стихови во дактиличен хексаметар и бил
замислен како дијалог помеѓу Клеодемиј и Тамирас. Според содржината
Клеодемиј пастирот еднаш пошол на пазар за да купи крава, но случајно
по пат сретнал некој чудотворец. Човекот фатил едно глувче и го претво-
рил во крава, правејќи некое волшебство, му ја продал вештачката крава
на Клеодемиј. Кога пастирот се вратил дома кравата се вратила во својата
претходна форма и се претворила во глувче. Потоа очајниот пастир отишол

20 Joan B. Burton “The Pastoral In Byzantium.” in Brill's Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral ed.
Marco Fantuzzi, Theodore D. Papanghelis (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 549.
21 Burton “The Pastoral In Byzantium,” 550.
22 The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, ed. Alexander Kazhdan (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1991), 1681-1682.

255
 кај пријателот Тамирас, му рекол што му се сличило, а овој го утешил и го
поканил на гости кај себе.
Се чини дека Плануд во делото го имитирал не самиот Теокрит, чие тво-
рештво навистина го знаел многу добро, но најверојатно во поемата надо-
врзува кон доцноантички поет Нонос. Тој во 5 век од нашата ера вметнал
нови правила за користење на хексаметрот во пезија. Иако треба да се
истакне дека исчезнувањето на дактилчниот хексаметар во византиската
поезија после Нонс претставува на некој начин прекин и дисконтинуитет
на античката книжевност, а тука треба да се додаде и дека хексаметарот
повеќе не бил препознатлив за публиката од 7-от век од нашата ера23. Од
другата страна образованието вградено во класичната паидеија и заењето
на античката поезија станало основна квалификација за кариера во адми-
нистрација, што се гледа и во житието на Плануд.

Заклучок
Идилата од Плануд претставувала еден од ретките примери на буколика
во византиската книжевност. Иако самиот текст не ги исполнувал сите ус-
лови кои се гледаат во поезијата на Теокрит, како што се агонот, описот на
пријатно место, пеењето во алтернации за љубовта, сепак не може да се пот-
цени композицијата на стиховите во дактиличен хексаметар, што директ-
но може да надоврзе до буколиката од Сицилија. Учениот монах со таквото
знаење на античката поезија немал толку голем проблем да напише нешто
во хексаметрите, сепак во многу случаи запознавањето со античката пое-
зија е сосема сигурно, иако наместо прецизни имитации или алузии треба
да се зборува за античка привлечност што е очигледно и во случајот на ана-
лизираната идила.

23 Agosti “Late Antique Poetry and its Reception,” 131.

256
 25

Христијанската просвета и книжевност во

средновековно Кичево и Кичевско
АЛЕКСАНДАР КРСТАНОСКИ, Православен богословски факултет
„Св. Климент Охридски“, Скопје
UDK 27:37(497.781)”653”

Abstract: The long history of Kičevo and the Kičevo region is attested by many
documents from the very beginnings of the Ohrid Archdiocese. In historical
sources, including the charter of the Byzantine emperor Basil II, issued in
1018, the town was mentioned within its narrowest diocese. Kicevo was also
mentioned during the reign of King Uros I, while Miluting took it away from
Byzantium. During the Middle ages, the education in the area had mainly
Christian character, while few centers stood out, like the town itself, St George
monastery situated near Knezino village, Vranestica village, Premka village and
of course, the monastery of St. Bogorodica Precista (Immaculate Holy Mother
of God). Such facts presuppose that there was a developed Christian education
in the city and its region, as evidenced by the preserved manuscripts of that
time and their later transcripts. This activity in Kičevo and the region was also
reflected in its later spiritual and cultural history.

Значењето и начинот на средновековната просвета

Во христијански контекст, содржината што ја има зборот „просвета“ од
17. век и наваму е поинаква од значењето на зборот „просвештение“ од
првите векови на христијанството па сѐ до средниот век. Словенскиот збор
prosv5]enYe е превод на грчкиот φωτισμός, како и латинскиот illuminatio,
технички термин за светата тајна Крштение и високо духовно совршенство.

257
 Партиципот φωτισόμενοι (просветени, синови на светлината) станува
синоним за христијани.1 Поради фактот што човекот е психофизичко
битие и е создаден според образ Божји, тој има потреба да се стреми кон
еден вид на друга светлина - мистична, духовна, несоздадена, а еден дел
од човековото битие секогаш е отворен за примање, доживување или
мистичен опит на некаква светлина, т. е. просветлување.2
Како пример како се одвивала просветната дејност во средновековните
духовни центри служи манастирскиот начин на просвета. Просветата
во манастирите се реализирала главно на три начини: преку црковните
богослужби, преку усни поуки пред потесен круг и проповеди во храмот пред
верниците на библиски и литургиски теми, и преку писмен збор, т. е. преку
книжевна дејност, или „просвета со букви“ како што ја нарекува свети Климент.
Така, во конкретниов случај, во кичевскиот манастир Света Пречиста
Кичевска се практикувале сите овие видови на просвета. Богослужбите се
извршувале редовно и од нив не се отстапувало дури ни кога монасите се
наоѓале во животна опасност, како што се гледа и од записот за пожарот и
грабежот во 1558 година. Во манастирот делувало и келијно училиште каде
што, меѓу другото, се подготвувале кадри за свештеници и учители за неколку
околии. Тука воопшто не заостанувала ни книжевната дејност, условена од
литургиските, црковно-правните и проповедничките потреби.3 Воопшто,
следејќи ја традицијата, како и во останатите поголеми манастири, просветата
се одвивала на веќе воспоставените начини кои ги употребувал и свети
Климент: „со букви“, преку Светите Тајни и христијанските добродетели:
братољубие, вера, молитва, пост, смирение, милостина, чистота и љубов.4

Поголеми просветни центри

Според зачуваните книжевни споменици и археолошките научни
иследувања, христијанската просветна дејност во Кичево и Кичевско, а
со тоа и соодветната книжевна дејност, може да се лоцираат на неколку
места: самиот град Кичево, манастирот Свети Георгиј Победоносец во
село Кнежино (познат и како Кнежински манастир), селото Вранештица,
селото Премка, селото Светораче и, секако, манастирот Света Богородица
– Пречиста, или Света Пречиста Кичевска.
Градот Кичево се простира како брег околу Китино Кале, помеѓу Долна
Кичава и Горна Кичава и се дели на маала, и тоа: Варошко маало, Чаршија
Варош, Чифлик Маало, Теќе Маало, уште едно Теќе Маало покрај реката

1 Петар Хр. Илиевски, “Просветната улога на манастирот ‘Св. Пречиста’,“ во Манастир

Света Пречиста Кичевска (Скопје: Републички завод за заштита на спомениците на
културата и Епархија Дебарско-кичевска, 1990), 21.
2 Јован Таковски, Просвештението во теологијата на свети Климент Охридски (Скопје:
Таковски, 2006), 11.
3 Илиевски, “Просветната улога,“ 22.
4 Таковски, Просвештението, 131-205.

258
Темница која поминува низ градот, Џума Маало или Света Петка (наречено
по џамијата која некогаш била црква посветена на Света Петка, па од
„петок“ дошло „џума“), Баља Маало или Горно Маало („баља“ на турски
јазик е „горно“), Бичинци Маало и Циганско Маало.5 Се разбира, до денес
градот е значително проширен.
Предисториското минато на Кичево не е многу познато. Забележано
е дека во близината на денешно Кичево постоел град Хискана (Ускана),
кој се споменува во врска со војувањето на македонскиот крал Персеј со
Римјаните во 170-169 година пред Христа. Други податоци не се познати,
ниту со сигурност може да се каже каде бил, кога и кој го подигнал.6
За долгата историја на Кичево документирано сведочат самите почетоци
на организирањето на Охридската архиепископија. Во историските
извори, меѓу кои и повелбата на византискиот цар Василиј II, издадена во
1018 година, градот се спомнува во рамките на нејзината најтесна дијацеза.7
Кичево се споменува и во време на кралот Урош I, а Милутин го освоил од
Византија. Кнежинскиот манастир всушност е задужбина на Милутин. Со
овој манастир народот го става во врска делот од стариот град кај Палатишта
и Војводиница. Подоцнежното Кичево се издигнало околу тврдината која
постои и денес.8
Со доаѓањето на Османлиите Кичево паѓа под нивна власт. Во пописните
дефтери од 15. и 16. век градот е регистриран како Крчова и е седиште на
Кичевската нахија. Откако ќе претрпи неколку административни промени,
во втората половина на 16. век, кога е создаден Скопскиот санџак, во негов
состав влегува и Кичевската нахија.
По бурните настани и внатрешните судири во империјата во 19. век,
кога во Османлиското царство настанало ново уредување, образувана
е новата Кичевска каза со седиште во градот и оттогаш почнува да се
развива денешниов град.9 Штом завршил, пак, долговековниот османлиски
период, следат администрациите на Кралството на СХС (подоцна Кралство
Југославија) и СР Македонија во рамките на СФРЈ, за денес Кичево да биде
општина во независна Македонија.
Низ различните историски услови имињата на градот варирале: Кирчева,
Кричева, Крчова, Кичево и Кичава.10 Покрај постарата популација која сѐ
уште го употребува називот Кичаа (дијалектно од Кичава), градот денес
официјално и во секојдневниот говор се нарекува Кичево.
5 Тома Смиљанић, “Кичевија,” во Насеља и порекло становиштва (Београд: Штампарија Св.
Сава. М. Сладековића, 1931), 409-410.
6 Душан Ристоски, “Кичево и кичевско низ историјата,“ во Кичево и кичевско (Скопје: 1998),
23.
7 Сашо Цветковски, Живописот на Дичо Зограф и Аврам Дичов (Струга: НУ Музеј “Др.
Никола Нежлобински, 2010), 6.
8 Смиљанић, “Кичевија“, 410-411.
9 Смиљанић, “Кичевија“, 411.
10 Смиљанић, “Кичевија“, 410

259
 Покрај денешната црква, посветена на светите апостоли Петар и Павле,
во минатото во градот постоеле и црквите Свети Димитриј и Свети Георгиј.
За тоа зборува фактот дека некој Димитриј Петров од Кичево отишол во
Русија да бара помош за доградување на црква, а историјата спомнува и
црква Свети Георгиј од 13. век, во урнатини, која ја обновил и ја дарувал
кралот Милутин.11
Црквата Свети апостоли Петар и Павле во Кичево во својот сегашен
изглед е изградена во почетокот на 20. век. Но и пред тоа на овој простор
постоел православен храм. Повеќе податоци за оваа црква можат да
се пронајдат од подоцнежниот период, односно од 1974/75 година, кога
е извршено нејзиното целосно обновување, во времето на Дебарско-
кичевскиот митрополит Методиј. Обновувањето на фреските е направено
од страна на Кузман Фрчкоски од Галичник. Иако иконостасот е од времето
на градењето на црквата, иконите на него се изработени во 1925/26 година.
Подот на црквата е поплочен со камен, живописана е целата и има голем
балкон и камбанарија која е во состав на храмот. Подоцна кон црквата
се доизградени и други придружни објекти: канцеларија, Крстилница,
библиотека, трпезарија и друго.12
Вториот споменат христијански просветен центар - манастирот Свети
Георгиј – Победоносец (Кнежински манастир) се наоѓа во атарот на село
Кнежино и потекнува од 12. или 13. век. Според некои мислења првата црква
била срушена во првата половина на 18. век, по првата Австро-турска војна
во 1736 година од страна на извесен Шаќир бег од Дебар. Пишани податоци
за манастирот има од развиениот и од доцниот среден век, но пред сѐ во
црковната историја. Биографот на српскиот крал Милутин - архиепископот
Милутин запишал: „Милутин подигнал и обновил многу цркви, а два стари
манастира кои се наоѓаат на српско-византиската граница: Свети Ѓорѓи во
Кичевската област и Света Богородица во Трескавец над Прилеп, не без
политички цели, ги посипал со дарови“. Ова потврдува дека манастирот
постоел и пред 1282 година во рамките на Византиското царство.13 Дека овој
манастир бил развиен духовен, просветен и културен центар сведочат и
денешните археолошки наоѓалишта во неговиот дворен простор и неговата
поширока околина.
Селото Вранештица – третиот значителен просветен центар, е старо и
се наоѓа на средновековниот пат од Охрид и Битола за Скопје. Во селото
постојат урнатини од неколку средновековни градби: Горно Кале, Средно
Кале и Крајно Кале. При ископувањето на гробови се наоѓаат жолти метални

11 Илија Велев, Преглед на средновековни цркви и манастири во Македонија (Скопје: Наша

книга, 1990), 66, 78.
12 Светлана Вељаноска, Црквите и манастирите во Кичевското архиерејско намесништво
(Кичево: Спомен дом на култура Кочо Рацин, 2002), 12.
13 Вељаноска, Црквите и манастирите, 9.

260
алки и стари копја. Се ископуваат и големи садови од глина.14 Во селото има
три цркви: Свети Георгиј, Свети Илија и Свети Никола. Најстара е црквата
Свети Георгиј и потекнува од 16. век, а црквата Свети Илија е изградена
неколку години подоцна и е подобро сочувана. Црквата Свети Никола е
од 19. век,15 иако според кажувањата се претпоставува дека тука постоела
постара црква од времето на султанот Бајазит.16
Што се однесува до селото Премка, тоа се наоѓа на патот за село Рабетино.
Некогаш имало повеќе население кое гравитирало околу денешните
стари гробишта. Селото се преместувало неколку пати. Некое време било
на местото Чифлик, во рамнината, потоа се преместило во Јаороа Вода
(подоцна мочурливо место) и на крај се спуштило во рамнината каде што
е сега. Шумата на селото е заедничка со селата Шутово и Гарани, што
укажува дека некогаш тие биле делови на едно село, но кога жителите на
последниве две примиле ислам, настанале засебни села.17 Селото има две
цркви. На влезот, во месноста наречена Илиница се наоѓа црквата Свети
Илија која е изградена во 1937/38 година, а гробиштата околу неа се од
1921 година. Во нејзината внатрешност има камен за кој се верува дека
потекнува од постара црква која се наоѓала на тоа место. На другиот крај од
селото е црквата Свети Атанасиј, која е изградена во 1871 година.18 И околу
оваа црква има стари гробишта. Токму во оваа црква Тома Смиљаниќ во
1926 година пронашол ракопис со чинот на Елеосвештение од 13. век, за кој,
пак, се мисли дека е пишуван во некоја црква или манастир Свети Врачи.19
Гореспоменатото село Светораче, во кое исто така се претпоставува
дека имало развиена христијанска просветна дејност е подигнато на
место каде што некогаш се наоѓал манастир Свети Врачи. И сега постои
истоимена црква. На повеќе месности од селото постојат стари урнатини.20
Споменатата денешна црква е изградена во 1858 година.21
Секако, централното место во овој контекст го зазема манастирот
Света Богородица – Пречиста. Најстарото датирање на манастирот Света
Пречиста Кичевска е 1316 година, а тоа е времето на владеењето на крал
Милутин. Но, стариот Милутинов манастир се лоцира во селото Крнино,
бидејќи, како што запишал своевремено Смиљаниќ: „Куќишта од тоа село
постојат и денес, но веќе се обраснати со шума. Во таа шума можат да се
бараат и ѕидините на Милутиновиот манастир Света Пречиста.22

14 Смиљанић, “Кичевија“, 460.

15 Вељаноска, Црквите и манастирите, 31-32.
16 Смиљанић, “Кичевија“, 460.
17 Смиљанић, “Кичевија“, 423.
18 Вељаноска, Црквите и манастирите, 72.
19 Велев, Преглед, 28
20 Смиљанић, “Кичевија“, 468.
21 Вељаноска, Црквите и манастирите, 39.
22 Смиљанић, “Кичевија“, 365-366.

261
 Во еден манастирски Псалтир има сведоштво дека во 1558 година
манастирот бил опустошен, а тогаш се случила и маченичката смрт на
монасите Евнувиј, Пајсиј и Аверкиј. Во тој Псалтир се наоѓа и друг запис
кој го потврдува податокот за изградбата на манастирот во 1316 година,
пустошењето во 1558 година и новата црква од 1564 година.23
Конечно, игуменот Теодосиј во 1846 година ја срушил малечката
црквичка и во 1848 година ја привршил новата црква, а со тоа ја покажал
својата силна вера во Божјата и народната помош. Народот за првпат
гледал толку велелепна црква, огромната градба оставала силен впечаток
на посетителите и делувала како страшна голема карпа отсечена од некоја
гигантска планина.24 Ова е црквата која постои и е активна и денес и, секако,
се одржува и се дообновува.

Писмени споменици
Како резултат на христијанската просвета во овие центри настанале низа
книжевни споменици од кои некои за среќа се зачувани и денес. Битол-
скиот триод од 12. век, познат во науката и како Кичевски триод, за кој се
претпоставува дека е пишуван во црква или манастир Свети Врачи во се-
лото Светораче, во Кичевскиот крај. Во кичевското село Вранештица е про-
најден Вранештичкиот апостол, пергаментен ракопис од 13. век, додека
во храмот Свети Атанасиј во село Премка, Тома Смиљаниќ во 1926 година
пронашол повеќе ракописи, меѓу кои и два напишани на пергамент во 13.
век – Кичевскиот октоих и Премчанскиот требник.25
Битолскиот триод потекнува од 11.-12. век. Според содржината претста-
вува Посен триод. Овој ракопис содржи 101 пергаментен лист, 27,5 х 19,5 см.
Пишуван е од граматик Георги, веројатно во село Вапа - Дебарско, а писмо-
то е кирилско со делови на глаголица. Украсен е со заставки во вид на пле-
тенки и иницијали во црна, црвена и окер боја. Се среќаваат екфонетски
музички знаци. Во ракописот има повеќе записи на маргините, важни од
книжевен и историски аспект. Споменикот е пронајден од Јордан Иванов
во Битолското трговско претставништво во 1907 година. Се чува во Софија,
БАН, број 38.26
Вранештичкиот апостол потекнува од 13. век. Според содржината
претставува полн текст на Апостолот. Ракописот содржи 26 листа од перга-
мент, 15,5 х 24 см и пишуван е со кирилско писмо. Има заставка во геомет-

23 Смиљанић, “Кичевија“, 364.

24 Никола Наревъ, Мaнастиръ Прeчиста (София: Печатница на С.М. Стайков, 1912), 26.
25 Ѓорѓи Поп-Атанасов, Илија Велев и Маја Јакимовска - Тошиќ, Скрипторски центри
во средновековна Македонија (Скопје: Институт за македонска литература при
Филолошкиот факултет „Блаже Конески”, 1997), 137.
26 Илија Велев, Лилјана Макаријоска, Емилија Црвенковска, Македонски споменици со
глаголско и со кирилско писмо (Скопје: Институт за македонски јазик „Крсте Мисирков",
2008), 30.

262
риски народен стил, од балкански тип, во црвена и жолта боја и едноставни
иницијали. Се вбројува меѓу северномакедонските ракописи. Припаѓал на
ракописите кои Верковиќ ги зел од Слепче, а според кичевското село Вра-
нештица (што се спомнува во запис) е наречен Вранештички. Место на чу-
вање е Загреб, Архив на ХАЗУ, IIIa 48.27
Кичевскиот октоих потекнува од средината на 13. век. Содржински
претставува Октоих-параклитик. Содржи преписи од книжевни дела на све-
ти Климент Охридски – Канон на апостолите Петар и Павле за шести глас
и Канон на Света Троица за осми глас. Споменикот содржи 89 пергаментни
листа, 300 х 195 мм. Не е целосно зачуван. Писмото е уставно, а правописот
е двоеров и јусов. Јазичните особености на ракописот упатуваат на заклу-
чок дека настанал во западномакедонски скрипторски центар. Ракописот
го пронашол Тома Смиљаниќ – Брадина во црквата Свети Атанасиј во село
Премка - Кичевско. Се чува во два дела: Музеј на СПЦ – Белград, Груиќева
збирка З I 110 (61 лист) и број 227 (5 листа); Народна библиотека на Србија –
Белград, Рс 104 (23 листа).28
Премченскиот требник потекнува од втората половина на 13. век. Содржи
делови од Требникот и препис од книжевно дело на свети Климент Охрид-
ски – Покаен канон за шести глас. Има 102 пергаментни листа, 165 х 110 мм.
Не е целосно зачуван. Писмото му е уставно, а правописот безјусов и едно-
еров. Содржи едноставни иницијали во црно-црвена боја. Места на чување:
Музеј на СПЦ – Белград, Груиќева збирка з I 65 (72 листа); Народна биб-
лиотека во Србија – Белград, Рс 103 (8 листа); Филолошки факултет „Блаже
Конески“ – Скопје, фгм 1 (2 листа) + 20 листа без сигнатура.29
Во Софиската народна библиотека под бр. 213 се чува фрагмент од Посен
триод од 13. век, по потекло од Кичевско, додека друг Посен триод од овој
крај, но од нешто поново време (14. век), на Софиската академија ѝ испра-
тил кичевскиот свештеник Николај Поп-Стефанов.30
Ракописите од манастирот Света Пречиста Кичевска може да се поделат
на три групи: стари ракописи од 15. и 16. век, пишувани со ресавски пра-
вопис, понови ракописи од 19. и почетокот на 20. век, пишувани на руска
варијанта на црковнословенскиот јазик со примеси на народен говор во
објаснувањата и насоките за нивна употреба и, тефтери пишувани на наро-
ден говор поретко украсен со црковнословенизми. Од нив ќе бидат издвое-
ни оние од првата група.
Споменикот Четвороевангелието 1 датира од 16. век, пишуван е со реса-
вски правопис и се чува во Универзитетската библиотека „Светозар Мар-

27 Македонски споменици со глаголско и со кирилско писмо, 62.

28 Ѓорѓи Поп-Атанасов, Словенски ракописи од Македонија во странски збирки X – XIX век
(Скопје: Македонска академија на науките и уметностите, 2017), 88-89.
29 Поп-Атанасов, Словенски ракописи, 102.
30 Поп-Атанасов, Словенски ракописи, 137.
263
 ковиќ“ во Белград, РС 64.31 Ова Четвороевангелие всушност е комбинација
од избрани евангелски текстови и избрани текстови од Апостолот, прис-
пособени за литургиска употреба. Ракописот содржи 109 сочувани листа,
почетокот и крајот недостасуваат, пишуван е на хартија со полууставно ки-
рилско писмо со црн и црвен колорит. Со ретки исклучоци секоја страни-
ца содржи по 22 реда, а писарот се трудел тие симетрично да завршуваат.
Илуминацијата на ракописот е сиромашна и ограничена само на флорални
мотиви на иницијалните букви. Во него нема заставки, цртежи, или украси
со зооморфни или тератолошки мотиви. Ракописот е пагиниран во долни-
от лев агол.
Псалтирот од манастирот Света Пречиста Кичевска потекнува од 15.
век, пишуван е со ресавски правопис и се чува во Универзитетската биб-
лиотека „Светозар Марковиќ“ во Белград, РС 65.32 Ракописот всушност е
комбинација од вообичените псалми, библиски песни и избрани молитви
и Акатисти. Псалтирот содржи 261 лист, пишуван е на хартија со уставно
кирилско писмо со црн и црвен колорит, а на 24v15 иницијалот е украсен
и со сино мастило. Со ретки исклучоци секоја страница содржи по 20 реда,
при што писарот се потрудил тие симетрично да завршуваат. Илуминација-
та на ракописот е едноставна и се ограничува само на флорални мотиви
на иницијалните букви, главно во вид на ситни листови и цветови. Споме-
никот не содржи украси со заставки, цртежи, или претстави со зооморфни
или тератолошки мотиви. Пагиниран е во долниот лев агол.
Четвороевангелието 2 датира од 16. век, пишувано е со ресавски право-
пис и се чува во Историскиот архив во Охрид.33 Ракописот содржи 290 листа,
пишуван е на хартија со уставно кирилско писмо со црн и црвен колорит.
Содржински Четвороевангелието 2 ги содржи четирите Евангелија со кра-
ток вовед и содржина пред нивниот сам почеток. Со ретки исклучоци секоја
страница содржи по 22 реда (некаде 20), а писарот се трудел тие симетрич-
но да завршуваат. Илуминацијата на иницијалните графеми е сиромашна и
ограничена, но затоа пак на почетокот од секое од четирите Евангелија има
богато украсени заставки. Цртежи и украси со зооморфни и тератолошки
мотиви нема. Споменикот е пагиниран во горниот десен агол.
Крнинскиот дамаскин временски датира од периодот помеѓу 1580 и 1610
година. Ракописот содржи 281 хартиен лист (а киевскиот дел од Зборникот
246 листа). Пишуван е со кирилско писмо. Насловите и иницијалите се со
црвено мастило, со извивки карактеристични за 16. век. Овој Зборник во
себе содржи дваесет, од вкупно триесет и шест опширни слова од зборни-
кот на Дамаскин Студит „Сокровиште“. Во манастирот Света Пречиста Ки-
чевска споменикот е пронајден во 1956 година, а бидејќи како што е познато
овој манастир се викал уште и Крнино, или Крнински манастир, Зборникот
31 Илиевски, “Просветната улога“, 30.
32 Илиевски, “Просветната улога“, 30.
33 Илиевски, “Просветната улога“, 30.

264
е наречен Крнински дамаскин. Се чува во Скопје, ИМЈ, инв. бр. 594.34
Киевскиот дамаскин потекнува од крајот на 16. век, пишуван е на 247 хар-
тиени листа, 315 х 210 мм со полууставно писмо. Правописот е двоеров, јусов
и со значително влијание на македонскиот народен говор во ортографијата
и јазикот. Пишуван е од една рака. Иницијалите се скромни од киноварен
тип. Подврзијата му е од штици во орнаментирана кожа. Од повеќето мар-
гинални и не толку битни записи се издвојува оној дека ракописот бил соп-
ственост на Топличкиот манастир - Свети Никола кај Демир Хисар. Овој
споменик од Македонија го зел архимандритот Антонин Капустин во 1865
година и го подарил на Киевската Духовна академија, каде што и своевре-
мено се образувал. Денес се наоѓа во Националната библиотека во Украина
– Киев, ф. 301, бр. 290.35
Ваквата богата средновековна христијанска просветна традиција во Ки-
чево и Кичевско оставила простор за развивање на духовните, културните и
просветните идеи подоцна. Така, во оваа област продефилирале низа мар-
кантни личности од своевремената научна елита во епохите на Просвети-
телството и на Преродбата. Ова пред сѐ се однесува на манастирот Света
Богородица – Пречиста.

34 Македонски споменици со глаголско и со кирилско писмо, 110.

35 Поп-Атанасов, Словенски ракописи, 375.

265