A Companion to the Patriarchate of Constantinople 2021011072, 2021011073, 9789004424432, 9789004424470

Citation preview

A Companion to the Patriarchate of Constantinople

Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World Managing Editor Wolfram Brandes

volume 9

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bcbw

A Companion to the Patriarchate of Constantinople Edited by

Christian Gastgeber Ekaterini Mitsiou Johannes Preiser-Kapeller Vratislav Zervan

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Signature of Patriarch Matthew I to his testament from September 1407 (Vienna, Austrian National Library, ms. hist. gr. 55, fol. 43r; c/o Austrian National Library; Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Medieval Studies, Archive of the Division of Byzantine Studies). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Gastgeber, Christian, editor. | Mitsiou, Ekaterini, editor. | Preiser-Kapeller, Johannes, editor. | Zervan, Vratislav, editor. Title: A companion to the Patriarchate of Constantinople / edited by Christian Gastgeber, Ekaterini Mitsiou, Johannes Preiser-Kapeller, Vratislav Zervan. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2021] | Series: Brill’s companions to the Byzantine world, 2212–7429 ; volume 9 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021011072 (print) | LCCN 2021011073 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004424432 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004424470 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Constantinople (Ecumenical patriarchate)—History. Classification: LCC BX410 .C64 2021 (print) | LCC BX410 (ebook) | DDC 262/.13—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021011072 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021011073

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 2212-7429 ISBN 978-90-04-42443-2 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-42447-0 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Sense, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau Verlag and V&R Unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Acknowledgments VII List of Illustrations viiI Notes on Contributors X 1

The Early Patriarchate (325–726) 1 Claudia Rapp

2

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period (843–1081) 24 Frederick Lauritzen

3

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204 42 Tia M. Kolbaba

4

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period (1204–1453) 63 Johannes Preiser-Kapeller

5

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches 84 Marie-Hélène Blanchet

6

Continuity and Change: The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 1 The Survival of a Byzantine Institution 103 Dimitris G. Apostolopoulos

7

Continuity and Change: The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 2 Institutions and Administration: Continuity and Rupture 118 Machi Païzi-Apostolopoulou

8

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Greek-Orthodox Patriarchates of the East 130 Klaus-Peter Todt

9

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans 151 Mihailo St. Popović

10

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries in the Middle Ages 183 Konstantinos Vetochnikov

vi

Contents

11

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power 204 Ekaterini Mitsiou

12

Patriarchs and Education 226 Vratislav Zervan

13

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: The State of Research on Byzantine Documents of the Patriarchs of Constantinople 246 Christian Gastgeber General Bibliography 287 Maps 295 Index of Persons 297 Index of Place Names 305 Index of Greek, Latin and Turkish Terms 308 Index of Regest Numbers (Patriachal and Imperial Chancery) 311 Index of Manuscripts 320

Acknowledgments We thank the managing editor of Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World, Wolfram Brandes, who accepted to include this volume to his new series, and the authors of the individual chapters for their cooperation and patience. Unfortunately, not all invited scholars were able to contribute to this volume. Further thanks goes to the former and current editorial staff, in particular Julian Deahl, Irini Argirouli, Alessandra Giliberto and Lloyd Cabasag, for their tireless support, and to Michael Mulryan for having copyedited all texts. Finally, we thank the anonymous peer reviewer for his critical discussion of the contributions and a number of valuable suggestions.

Illustrations Figures 13.1 13.2

13.3

13.4 13.5

13.6 13.7

13.8

13.9 13.10 13.11 13.12

Menologem of Patriarch Manuel II (1252); Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1387 (a. 1267) (Patmos 3, ed. Gerolymatou, pin. 11, no. 4) 266 Menologem of Patriarch John XII Kosmas (1298) or Niphon I (1313), copy of a chrysobullos logos of Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (June 1298), confirmed on its verso by the patriarch; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2016 (Documents Lavra 2, ed. Lemerle, Guillou, Svoronos, Papachryssanthou, pl. 103, no. 89 B; see also their comment on p. 72) 266 Menologem of Patriarch Isaias (1325); Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2129 (Documents Iviron 3, eds. Lefort, Oikonomidès, Papachryssanthou, Kravari, and Métrévéli, pl. 66, no. 83) 266 Menologem of Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (1369); Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2548 (Documents Pantrocrator, ed. Kravari, pl. 8, no. 8) 267 Menologem of Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (1370)?; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2587 (Documents Docheiariou, ed., Oikonomidès, pl. 44, no. 39; see also his comment about the dating on p. 222) 267 Menologem of Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (1375); Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2662 (Documents Docheiariou, ed. Oikonomidès, pl. 50, no. 43) 267 Menologem of Patriarch Antony IV (1392); Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2903 (Documents Lavra 3, eds. Lemerle, Guillou, Svoronos, and Papachryssanthou, pl. 197, no. 152) 267 Menologem of Patriarch Antony IV (1395); Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2990 (Documents Vatopedi 3, eds. Lefort (†), Smyrlis, Giros, Kravari, and Estangüi, pl. 24, no. 172) 268 Menologem of Patriarch Antony IV (1395); Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3002 (Documents Kutlumus, ed. Lemerle, pl. 61, no. 41) 268 Menologem of Patriarch Antony IV (1396); Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3024 (Documents Pantokrator, ed. Kravari, pin. 32, no. 23) 268 Menologem of Patriarch Matthew I (1403); Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3266 (Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, no. 97) 268 First preserved authentic menologem of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1092) at the end of the document (right part), followed by the recognition note legimus of the epi tu kanikleiou (in red ink, too); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1168d (Documents Lavra 1, eds. Lemerle, Guillou, Svoronos, and Papachryssanthou, pl. 52, no. 51) 269

Illustrations

ix

13.13 Menologem of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1146); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1348 (Dölger, Facsimiles, tab. III, no. 5) 269 13.14 Menologem of Emperor Isaac II Angelos (1192); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1610 (Dölger, Facsimiles, tab. IV, no. 7) 269 13.15 Menologem of Emperor Alexios III Angelos (1199); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1649 (Dölger, Facsimiles, tab. V, no. 8) 269 13.16 Menologem of Emperor Theodore I Laskaris (1214); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1687 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 47, no. 23) 269 13.17 Menologem of Emperor John III Doukas Vatatzes (1244); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1783 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 47, no. 24) 270 13.18 Menologem of Emperor John IV Doukas Laskaris (1258); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1854 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 48, no. 25) 270 13.19 Menologem of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (1262); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1910 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 51, no. 29) 270 13.20 Menologem of Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1283); Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2094 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 59, no. 41) 270 13.21 Menologem of Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1290); Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2142a (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 60, no. 42) 271 13.22 Menologem of Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos (1340); Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2845 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 61, no. 44) 271 13.23 Menologem of Emperor John V Palaiologos (1375); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3145 (Documents Docheiariou, ed. Oikonomidès, pl. 51, no. 44) 271 13.24 Menologem of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1414); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3344 (Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammer, no. 23) 272 13.25 Menologem of Emperor John VIII Palaiologos (1445); Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3509 (Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, no. 26) 272

Maps 1 2

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and neighbouring churches in the Middle Ages (map designed by Johannes Preiser Kapeller) 295 The Patriarchate of Constantinople and neighbouring churches in the Middle Ages, detail (map designed by Johannes Preiser Kapeller) 296

Notes on Contributors Claudia Rapp is Professor of Byzantine Studies, University of Vienna and Director of the Division of Byzantine Research of the Institute for Medieval Research (IMAFO), Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Vienna. Her research focuses on the social, religious and cultural history of Byzantium. Her publications include Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2005, reprinted 2013) and Brother-Making in Late Antiquity and Byzantium (Oxford, 2016). Frederick Lauritzen read classics at New College, Oxford (1996–2000, BA, MA) and obtained a doctorate in classics from Columbia University in New York (2000–2005 MA, Mphil, PhD) with a thesis on the Chronographia of Michael Psellos (published in 2013). From 2008 to 2014 he was a post-doctoral researcher at the Fondazione per le Scienze Religiose Giovanni XXIII of Bologna where he worked on the Synods of the Orthodox Church. Since 2017 he has been historian at the Scuola Grande di San Marco in Venice. Tia M. Kolbaba is Associate Professor and former Chair in the Department of Religion, Rutgers University. Her research focuses on the history of the Byzantine Church, its relations with the Western Church, and Byzantine anti-heretical texts. Her recent publications include Inventing Latin Heretics. Byzantines and the Filioque in the Ninth century (Kalamazoo, 2008), and “East Roman Anti-Armenian Polemic, Ninth to Eleventh Centuries,” Journal of Orthodox Christian Studies 3 (2020), 121–173. Johannes Preiser-Kapeller Ph.D. (2006), is research group leader at the Division of Byzantine Studies of the Institute for Medieval Research (IMAFO) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Vienna. His latest publications include the edited volume Migration Histories of the Medieval Afroeurasian Transition Zone (Leiden, 2020). Marie-Hélène Blanchet Ph.D. (2005), is Research Director at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Paris, Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMR) 8167 Orient et Méditerranée. She specializes in late Byzantine history, her major publications include Georges-Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400–vers 1472). Un intellectuel

Notes on Contributors

xi

orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’Empire byzantin (Paris, 2008), and Théodore Agallianos, Dialogue avec un moine contre les Latins (1442). Édition critique, traduction française et commentaire (Paris, 2013). Dimitris G. Apostolopoulos Ph.D. on Political Sciences (1976) and on History of Law (1978), is Research Director Em. at the Institute of Historical Research, Section of Neohellenic Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation in Athens/Greece (EIE). He specializes in the history of law and ideology in the Greek society during the Ottoman rule and in the reception of the Enlightenment ideas in Southeast Europe (18th–19th c.). His recent publications include: (with M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou) Οι Πράξεις του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Επιτομή—Παράδοση—Σχολιασμός, I. 1454–1498 / Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. Les regestes de 1454 à 1498 (Athens, 2013), and Ευγενίου του Βουλγάρεως, Επιστολάριον—Collectio Epistolica Α΄. Τα κείμενα του πρώτου τόμου σε τυπογραφική μεταγραφή από το προσωπικό του χειρόγραφο / Eugenios Voulgaris’ Letterbook (Epistolarion)—Collectio Epistolica I (Athens, 2020). Machi Païzi-Apostolopoulou Ph.D. (1993), is Research Director Em. at the Institute of Historical Research, Section of Neohellenic Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation in Athens/Greece (EIE). She specializes in the history of the Greek society under Ottoman rule, in the patriarchal chancellery (15th–17th c.), and in the institutions and the intellectual production of Greek people during this period. Her recent publications include: (with D.G. Apostolopoulos), Επίσημα κείμενα του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Τα σωζόμενα από την περίοδο 1454–1498 (Official Texts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople 1454–1498) (Athens, 2011, 22016) and Γεωργίου Καστριώτη, του επιλεγομένου Σκεντέρμπεη, Βίος και πολιτεία. Μια αθησαύριστη βιογραφία στα ελληνικά (George Kastriota Scanderbeg. An unknown biography in Greek) (Athens, 2018). Klaus-Peter Todt Ph.D. (1989), is ‘Privat-Dozent’ at the University of Mainz, Germany. He specializes in the administrative and ecclesiastical history of Byzantium, Syria and the Melkite Patriarchates. His recent publications include the monograph Dukat und griechisch-orthodoxes Patriarchat von Antiocheia in mittelbyzantinischer Zeit (969–1084) (Mainz, 2020).

xii

Notes on Contributors

Mihailo St. Popović Doz. Mag. Ph.D. (2005), is the project leader of the Tabula Imperii Byzantini (TIB) Balkans as well as of related sub-projects and scholarly co-worker at the Division of Byzantine Research of the Institute for Medieval Research (IMAFO) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Vienna. His expertise includes amongst others Byzantine studies, medieval history of the Balkans, historical geography and digital humanities. Konstantinos Vetochnikov Ph.D. in Theology (2001) and in History (2010), is ‘ingénieur d’études’ at the Byzantine Library of the Collège de France. He is specialized in byzantine church history, byzantine church diplomatic and canon law with a particular focus on the relationship between the Byzantine and the Russian church. Ekaterini Mitsiou Ph.D. (2006), is researcher at University of Vienna. Her latest publications include the edited volume Women and monasticism in the medieval Eastern Mediterranean: Decoding a cultural map (Athens, 2019). Vratislav Zervan Ph.D. (2014), is project collaborator and researcher at the Division of Byzantine Studies of the Institute for Medieval Research (IMAFO) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Vienna. His latest publication is the edited volume Die Lehnwörter im Wortschatz der spätbyzantinischen historiographischen Literatur (Berlin/Boston, 2019). Christian Gastgeber Doz.Ph.D. (2001), is research group leader at the Division of Byzantine Studies of the Institute for Medieval Research (IMAFO) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ÖAW), Vienna. His recent publications include a commentary on the new facsimile edition of the Greek Vienna Genesis (Luzern, 2019).

chapter 1

The Early Patriarchate (325–726) Claudia Rapp 1

State of Research

The first centuries in the history of the patriarchate of Constantinople have traditionally been treated in the multiple geo-political contexts of ecclesiastical power politics against the background of larger religious and political developments. These four centuries (325–726) saw the Christianization of the Roman Empire initiated by Constantine the Great, the great Christological controversies debated at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451), and the ongoing competition for influence between the five patriarchates, that eventually boiled down to frequent periods of sparring between Rome and Constantinople. From historical hindsight, these developments appear— among later Byzantine authors as much as among modern scholars—as precedent-setting for a wide range of issues, ranging from the ideal of the ecumenicity of the Church, to the ‘parting of ways’ and, eventually, the ‘Great Schism’ between East and West. The early patriarchate is usually included in overview studies that address these larger phenomena, for example those by Joan Hussey or Hans-Georg Beck. More focused studies, such as those by Raymond Janin and Jean Darrouzès, deal with the development of the Church of Constantinople against the background of the foundation of the city and its urban growth, and with the administrative authority of the episcopal see of Constantinople over its ecclesiastical province. The studies by Francis Dvornik and Gilbert Dagron, by contrast, are concerned with the relationship between Church and State in Byzantium, as these early centuries constitute a period of experimentation in the interaction between the emperor in Constantinople and his ecclesiastical counterpart. Entries in dictionaries and prosopographies (e.g. the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire) assemble biographical data from different sources for some, but not all of the patriarchs of this period. There are, however, no comprehensive, stand-alone studies of the early patriarchate of Constantinople that address both the internal developments of the see and its larger role in the different contexts of urban, regional, and

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_002

2

Rapp

empire-wide religious and political developments. The following pages represent a first, very brief attempt. 2

Periodization

The bookends for the early patriarchate are the foundation of Constantinople, on the one hand, and the beginning of Iconoclasm on the other. Scholarship has traditionally subdivided this period in different ways, depending on focus. From the viewpoint of the development of theological doctrine, the 4th century is dominated by the Arian controversy, while the Chalcedonian conflict determined much of the 5th century. The following centuries were occupied by attempts to mend the schism that the Council of Chalcedon had brought to Christendom: the neo-Chalcedonian debate in the 6th century and the debate over Monoenergism and Monotheletism in the 7th century. From the viewpoint of the expansion of the radius of influence of the see of Constantinople, our period can be subdivided into three phases: 1. from the foundation of Constantinople until 381; 2. from the Council of Constantinople in 381 to the Council of Chalcedon; and 3. from 451 to the beginning of Iconoclasm.1 In the first phase, the Church in Constantinople rose from the obscurity of a simple episcopal see to the prominence accorded an imperial capital on the same footing as Rome itself. During the second phase, the bishops of Constantinople intervened actively in the appointments and ordinations of the dioceses that were placed under their control: Thrace with its metropolis Herakleia, Asia with its metropolis Ephesos, and Pontos with its metropolis Kaisareia. With the Council of Chalcedon, which initiates the third phase, the authority of the bishop of Constantinople over the metropolitans and bishops in the three nearest dioceses, already declared in 381, was affirmed. Effectively, this placed the Church of Constantinople at the head of its former rivals within the East, and on a par with Rome. The long third phase, that begins in 451, also saw the reign of the Emperor Justinian, who, like no emperor before him, took it as his responsibility to regulate all aspects of the Church, whether administrative or theological. This was followed a century later by a new model of religious and political collaboration between the Emperor Herakleios and Patriarch Sergios at a time of dire external threat. A final milestone was the Council in Trullo (692), whose canons reflect a political and religious culture steeped in Christianity. Both the doctrinal-theological and the institutionalpolitical developments that are at the basis of these two chronological models, 1 Janin, “Formation”.

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

3

however, occur on the basis of internal developments within the episcopal see of Constantinople. These form the basis of its rise to prominence in the life of the empire, and will therefore also be included in the following discussion. 3

The Growth of the Church in the Mediterranean Context

It is important to recall that at the beginning of our period, Christianity was a minority religion, followed, at a generous estimate, by only 10 per cent of the population. People largely converted to Christianity as adults. Imperial legislation officially ended public temple worship in the 390s, but still in the 6th century, prominent men followed the ancient religion and its cultural values. Greco-Roman ritual practices were outlawed for the last time at the Council in Trullo in 692.2 Against this background of slow, but steady growth in numbers, the administrative organization of the Church underwent significant development. The hierarchy of offices and grades of consecration that culminated in the position of the bishop (episkopos) was well established already by the end of the 2nd century. But it was only after the Emperor Constantine (306–37) had legitimized the Christian religion, granted favors to the Christian bishops, and affirmed their competence to exercise limited responsibility in some of the public affairs of their cities, that the Church gained traction as an institution. The territorial administration of the Church mirrored the regional divisions of the later Roman Empire. Every large city had a bishop, while the bishop of the largest city in each province had the administrative rank of metropolitan. The see of Constantinople was a latecomer to this scene. Its first historicallyattested bishop was Metrophanes I, during whose episcopate Constantine founded the city that would bear his name: ‘Constantinople’ (‘City of Constantine’). At that time, the see of Constantinople was under the authority of the metropolitan of Thrace with his see in Herakleia; this changed with the Council of Constantinople in 381. The episcopal see of Constantinople was removed from the authority of the metropolitan of Herakleia in the diocese of Thrace and put above that of the three dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. The bishops present at the council would have regarded this measure as a continuation of a long trajectory of regional ecclesiastical politics. From the vantage point of scholarly hindsight, however, it has been interpreted as a decisive turning point in the growth of the authority of the see of Constantinople.3 2 Hopkins, “Christian Number”. 3 McLynn, “Two Romes”.

4

Rapp

This provision was reinforced, not without protest from Rome, at the Council of Chalcedon: The Fathers appropriately accorded privileges to the see of Senior Rome because it was the imperial city and, moved by the same intent, the 150 most God-beloved bishops assigned equal privileges to the most holy see of New Rome, rightly judging that the city which is honoured with the imperial government and the senate and enjoys equal privileges with imperial Senior Rome should be exalted like her in ecclesiastical affairs as well, being second after her, with the consequence that the metropolitans alone of the Pontic, Asian and Thracian dioceses, and also the bishops from aforesaid dioceses in barbarian lands, are to be consecrated by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church at Constantinople …4 The first to sign the protocol of this session was “Anatolius bishop of Constantinople New Rome”, using his new title. Henceforth, the patriarch (as I will now call him for the sake of convenience and clarity, although there was no fixed nomenclature for the administrative ranks of bishop, metropolitan, and patriarch until the 5th century) had to approve the appointments of metropolitans in these three dioceses, and had to participate in their consecration. In cases of complaint against the clergy in these dioceses, it was the patriarch who acted as the final instance of appeal. Interestingly, Canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon granted Constantinople appellate jurisdiction even over the provinces of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and autocephalous Cyprus, suggesting that this option extended also to all the other dioceses in the empire: “If anyone is wronged by his own metropolitan, he is to plead his case before the exarch of the diocese or the see of Constantinople.”5 At the end of our period, in the

4 “καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῷ κινούμενοι οἱ ρν´ θεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς νέας Ῥώμης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσαν πόλιν καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασιν δευτέραν μετ’ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆς Θραικικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ προειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας …” (Council of Chalcedon, Session 17.8, ed. Schwartz 2.1, p. 448, trans. Price and Gaddis, vol. 3, p. 76, with discussion, pp. 67–73). 5 “εἰ δέ τις ἀδικοῖτο παρὰ τοῦ ἰδίου μητροπολίτου, παρὰ τῷ ἐξάρχῳ τῆς διοικήσεως ἢ τῷ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θρόνῳ δικαζέσθω” (Council of Chalcedon, canon 17, ed. Schwartz 2.1, p. 357, trans. Price and Gaddis, vol. 3, p. 100. See also Council of Chalcedon, canon 9, ed. Schwartz 2.1, p. 356,

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

5

7th century, the patriarch in Constantinople was the head of 33 metropoleis, 34 autocephalous archbishoprics, and 352 episcopal sees.6 The elevation of Constantinople to a rank of honor that followed immediately after that of Rome set the Church of Constantinople on a path of rivalry with that of Rome. In 545, it was even given the force of imperial law by its insertion into Justinian’s law code as Novel 131.2.7 As political circumstances permitted, the patriarch of Constantinople challenged the claim of the pope in Rome to greater authority and often met with harsh rebuttal, for instance during the papacies of Leo I and Gregory the Great. A constant area of contention in the rivalry between Constantinople and Rome was the diocese of Illyricum, with its metropolitan see in the important city of Thessaloniki. The see of Constantinople made intermittent attempts to assert its authority in this region, but it was only in 732–33 that Emperor Leo III definitively claimed it for Constantinople, thus fueling the tensions with Rome that would worsen in the course of the Iconoclast controversy. It has been calculated that during the 464 years from 323 to 787, the Eastern Church was not in unity with the Church of Rome for 203 years.8 During the Acacian Schism that drove a rift between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople in the second half of the 5th century, Rome underscored its claim to primacy with reference to its foundation by the Apostle Peter. Constantinople responded slowly to the Western argument of priority based on apostolicity. The legend of the foundation of its Church by the Apostle Andrew, the brother of Peter, began to take definitive shape only in the late 6th and early 7th centuries.9 The legend developed that he made his disciple Stachys, for whom there is no contemporary evidence, the first bishop of the city on the Bosphorus. By Christian tradition, the bishops of those large and influential cities that could claim their roots in the apostolic age held greater authority than their counterparts elsewhere: Jerusalem and Antioch with their New Testament credentials; Alexandria as founded by the Apostle Mark; and Rome as founded by the Apostle Peter. Constantinople joined these sees to form part of the

6 7 8 9

trans. Price and Gaddis, vol. 3, p. 97, with further commentary). For a Latin version of these canons, see Council of Chalcedon, ed. Schwartz 2.2, p. 127 and pp. 137–38. This is recorded in the Descriptio orbis Romani, a 7th-century list that purports to have been composed in the 4th century, and is preserved in an Armenian version of the 9th century. See Notitiae episcopatuum, ed. Darrouzès, passim, with Hussey, Orthodox Church, pp. 310–12. Janin, “Formation”, pp. 214–16, without further references. Janin, “Formation”, p. 218. Dvornik, Apostolicity. Earlier authors had merely recognized Andrew as an important apostle, but without making any explicit association with Constantinople.

6

Rapp

pentarchy (‘rule of five’) of patriarchal sees that vied with each other for doctrinal and political influence, but always with the implicit understanding that they operated within the same organizational framework and had the right to intervene in each other’s affairs.10 The two most prominent instances for an appeal to Rome occurred in the early 5th and in the mid-7th century: after John Chrysostom had been deposed from the see of Constantinople and exiled, his supporters travelled to Rome in the hope of gaining support. During the Monothelete controversy of the 7th century, theologians from Palestine and Cyprus—who refused to adopt the imperially sanctioned view that the solution to the Christological debate of Chalcedon was the concept of one divine will (thelema)—flocked to Rome, where they found a warm welcome. The result was the convocation of the Lateran Synod of 649 to discuss this issue. It was attended by the eastern theologian Maximus Confessor and its meetings were conducted in Greek. The unity of the Church throughout the empire was enacted and affirmed at the ecumenical councils. They were convened by the emperor and brought together the bishops from all the corners of Christendom (including the regions beyond his imperial control) for the discussion of doctrinal issues and to achieve consensus on matters of internal discipline. Underlining the religious unity of the pentarchy is the fact that, until the 5th century, the common language used at the ecumenical church councils was Greek, with an authoritative Latin translation being produced in Constantinople after the conclusion of each council.11 While the reach of the patriarch’s power expanded from Constantinople to its neighboring regions and then to the entire East, his precise responsibilities beyond the borders of the empire belong to the grey zone where regional, imperial, and ecclesiastical interests converge.12 Christian missions outside the empire occurred for much of the 4th and 5th centuries not as a concerted effort spearheaded by the patriarchate of Constantinople, but at the initiative of individuals from various regions of the empire to bring their faith to their immediate neighbors. This changed with Justinian’s attempts to send his missionaries to the Kingdom of Nobatia in Lower Nubia. In later centuries,

10 11 12

Herrin, Formation. The concept of the ‘pentarchy’ was fully articulated only in the 11th century; see Beck, Kirche, p. 34. Millar, Greek Roman Empire, pp. 97–107. Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28, ed. Schwartz 2.1, p. 448, also included patriarchal responsibility for “the bishops of the aforementioned dioceses en tois barbarikois”. See Dagron, Naissance, pp. 483–84 for a detailed discussion of this problematic passage and its interpretation.

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

7

the patriarch of Constantinople’s responsibility for Christian missions would become a further indication of his position at the center of political power. The title the patriarch assumed for himself grew in grandeur along with his position: first ‘archbishop of Constantinople’; after 448 ‘archbishop of Constantinople New Rome’; and, from the beginning of the 6th century, ‘archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and ecumenical patriarch’. Long before then, in fact since the 4th century, the use of the adjective ‘ecumenical’, in conjunction with the title ‘patriarch’ as an honorific form of address, had been used occasionally by other bishops, clergy, or laymen when they addressed the bishops of Alexandria, Rome, or Constantinople.13 The first bishop of Constantinople to employ the title ‘ecumenical patriarch’ in his official correspondence was John IV the Faster. His successors, however, used it only rarely, even in their correspondence with Rome. It became part of the patriarch’s official titulature only in the 9th century, under Photios. By the 6th century, the Byzantines themselves had developed not only the foundation legend of their Church by the Apostle Andrew, but also a sense of historical continuity of the patriarchal see. They began to create lists of their patriarchs, which were included in manuscripts for the use of clergy. The earliest such list, claiming to be the work of Dorotheos of Tyre, was composed in the late 5th or early 6th century by the priest Prokopios.14 It is no coincidence that this historicizing effort to claim an unbroken continuity since the apostolic age, became manifest at a time when the patriarchs of Constantinople had consolidated their power over the Church of the entire Greek East. 4

The Patriarch in Constantinople

At the beginning of our period, in 325, Constantinople did not yet exist under that name. It was only in 326 that the Emperor Constantine began to pour money and other resources into the ancient town of Byzantion in order to create a further imperial residence in the East, in addition to Thessaloniki and Antioch. He made provision for the construction of the first three churches in the city: Hagia Sophia (the original building of 360 was burnt in 404, its successor destroyed in 532, and replaced by Justinian’s magnificent building that is still standing today), Saint Irene (which also formed part of the patriarchal building complex), and the Church of the Holy Apostles that was to serve as the emperor’s burial place. In the course of the next centuries, the ecclesiastical 13 14

Vailhe, “Titre”. Fischer, Catalogi; Janin, “Constantinople”, col. 634–35.

8

Rapp

landscape of Constantinople expanded dramatically, the 5th century being the period of greatest growth in the construction of churches and the foundation of monasteries, here as elsewhere. By the time of Justinian, Constantinople had grown into the largest city along the Mediterranean rim, with c.400,000 inhabitants and 76 monasteries.15 Its many churches and chapels began to be filled with saints’ relics. Harbors and market squares contributed to its role as a hub for trade and commerce. The imperial palace, immediately to the south of Hagia Sophia, was an agglomeration of structures that included private residences as well as reception halls designed to impress locals and visitors alike. While the city of Rome experienced contraction and decline as a result of raids, invasions, and political upheavals, Constantinople could claim to be not only New Rome, but also a New Jerusalem, a magnet for Christian visitors and pilgrims from all over the oikoumene (literally ‘the inhabited world’). The epidemics of the 6th century and the warfare against the Sassanians, and soon thereafter against the Arabs in the 7th century, brought this period of growth to a dramatic halt. The population declined in number and building patronage became scarce. With the growth of Constantinople, the role of its bishop within the city also gained in importance.16 According to tradition, bishops were elected by the clergy and people of the city where their see was located, along with the bishops of their province. Increasingly since the late 5th century, however, the voice of the people was limited to the vote of the leading citizens (archontes), part of a general tendency towards the domination of local politics by a small elite. From the late 4th century, as the court ceased to be itinerant and Constantinople became its permanent residence, the emperor also began to play a larger role in Church matters and the appointment of the patriarch. Soon, it was he who made the final selection of the future bishop of his capital city, from a slate of three candidates presented to him by the metropolitans of the sees that belonged to Constantinople and who were represented in the synodos endemousa. It was also within the emperor’s power to appoint a different candidate of his own choice. The procedure for the consecration (i.e., the liturgical affirmation of the selection process) of the patriarch, as determined in Canon 4 of the Council of Nicaea, was essentially the same as for that of other bishops, at least at the beginning of our period: the imposition of hands by at least three other bishops. If the patriarch-elect did not yet hold episcopal rank, his ordination to the episcopate was performed by 15 16

Janin, Constantinople, col. 627. For the growth and administration of the church in its political context, see Jones, Later Roman Empire, vol. 2, pp. 873–937.

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

9

the Metropolitan of Herakleia, a bow to the latter’s historical position as the highest-ranking bishop of the diocese to which Constantinople belonged. The newly-consecrated patriarch honored the bishops and clergy involved in his appointment with financial donations. Although they were not technically bribes, these payments, which were customary at any episcopal appointment, must have been significant. Justinian limited them to 20 pounds of gold or less, depending on the wealth of the see.17 There is no evidence in our period for the ritual installation of the patriarch by the emperor, analogous to the description given by Pseudo-Kodinos for the 14th century. The patriarch’s liturgical vestments in our period were still those of a bishop; in addition to the priestly garments (sticharion, epitrachelion, phelonion), he also wore the episcopal omophorion, a wide stole decorated with crosses that fell over the front and back of his left shoulder. There was at this time no distinctive headgear.18 Once installed, the patriarch had to contend with the forces in Constantinople: population, monks, and clergy. As the monasteries in Constantinople grew in number, monastic leaders often had their own loyal following of supporters whom they were able to mobilize in a confrontation. If the patriarch encountered the resistance or the anger of the population, this could easily lead to unrest in the city and might even cost him his see. Several patriarchs were faced with strong and vociferous criticism, some for their doctrinal stance, others for their administration, yet others for their excessively lavish lifestyle. The patriarch played a direct role in the spiritual wellbeing of his flock. He regularly celebrated the Sunday liturgy in Hagia Sophia and preached from the ambo. Many patriarchs were admired by contemporaries and posterity alike for their rhetorical skill and their theological insight (hence the epithet ‘golden mouth’ for John Chrysostom), so that their sermons are preserved to the present day. The patriarch was also responsible for the moral conduct of his people. A law of Justinian—issued in 544 when the city was afflicted by a severe epidemic and it seemed expedient to find scapegoats—stipulated that men engaged in male-male sex should confess before the patriarch and do penance.19 The clergy of Constantinople, just like that of the provinces of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus after 381, were subordinate to the jurisdiction of their patriarch. Justinian distinguished three levels: the first administrative unit was the Great 17 18 19

Justinian, Novels, nov. 123.3 (546), eds. Schöll and Kroll, pp. 597–98. Distinctive dress according to rank in the ecclesiastical hierarchy of offices would only become common after the 11th century, see Woodfin, Embodied Icon, pp. 13–20, 163–66. Justinian, Novels, nov. 141, eds. Schöll and Kroll, pp. 703–4.

10

Rapp

Church (which included Hagia Sophia, the Church of Saint Irene, the Church of the Theotokos, and the Church of Saint Theodore). The second group were “the other churches whose maintenance the Great Church undertakes”,20 but who had their own, independent clergy, often according to the wishes of their founders. And finally, there was a third group of “other churches which have their upkeep and maintenance from the most holy Great Church”.21 5

Finances

The patriarch’s residence and offices were attached to the Church of Hagia Sophia where he also celebrated the liturgy.22 At the time of John Chrysostom, the pious noblewoman Olympias and the 250 women (including four in the rank of the diaconate) who were attached to her ascetic establishment, catered to the daily needs of the men in the adjacent patriarchate.23 The patriarchate of Constantinople continuously grew in wealth, although accurate estimates were difficult to come by even at the time. Gregory of Nazianzus commented sarcastically after his resignation from the patriarchate of Constantinople: … all were talking about the enormous wealth which the principal churches in the world had been storing up as treasure from the beginning—treasures and revenue from all over the place—and the fact that I could find no account of them in the records of my predecessors who had been in charge of that church, nor in those of the new treasurers in whose hands these matters lay.24 Like all bishoprics, the Church in Constantinople received income from the faithful in its province. Legislation since the time of Constantine treated churches as legal entities, and thus enabled them to receive donations and 20 21 22 23 24

“in aliis autem omnibus ecclesiis, quarum expensas sanctissima maior ecclesia facit”, Justinian, Novels, nov. 3.2, eds. Schöll and Kroll, p. 22. “sed neque in aliis ecclesiis, quaecumque emolumentum et expensas habent a sanctissima maiore ecclesia”, Justinian, Novels, nov. 3.2, eds. Schöll and Kroll, p. 22, with interpretation of the chapters 3.1–2 (ibid., pp. 20–23) by Jones, Later Roman Empire, p. 901. See also Dagron, Naissance, p. 487–517. Life of Olympias 6–8, ed. Malingrey, pp. 418–423. “Τὸ δ’ ἐκ τοσούτων χρημάτων θρυλουμένων, / ὧν οἱ μέγιστοι τῆς ὅλης οἰκουμένης / ναῶν ἐθησαύριζον ἐκ παντὸς χρόνου, / κειμηλίων τε καὶ πόρων τῶν πάντοθεν / οὐδ’ ὁντινοῦν λογισμὸν ἐν τοῖς γράμμασιν / εὑρόντα τῶν πρὶν προστατῶν ἐκκλησίας, / οὔτ’ ἐν ταμίαις νέοις, ἐν οἷς τὰ πράγματα”, Gregory of Nazianzen, De vita sua 1475–81, ed. Jungck, p. 126; trans. White, p. 119.

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

11

bequests, preferably of income-generating properties. A further source of funds was the clergy itself, because bishops were expected to donate their private property to the church. By the late 5th century, bishops and priests exerted great pressure, even to the threat of excommunication, on the faithful to produce ‘offerings’ on a regular basis, almost like a tax, until imperial legislation intervened.25 It seems that tithing was never required in Byzantium, however. The properties amassed by the Church were nonetheless considerable, and posed no small temptation for financial manipulation. Justinian reinforced legislation by his predecessors which aimed to impose greater control on the financial dealings of the patriarchate of Constantinople. He prohibited sales, mortgages, exchanges of property or leases of church property, except in special circumstances, and then only under the condition that the transaction was properly registered before an imperial financial officer in the presence of all the clergy of the relevant institution.26 However, Justinian later revoked this law, and, on another occasion, allowed the Church of Constantinople to rent out, at a reduced rate, houses in a ruinous state of preservation.27 The patriarchate’s possessions consisted largely of income-producing properties such as land, vineyards, and mills. In Constantinople alone, this included control over 1100 workshops or small businesses. Since many of these possessions were scattered throughout the empire, this effectively extended the reach of patriarchal influence to an empire-wide scale. It also required the appointment of local administrators.28 Other forms of wealth came in the form of donations of precious objects, especially to the patriarchal Church of Hagia Sophia. The value of the silver candelabras, revetments, and other objects must have been significant. In 621, all this church silver was melted down to raise funds for Herakleios’ campaign against the Sasanian Empire. After his victory ten years later, the emperor compensated the Church by allocating an annual subsidy to the clergy.29 Significant expenditures were the lighting of the churches, the upkeep of buildings, and—increasingly since the 5th century—the maintenance of charitable institutions, such as hospitals, hostels for travelers, orphanages, and

25 26 27 28 29

Codex Iustinianus 1.3.38.2–5, ed. Krüger, pp. 24–25; Jones, Later Roman Empire, p. 895, assumes that this refers to regular extractions equivalent to tithes. Justinian, Novels, nov. 7 (535), eds. Schöll and Kroll, pp. 48–64, with Jones, Later Roman Empire, p. 897. Justinian, Novels, nov. 46 (537), and nov. 120.1 and 6 (544), eds. Schöll and Kroll, pp. 280– 282, 578–591 with Jones, Later Roman Empire, p. 897. Justinian, Novels, nov. 43 and 59, eds. Schöll and Kroll, pp. 269–273, 316–324. Nikephoros, Short History 19, ed. Mango, pp. 66–69.

12

Rapp

homes for the elderly, although many of these were also private foundations or received imperial funding. 6

Administration

The patriarch depended on a very substantial supporting staff of clergy that served the four patriarchal churches, often referred to collectively as the ‘Great Church’: Hagia Sophia, the Church of Saint Irene, the Church of the Theotokos, and the Church of Saint Theodore. By the 6th century, the number of clergy attached to the patriarchate had grown out of proportion, and paying them put such a strain on its finances that Justinian addressed this situation by limiting the clergy of the patriarchal complex. The slate was still substantial, consisting of 60 priests, 100 deacons, 40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 110 readers, 25 singers, and 100 doorkeepers, and this count does not even include administrative posts.30 Emperor Herakleios, confronted with a similar issue in 612, defined the patriarch’s administrative staff as follows: 2 synkelloi, 2 cancellarii, 10 ekdikoi, 12 referendarioi, 40 notarioi, and 12 skeuophylakes.31 The clergy in Constantinople also included the synodos endemousa (literally: ‘sitting synod’, also translated as ‘home synod’). It consisted of the bishops from all over Christendom who happened to be in Constantinople and who were expected to assist in ecclesiastical decisions.32 At the Council of Chalcedon, Patriarch Anatolios explained how this had developed: “The custom had prevailed from of old that, when the occasion calls for it, the most holy bishops staying in the renowned city come together about church matters that arise, decide each one, and provide plaintiffs with a response.”33 The home synod was a body with a fluctuating membership and its meetings were held as needed, at irregular intervals. One of its tasks was to assist the patriarch in the adjudication of cases of appeal. Its most influential role was the appointment of metropolitans and autocephalous archbishops throughout the empire. Probably beginning from the 7th century, it also prepared the shortlist of

30 31 32 33

Justinian, Novels, nov. 3.1 (535), eds. Schöll and Kroll, pp. 20–21. Dölger, Müller, Preiser-Kapeller, and Riehle, Regesten, reg. 165. Hajjar, Synode permanent. “Συνήθεια ἄνωθεν κεκράτηκεν τοὺς ἐνδημοῦντας τῆι μεγαλωνύμωι πόλει ἁγιωτάτους ἐπισκόπους ἡνίκα καιρὸς καλέσοι, περὶ ἀνακυπτόντων τινῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων συνεῖναι καὶ διατυποῦν ἕκαστα καὶ ἀποκρίσεως ἀξιοῦν τοὺς δεομένους.” (Council of Chalcedon, session 19.32, ed. Schwartz 2.1, p. 466, trans. Price and Gaddis, vol. 2, p. 178).

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

13

three candidates for a new patriarchal appointment that was presented to the emperor who then made his final selection.34 The synodos endemousa rose to importance in the last decades of the 4th century, during the same decades when Constantinople’s role as imperial capital was consolidated and its ecclesiastical supremacy over the neighboring regions was affirmed. A possible interpretation for the origin of the synodos endemousa might therefore be sought, as I would like to suggest, in the claims to ecumenicity of the patriarchate that were occasionally voiced during this period. Just like the metropolitans, as heads of ecclesiastical provinces gathered all the bishops under their authority for a provincial synod once a year, the patriarch of Constantinople gathered around him all the bishops who happened to be present in the capital, thereby affirming his primacy of honor over all of (Eastern) Christendom. Most administrative offices on the patriarchal staff begin to be attested in the 6th century.35 A rare example already in the middle of the 4th century is Marathonios, a deacon under patriarch Makedonios, who was known as a “zealous caretaker of the poor as well as of the male and female monastic houses.”36 For our period, evidence consists of imperial law, acts and canons of church councils, and information about individual office holders gleaned from hagiography or historiography. In later centuries, up to 48 patriarchal offices in rank order are mentioned in official lists. In order to understand the offices attached to the patriarchate,37 it is essential to distinguish between title, on the one hand, and office or function, on the other, a distinction that also applies to other areas of Byzantine administration. Titles could be merely honorific, without a function, while functions could be exercised by people without a title. To make matters more complex, there was no fixed correlation between title or office, on the one hand, and ecclesiastical rank, on the other. The important office of financial administrator (oikonomos) could be held by deacons or by priests; the oikonomos kept the accounts of the income from the patriarchal properties throughout the empire and in Constantinople itself. His staff consisted of 89 chartoularioi responsible for monitoring the financial transactions in the different dioceses under the patriarchate’s authority. Their appointment had to be approved by the patriarch, and their conduct was rigorously monitored to avoid any suspicion of 34 35 36 37

Beck, Kirche, p. 70. See, with a largely later focus, Hussey, Orthodox Church, pp. 314–18. “σπουδαῖον ἐπίτροπον πτωχείων τε καὶ μοναχῶν συνοικιῶν ἀνδρῶν τε καὶ γυναικῶν” (Sozomenos, Church History IV 20.2, eds. Bidez and Hansen, p. 170). For the following, Darrouzès, Recherches, pp. 11–50.

14

Rapp

wrongdoing. This aspect of the patriarchal administration was of such importance that the Emperor Justinian required an audit of the account books at least every two months.38 From the 7th century, the sources also refer to sakel­ larioi as high-ranking financial officers with extensive responsibilities.39 The synkellos was the patriarch’s right-hand man (literally ‘cell-mate’, referring to an originally monastic context) and spiritual adviser; this could either be a deacon or a priest. Some patriarchs had two assistants with this title. This office was often the first step on the way to becoming patriarch. The patriarchal chancery’s work in this period is largely known from the letters of the patriarch of Constantinople, such as his correspondence with the pope in Rome, or from the proceedings of the Church councils. At the second session of the Council of Chalcedon, for example, Aetios “archdeacon of imperial Constantinople” under Patriarch Anatolios, brought before the assembly a variety of documents for the purposes of further reference: the version of the Nicene creed accepted by the 150 Fathers at the Council of Constantinople in 381; letters by Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria to his fellow Patriarchs Nestorios in Constantinople and John in Antioch; and the letter of Pope Leo to Patriarch Flavian in Constantinople.40 This array of texts gives us some idea of the documentation of theological and administrative significance that was kept in the patriarch’s archive. The chartophylax (a literal translation may be ‘guardian of paperwork’) was in charge of the patriarch’s correspondence, and thus also of the archive and the library of the see. He was one of the notaries (who usually held the rank of deacon) who together formed the patriarch’s sekreton, the chancery or administrative office. The first known officer who held this title was Kosmas, who was also a deacon and notary in 536.41 Other titles within the sekreton of the patriarchate in our period were skriniarios (secretary) and semeiographos (stenographer).42 The legal matters of the patriarchate were the responsibility of one or several men with the title of ekdikos (defensor). Since the time of Justinian, their number seems to have been fixed at five or six, headed by the protekdikos.43

38 39 40 41 42 43

Codex Iustinianus 1.2.24. Cf. Beck, Kirche, p. 100. Beck, Kirche, p. 108. Price and Gaddis, Council of Chalcedon, vol. 2, pp. 12–14. On recording practices at this council, see ibid., vol. 1, pp. 75–78. Beck, Kirche, p. 99; cf. also ibid., pp. 109–12. Beck, Kirche, p. 100. Beck, Kirche, p. 101.

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

15

They were probably also in charge of prisons.44 Another legal position was that of protonotarios. The patriarch maintained special emissaries (apokrisiarioi), either in permanent appointments or entrusted with ad hoc missions. They were charged with tasks at other patriarchal sees and also at the imperial court.45 Today, we might call them lobbyists. The care of precious objects of gold and silver (such as patens, chalices, candlesticks, or candelabras) along with the safeguarding of important documents, was the responsibility of the skeuophylax (literally ‘guardian of objects’). In the early 7th century, there were 12 men of different clerical rank who held this title.46 The patriarchate’s charitable work in Constantinople required further administrative offices, but this was a slow development. The earliest charitable institutions in Constantinople were private foundations of pious men and women who may have entrusted their administration to clergymen. In the course of the late 4th and 5th centuries, this work was centralized in the hands of the patriarchate. The gerokomos was responsible for old peoples’ homes, the ptochotrophos for the provisioning of the poor, the xenodochos for the support of travelers and pilgrims, the orphanotrophos for orphans, and the nosokomos for the care of the sick. To what degree the patriarchate supported an existing, imperially created infrastructure of social services, or whether it generated such institutions of social support on its own account, is unclear. Hans-Georg Beck speculates that these offices may not have been strictly and exclusively attached to the patriarchate, but that they were subject to imperial jurisdiction.47 At the time of John Chrysostom, there were two new hospitals (nosokomeia), complete with physicians and cooks, under patriarchal control.48 7

Patriarchs in History

In the 400 years between the Council of Nicaea (325) and the beginning of Iconoclasm (726), 51 men occupied the patriarchal throne of Constantinople.

44 45 46 47 48

Beck, Kirche, p. 105. The latter was also known by the title of referendarios, see Beck, Kirche, p. 103. Beck, Kirche, p. 112. Beck, Kirche, p. 104. Palladios, Dialogue 5.132–39, ed. Malingrey, p. 122.

16

Rapp

They held office for an average of seven to eight years (Sergios I even for 28 years), but this is offset by the ten patriarchs who only lasted for a year or less. Many of the patriarchs were active as preachers and theologians, and have left an ample written record in their own voice. Some took an active role in ecclesiastical politics, so that details about their lives can be gleaned from contemporary accounts by historians, hagiographers, or other men of the Church, or in the acts of church councils. About others, very little is known. Most men acceded to the patriarchate very late in life, in their 40s, 50s, and even 60s, usually after moving up the ladder of offices in the Church, from lector to deacon to priest. Some were bishops of another city before being called to Constantinople, although such lateral appointments were officially prohibited. As Constantinople grew in political importance as an imperial capital, it became an attractive see to move to, even for the bishop of the imperial residential town of Nicomedia (Eusebios, in 339) or of the large provincial capital Antioch (Eudoxios, in 360). A famous case of lateral transfer that would later often be cited as a precedent, was the appointment of Gregory of Nazianzus from his position as bishop of Sasima in Cappadocia to the see in Constantinople in 380. Very few patriarchs were appointed directly from the lower clergy or even from the laity. Such an appointment per saltum was also prohibited and made the incumbent vulnerable to criticism. From the 5th century, some future patriarchs had gained prior ascetic credentials as monks. Many of the patriarchs of Constantinople came from prominent and wealthy families. This means that from early youth they would have enjoyed the intellectual training and social formation that equipped them for a public role. They largely hailed from the large and prosperous cities of the later Roman Empire, especially Antioch and Alexandria, but also from Thessaloniki and, on occasion, from cities in Cappadocia. But there were exceptions of remarkable social mobility, for example John IV the Faster was raised in extreme poverty and had been a manual laborer before joining the clergy. From the 6th century, a prior position in the ecclesiastical administration of Constantinople could pave the path to the patriarchal see, often in combination with personal patronage by the sitting patriarch. Menas, for example, had been assisting travelers as xenodochos in the Hospital of Sampson, and Sergios I had been in charge of assistance to the poor as ptochotrophos. A few patriarchs achieved such a degree of popularity that hagiographical accounts were composed about them, a genre traditionally reserved for miracle-working holy men who boasted exceptional ascetic accomplishments. The first patriarch of Constantinople to become the protagonist of a Vita is Eutychios (BHG 657). Hagiographical accounts of other patriarchs of our period were composed with a considerable time lag: an existing Vita of

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

17

Paul I was reworked by Symeon Metaphrastes in the 10th century (BHG 1473); an encomium on Nektarios of unknown date is preserved in a 14th-century manuscript (BHG 2284); the Vita of Gregory of Nazianzus probably dates from the 7th century (BHG 723); as does the Vita of John Chrysostom (BHG 872); and Germanos I was honored with a Vita in the 11th century (BHG 697). 8

The Patriarch and the Emperor

The relationship between patriarch and emperor has been the subject of much debate. Their interaction has been interpreted as indicative of the relationship between Church and state or, more generally, of the interplay between religious and secular power, often resulting in the observation that ‘cesaropapism’, i.e., the domination of religious matters by the worldly ruler, was typical of Byzantium, in contrast to the West.49 Such dichotomies are anachronistic creations of later scholarship. They obscure the issue as they are based on a false premise of antagonism. In reality, both patriarch and emperor fulfilled their roles within a conceptual framework that was steeped in Christianity, each contributing to the growth and prosperity of the empire under the grace of God. This finds expression in Novel 6 of Emperor Justinian: The greatest blessings of mankind are the gifts of God which have been granted us by the mercy on high—the priesthood and the imperial authority. The priesthood ministers to things divine: the imperial authority is set over, and shows diligence in, things human; but both proceed from one and the same source, and both adorn the life of man. Nothing, therefore, will be a greater matter of concern to the emperor than the dignity and honor (honestas) of the clergy; the more so as they offer prayers to God without ceasing on his behalf. For if the priesthood be in all respects without blame, and full of faith before God, and if the imperial authority rightly and duly adorn the commonwealth committed to its charge, there will ensue a happy concord, which will bring forth all good things for mankind.50 49 50

Dagron, Emperor. “Maxima quidem in hominibus sunt dona dei a superna collata clementia sacerdotium et imperium, illud quidem divinis ministrans, hoc autem humanis praesidens ac dili­ gentiam exhibens; ex uno eodemque principio utraque procedentia humanam exornant vitam. Ideoque nihil sic erit studiosum imperatoribus, sicut sacerdotum honestas, cum utique et pro illis ipsis semper deo supplicent. Nam si hoc quidem inculpabile sit undique et apud deum fiducia plenum, imperium autem recte et competenter exornet traditam sibi

18

Rapp

The analogous ecclesiastical perspective is encapsulated in the words of Nestorios upon his appointment as patriarch of Constantinople: “Give me the earth purified of heretics, your majesty, and I will give you heaven in return.”51 The patriarch, in other words, offered to support the emperor with his prayers, as long as the emperor fulfilled his role in maintaining public order and securing the functioning of the Church. The harmonious cooperation between patriarch and emperor, advocated by both Justinian and the patriarch Nestorios (who was later condemned as a heretic himself), was implemented during the double siege of Constantinople by the Avars and the Sasanians in 626. While Emperor Herakleios was leading the military campaign against Persia, it fell to Patriarch Sergios I to secure the protection of the city. He led a procession of the clergy and the pious city-dwellers along the walls of Constantinople during which the Holy Virgin miraculously delivered the city from danger. Hagia Sophia was not only the patriarchal church, but also the imperial church, where the emperor and his household regularly attended the liturgy celebrated by the patriarch and his clergy. The patriarch or his clergy also officiated at the life-cycle events of the imperial family: baptisms, weddings, and funerals. The emperor’s spiritual needs, however, were not usually fulfilled by the patriarch. When an emperor required prayer assistance or absolution from his sins, he approached prominent monks or ascetic holy men, often from outside Constantinople. This was common practice also among the rest of the population who sought out the clergy for absolution from their transgressions, but turned to monastics for spiritual guidance and succor. The success and failure of each patriarch was determined by his interaction with the emperor. Many patriarchs owed their appointment to the direct intervention of the emperor, others made an effort to build close relations. Yet others risked alienating the emperor by their adamant adherence to ecclesiastical or doctrinal stances which the latter did not endorse. This could have detrimental consequences: at least 12 of the 51 patriarchs in our period ended their term in office due to political pressure, and often as a result of direct imperial intervention. For instance, after Emperor Justinian II regained his throne in 705, he punished Patriarch Kallinikos I for his support of the opposing faction by having him blinded.52

51 52

rempublicam, erit consonantia quaedam bona, omne quicquid utile est humano conferens generi”, Justinian, Novels, nov. 6, Preface, eds. Schöll and Kroll, pp. 35–36, trans. Barker, Social and Political Thought, pp. 75–76. “‘δός μοι’, φησίν, ‘ὦ βασιλεῦ, καθαρὰν τὴν γῆν τῶν αἱρετικῶν, κἀγώ σοι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀντιδώσω’”, Sokrates, Church History 7.29.5, ed. Hansen, p. 377, with Jones, Later Roman Empire, p. 935. Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6198, de Boor, vol. 1, p. 375, lines 13–14; Nikephoros, Short History 42.64–66, ed. Mango, p. 104. See also Vučetić, “Eskalierende Konflikte”, pp. 179–86.

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

19

Any regularity in the interaction between emperor and patriarch was slow to develop. Here as elsewhere, the late 4th and especially the first half of the 5th century prove to be precedent-setting. In the two generations after the ‘Constantinian turn’ supported the expansion of Christianity within the public realm, the Church in Constantinople was of little concern to the emperors whose courts were largely itinerant. When Constantine was buried with great pomp in the Church of the Holy Apostles that he had built as his mausoleum, his biographer Eusebios reports merely that, after the imperial representatives had left, “the servants of God” said some prayers.53 The emperors in our period only rarely addressed the patriarchs in their legislation. The first bishop of Constantinople to be named in imperial legislation was Nektarios in 381, who is mentioned as one of 12 bishops who represented Nicene orthodoxy.54 The imperial laws of the late 4th and early 5th century that demand the expulsion of heretics from the capital were not addressed to the patriarch, but to the city prefect who would have been responsible for enacting them.55 While such exclusionary measures benefited the Church and its leader, the emperor’s overarching motivation in implementing them must have been the avoidance of civil unrest. By the late 4th century, emperors began to take greater interest in the bishop of Constantinople. In a precedent-setting event, Theodosius I asked the bishops who had gathered for the Council of Constantinople in 381 to present him with a list of suitable candidates for the see of Constantinople, and then selected Nektarios. Henceforth, emperors would exercise their choice of a future patriarch on the basis of a shortlist presented to them by the home synod. By the mid-5th century, the patriarch acquired the ceremonial role of conferring the coronation on the designated emperor who had been chosen, as was customary, by the army, the senate, and the people. Whether this religious element represents the constitutive act that confers imperial power, i.e., whether the patriarch ‘makes’ the emperor, is subject to scholarly debate and should best be judged on a case-by-case basis. The first patriarch to become involved in an imperial accession was Anatolios, who conferred the crown on Leo I in 457, setting a precedent for ecclesiastical involvement in the accession of a new ruler that would reverberate through the Christian Middle Ages. This took place in the Hebdomon, the gathering ground for the military in a south-western suburb of Constantinople. On subsequent occasions, 53 54 55

“οἱ τοῦ θεοῦ λειτουργοί,” Eusebios, Life of Constantine 4.71, ed. Winkelmann, p. 149, line 21. Eusebios avoids Christian language in general. Codex Theodosianus 16.1.3, eds. Mommsen and Meyer, p. 834. Codex Theodosianus 16.5.13 (384), eds. Mommsen and Meyer, p. 860.

20

Rapp

similar ceremonies involving the patriarch were held in the hippodrome. It was only in 641 that the Church of Hagia Sophia became the location of imperial coronations.56 New precedent was set in 490, when Patriarch Euphemios required a profession of orthodoxy from Anastasios, written in the future emperor’s own hand and deposited among the valuables of the patriarchate, before he would give his approval to the imperial appointment.57 More than any other emperor in our period, Justinian integrated the Church, including the patriarch, into his imperial plan for steering the empire. Bishops were tasked with reporting abuses of the civil administration in their provinces. The patriarch’s excessive expenditures for his ever-growing staff were curbed. Monks were asked to pray for the prosperity of emperor and empire. The canons of church councils were recognized as having the force of imperial law. Empresses, too, interacted with the patriarch of Constantinople. They often pursued their own agenda, whether motivated by personal piety or by political concerns of their own. We are particularly well informed about the empresses of the Theodosian dynasty and about Theodora, wife of Justinian. When, after giving birth to three daughters, Aelia Eudoxia, wife of Emperor Arcadius, was pregnant with the future Emperor Theodosius II, patriarch John Chrysostom frequently paid visits to her private quarters and reassured her with his prayers. On the occasion of the baby’s baptism in 402, the empress and the patriarch colluded in a plan to manipulate Arcadius’ imperial policy. The cleric who carried the baby in procession was instructed to make him nod in agreement to the written petition for the closure of the Marneion in Gaza. Arcadius was furious at having his hand forced by this staged gesture, but was unable to rescind his public promise. He dispatched a band of soldiers to Palestine to assist in the dismantling of what was known to be one of the largest pagan temples of Zeus of the time. Eudoxia, at her own initiative, contributed building materials. Theodosius’ II oldest sister Pulcheria acted as his regent after the death of Arcadius in 410. Known for her piety, she only consented to marry the 58-year-old general Markianos on the condition that he respected her vow of virginity. Her consecration to God at the age of 15 had taken place in a lavish ceremony in Hagia Sophia, attended by all the clergy and all the (secular) officials. To commemorate this occasion and to celebrate the rule of her brother, she donated an altar decoration, “marvelous to behold” and lavishly adorned

56 57

Ensslin, “Kaiserkrönung”; Szidat, “Rolle des Patriarchen”. Evagrius Scholasticus, Church History 3.32, eds. Bidez and Parmentier, pp. 130–31, trans. Whitby, p. 172.

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

21

with gold and precious stones.58 A century later, Theodora, a great supporter of Monophysitism, is reputed to have secretly sheltered 500 of their clergy in the women’s quarters of the imperial palace. She successfully competed with her emperor husband Justinian over the sending of Christian missionaries to the kingdom of Nubia, ensuring that the Monophysite party arrived there first. Bibliography Primary Sources

Codex Iustinianus, ed. P. Krüger, Codex Iustinianus (Corpus Iuris Civilis 2) (2nd ed., Berlin, 1954; 1st ed. Berlin, 1877, repr. Berlin, 1963). Codex Theodosianus, eds. T. Mommsen and P. Meyer, Theodosiani libri XVI cum con­ stitutionibus Sirmondianis et leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, 3 vols (2nd ed., Berlin 1954; 1st ed. Berlin, 1904). Council of Chalcedon, ed. E. Schwartz, Concilium Universale Chalcedonense (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum 2), 6 vols. (Berlin, 1932–38). Council of Chalcedon, trans. R. Price and M. Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated Texts for Historians 45), 2 vols (Liverpool, 2005). Eusebios, Life of Constantine, ed. F. Winkelmann, Eusebius Werke 1.1: Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin (Berlin, 1975). Evagrius Scholasticus, Church History, eds. J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia (London, 1898; repr. Amsterdam, 1964); trans. M. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus (Translated Texts for Historians 33) (Liverpool, 2000). Gregory of Nazianzen, De vita sua, ed. C. Jungck, Gregor von Nazianz, De vita sua. Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar (Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und lateinischen Schriftstellern) (Heidelberg, 1974); trans. C. White, Gregory of Nazianzus. Autobiographical Poems (Cambridge Medieval Classics 6) (Cambridge, 1996). Justinian, Novels, eds. R. Schöll and W. Kroll, Novellae (Corpus Iuris Civilis 3) (Berlin, 1895; repr. Hildesheim, 1993). Life of Olympias, ed. A.-M. Malingrey, Jean Chrysostome. Lettres à Olympias, seconde edition augmentée de la Vie anonyme d’Olympias (Sources Chrétiennes 13bis) (Paris, 1968).

58

“θεαμάτων κάλλιστον”, Sozomenos, Church History IX 1.4, eds. Bidez and Hansen, p. 390. I wish to thank Christodoulos Papavarnavas for research assistance and Krystina Kubina for editorial assistance in the preparation of this article.

22

Rapp

Nikephoros, Short History, ed. C. Mango, Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople. Short History (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 13) (Washington, D.C., 1990). Notitiae episcopatuum, ed. J. Darrouzès, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantino­ politanae. Le géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire Byzantin, vol. 1 (Paris, 1981). Palladios, Dialogue, ed. A.-M. Malingrey, Palladios. Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, 2 vols (Sources Chrétiennes 341) (Paris, 1988). Sokrates, Church History, ed. G.C. Hansen, Sokrates. Kirchengeschichte (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Neue Folge 1) (Berlin, 1995). Sozomenos, Church History, eds. J. Bidez and G.C. Hansen, Sozomenus. Kirchengeschichte (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Neue Folge 4) (Berlin, 2nd edn. 1995). Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, 2 vols (Leipzig, 1883).

Secondary Literature

Barker, E., Social and Political Thought in Byzantium. From Justinian I to the Last Palaeologus. Passages from Byzantine Writers and Documents (Oxford, 1957). Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12.2.1) (Munich, 1959). BHG = Société des Bollandistes ed., Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca (Brussels, 1895–1984). Dagron, G., Naissance d’une capitale. Constanstinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Bibliothèque byzantine. Études 7) (Paris, 1974). Dagron, G., Emperor and Priest. The Imperial Office in Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003). Darrouzès, J., Recherches sur les ὀφφίκια de l’Église byzantine (Archives de l’Orient Chrétien 11) (Paris, 1970). Dölger, F., A.E. Müller, J. Preiser-Kapeller, and A. Riehle, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches. Von 565–1453, vol. 1.1: Regesten 565–867 (Munich, 2nd rev. edn. 2009). Dvornik, F., The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, Mass., 1958). Ensslin, W., “Zur Frage nach der ersten Kaiserkrönung durch den Patriarchen und zur Bedeutung dieses Aktes im Wahlzeremoniell”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 42 (1942), 101–15, 369–72. Fischer, F., De patriarcharum Constantinopolitanorum catalogis et de chronologia octo primorum patriarchum (Commentationes philologae Jenenses 3.5) (Leipzig, 1884). Hajjar, P.J., Le synode permanent (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα) dans l’église byzantine des origines au XIe siècle (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 164) (Rome, 1962). Herrin, J., The Formation of Christendom (Princeton, 1987).

The Early Patriarchate ( 325–726 )

23

Hopkins, K., “Christian Number and its Implications”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.2 (1998), 185–226. Hussey, J.M., The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford History of the Christian Church) (New York, 1986). Janin, R., “Formation du patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople”, Échos d’Orient 13 (1910), 135–40, 213–18. Janin, R., “Constantinople. Le patriarcat grec”, Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 13 (1956), 629–754. Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire, 284–602. A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, 2 vols (Norman, Oklahoma, 1964). McLynn, N., “‘Two Romes, Beacons of the Whole World’”, Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, eds. L. Grig and G. Kelly (Oxford, 2012), pp. 345–63. Millar, F., A Greek Roman Empire. Power and Belief under Theodosius II, 408–450 (Sather Classical Lectures 64) (Berkeley, 2006). Szidat, J., “Zur Rolle des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel bei der Erhebung eines Kaisers im 5. u. 6. Jhd.”, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 16 (2013), 51–61. Vailhe, S., “Le titre de patriarche œcuménique avant saint Grégoire le Grand”, Échos d’Orient 11 (1908), 65–69. Vučetić, M.M., “Eskalierende Konflikte. Gewalt byzantinischer Kaiser gegen konstantinopolitanische Patriarchen im achten Jahrhundert,” in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn. Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantinischen Mittelalter. Akten der internationalen Tagung vom 3. bis 5. November 2010, eds. M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, and M.M. Vučetić, vol. 1 (Byzantinistische Studien und Texte 3) (Münster, 2011), pp. 175–207. Woodfin, W.T., The Embodied Icon. Liturgical Vestments and Sacramental Power in Byzantium (Oxford Studies in Byzantium) (Oxford, 2012).

chapter 2

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period (843–1081) Frederick Lauritzen The patriarch was central to the synods held at Constantinople during the period 843–1081. A local synod, a Church gathering of metropolitans, was normally required to meet twice a year according to canon 5 of the Council of Nicaea (325)1 and 19 of the Council of Chalcedon (451). The synod of Constantinople was unique in being constantly convened, and for this reason is known as the permanent synod (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα).2 The canon which appears to justify this exceptional situation is canon 28 of Chalcedon (451). The patriarch presided over the council and confirmed its decisions with the patriarchal seal. Thus the patriarch was connected directly with the synod. There are references to synods in various sources, though they rarely reveal the workings of the gathering.3 It is possible to understand the role of the patriarch within the synods he presided from the documents and acts which have survived.4 1

State of Research

The relationship between patriarch and synod has not been the subject of general studies, though different aspects of it have been explored separately. One should point out the studies of Stephanides in 1936 and Hajjar of 1962 though, who give important introductions on the origins and workings of the permanent synod. The patriarchate in this period has been studied separately from the synod. Individual patriarchs such as Photios, Nicholas Mystikos, and Michael Keroularios, or John VIII Xiphilinos, have been the subject of articles 1 “it appeared good to decide that there be councils in each province, each year, twice a year” (“καλῶς ἔχειν ἔδοξεν, ἑκάστου ἐνιαυτοῦ, καθ᾿ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν δὶς τοῦ ἔτους συνόδους γίνεσθαι”; COGD 1, ed. Alberigo, p. 22, lines 118–21; my translation). 2 Stephanides, “Geschichtliche Entwicklung”; Hajjar, Synode permanent. See also Darrouzès, Recherches; Preiser-Kapeller, “Hauptstädtische Synode”. 3 Such references are recorded in Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes. 4 We will show at the end of the present article those decrees and acts which have survived.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_003

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period

25

and books, but not in relation to the synod. The publication of the Regestes des actes du patriarchat de Constantinople by Grumel and Darrouzès has not inspired many studies on the form and structure of the documents as evidence of the practical workings of a synod, especially in relation to the patriarch. Thus, it is difficult to separate the individual personality of the patriarch while he presided over the synod. Further studies would be necessary on its effective legislative and executive powers. Important texts for this question remain those edited by Ficker (in 1906 and 1911), which show a powerful patriarch applying his notions of orthodoxy and heresy within his jurisdiction with the help of the imperial family. These studies would be necessary to further undermine the notion of imperial interference into ecclesiastical affairs. Rather, it was sometimes the Church which sought imperial support, especially to execute its canonical decisions in order to give them legal value. Thus, numerous aspects of the relationship between patriarch and synod need to be explored. 2

The Patriarch as a sine qua non for the Synod

The patriarch’s essential role within ecclesiastical decisions is shown by a peculiar case: that of Patriarch Tryphon (927–931). Only one document survives from his patriarchate. The 11th century historian Skylitzes reports that he signed a blank page in order to make a decision valid: καὶ γραμματεῖον ἄγραφον εἰληφὼς ἐπ’ ὄψει πάντων ὑπέγραψεν οὕτως· ‘Τρύφων ἐλέῳ θεοῦ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, νέας Ῥώμης, καὶ οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης.’ καὶ γράψας ἐκπέμπει διὰ τοῦ πρωτοθρόνου τῷ βασιλεῖ. ὅπερ λαβὼν ἐπὶ χεῖρας οὗτος, καὶ ἄγραφον ἕτερον χαρτίον ἄνωθεν προσανυφάνας παραίτησιν ἔγραψεν, ὡς ἀνάξιος ὢν ἐξίσταται τῷ βουλομένῳ τοῦ θρόνου.5 He took the unsigned document in front of everyone and signed thus: Tryphon, by the will of God archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and ecumenical patriarch. He signed and sends it through the protothronos to the emperor. He took it in his hands and attaching another blank page he wrote a resignation, saying that since he was unworthy he was stepping down from the [patriarchal] throne.

5 John Skylitzes, Histories: Emp. Romanos Lakapenos 26, ed. Thurn, p. 227, lines 50–56 (my translation).

26

Lauritzen

The emperor had decided to depose Patriarch Tryphon in 931 and did so. What was striking was that the patriarch’s signature was so important that Tryphon was obliged to sign a blank document. This testifies both to the strict application of procedure, as well as the legal importance of the patriarch during meetings and assemblies which defined questions relating to the Church. During the same period, c.965, one sees the debate described from two different points of view: by an anonymous metropolitan and Niketas of Amaseia.6 The latter thought that the patriarch was the sine qua non for the gathering and constitution of a synod.7 Therefore the patriarch was essential in order to take a decision with a vote of the metropolitans present. Thus, it is clear that the patriarch was central to the decision process within the Orthodox Church of the Middle Byzantine period.8 The question of how a decision was actually taken in relation to historical circumstances and choice of subject matter is something which is outside the scope of this article, but it is clear that, formally and legally, the patriarch was central. These three texts reveal that by the 10th century the patriarch was considered central to ecclesiastical decisions, and that his authority was somehow legally binding and canonically necessary for the functioning of a synod. The clearest evidence of decisions taken would be the patriarchal register of the time, but this only survives for the 14th century.9 It was here that decisions were transcribed and kept in the patriarchate. This collection would thus represent an official statement of patriarchal and conciliar decisions. The importance of the reception of patriarchal and conciliar decisions is most clearly visible in the Synodikon of orthodoxy (c.843) and the Tomos unionis (Τόμος ἑνώσεως), the synod decree, of 920; both these texts derive from synods. The first is a text which may have originated in a local synod of Constantinople in 844.10 In any case it has been recited ever since on the first Sunday of Orthodoxy. The Tomos unionis also represents the decree of a local synod of Constantinople of 920.11 It is clear that the fact the two documents were modified and even sung in church meant that the reception of the synods was considered important. 6 7 8 9 10 11

Darrouzès, Documents inedits, pp. 116–58 (anonymous), 160–74 (Amaseia). Lauritzen, “Primato del sinodo”. Lauritzen, “Formazione del consenso”. See the article by Christian Gastgeber in this volume. See also Gastgeber, Mitsiou, and Preiser-Kapeller, The Register. Gouillard, “Synodikon”. An 11th century version of the text is published in COGD 4.1, ed. Melloni, pp. 383–93 (editor of this part: F. Lauritzen). The text is published in COGD 4.1, ed. Melloni, pp. 47–51 (editor of this part: E. Lamberz). Some of the questions of the Tomos unionis are addressed in the following texts: Dujčev, “On the treaty of 927”; Nicholas I, Letters, ed. Jenkins; Jenkins, “Three documents”; Meyendorff, “Christian marriage”; Morini, Chiesa ortodossa, pp. 78–85; Oikonomides,

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period

27

In the case of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, the reception of the synod became more important than its philological accuracy and faithfulness to the original document. Both documents represent the importance of patriarchs, such as Methodios I (843–47) and Nicholas Mystikos (901–07, 912–25), and their will to spread and disseminate the decisions of the permanent synod of Constantinople. Thus the patriarch was not only at the center of the synod but was also promoting the reception of his and its decisions, within his jurisdiction and outside it. 3

Decrees Describe the Structure

The manner in which decisions were taken is clearly outlined in the surviving decrees. Within the period between 843 and 1081, two types of documents have been recently described.12 The first type is the result of a discussion before the synod, while the other represents the approval of a document produced by the patriarch himself. The two different types of documents have different structures and their protocols reveal their nature. The first type may be summarized in this template: Μηνὶ [month and day] ἰνδικτίωνος [indiction], προκαθημένου [name] τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου πατριάρχου ἐν [place], συνεδριαζόντων τοῦ [metropolis], τοῦ [metropolis] καὶ τοῦ [metropolis] εἰσήχθη [subject][qualification][case] καὶ ὡρίσθη [decision]. In the month [month and day] during the indiction year [indiction], while [name], most holy patriarch, was presiding in [place], and while the metropolitan of [metropolis], and of [metropolis] and of [metropolis] were sitting beside him, [subject] [qualification][case] was brought forth and was [decision] was approved. This type of decision shows the patriarch presiding together with the metropolitans. The defining verbs are passive and therefore reveal the importance of the case, and the discussion with the supervision and presence of the patriarch with the metropolitans. This type of assembly is different from those of the ecumenical councils held between 325 and 787. Indeed he who presided these

12

“Leo VI”; Oikonomides, “Leo VI’s legislation”; Simeonova, “Power in Nicholas Mysticus’ letters”; Nicholas I, Miscellanea, ed. Westerink. Lauritzen, “Synod decrees”.

28

Lauritzen

more general meetings was the emperor. The reason for this may be one of jurisdiction. Since an ecumenical council represented the gathering together of a number of jurisdictions, it needed the supervision of the emperor. In any case it means that the patriarch of Constantinople presided over local and patriarchal synods. This of course would mean that the Lateran council of 649, held in Rome while it was still part of the Byzantine empire, may be considered a local patriarchal council since it had the archbishop of Rome (pope) presiding.13 In the proceedings of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–81), one sees the use of the term “the patriarch and his synod” for each patriarchate (e.g., “ὁ ἁγιώτατος ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως καὶ ἡ ὑπ’ αὐτὸν σύνοδος”: “the most holy archbishop of Constantinople and the council under his jurisdiction”).14 Thus, the patriarch presided and represented a synod within a certain jurisdiction. This opens the question of the exact meaning of the term synod. Indeed it defines a gathering mostly of metropolitans, though it does seem to have an administrative aspect.15 This ambiguity is due both to the fact that it was a gathering of individuals and that his assembly had a juridical value. The close connection between the patriarch and synod is thus precisely exemplified and defined in the protocol of the first type of document. The second type of document is rather complex. Indeed the preamble tends to be more abstract and lengthier. It is recognizable from the formula where the patriarch defines his decision. The following example of Alexios Stoudites (1025–43)16 shows the role of the patriarch in the decision of document type two: Διόπερ ἡ μετριότης ἡμῶν ἅμα τῇ ἐνδημούσῃ σεβασμίᾳ συνόδῳ τὰ τοῦ πράγματος διασκεψαμένη, χαλεπὸν ὄντως κρίνασα καὶ ἀτεχνῶς ἄδικον τὸ τηλικαύτας ζημίας ὑφίστασθαι τὰς μητροπόλεις ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπισκοπῶν, ἐξ ὧν οὐδὲν κέρδος ταύταις προσγίνεται, δεῖν ἔγνω τρόπον ἐξευρεῖν, οὐ ξένον τῶν ἱερῶν διατάξεων,

13

14 15 16

E.g., “Martin the most holy and blessed pope of the apostolic see of the city of the Romans was presiding” (“προκαθεζομένου Μαρτίνου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου καὶ μακαριωτάτου πάπα τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου τῆς τῶν Ῥωμαίων πόλεως”): Council Acts 649, act 1, ed. Riedinger, p. 2, lines 3–4. Council Acts 680, act 3, ed. Riedinger, vol. 1, p. 44, lines 29–30 (my translation). The administrative rather than religious aspect of the synod may be the predominant one expressed in the writings of Symeon the New Theologian. Indeed he refers rarely to the synod. This may be due to his condemnation before the synodal tribunal. On Alexios Studites, see Gouillard, “Quatre procès”; Ficker, Erlasse; Ficker, “Der Häretiker Eleutherius”; Lauritzen, “Against the enemies”; Lauritzen, “Syro-Jacobite community”; Pentkovsky, Typikon; Stanković, “Alexios Studites’ patriarchate”; Chitwood, “Patriarch Alexios Stoudites”.

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period

29

ἀλλὰ καὶ λίαν οἰκεῖον καὶ σύμφωνον, ᾧ τὸ ἀζήμιον ταύταις καὶ ἀβαρὲς κατὰ τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον περιποιηθήσεται. Ἐνθεν τοι διώρισατο …17 Therefore we and the venerable permanent synod investigated the matter, and judged it truly difficult and simply unjust to assign such a punishment to the metropoles on account of the bishops, from whom they have received no benefit. We recognized that it was necessary to find a way, in keeping with the holy canons, as well as quite appropriate and suited [to the matter], by which the immunity would remain without being grievous, as much as possible. Therefore we decreed … The expression used by the patriarch during a synod to refer to himself, “ἡ μετριότης ἡμῶν”, according to Stephanides originates in 997 under the patriarchate of Sisinnios II.18 Of course there could be earlier instances, however the updated online database of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (University of California, Irvine) does not seem to indicate any previous instances within a synod.19 There are a number of cases in the letters of Photios20 and Nicholas Mystikos.21 However, the expression seems to be rare in the period before 843. It is an important detail since most patriarchal documents since the 10th century to this day contain this expression “ἡ μετριότης ἡμῶν”. Indeed the notion of moderation implies a situation where different opinions are expressed. Therefore, while it may have become a normal form of address to the patriarch, it may also denote his role within the synod: one of moderation. The relationship between patriarch and synod may have developed in terms similar to a city corporation. This would mean that the patriarch would have a function equivalent to the urban prefect (ἔπαρχος τῆς πόλεως) and the metropolitans would be similar to adiuvatores (σύμπονοι).22 The analogy is important since both bodies had laws which functioned internally, autonomously, rather than independently. The 10th century Book of the Eparch, the guild rule book of the urban prefect of the city of Constantinople, describes the laws pertaining to each corporation,23 while the Nomocanon of Photios, a canon rule book published in 883, had a similar function within the Orthodox Church. Such an interpretation would explain a more bureaucratic aspect of 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, vol. 5, p. 25 (my translation). Ius canonicum Graeco-Romanum, ed. Migne, col. 728–41. Search updated on 24 Αpril 2014. Photios, Letters, eds. Laourdas and Westerink. Nicholas I, Letters, eds. Jenkins and Westerink. Lauritzen, “Formazione del consenso”. Koder, Eparchenbuch; Koder, “Authority”.

30

Lauritzen

the synod. Moreover, it describes better the difference between the ecumenical synod, which is an exceptional gathering, compared to the regular assemblies of the Synodos endemousa (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα), regularly presided over by the patriarch. It also explains the absence of the emperor in these decisions. Some decrees are ratified as laws, but generally the synods legislate only for the Church. This role of the patriarch explains why the second type of document differentiates between the patriarch and the venerable synod. It also clarifies why the verb is in the singular and refers to the patriarch who is the subject of the actions of the synod. This is also confirmed by a number of decrees of this type which are completed with a formula similar to this one from the year 1060: “ἐγράφη τὰ διωρισμένα ἐκκλησιαστικῷ ἔθει, καὶ σφραγισθέντα τῷ διὰ μολύβδου βουλλωτηρίῳ, ἐπεδόθη μηνὶ Δεκεμβρίῳ, ἐπινεμήσεως ιβ´, ἔτους ˏςφξζ´” (The decisions were written according to Church custom, and authenticated by a lead seal and deposited in the month of December, indiction 12 year 6567 = 1060).24 The value of the decree is guaranteed by the patriarchal seal. This also confirms the importance of sigillography for the history of synods, since one may suppose that a certain number of surviving patriarchal seals were actually affixed to such decrees. At this point, one has the impression that the patriarch directed the synod in its entirety. This is far from what the documents reveal. Indeed the patriarch was necessary to begin and end the process of a synod. The final documents, which must have been polished on the basis of more or less complete documents, after the assemblies were over, indicate the importance of the patriarchal chancellery. The actual synod was a collaborative effort. 4

The Synod as Tribunal

One of the chief functions of the synod was that of judging cases. This aspect was defined, among others, by canons 9, 17, and 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451).25 These indicate that when there was a dispute it would be brought before Constantinople to be judged. In other words the Synodos endemousa also bore the role of ecclesiastical tribunal.26 An indirect proof of the purely ecclesiastic 24 25 26

Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, vol. 5, p. 49 (my translation). See COGD 1, ed. Alberigo, p. 142 (can. 9), p. 145 (can. 17), pp. 150–51 (can. 28). An interesting case is that described in Eustathios Rhomaios, Peira 15.4, eds. Zepos and Zepos, pp. 49–50, about the jurisdiction over a monastery. Another case is the following: “After you have learned this, go to the preceding text: I moved against some layman before the drungarios and I did also an initial procedure: the layman then became a deacon or

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period

31

nature of this tribunal is the typikon of Monomachos of 1045, the charter which still regulates the monastic communities of Mount Athos.27 In this text the monks of Athos petition the emperor to find a solution to their problems, since they risked to be brought before a civilian tribunal (monks were part of the laity). The judicial role of the patriarch and synod may be seen most clearly in the defense written by Psellos, one of the chief courtiers of the 11th century, for Metropolitan Lazaros of Philippopolis in the 1040s.28 The importance of the document is that it is one of the few surviving defense speeches recited before the synod. The text, beside the cultural interests of Psellos, reveals how one should address a synod at the time. Lazaros first addresses the Holy Synod;29 he indicates that he stood in the middle of the synod,30 he speaks to them in the plural,31 and he speaks also directly to the patriarch.32 Indeed the following sentence shows that he speaks to the patriarch as well as the metropolitans, but considers them as two separate audiences: “σύ τε ὁ παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κοινὸς πατὴρ καὶ ἀρχιποίμην καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καλῶς ὑπ’ αὐτῷ ποιμαινόμενοι.” (You are our teacher ad common father and head-shepherd. You are those who are lead under his [authority]).33 The sentence shows how a defense speech was pronounced in the synod before the patriarch and metropolitans and required their presence. It also confirms the notion of jurisdiction represented by the expression “ὑπ’ αὐτῷ”, which had also been seen in the Synod of Constantinople (680). The reason to address both patriarch and metropolitans is simple: the vote (ψῆφος). In the speech of Lazaros there are numerous compounds of the verb to vote, something which illustrates one of the concerns of an assembly. Indeed, both the Anonymous and Niketas of Amaseia refer often to the question of voting. Thus, once the synod was convened the aim of the meeting was to come to a vote after the discussion and analysis of the matter at hand. This is also clearly

27 28 29 30 31 32 33

priest of the great church of God and thought that he could no longer be brought before the naval court, but to be judged by the ecclesiastical court” (“Τοῦτο μαθὼν ἐλθὲ ἐπὶ τὸ προκείμενον· ἐκίνησα κατά τινος λαϊκοῦ παρὰ τῷ δρουγγαρίῳ καὶ ἐποίησα καὶ προκάταρξιν· καὶ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ ὁ τοιοῦτος λαϊκὸς γέγονε διάκονος ἢ πρεσβύτερος τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας καὶ ἠξίου μηκέτι ἕλκεσθαι παρὰ τῷ δρουγγαρικῷ δικαστηρίῳ, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τῷ συνοδικῷ δικάζεσθαι”): Ecloga Basilicorum 7.5, ed. Burgman, p. 29, lines 6–8 (my translation). Documents Protaton, no. 8, ed. Papachryssanthou, pp. 224–32. Michael Psellos, Speeches, oratio forensis 2, ed. Dennis, pp. 104–24. “ὦ θεία καὶ ἱερὰ σύνοδος”, oratio forensis 2, ed. Dennis, p. 104, line 1. “αὐτὸς ἐγὼ μέσος ὑμῶν ἕστηκα”, oratio forensis 2, ed. Dennis, p. 104, lines 8–9. “Σκέψασθε γοῦν ἐνταῦθα”, oratio forensis 2, ed. Dennis, p. 106, line 60. “ἡ ἱερατικὴ κεφαλή”, oratio forensis 2, ed. Dennis, p. 110, line 164. Michael Psellos, Speeches, oratio forensis 2, ed. Dennis, pp. 123–24, lines 589–90 (my translation).

32

Lauritzen

described in canon 6 of Nicaea (325), where it states that if there is disagreement among those voting a simple majority should prevail.34 One may dismiss the question as one of ancient canon law, but the topic of majority voting was discussed by Eustathios Rhomaios, a judge who wrote a treatise discussing the jurisprudence in uncertain court cases, in Peira 51, 16 during the early 11th century. It also appears in the 10th century Book of the Eparch 1.1 and 1.15. Thus voting was well known in Byzantium and would have been a substantial and informal matter to the synod.35 The direct appeal to the patriarch during the speech of defense may indicate that the patriarch had the power to call for a vote. In other words, he would play a similar function to that of the emperor during ecumenical councils, that is dictating the agenda of the meeting. This would give a tremendous importance to the patriarch himself, since he would be able to call for a vote when it suited him. If he wished to sway the vote he would simply have to wait until the debate tipped in favor of his opinion and then call for a vote. Such power may explain why Niketas of Amaseia focuses on the question of voting when defending patriarchal primacy within the synod.36 The primacy of voting is clear in session 18 of the Council of Constantinople (680–81) where the assembly points out that the Holy Spirit will descend during the vote. This is the only moment when the presence of the Holy Ghost is invoked and reveals that the mysterious, imponderable and unpredictable aspects of voting were then considered somehow divine: “Ἀρκούντως μὲν ἔχει τὰ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν πραχθέντα τε καὶ διηγωνισμένα καὶ εἰς τὴν παροῦσαν δογματικὴν ζήτησιν συντείνοντα, καθ’ ἑτέραν δὲ τῇ ἐπιφοιτήσει τοῦ παναγίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ πνεύματος ὅρον τὸν τῇ ὀρθοδοξίᾳ συμβαίνοντα συνοδικῶς ψηφιούμεθα.” (What has been done and achieved until now, is enough for what concerns the present dogmatic inquest, we will vote together tomorrow in the presence of the all holy and lifegiving spirit the definition which pertains to Orthodoxy).37 At this 34

35 36

37

“If two or three oppose everyone’s common vote, even though it is reasonable and according to the church canon, because of their personal pride, may the majority opinion hold” (“Ἐὰν μέντοι τῇ κοινῇ πάντων ψήφῳ, εὐλόγῳ οὔσῃ, καὶ κατὰ κανόνα ἐκκλησιαστικόν, δύο, ἢ τρεῖς δι’ οἰκείαν φιλονεικίαν ἀντιλέγωσι, κρατείτω ἡ τῶν πλειόνων ψῆφος”): COGD 1, ed. Alberigo, p. 23, lines 153–57 (my translation). See Lauritzen, “An Athonite assembly”. “If the votes are so both divinely and canonically, the patriarch presides and speaks first in the voting session since he is the foremost counsellor and leader. I praise and vote together with the foremost voter” (“Εἰ μὲν οὖν οὕτω γίνονται αἱ ψῆφοι καὶ θεϊκῶς τε καὶ κανονικῶς ὁ πατριάρχης προκαθήμενος πρωτολογεῖ ἐν ταῖς ψήφοις, ὡς πρῶτος βουληφόρος καὶ κεφαλή, συναινέσομαι καὶ ὡς πρωτοψήφῳ συμψηφιοῦμαι”): Nicetas Amasenus, Rights, ed. Darrouzès, p. 162, lines 1–3 (my translation). Council Acts 680, act. 16, ed. Riedinger, vol. 2, p. 704, lines 10–12 (my translation).

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period

33

point it is clear that the patriarch convened the synod whose aim was to reach a decision sealed by a vote. The vote required the agreement of a majority of the assembly. Thus the delicate balance between patriarch and synod lay in the relationship between convening and voting: one was individual the other was collective. The gathering place of synods is also important. In documents of type 1 it is clearly defined in most cases. It is often the upper gallery on the south side of the Church of Hagia Sophia (δεξιοῖς τῶν κατηχουμενείων). To this day there is a marble screen which probably marked the entrance of the area used for the synod. Other places used seem to be the micron secreton in the imperial palace, as well as the Church of Saint Alexios. It is not easy to understand why the locations change and if there is any direct connection with the Church calendar. Beside the patriarch and the metropolitans, there is a third element in a synod which is essential: the question at hand. Often this was represented by a person who was presenting his position. This explains why some surviving synod decisions seem to deal with very specific cases of application of canon law. The presentation of a question (ζήτησις) was followed by an investigation (ἔρευνα) to explore the case. These passages are also well described by the acts of the ecumenical councils. For the period between 843 and 1081 the surviving acts where one can see these dynamics unfold are: – 869 Synod of Constantinople: deposition of Photios – 879 Synod of Constantinople: reinstatement of Photios – 1030 Synod of Constantinople: deposition of John VIII bar Abdoun – 1077/1082 Synod of Constantinople: trial of John Italos These four documents contain more or less complete traces of the original procedures. They reveal that synods took place over a number of sessions over a number of days. It appears that each session was dedicated to a specific type of issue; none of these documents fit entirely with each other. This reveals—rather than an imperfection of the final redaction, or an imprecision of patriarchal/synodal chancellery—the fact that each synod seems to adapt to its subject matter. Thus, the sessions of investigation could be more or less numerous or lengthy. The outcomes could be quite varied as well. In the case of Photios, he was first deposed (869) and then reinstated (879). Instead, the case of John VIII bar Abdoun, the Syro-Jacobite patriarch, shows how he was brought before the tribunal and condemned. The result was his deposition, but maybe more importantly, from the point of view of the synod, the elaboration of anathemas against the Syro-Jacobites, which converts needed to recite.38 38

See Eleuteri and Rigo, Eretici; the Syro-Jacobite formulas of renunciation are discussed at pp. 66–69. While the dating is uncertain, it is clear that the will to establish manners

34

Lauritzen

The case of John Italos resulted in anathemas which condemned ideas originating from pagan philosophy, which were felt to be contrary to Orthodoxy. The first two cases may be considered administrative since they define questions pertaining to rank, even if hierarchy itself has religious notions in itself. The latter two show the patriarch and synod dealing with questions which are specifically and clearly linked to dogma and belief. The result of both was the issuing of anathemas in particular sessions. It is difficult to know exactly the weight and extension of these anathemas. A simple question is whether the anathemas discussed and issued by the Synod of Constantinople were automatically valid within other patriarchates. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which contains many of these anathemas, was also issued by the patriarchate of Antioch, but this does not solve the question, it rather complicates it. The term anathema is already present in the New Testament, and therefore has an obvious and immediate religious connotation.39 The etymological approach to the question, which claims that the term, together with ἐπικατάρατος of the Old Testament, translates the Hebrew ‘herem’, avoids the question rather than solving it for what concerns us in this period. If these anathemas represent indications of what is incorrect but not absolute excommunications, then there is a question of jurisdiction. Beside the hair-splitting interest in the exact extension and jurisdiction of these anathemas, it is important to understand what the synod thought it was doing when it decided to anathematize someone. It is not clear if these anathemas were subject to a vote in the period 843–1081. The vote would guarantee a very definite religious importance at the level of a definition. In the case of Italos, he was requested to recite a profession of faith as well as the 11 anathemas which condemned his ideas.40 This would allow him to recant his opinions. In other words the synod elaborated an exit strategy for someone who was found at fault doctrinally during an assembly. There seems to be no evidence of the elaboration of these anathemas during the synod. It appears rather that the text of the anathemas may have been elaborated by the patriarchal chancellery or suggested by the prosecution. This is clear from Italos’ trial: “ὡς δόγματα πάλαι τῇ ἁγίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀποδοκιμασθέντα καὶ ἀναθέματι καθυπαχθέντα.” (As dogmas already rejected by God’s holy and universal Church and subject to anathema).41

39 40 41

of conversion derives from the actions of the synod, and specifically those begun under Alexios I Stoudites (1025–43). 1 Cor. 12:3, 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 1:8, Rom. 9:3, Act. 23:14. Gouillard, “Procès”, p. 157, lines 378–381. Act of the Synod against Italos, in Gouillard, “Procès”, pp. 142–43, lines 119–21 (my translation).

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period

35

These lines give the impression that the anathemas of the trial of Italos were a rewording of previously recognized heresies. Thus the synod’s aim was also to bring up to date the terms of previous condemnations. This may explain why the acts of the synods of this period investigate ideas but not the wording of the anathemas. The notion of being up to date was memorably expressed during the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681: Ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦ σατὰν ἡ ἀντίπαλος δύναμις ἠρεμεῖν οὐκ ἀνέχεται, ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ αἰχμηφόρους καὶ βεληφόρους ⟨κατὰ Χριστοῦ⟩ τοὺς οἰκείους ὑπηρέτας κατεξανίστησι τοῖς τῆς πλάνης διδάγμασιν οἷα κρυπταῖς μαχαίραις τὴν τῶν πολλῶν δολοφονοῦντας διάνοιαν, τοῦ γε χάριν καὶ Χριστὸς ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ἡ τοῦ πατρὸς σοφία καὶ δύναμις, δι’ ἦς τὸ πᾶν συνέστη τε καὶ συνέχεται, τοὺς ἰδίους κατ’ αὐτῶν ὁπλίτας ἐπικαίρως ἀντεξανίστησι τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος ἀναλαμβάνοντας μάχαιραν πρὸς ἐκτομὴν καὶ ἀναίρεσιν τῶν ἀνταιρόντων χεῖρα κατὰ περιουσίου λαοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας βασίλεια πειρωμένων λῃστρικῶς παραστήσασθαι καὶ τοὺς ἐντὸς μαργαρίτας τὰ θειότατα λόγια, συλῆσαί τε καὶ πατῆσαι τοῖς χοιρώδεσι δόγμασι.42 The opposing power of Satan does not cease to be idle, but raises infantry and archers, his servants with erroneous teachings, like hidden daggers. They deceive the opinion of people. Therefore Christ, our God, the wisdom and power of the Father, through which all subsists and continues, opportunely opposes his own soldiers who raise the sword of the Spirit to cut and remove those who raise the hand against his prosperous people and attempt dishonestly to depose the reign of the Church and to steal and trample its pearls, the most divine words, with swine-like teachings. Thus, the anathemas against Italos are updated condemnations of heresies previously known. In general the permanent synod functioned as a court of appeal and reacted to questions presented to it by issuing decrees and anathemas, which translated practically dogmatic decisions of the ecumenical councils. This also indicates that the synod took note of contemporary issues and aimed at employing previously established dogmas, in terms applicable in a new era. Thus, there is an element of time which is taken into consideration. Moreover, the geographical consideration is also important if these decrees and anathemas were limited to the jurisdiction of the patriarchate. These two considerations of time and space explain why the Synodikon was updated over time and was distributed to other jurisdictions and even translated. The aim of 42

Council Acts 680, act 18, ed. Riedinger, vol. 2, p. 808, lines 1–9 (my translation).

36

Lauritzen

the text was to give the up-to-date opinion of the patriarch together with the synod on current questions of orthodoxy. In this way, the patriarch together with the synod guaranteed Orthodoxy. Often there were tensions between the two, but these were natural since they represented facets of the same coin. Nevertheless, their relationship was well established in Byzantium. The patriarch would convene, structure, and seal the gathering. By the power of the individual vote the metropolitans would be an essential and necessary part of this process, guaranteeing the plurality of voices expressed to reach a final decision. This development has parallels in other structures of the Byzantine Empire, such as the city corporations. The main element in common was autonomous legislative power. However, the synod is the only bureaucratic structure in the Byzantine Empire known in any detail because of the relatively numerous documents which have reached our times. 5

List of Select Documents of the Permanent Synod 843–108143

Date

Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes

Methodios (843–47) 843 416 844 425 845/6 430

Subject

synodikon synodikon

Photios (858–67) 861

471 (COGD 4)

canons

Ignatios (867–77) 869 869 869

531 (COGD 2) – (Mansi 16, pp. 16–208) – (Mansi 16, pp. 308–420)

decree and canons Latin acts Greek acts

43

The editions are indicated in the regestes; if an edition is recently published in COGD, the volume is quoted to the regestes number.

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period

37

(cont.)

Date Photios (877–86) 879/880 879/880 879/880 –

Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes

Subject

551 (COGD 2, pp. 65–67; 4, pp. 38–39) 552 (COGD 2, pp. 69–71; 4, pp. 37–38) – (Mansi 17, pp. 373–525) 587

canons canon Greek acts decree

Nicholas Mystikos (901–7) 901–905 598 906 603 907 604 907 605

taxis resignation resignation resignation

Nicholas Mystikos (912–25) 920 715 (COGD 4, pp. 47–51) 716 781 783

tomos unionis decree decree decree

Tryphon (927–31) 931

signature

786

Nicholas II Chrysoberges (980–92) – 801 – 802

judgement opinion

Sisinnios II (996–98) – 804 – 806 – 807 – 808

decree decree decree decree

Sergios II (1001–19) 1016 May 821

donations of monasteries to laity

38

Lauritzen

(cont.)

Date

Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes

Eustathios (1019–25) 1019 12 Sept 826 1023 June 826a Alexios Stoudites (1025–43) 1026 July 830 1028 Jan 835 1028 Nov 833 1030 May 839 1032 April 840 1038 17 April 844 1038 April 845 1039 Sept – – –

846 848 849 850

Subject

Nicholas Hagiokomites case of marriage

against rebels Church rules donations to monasteries against Jacobites against Jacobites marriage seventh degree marriage against father’s consent marriages of Jacobites various decisions marriage seventh degree Eleutherios of Paphlagonia

Michael Keroularios (1043–58) 1054 869

account of anathema

Constantine III Leichoudes (1059–63) 1060 887

guilty slave

John VIII Xiphilinos (1064–75) 1066 26 April 896 1067 19 March 1071 9 Nov 900 1072 14 Mar 900a

fiancée = marriage fiancée = marriage nomination of bishops nomination of suffragants

Kosmas I (1075–81) 1076/7 907 1079 914a

John Italos chrysobull voted by synod

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period

39

Bibliography Primary Sources

COGD 1 = G. Alberigo ed., Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, vol. 1: The Oecumenical Councils from Nicaea I to Nicaea II (325–787) (Turnhout, 2006). COGD 2.1–2 = G. Alberigo and A. Melloni eds., Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, vol. 2.1–2: The General Councils of Latin Christendom (Turnhout, 2013). COGD 4.1–2 = A. Melloni ed., Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, vol. 4.1–2: Concilia. The Great Councils of the Orthodox Churches from Constantinople 861 to Moscow 2000 (Turnhout, 2016). Council Acts 649 = R. Riedinger ed., Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Series secunda, volumen primum: concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum (Berlin, 1984). Council Acts 680 = R. Riedinger ed., Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum Series secunda, volumen secundum: concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, 3 vols (Berlin, 1990–95). Documents Protaton = D. Papachryssanthou ed., Actes de Prôtaton (Archives de l’Athos 7) (Paris, 1975). Ecloga Basilicorum, ed. L. Burgmann (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 15) (Frankfurt am Main, 1988). Eustathios Rhomaios, Peira, eds. I. Zepos and P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum, vol. 4 (Athens, 1931; repr. Aalen, 1962), pp. 15–260. Ius canonicum Graeco-Romanum, ed. J.P. Migne (Patrologia Graeca 119) (Paris, 1864), pp. 725–1298. John Scylitzes, Histories, ed. J. Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum (Berlin, 1973). Mansi, J.D. ed., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collection, vol. 16 (Venice, 1771). Mansi, J.D. ed., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collection, vol. 17 (Venice, 1772). Michael Psellos, Speeches, ed. G.T. Dennis, Michaelis Pselli orationes forenses et acta (Stuttgart, 1994). Nicetas Amasenus, Rights, ed. J. Darrouzès, Documents inédits d’écclesiologie byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 10) (Paris, 1966), pp. 160–74. Nicholas I, Letters, eds. R.J.H. Jenkins and L.G. Westerink (Dumbarton Oaks Texts 2) (Washington, D.C., 1973). Nicholas I, Miscellanea, ed. L.G. Westerink, Miscellaneous Writings. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople (Dumbarton Oaks Texts 6) (Washington, D.C., 1981).

40

Lauritzen

Photios, Epistles, eds. B. Laourdas and L.G. Westerink, Photii patriarchae Constantinopolitani epistulae et Amphilochia, vols. 1–6.2 (Leipzig, 1983–88). Rhalles, G.A. and M. Potles eds., Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων, vol. 5 (Athens, 1835).

Secondary Literature

Chitwood, Z., “The Patriarch Alexios Stoudites and the reinterpretation of Justinianic legislation against heretics”, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 54.2 (2014), 293–312. Darrouzès, J., Documents inedits de l’ecclesiologie byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 10) (Paris, 1966). Darrouzès, J., Recherches sur les ὀφφίκια de l’Église byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 11) (Paris, 1970). Dujčev, I., “On the treaty of 927 with the Bulgarians”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32 (1978), 217–95. Eleuteri, P. and A. Rigo ed., Eretici, dissidenti, musulmani ed ebrei a Bisanzio, una raccolta eresiologia del xii secolo (Venice, 1993). Ficker, G., “Der Häretiker Eleutherius”, Theologischen Studien und Kritiken 79 (1906), 591–614. Ficker, G., Erlasse des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel Alexios Studites, Festschrift der Universiät Kiel zur Feier des Geburtstages Seiner Majestät des Kaisers und Königs Wilhelm II. (Kiel, 1911). Gastgeber, C., E. Mitsiou, and J. Preiser-Kapeller, eds., The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: an Essential Source for the History and Church of Late Byzantium. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Vienna, 5th–9th May 2009 (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 32) (Vienna, 2013). Gouillard, J., “Le synodikon de l’Orthodoxie”, Travaux et Memoires 2 (1967), 1–316. Gouillard, J., “Quatre procès de mystiques à Byzance (vers 960–1143), inspiration et autorité”, Revue des études byzantines 36 (1978), 5–81. Gouillard, J., “Le procès officiel de Jean l’Italien. Les actes et leur sous-entendus”, Travaux et Memoires 9 (1985), 133–74. Grumel, V. and J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du patriarchat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, parts 2 and 3: Les regestes de 715 a 1206 (Paris, 1972). Hajjar, J., Le synode permanent (Σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα) dans l’église byzantine des origines au XIe siècle (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 164) (Rome, 1962). Jenkins, R.J.H., “Three documents concerning ‘tetragamy’”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962), 229–41. Koder, J., Das Eparchenbuch Leons des Weisen (Vienna, 1991). Koder, J., “The authority of the eparchies in the markets of Constantinople (according to the Book of the Eparch)”, in Authority in Byzantium, ed. P. Armstrong (Farnham, 2013), pp. 83–109.

Patriarch and Synods in the Middle Byzantine Period

41

Lauritzen, F., “Against the enemies of tradition. Alexios Studites and the Synodikon of Orthodoxy”, Nea Rhome 4 (2010), 41–48. Lauritzen, F., “Aleksij Studit i Siro-Jakobitskaja obobshhina” [Alexios Stoudites and the Syro-Jacobite community], in Cerkovno-istoricheskie issledovanija v kontekste sovremennoj nauki [Church history research in the context of modern science] (Moscow, 2011), pp. 161–64. Lauritzen, F., “La formazione del consenso nella chiesa bizantina (843–1453)”, Cristianesimo nella Storia 32 (2011), 945–62. Lauritzen, F., “Il primato del sinodo: due trattati bizantini sul canone 28 di Calcedonia”, Cristianesimo nella Storia 33 (2012), 1–12. Lauritzen, F., “Synod decrees of the eleventh century”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 105 (2012), 101–16. Lauritzen, F., “An Athonite assembly described in the typikon of Monomachos”, ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΟΣ. Mélanges offerts à Mirjana Živojinović, eds. D. Dželebdžić, B. Miljković, B. Pavlović, and M. Živković (Belgrade, 2015), pp. 73–82. Meyendorff, J., “Christian marriage in Byzantium: the canonical and liturgical tradition”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990), 99–107. Morini, E., La chiesa ortodossa: storia, disciplina, culto (Bologna, 1996). Oikonomides, N., “Leo VI and the narthex mosaic of Saint Sophia”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976), 151–72. Oikonomides, N., “Leo VI’s legislation of 907 forbidding fourth marriages: an interpolation in the ‘Procheiros Nomos’ (IV, 25–27)”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976), 173–93. Pentkovsky, A., Tipikon patriarha Aleksija Studita v Vizantii i na Rusi [Typicon of Patriarch Alexios Stoudites in Byzantium and in Russia] (Moscow, 2001). Preiser-Kapeller, J., “Die hauptstädtische Synode von Konstantinopel (Synodos endemusa): zur Geschichte und Funktion einer zentralen Institution der (spät)byzantinischen Kirche”, Historicum (spring–summer 2007), 20–31. Simeonova, L., “Power in Nicholas Mysticus’ letters to Symeon of Bulgaria: notes on the political vocabulary of a tenth century Byzantine statesman”, Byzantinoslavica 54 (1993), 89–94. Stanković, V.M., “Patrijarhat Aleksija Studita (1025–1043): početak porasta patrijaršijske moći” [The Alexios Stoudites’ patriarchate (1025–1043): a developmental stage in patriarchal power], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 39 (2001), 69–87. Stephanides, B., “Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Synoden des Patriachats von Konstantinopel”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 55 (1936), 127–57.

chapter 3

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204 Tia M. Kolbaba The patriarchs are seldom to be found. Out of a myriad of books and articles on relations between Byzantines and western Europeans, few emphasize the role of the patriarch of Constantinople. If we omit monographs or essays that relate to the Patriarchs Photios (858–67, 877–86) or Michael Keroularios (1043–58), then the overwhelming majority of studies of East-West ecclesiastical relations focus on the emperor and the pope. The absence of the patriarchs results in part from two features of the scholarship. First, there tends to be a division of labor between those who study the patriarchate per se and those who study relations between East and West. Second, within the latter subfield a kind of teleological thinking has overemphasized conflict. As historians of the patriarchate have deepened our understanding, it has become obvious that the West was seldom a central concern of the patriarch of Constantinople. Even challenges posed by a papacy that claimed an ever-broader primacy of honor and jurisdiction, were seldom in the foreground. Histories of the patriarchs, reflecting the patriarch’s status as a Byzantine official whose responsibilities lay within the empire, contain long stretches without mention of the Western Church. On the other hand, those who have written histories of relations between the Eastern and Western Churches discuss some patriarchs who played major roles in such relations: notably, for the period between 600 and 1204, Photios and Keroularios. In general, however, this history has been conceived as a quest for ‘the origins of the schism’, meaning that the majority of patriarchs, who had nothing to do with the schism, do not enter the story.1 As a result, secondary literature on the specific subject of this chapter is sparse, while primary source analysis has been so focused on the schism that a global 1 Compare, for example, the significant role Patriarch Alexios Stoudites (1025–43) played in the politics of the empire during the tumultuous decades after the death of Basil II (976– 1025) to the same patriarch’s virtual absence from histories of the schism. Alexios was the immediate predecessor of Michael Keroularios, whose role in the ‘schism of 1054’ is infamous, and there were important developments within the patriarchate during his tenure. See Stanković, “Alexios Stoudites’ patriarchate.” Compare general assessments of Patriarch Alexios’ significance to his complete absence from Chadwick, East and West, and the single mention of his role in monasticism in both Papadakis, The Christian East, and Louth, Greek East and Latin West.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_004

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

43

reanalysis is probably called for. Rather than try to recap or annotate such an amorphous bibliography, this chapter suggests that we rethink our approach to the history of patriarchal relations with the West in light of our increased understanding of the history of the patriarchate more generally. 1

The Emperor’s Duty to Protect and Preserve the Unity of the Church

As soon as they were Christian, the emperors of the Romans considered it their duty to protect the Church from strife and turmoil. In some ways, this was merely an extension of the imperial responsibility to protect the unity and order of the empire in general. There is a classic debate about whether Constantine I (312/324–37) adopted the Christian Churches as his own because he thought they would help reunite the fragmented Roman Empire, whether he was sincerely converted, or both.2 Fortunately we do not have to solve that puzzle. While his deepest personal motives are beyond our reach, as a ruler, Constantine sought order and stability, and when he found that the Churches were deeply divided, he felt obliged to solve the problem. Emperors after Constantine continued to take responsibility for the Church’s problems; legislating about the Church’s divisions, rewarding the Orthodox, and punishing heretics. The cynical may see this as merely extending the ruling power’s control of its subjects and ability to collect taxes and muster an army, but it seems also to have been a responsibility sincerely felt and a burden dutifully shouldered by the emperors. Most importantly, the emperor’s role as a guide and arbiter of the Church was accepted throughout the Eastern Empire by ecclesiastical officials as well as imperial ones. Of course, when an ecclesiastical faction was opposed to the emperor’s policy it would challenge his very right to be involved in Church disputes, but when a faction had the emperor’s support it was willing to laud the emperor’s role as God’s vicar on earth, and use imperial power to punish and persecute its opponents.3 2

Islamic Invasions, the Triumph of Chalcedon, and Two Patriarchs

As with so many other features of the Mediterranean world in Late Antiquity, imperial involvement in the Church changed after the Arab expansion of 2 Girardet, Der Kaiser und sein Gott. 3 Dagron, Empereur et prêtre; Höfert, Kaisertum und Kalifat.

44

Kolbaba

the 7th century. Before the Islamic invasions, imperial attempts to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian Christians of the Eastern Empire with the adamantly Chalcedonian popes had caused more division and strife than it had ameliorated.4 When the eastern provinces fell to Islam, most of the nonChalcedonian Christians were removed from imperial control or responsibility, and the emperor’s motivation for compromising on doctrine in order to reconcile them with Rome evaporated. For most intents and purposes, there were now only two patriarchs for whom the emperor felt responsible: the pope in Rome and the patriarch in Constantinople.5 Moreover, it was relatively easy to make peace with the papacy if the emperor was willing to give the pope everything he wanted, as Emperor Constantine IV (668–85) did at the Council of Constantinople (680–81). The council accepted Rome’s absolute authority in matters of doctrine, acquiesced in the condemnation of several past patriarchs of Constantinople, and required the patriarch of Constantinople to acknowledge Rome’s primacy and authority. As John Haldon put it, this council “marked the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Churches, although at the expense of Constantinopolitan claims to equality with Rome.”6 3

The Patriarch’s Role

For the rest of the Middle Ages, then, peace between the Constantinopolitan and Roman Churches was largely a matter of peace between the emperors and the popes. The patriarch’s role was to follow and facilitate the emperor’s policies. Decades and even centuries passed in which patriarchs and popes sent each other encyclical letters upon ordination, inscribed one another’s names in the diptychs for commemoration in the liturgy, and in other ways kept the peace.7 They occasionally quarreled over jurisdiction, especially over dioceses in the Balkans and southern Italy, but these disagreements were generally less important than the business each conducted within his own patriarchate.8 This relative absence of the patriarchs from secular and foreign affairs is easily overlooked if we seek only to explain the schism between Rome and Constantinople, a quest in which peaceful times are irrelevant and conflict 4 Kötter, Zwischen Kaisern und Aposteln. 5 Dagron, “L’Église et la chrétienté byzantines”, p. 31; Dagron, “L’Église et l’état”, pp. 208–12. See also the contribution of K.-P. Todt in this volume on the eastern patriarchates. 6 Haldon, Seventh century, p. 316. 7 Bréhier, “Avant la separation”; Todt, “Die letzte Papstreise nach Byzanz”. 8 But see also Noble, Images, Iconoclasm and the Carolingians; Gantner, Freunde Roms und Völker der Finsternis.

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

45

seems inevitable. When we note instead the long peaceful stretches we see that, far from being normal or inevitable, conflict resulted from extraordinary circumstances. When the patriarch and western powers quarreled, something unusual was also happening within the Byzantine polity. The famous events of ‘the Photian Schism’ and ‘the Schism of 1054’ are still worth studying in detail, not because they reveal a deep and unchanging patriarchal competition with Rome, but because they show how such conflict occurred only in extraordinary circumstances. 4

A Patriarch Fighting alongside the Emperor: ‘The Photian Schism’9

The Byzantine Emperor Michael III (842–67) inherited the throne at the age of two. The regency was in the hands of his mother Theodora and the eunuch Theoktistos, but by around 855 the young emperor was chafing under their authority, and in that year he at least approved of, and possibly collaborated with, his uncle Bardas’ assassination of Theoktistos. In 856, Michael and Bardas removed Theodora from power and forced her to retire to a monastery. The patriarch in this turbulent time, Ignatios I (first patriarchate 847– 58), supported Theodora. Not surprisingly, therefore, Michael and Bardas deposed Ignatios and chose his replacement, Photios, who was a distinguished scholar and imperial servant, and a layman. With Christmas approaching, the patriarch-elect was rushed through the lower clerical orders and consecrated as patriarch in only a week. Ignatios’ supporters appealed soon thereafter to Pope Nicholas I (858–67), complaining that Ignatios had been illegally deposed and Photios illegally consecrated. Meanwhile, in 860, Photios circulated his encyclical to the eastern patriarchs and the pope while Michael III wrote to Nicholas, asking him to send legates to a council in Constantinople to reaffirm the orthodoxy of icon veneration. Pope Nicholas’ response to Photios was mild, but to Michael he wrote that he was shocked that the emperor would convene a synod and depose a patriarch without first consulting the pope. Moreover, Photios’ elevation to the patriarchate had been invalid. The legates who carried this papal letter to Constantinople were to preside at a hearing of Ignatios’ case and report to the pope. Then the pope alone would “direct by our apostolic 9 The following give the essential account and identify the primary sources: Bishop, Pope Nicholas I; Dagron, “L’Église et l’état”, pp. 169–86; Dvornik, Photian Schism; Karlin-Hayter, “Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios”; Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics. Still invaluable for its publication of sources, but hopelessly biased in its conclusions, is Photius, Works, ed. Hergenroether.

46

Kolbaba

authority what is to be done, so that your Church, daily shaken by these anxieties, may henceforth remain inviolate and unhurt.”10 In 861, the legates did indeed participate in a council, but it was predictably rigged against Ignatios and found in favor of the emperor and Photios. The legates agreed to its conclusions, but when they returned to Rome, Nicholas was appalled. They were supposed to have reported back to him for his judgment, not acquiesced in everything the emperor wanted.11 In response to letters carried by a Byzantine embassy that had travelled to Rome with the legates, Nicholas asserted again that Ignatios was not deposed until the pope himself had heard his appeal and handed down a judgment. Still the emperor tried to keep the peace. Rather than respond to yet another papal demand for the reinstatement of Ignatios, Michael III and Photios did not respond at all. As Francis Dvornik wrote, this was, “to put it frankly, the only possible thing for them to do” if they did not want an open schism.12 The pope, meanwhile, played host to supporters of Ignatios, who accused Photios of illegalities and atrocities, including the mistreatment of Ignatios in captivity. Convinced by these partisans, Nicholas held a synod in Rome in 863 in which he went beyond claiming the right to hear Ignatios’ appeal: he now pronounced Photios’ elevation illegal and characterized him as a usurper and a criminal. The resulting schism between Constantinople and Rome endured for some time. Its history is well-documented and has been told elsewhere, and its historiography has been complicated by confessional biases, but for my purposes here a single point is crucial: from the perspective of Constantinople, Nicholas’ challenge to the deposition of Ignatios and the promotion of Photios was not primarily a matter of ecclesiastical authority. The emperor was convinced that Ignatios had at least opposed and possibly plotted against his gaining control of the throne. In such circumstances, his removal of Ignatios and appointment of a successor was, in Constantinople, quite normal. As for a papal right to judge the case, there was no doctrinal issue involved here: it was a purely disciplinary matter within the Constantinopolitan Church, and the Roman Church had no say in the matter. In other words, the Photian schism is the kind of conflict that results when the emperor and the pope are at odds and the patriarch follows the emperor. Although Pope Nicholas saw it as a struggle between his office and the patriarchate of Constantinople over who had primacy among the bishops—a perception that meshed with his experience and 10 11 12

Translation in Dvornik, Photian Schism, p. 75. In addition to the general sources cited above, see Anastos, “Papal legates”. Dvornik, Photian Schism, p. 96.

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

47

world-view—the emperor and Photios saw it as a struggle against a particular individual on the papal throne who claimed a right to reverse decisions made by the emperor and synod in Constantinople. Nicholas’ radical assertions of papal jurisdiction were a direct assault on imperial prerogatives.13 Contributing to the tension between the emperor and the pope at this time was a struggle for the conversion—and therefore, it was hoped, the control— of the Bulgars. Boris, Khan of the Bulgars, originally accepted Christianity under the influence of Byzantine missionaries. But missionaries from the eastern parts of the Frankish realm were also active in the Balkans, as were emissaries from the papacy. A competition ensued, which Boris ably manipulated to gain privileges for his new Church. Imperial policy was to keep the Latins in general and the Franks in particular out of Bulgaria, for it would be disastrous for the empire if the Franks and the Bulgars joined forces. It is important to remember how real a threat the Bulgars represented in the 9th century. Within living memory (811) an emperor had been killed and his son mortally wounded in a battle against them. From then until well into the 10th century, the Bulgars menaced the empire’s north-western regions—sometimes open enemies, sometimes allegedly allies, but always to be watched very carefully.14 So it was considered essential that the Bulgarian Church, like the Bulgarian kingdom, become a satellite of Constantinople. Since the issue was religious as well as political, ecclesiastical as well as military, the patriarch participated in the efforts to bring the Bulgars into the Byzantine fold, and it is in this context that Photios wrote a number of polemical pieces decrying the errors of the Latin Church.15 These texts are famous, and no history of the schism is complete without them. It is nonetheless crucial to understand them in their own context rather than in hindsight. We cannot know whose idea it was to attack the Latins for the addition of the filioque to the creed, the insistence on unmarried clergy, and other differences. To say that Photios was working with the emperor is not to say that he had no thoughts of his own, but we can ask whether he would have cared so much about Bulgaria or been free to write so strongly against Latin practices if imperial policy had not benefited from the same approach. It was probably also 13

14 15

Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, p. 320: “In the eastern institutions, then, the emperor of Constantinople occupies nearly the same place as the pope in Rome. That which one could too swiftly label as his ‘encroachments’ is a right generally agreed upon and assumed, but rarely presented in a coherent theory.” Fundamental accounts of Byzantium and Bulgaria in the 9th century are: Tougher, “After iconoclasm”; Ivanov, “Religious missions”. Cf. also Simeonova, Diplomacy of the Letter and the Cross. Kolbaba, Inventing Latin Heretics, pp. 49–117.

48

Kolbaba

papal intervention in Bulgaria that led Photios to hold a council in 867 which passed judgment on Pope Nicholas I. At this point, each side had declared the existence of a schism, but the battles Photios fought were still the empire’s battles as much as the Church’s. Michael III was overthrown by Basil I (867–86) and Photios too was removed from office, no doubt because his ties to the disgraced emperor were too strong to be overlooked. Ignatios returned to the patriarchal throne in 867, and a new pope, Hadrian II (867–72), was elevated to the cathedra of Rome in that same year. A new emperor and a new patriarch set out to make peace with Rome almost immediately. Ignatios wrote to the pope with praise for the judgment and authority of Peter and his successors. Basil sought to erase evidence of his participation in the council of 867, and therefore, in turn, his criticism of the papacy. He also requested that the pope send legates to an ecumenical council that would resolve the differences between the Churches. There was no mention of liturgical or doctrinal differences, and the implication was that Constantinople had obeyed Rome: Photios was deposed and Ignatios was back in the patriarchal palace. Pope Hadrian II (867–72) responded to these letters by claiming full authority for his office. He called a Roman synod which condemned the Acta of the council of 867; declared the deposition of all clerics ordained by Photios; demanded that all of the clerics ordained by Ignatios who had deserted him at any point sign a Libellus satisfactionis; and condemned bishops who signed the Acta of 867, with the pope alone having the ability to readmit them to their offices. In a Constantinopolitan synod in 869, the emperor and the patriarch did their best to satisfy the pope, but it was impossible for them to do everything he had demanded. The majority of the Constantinopolitan clergy had been ordained by or were otherwise connected to Photios; to depose all of them would throw the Church into chaos. Moreover, the issue of Bulgaria intervened again, for the council entertained a Bulgarian delegation asking that Bulgaria’s archbishop be made autocephalous. This was part of Boris’ long-term effort to use the rivalry of Constantinople and Rome to gain privileges for the Bulgarian Church. If Ignatios granted the Bulgarian archbishop autocephaly—a strong measure of independence—the Bulgars would stop flirting with Rome and tie themselves to Constantinople. Needless to say, the popes were not going to accept that. In short, it was impossible for the results of the council to satisfy Hadrian.16 Again, though, the crucial thing is how hard Basil and Ignatios tried. Peace with the Roman Church was desirable, and when Photios was restored to the patriarchal throne after Ignatios’ death in 877, attempts at rapprochement 16

Dvornik, Photian Schism, pp. 132–58.

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

49

continued. The schism was resolved before Photios was deposed a second time in 886, and memory of it faded in the centuries that followed. Only around 1274, when a union of the Churches was manufactured at the Second Council of Lyon, did Photios’ name resurface, along with a portrait of the patriarch as a fomenter of schism, a rabid opponent of the papacy, and a hypocrite in his criticism of Latin practices.17 In the 9th and early 10th centuries, the general pattern continued: emperors tended to seek peace with the Roman Church; patriarchs tended to go along with the emperors. When patriarchs did not go along with emperors, they were deposed. So when Emperor Leo VI (886–912) wanted to marry for a fourth time and Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos (first patriarchate 901–07) opposed him, the emperor both deposed the patriarch and appealed to the papacy, which granted him a dispensation for the fourth marriage.18 Only after Leo VI’s death and the reappointment of Nicholas Mystikos (second patriarchate 912–25) was it possible for the patriarch to write a letter to the pope denouncing papal interference in Constantinopolitan affairs and papal error in having given permission for a fourth marriage.19 He did so from a position of power, as regent for the young Constantine VII, which shows, as does the next case, the connection between weakness on the imperial throne and patriarchal assertiveness. 5

A Latin-Hating Patriarch, a Weak Emperor: The Schism of 105420

Arguably the most famous moment in the history of relations between the Roman and Constantinopolitan Churches is the confrontation between the papal legate Humbert of Silva Candida and the patriarch of Constantinople Michael Keroularios. The resulting ‘Schism of 1054’ continues to dominate textbooks and Wikipedia accounts of relations between the Greek and Latin Churches, in spite of a near-consensus among Byzantine historians 17 18 19 20

Dvornik, Photian Schism, pp. 331–53. On the role of the eastern patriarchs in this controversy, see the contribution of K.-P. Todt in this volume. Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters, ep. 32, eds. Jenkins and Westerink, pp. 215–45. The following give the essential account, and identify the primary sources. Runciman, Eastern Schism, pp. 28–54, is a thorough and readable account. For more detail, see Kaplan, “Le place du schisme de 1054”; Kolbaba, “On the closing of the churches”; Kolbaba, “1054 revisited: response to Ryder”; Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios (but note that V. Laurent, J. Darrouzès, and others have disputed Michel’s attribution of some texts to Keroularios); Smith, And Taking Bread. The primary sources can be found in Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, and Will, Acta et scripta.

50

Kolbaba

that the events of 1054 were neither decisive nor even particularly important in the development of a schism between Rome and Constantinople.21 As with the story of the Photian schism, the historiography of what happened in 1053 and 1054 has filled many volumes and will not be repeated here. Instead, I want to emphasize the themes I have so far been pursuing. First, the furious wars of words and symbolic actions carried out by Humbert and Keroularios were desired by neither of their masters, and therefore possible only because their masters could not control them. Pope Leo IX (1049–54) had sent Humbert and his delegation to arrange an alliance with the emperor, not to criticize Greek beliefs and excommunicate the patriarch. Emperor Constantine XI Monomachos (1042–55) also sought the alliance, but could not curb his obstreperous patriarch.22 In other words, this is another example of an emperor seeking peace with Rome, but in this case the emperor is weak and his patriarch strong. Second, the resulting tit-for-tat excommunications that Humbert and Keroularios threw at one another were limited in scope and do not constitute a schism. Third, Keroularios’ ability to foment anti-Latin feeling and drive the papal legates from the city was a result of the emperor’s relative weakness and lack of control. By 1050, Norman mercenaries-turned-conquerors were in control of most of southern Italy and had made considerable inroads into central Italy. The resulting threat to the papal states had inspired Pope Leo IX to take command of an army that set out against the Normans in 1053, but it suffered a disastrous defeat and saw its leader led away as a captive. Leo, and the commander of the Byzantine forces in southern Italy, who had also suffered a disastrous defeat in 1053, shared the desire to at least stop and perhaps turn back the Normans. Humbert’s mission in Constantinople was to arrange a joining of imperial and papal forces for another thrust against the Normans. Several factors would lead to the failure of this mission. First, Humbert was convinced that the patriarch in Constantinople was unjustly persecuting Latin Christians in the capital and that he had closed Latin churches because of their use of unleavened bread. Second, Keroularios was, as alleged, opposed to the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist and various other Latin practices. While it is unlikely that he closed the Latin churches in Constantinople, he had challenged the validity of a liturgy that used unleavened bread. He also despised the Byzantine governor and commander of the imperial troops in Italy, Argyros, for several reasons, especially because he had publicly challenged Keroularios on the issue 21 22

Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit. On Keroularios’ ambition to elevate the patriarchate above the emperor, see Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, pp. 236–48.

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

51

of unleavened bread.23 Third, the emperor was relatively weak and unable to control his quarrelsome patriarch, although he did try. For example, according to Humbert, the emperor forced Niketas Stethatos—an ally of Keroularios who had published a treatise against the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist and a few other Latin practices—to curse and burn his own antiLatin treatises.24 The emperor, it seems, wanted to join forces with the pope against the Normans more than he cared about liturgical bread. The actions of Humbert and Keroularios in excommunicating and publicizing the misdeeds of one another were, then, the actions of individuals. In excommunicating the other man and his immediate followers, neither condemned all members of the other Church. In fact, Keroularios always maintained that Humbert and the others were imposters, not sent by the pope at all, but rather by Argyros; his condemnation of them was therefore no kind of condemnation of the papacy. Moreover, from a purely legal point of view, Humbert’s bull of excommunication was invalid because the pope who had authorized him as a legate was dead by the time the bull was written. It can be argued, then, that the ‘Schism of 1054’ was no schism at all. In Byzantium, it was barely remembered after the events had taken place.25 Whatever else happened in 1054, the events point to the conclusion that patriarchs could foment hatred for the pope and other Latin Christians, as Keroularios did, only when the emperor was weak. Between 1025 and 1081 the emperor changed every few years while the patriarchate remained a bulwark of administrative, social, and political stability. In addition, while many emperors in the 11th century were ill-qualified for the job, the patriarchs of the same period were, by-and-large, an able group.26 The uproar caused by Humbert and Keroularios—an uproar which reached the ears of other churchmen in Antioch, Ohrid, central Italy, and Venice—resulted in part from a vacuum in the imperial palace in Constantinople. The importance of that vacuum becomes clear in hindsight, for as the new dynasty of the Komnenoi first usurped and then consolidated control of the empire, the patriarchs returned to domestic affairs.27 Their role in anti-Latin actions and polemic largely disappeared.

23 24 25 26 27

Falkenhausen, “Between two empires”, p. 155; Gay, L’Italie meridionale, p. 470. Humbert of Silva Candida, Report, ed. Will. Kolbaba, “Legacy”; Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit. Angold, Church and Society, pp. 19–41; Dagron, “Le temps des changements”, pp. 298–305. Angold, Church and Society, pp. 45–115.

52 6

Kolbaba

The Komnenian Period: Back to Powerful Emperors28

From the late 11th through the 12th century, Latin and Greek churchmen encountered one another much more frequently than they had earlier. The differences between the two churches’ liturgies and doctrine became important to greater numbers of people on each side; even those who considered the differences trivial had to explicitly argue for their unimportance.29 The increasing presence of Italian merchants in the empire and the frequent crossing of the empire by crusaders gave Byzantines first-hand experience of westerners that, while not always negative, was often conflicted.30 Among the results of this contact were many discussions among Greeks and Latins about their ritual and doctrinal differences, and many treatises on such topics as the bread of the Eucharist or the procession of the Holy Spirit. In addition, as the popes first made more and more radical claims about their primacy, not only of honor but of jurisdiction, and as the Byzantines gradually became aware of those claims, the ties that bound the Churches of Rome and Constantinople started to fray.31 Yet, for all this contact, which led to the composition of innumerable antiLatin texts, there is very little to report about the Komnenian patriarchs and the West. The early years of the reign of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118), a usurper, were a struggle to maintain his hold on the throne and to defend the empire against external threats. Once his position was relatively secure and he had time to survey the relations between the Churches, he exhibited the classic imperial desire to make peace between Rome and Constantinople. In 1088, Pope Urban II (1088–99) wrote to Alexios and Patriarch Nicholas III (1084– 1111); he had heard that the pope’s name had been removed from the diptychs of the Constantinopolitan Church and he wanted to know why. To be inscribed on the diptychs was to be commemorated in the prayers of the liturgy. When one patriarch omitted the name of another, it implied that the two were not in communion. When Alexios received Urban’s query, he investigated the matter and concluded that, although the pope was indeed not being commemorated, there was no record of a synod or patriarch having authorized such a break. He confronted the patriarch and synod with this lack of evidence, and they agreed to respond to Urban’s letter in a friendly fashion, asking him for a statement of faith. If that confession proved to be orthodox, the pope would then be asked to send envoys to Constantinople to attend a council regarding some 28 29 30 31

Magdalino, Empire of Manuel I, pp. 303–10. As, for example, Theophylact of Ohrid, Against Those who Accuse the Latins, ed. Gautier. Balard, Les Latins en Orient; Schreiner, “Byzanz und der Westen”. Darrouzès, “Les documents byzantins”; Avvakumov, Die Entstehung des Unionsgedankens.

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

53

“canonical matters” that divided the Churches. The patriarch and emperor then wrote to Urban.32 Here, as so often, the patriarch clearly did the emperor’s bidding. Moreover, he did so in a situation where we might expect a patriarch to be combative vis-à-vis the papacy. In 1059, Pope Nicholas II (1058–61) had decided that he could not beat the Normans, so he joined them. He granted the Norman Robert Guiscard the Duchy of Apulia and Calabria as well as Sicily; in return Robert promised an annual payment to the papacy and agreed that the Churches of the region would be included in the patriarchate of Rome. The double offense given by this action to the emperor, who could claim traditional and recent control of the region, and to the patriarch, who had governed the mostly Greek Churches there, was shocking. Yet here Alexios was in 1089, asking his patriarch to accept the papal land-grab of 1059. Some of the issues involved are exemplified by one of the men the patriarch chose as a messenger for his letter: Basil, Metropolitan of Reggio in Calabria.33 The Normans had taken Reggio in 1060. Finding a Greek Metropolitan in the city, they left him on the throne until he died in 1078 or 1079. In Constantinople, the patriarch consecrated his Greek successor, Basil, thereby maintaining both patriarchal and imperial claims to be the legitimate authorities in Calabria. But the Norman ruler of Reggio had his own candidate, and the man who actually took up the episcopal staff was a Norman. Probably Basil never entered Reggio; he remained Metropolitan in name only, while the Norman ruled in fact. In 1089, just as the emperor and synod in Constantinople were crafting their conciliatory response to Urban’s letter, Basil appeared before the pope at the Council of Melfi. For Basil, this was a perfect time to claim his see because it was again vacant, and he appeared at the synod to ask the pope to uphold his rights. The pope’s reply was a mixture of intransigence and compromise. On the one hand, he reasserted Rome’s right to jurisdiction in Calabria, and therefore denied that ordination by the patriarch of Constantinople had given Basil the right to the see. On the other hand, he offered Basil the following concession: if he would acknowledge papal jurisdiction, he could take up his episcopal see. That Urban saw this purely as a matter of asserting that southern Italy was in his patriarchate, not in Constantinople’s, is clear from a second offer he made after Basil refused to submit to the pope. He offered to write to the patriarch of Constantinople and 32 33

Texts and analysis in Holtzmann, “Unionsverhandlungen”. Cf. also Frankopan, The First Crusade, pp. 20–23. Holtzmann, “Unionsverhandlungen,” p. 64. My account is based on Stiernon, “Basile”. Stiernon’s revisions of the dating are essential. See also Erdmann, Origin, p. 319 n. 42, p. 320 n. 46, p. 321 n. 48; Russo, “L’ultimo metropolita”.

54

Kolbaba

ask him to appoint Basil to another see, within Constantinopolitan jurisdiction. Basil refused again.34 We do not know where Basil went after the confrontation at Melfi, but he was in Dyrrhachion in December 1089, where he received envoys bringing the decisions of the Constantinopolitan synod discussed above. Here he read that he had been commissioned to go to Rome and discuss the unity of the Churches with Urban. He was horrified. In an embittered letter to Patriarch Nicholas, he recounted the events of the Synod of Melfi and called Urban a pseudo-pope, a creature of the “godless Franks”, and an Arian heretic. Perhaps Basil had a right to be bitter about the patriarch’s behavior as much as about the pope’s. When the patriarch had ordained Basil, with the Normans already in control of Reggio, the ordination had been a strong statement of the patriarch’s claim to Calabria. Basil may have understood himself to be keeping alive patriarchal claims in the area. To have the patriarch now send him to the pope with letters that implied a willingness to overlook the pope’s interventions in the Greek episcopates of southern Italy, must have seemed a betrayal.35 In spite of Basil’s protests, however, and in spite of the many churchmen who had begun to consider the Latins’ errors serious, perhaps even heretical, the emperor and patriarch continued to seek peace. For the next 90 years, as Alexios I’s son and grandson ruled the empire, patriarchs mostly followed their emperors in pursuing peaceful relations with Rome. This was so in spite of the increasing vehemence of papal claims to authority. For example, in June 1112, Alexios wrote to Pope Paschal II to say that he was afire with zeal for the reunion of the Churches.36 The pope responded eagerly, praising the emperor’s pious desire and urging him to persuade the patriarch of Constantinople to “recognize the primacy and dignity of the Apostolic See.”37 Paschal’s assertion that recognition of papal primacy was a prerequisite of union was repeated by many popes in the centuries that followed, but Alexios and his successors seem to have pursued a policy of letting such assertions pass without comment. They made friendly noises toward Rome and pursued political alliances while dodging the popes’ increasingly strident calls for the subordination of the Constantinopolitan see to the Roman. 34 35 36

37

Holtzmann, “Unionsverhandlungen”, pp. 64–67, doc. 4. Holtzmann’s dates corrected by Stiernon, “Basile”, and Erdmann, Origin, as noted above. Stiernon, “Basile”, p. 201. Alexios’ letter does not survive, but it is referred to in the opening of Paschal’s letter: Pope Paschal II, Letter to Alexios I Komnenos, ed. Tǎutu, p. 797. On the timing and sequence of communications and embassies around 1112, see Chalandon, Alexis, pp. 259–62; Malamut, Alexis Ier Comnène, p. 432. Pope Paschal II, Letter to Alexios I Komnenos, ed. Tǎutu, pp. 796–97, quotation from p. 797.

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

55

Again, for our purposes, the crucial point is that when discussions about reconciling the differences between the Roman and Constantinopolitan Churches arose, they were usually initiated by the emperor or by the pope. The popes understood the crucial role of the emperor in any discussion of union, as is shown by how often they addressed their letters solely to the emperor. One of the great barriers to reconciliation from the 12th century on, in fact, was the papacy’s overestimation of the emperor’s power within the Church.38 An emperor could force his patriarch into compliance with his plans for peace with Rome; he could depose a patriarch who did not cooperate; but the popes mistook this control of the patriarch for power over the Byzantine clergy and people more generally. Therefore, whenever an emperor (and his patriarch) made promises about reunion of the Churches, including sometimes even concessions about papal authority, the pope believed that they had the power to deliver on those promises. Increasingly, however, they did not. Even as Emperor John II Komnenos or his son Manuel I wrote conciliatory letters to the popes and strove to make alliances with the papacy against German emperors or others, the stream of anti-Latin polemic swelled and overflowed its banks. The Komnenian emperors managed to balance their people’s sentiment against papal demands, but with Manuel’s death while his son was a minor, there began a long decline of imperial power. As was true in the 11th century, so also this time: as the emperor weakened, anti-Latin forces gained power, or at least volume.39 This imperial weakness coincided with the peak of papal strength in the West. When Emperor Alexios III (1195–1203) negotiated with Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) about an alliance against the German emperor and a reconciliation of the Churches, he was negotiating with a pope whose conception of his office’s jurisdiction throughout the world was uncompromising.40 His reply to the emperor was stern and autocratic: the Greeks, he wrote, are responsible for the schism’s beginning and continuation; they are not doing what they could to help their fellow Christians in the Holy Land and then they make excuses about that. Writing to the patriarch at the same time, Innocent asserted that the Greek Church had separated itself from the Roman Church, which was the mother-church. The primacy of Rome, Innocent wrote in a later letter in this exchange, was not negotiable; it was the first principle upon which all attempts at reunion must be based. Still the emperor continued to 38 39 40

Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, p. 117. Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, pp. 7–13, 32–42, 83, 100–01, 222–31 is useful on this period, although it oversimplifies some aspects of relations between Greeks and Latins. Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, pp. 11–13, 28–31; Gill, “Innocent III and the Greeks”, pp. 97–98.

56

Kolbaba

try to placate the pope, offering to send Greek clergy to a council if Innocent would convene one.41 And then came the Fourth Crusade. 7

The Fourth Crusade and Its Aftermath: More Continuity Than We Might Expect

In 1204, the armies of the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople and, after sacking the Queen City, installed a Latin emperor on the throne. The Venetians, who had provided the ships and many of the other resources for the crusade, appointed one of their own as patriarch of Constantinople. And Pope Innocent III, who had neither wished nor planned for the crusade to take this course, nevertheless accepted fait accompli, and rejoiced at the return of schismatics to the fold, at the reconciliation of the ‘daughter’ Greek Church with the ‘mother’ Church of Rome.42 The sack of Constantinople by the crusading armies represented a breaking point for the vast majority of Greek Christians. There was no making peace with a pope and a Church that had condoned the conquest of the empire and the destruction of its capital. This is not surprising. Yet, even before Greek rulers regained Constantinople in 1261 they were sponsoring negotiations with the papacy and pushing their clergy to compromise on the differences between the Churches.43 After 1204, as Joseph Gill once titled an article, “Eleven emperors of Byzantium seek union with the Church of Rome.”44 These were weaker emperors, in general; the patriarchs consequently played a larger role than we have seen in earlier centuries. Many features of relations between the patriarchate and the West in this period foreshadowed the role of the Orthodox Church under Ottoman dominion. Nevertheless, the emperors took seriously their roles as protectors and peacemakers among the Churches. They might seek reunion with Rome for political reasons, as in the case of Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259–82), who desperately needed the pope to rein in western crusaders who wanted to attack his tiny remnant of an empire. But even in Michael’s case, the political reasons did not necessarily preclude nobler ideas, as well, about the unity of Christ’s body and the emperor’s role in calling councils and facilitating ecclesiastical peace. 41 42 43 44

Papadakis and Talbot, “John X Camaterus”; Gastgeber, “Das unexpedierte (zweite) Schreiben des Patriarchen Ioannes X. Kamateros”. On Innocent III’s lack of control over the crusade, see Gill, “Franks, Venetians, and Pope Innocent III”, pp. 101–04. Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, pp. 65–71, 88–96. Gill, “Eleven emperors”.

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

8

57

Conclusion: The Patriarch of Constantinople and the West

After the Arab invasions, Rome and Constantinople confronted one another with no other patriarchates to run interference, to adjudicate disputes, or even to give disputes a multilateral dimension. Moreover, beginning in Late Antiquity, the bishops of Rome claimed the right to judge disputes within dioceses other than their own, and those claims grew more comprehensive as the centuries passed. Given these circumstances, we might expect clashes between the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople on a regular basis. Clashes there certainly were. During the 7th-century Μonothelete controversy, opponents of imperial policy fled the Eastern Empire to appeal to the popes, who took up the cause of Chalcedon unstintingly.45 When the Council of Constantinople in 680–81 (Fourth Council of Constantinople; Sixth Ecumenical Council) put an end to Μonotheletism, patriarchs were judged and condemned. During 8thcentury iconoclasm, opponents of imperial policy fled the empire in a similar fashion and found similar support in Rome. One of the most prominent lovers of icons, Theodore of Stoudios (759–826), appealed to the pope in letters filled with praise for Peter’s successors and exaltation of their role as final arbiters in Church matters.46 When Pope Nicholas I claimed the right to judge and depose Photios, whose orthodoxy was not in question, he did so in part because supporters of Ignatios had appealed to him with strong statements about his primacy. By the early 13th century, popes were claiming the right to appoint patriarchs in other patriarchates. All of this is crucial for the history of how Rome and Constantinople came to be in schism. The issue of how the Churches are and ought to be governed, the West’s assertion of papal primacy versus the East’s insistence on the ultimate authority of ecumenical councils, are still among the things that divide the Churches. Remarkably, however, the patriarchs of Constantinople rarely led the charge against papal pretensions. With rare exceptions, they did not produce treatises against other Latin practices and teachings that many of their compatriots found appalling: liturgical differences, such as the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist; doctrinal differences about the procession of the Holy Spirit. There are exceptions, as we have seen, but figures such as Photios and Keroularios have received so much attention in part because many other 45 46

Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. Chalcedonians and iconophiles saw the pope “as a model of independent ecclesiastical power”: Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, p. 179. See also Brubaker and Haldon, History, pp. 384–90; Dagron, “L’iconoclasme et l’établissment de l’Orthodoxie”, pp. 129, 155; Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy, pp. 90–97.

58

Kolbaba

patriarchs had little or nothing to say about the Latins, their ritual, their doctrine, or their pope. It has often been said that the schism was more a political matter than a religious one, but the history of the patriarchs suggests that the political leaders—emperors and patriarchs—regularly tried to reach peace with the Latin Church. In the end, two factors made that peace impossible: the fully developed doctrine of papal primacy, which could allow no end to the schism without the Greeks ‘returning’ to an obedience that had never before existed; and the hostility of vast numbers of Greeks, including many bishops and other clergy, who could not forgive the atrocities of the crusaders and the Latin domination after 1204. But here again the patriarchs are seldom to be found. Bibliography Primary Sources

Humbert of Silva Candida, Report, ed. C. Will, Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae composita extant, Brevis et succincta commemoratio eorum quae gesserunt apocrisarii sanctae Romanae et apostolicae sedis in regia urbe (Leipzig and Marburg, 1861), pp. 150–52. Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters, eds. R.J.H. Jenkins and L.G. Westerink (Dumbarton Oaks Texts 2) (Washington, D.C., 1973). Photios, Works, ed. J. Hergenroether, Photius Patriarch von Konstantinopel. Sein Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma, 3 vols (Regensburg, 1867, repr. Darmstadt, 1966). Pope Paschal II, Letter to Alexios I. Komnenos, ed. A.L. Tǎutu, Acta Romanorum pontificum a S. Clemente (an. c.90) ad Coelestinum III († 1198) (Pontificia commissio ad redigendum codicem iuris canonici orientalis, Fontes 3.1), 2 vols (Vatican City, 1943), pp. 796–97, doc. 385. Theophylact of Ohrid, Against Those who Accuse the Latins, ed. P. Gautier, Théophylacte d’Achrida. Discours, traités, poesies (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 16) (Thessaloniki, 1980), pp. 246–85.

Secondary Literature

Anastos, M.V., “Constantinople and Rome: a survey of the relations between the Byzantine and Roman Churches”, in Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium, M.V. Anastos (Aldershot, 2001), article VIII. Anastos, M.V., “The Papal legates at the Council of 861 and their compliance with the wishes of the Emperor Michael III”, in Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium, M.V. Anastos (Aldershot, 2001), article VI. Angold, M., Church and Society under the Comneni 1081–1261 (Cambridge, 1995).

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

59

Avvakumov, G., Die Entstehung des Unionsgedankens. Die lateinische Theologie des Hochmittelalters in Auseinandersetzung mit dem Ritus der Ostkirche (Berlin, 2002). Balard, M., Les latins en Orient, XIe–XVe siècle (Paris, 2006). Bayer, A., Spaltung der Christenheit: das sogenannte Morgenländische Schisma von 1054 (Cologne, 2002). Bishop, J.C., Pope Nicholas I and the First Age of Papal Independence (Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1980). Brand, C., Byzantium Confronts the West 1180–1204 (Cambridge, Mass. 1968). Bréhier, L., “Avant la séparation du XIe siècle. Les relations normales entre Rome et les Églises d’Orient”, Istina 3 (1959), 352–72. Brubaker, L. and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era c. 680–850: a History (Cambridge, 2011). Chadwick, H., East and West. The Making of a Rift in the Church. From Apostolic Times until the Council of Florence (Oxford, 2003). Chalandon, F., Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Ier Comnène (1081–1118) (Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société de l’École des Chartes 4) (Paris, 1900). Dagron, G., “L’Église et la chrétienté byzantines entre les invasions et l’iconoclasme (viie–début viiie siècle)”, in Histoire du christianisme, eds. J.-M. Mayeur et al., vol. 4 (Paris, 1993), pp. 9–91. Dagron, G., “L’Église et l’état (milieu IXe–fin Xe siècle)”, in Histoire du christianisme, eds. J.-M. Mayeur et al., vol. 4 (Paris, 1993), pp. 167–240. Dagron, G., “L’Église et la chrétienté byzantines entre les invasions et l’iconoclasme (viie–début viiie siècle)”, in Histoire du christianisme, eds. J.-M. Mayeur et al., vol. 4 (Paris, 1993), pp. 9–91. Dagron, G., “L’iconoclasme et l’établissement de l’Orthodoxie (726–847)”, in Histoire du christianisme, eds. J.-M. Mayeur et al., vol. 4 (Paris, 1993), pp. 93–166. Dagron, G., “Le temps des changements (fin xe–milieu xie siècle)”, in Histoire du christianisme, eds. J.-M. Mayeur et al., vol. 4 (Paris, 1993), pp. 297–348. Dagron, G., Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le « césaropapisme » byzantine (Paris, 1996). Darrouzès, J., “Les documents byzantins de XIIe siècle sur la primauté romaine”, Revue des Études Byzantines 23 (1965), 42–88. Dieten, J.L. van, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (610–715) (Amsterdam, 1972). Dvornik, F., Byzance et la primauté romaine (Paris, 1964), trans. E.A. Quain, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York, 1966). Dvornik, F., The Photian Schism. History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948). Erdmann, C., The Origin of the Idea of Crusade (Princeton, 1977). Falkenhausen, V. von, “Between two empires: southern Italy in the reign of Basil II”, in Byzantium in the Year 1000, ed. P. Magdalino (The Medieval Mediterranean 45) (Leiden, 2003), pp. 135–60. Frankopan, P., The First Crusade: The Call from the East (London, 2012).

60

Kolbaba

Gantner, Cl., Freunde Roms und Völker der Finsternis. Die Konstruktion von Anderen im päpstlichen Rom des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts (Vienna, 2014). Gastgeber, C., “Das unexpedierte (zweite) Schreiben des Patriarchen Ioannes X. Kamateros von Konstantinopel an Papst Innocenz III”, in Sylloge diplomaticopalaeographica, vol. 1: Studien zur byzantinischen Diplomatik und Paläographie, eds. C. Gastgeber and O. Kresten (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 19) (Vienna, 2010), pp. 135–61. Gay, J., L’Italie méridionale et l’empire byzantin depuis l’avènement de Basil Ier jusqu’a la prise de Bari par les Normands (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athénes et de Rome 90) (Paris, 1904). Gill, J., “Franks, Venetians, and Pope Innocent III”, Studi Veneziani 3 (1970), 80–106 (repr. in Gill, J., Church Union: Rome and Byzantium (London, 1979), article I). Gill, J., “Innocent III and the Greeks: aggressor or apostle”, in Relations between East and West in the Middle Ages, ed. D. Baker (Edinburgh, 1973), pp. 95–108 (repr. in Gill, J., Church Union: Rome and Byzantium (London, 1979), article II). Gill, J., “Eleven emperors of Byzantium seek union with the Church of Rome”, Eastern Churches Review 9 (1977), 72–84 (repr. in Gill, J., Church Union: Rome and Byzantium (London, 1979), article XIX). Gill, J., Byzantium and the Papacy 1198–1400 (New Brunswick, 1979). Girardet, K.M., Der Kaiser und sein Gott. Das Christentum im Denken und in der Religionspolitik Konstantins des Großen (Berlin, 2010). Haldon, J., Byzantium in the Seventh Century. The Transformation of a Culture (Cambridge, 1990). Höfert, A., Kaisertum und Kalifat. Der imperiale Monotheismus in Früh- und Hochmittelalter (Frankfurt am Main, 2015). Holtzmann, W., “Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios I und Papst Urban II im Jahre 1089”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 28 (1928), 38–67. Ivanov, S., “Religious Missions”, in The Cambridge History, ed. Shepard, pp. 305–332. Kaplan, M., “Le place du schisme de 1054 dans les relations entre Byzance, Rome et l’Italie”, Byzantinoslavica 54 (1993), 29–37. Karlin-Hayter, P., “Gregory of Syracuse, Ignatios and Photios,” in Iconoclasm: Papers Given at the Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, eds. A. Bryer and J. Herrin (Birmingham, 1977), pp. 141–45. Kolbaba, T.M., “The legacy of Humbert and Cerularius: the tradition of ‘The Schism of 1054’ in Byzantine texts and manuscripts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries”, in Porphyrogenita: Essays in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides, eds. C. Dendrinos, J. Harris, Ei. Harvalia-Crook, and J. Herrin (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 47–61. Kolbaba, T.M., “On the closing of the churches and the rebaptism of Latins: Greek perfidy or Latin slander?”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 29 (2005), 39–51.

The Patriarchate and the Western Church to 1204

61

Kolbaba, T.M., Inventing Latin Heretics. Byzantines and the Filioque in the Ninth Century (Kalamazoo, 2008). Kolbaba, T.M., “1054 revisited: response to Ryder”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 35 (2011), 38–44. Kötter, J.-M., Zwischen Kaisern und Aposteln. Das Akakianische Schisma (485–519) als kirchlicher Ordnungskonflikt der Spätantike (Stuttgart, 2013). Louth, A., Greek East and Latin West. The Church AD 681–1071 (Crestwood, New York, 2007). Magdalino, P., The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge, 1993). Malamut, É., Alexis Ier Comnène (Paris, 2007). Mayeur, J.-M., et al. eds., Histoire du christianisme des origins à nos jours, vol. 4: Éveques, moines et empereurs (610–1054) (Paris, 1993). Michel, A., Humbert und Kerullarios, 2 vols (Paderborn, 1924–30). Noble, T.F.X., Images, iconoclasm and the Carolingians (Philadelphia, 2009). Papadakis, A., and A.M. Talbot, “John X Camaterus confronts Innocent III: an unpublished correspondence”, Byzantinoslavica 33 (1972), 26–41. Runciman, S., The Eastern Schism (Oxford, 1955). Russo, F., “L’ultimo metropolita greca di Reggio”, Bolletino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata n.s. 7 (1953), 87–99. Ryder, J.R., “Changing perspectives on 1054”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 35 (2011), 20–37. Schreiner, P., “Byzanz und der Westen: Die gegenseitige Betrachtungsweise in der Literatur des 12. Jahrhunderts”, in Friedrich Barbarossa, Handlungsspielräume und Wirkungsweisen des staufischen Kaisers, ed. A. Havenkamp (Sigmaringen, 1992), pp. 551–80. Shepard, J. ed., The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500–1492 (Cambridge, 2009). Simeonova, L., Diplomacy of the Letter and the Cross. Photios, Bulgaria and the Papacy, 860s–880s (Amsterdam, 1998). Smith, M.H. III, And Taking Bread … Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054 (Paris, 1978). Spiteris, J., La critica bizantina del primato romano nel secolo XII (Rome, 1979). Stanković, V., “The Alexios Stoudites’ patriarchate (1025–1043): a developmental stage in patriarchal power”, Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta 39 (2001–02), 69–87. Stiernon, D., “Basile de Reggio, le dernier métropolite grec de Calabre”, Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia 18 (1964), 189–222. Todt, K.-P., “Die letzte Papstreise nach Byzanz: der Besuch Papst Konstantins I in Konstantinopel im Jahre 711. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Papstreise”, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 113 (2002), 24–50.

62

Kolbaba

Tougher, Sh., The Reign of Leo VI (886–912): Politics and People (The Medieval Mediterranean 15) (Leiden, 1997). Tougher, Sh., “After Iconoclasm”, in The Cambridge History, ed. Shepard, pp. 292–304. Will, C., Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant (Leipzig and Marburg, 1861). Winkelmann, F., Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit (Berliner Byzantinistische Studien 6) (Frankfurt am Main, 2001).

chapter 4

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period (1204–1453) Johannes Preiser-Kapeller 1

A Short Note on the State of Research

Essential studies on the permanent synod and its development in the period under consideration have been contributed by Paul Lemerle (“Recherches sur les institutions judiciaires”, 1950), Joseph Hajjar (Synode permanent, 1962), Richard Potz (Patriarch und Synode in Konstantinopel, 1971) and especially Jean Darrouzès (Le registre synodal, 1971). A number of more recent important papers and collective volumes was produced during the last decades within the framework of the Viennese edition of the project on the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, by Herbert Hunger, Otto Kresten, Christian Gastgeber, Christof Kraus, Ekaterini Mitsiou, Vratislav Zervan, and myself, which can be found in the bibliography to this chapter. The collective volumes edited within this framework in 2013 and 2017 also provide an overview of the international ‘landscape’ of research. Furthermore, the ‘French’ tradition of studies on the topic has been continued by Lisa Bénou (Pour une nouvelle histoire, 2011), and especially Marie-Hélène Blanchet, Marie-Hélène Congordeau and Dan Ioan Mureșan (see the bibliography below), who cooperate closely with the research group in Vienna. The present chapter primarily emerges and profits from these recent joint initiatives, which also included experiments with new approaches towards the sources, such as socio-linguistics (Christian Gastgeber) or historical network analysis (Ekaterini Mitsiou and myself). 2

Patriarch and Synod as Central Institutions of the Late Byzantine Church

The development of the synod as collective ‘management body’ of the Byzantine Church, in addition to the patriarchate, was based on the apostolic tradition. As the apostles had received their mission from Jesus Christ, not individually but in their entirety, the bishops should decide on the management of the Church together, after the model of the so-called Apostolic Council of

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_005

64

Preiser-Kapeller

Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1–10 and Acts 15:6–29).1 Even before the definition of the territory of the patriarchate of Constantinople at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the synodos endemousa arose as a gathering of all bishops who were present in the capital.2 Crucial was its development into a permanent institution, which accompanied the day to day business of the patriarchate. A prerequisite for this was the almost constant presence of a number of metropolitans and archbishops (who were authorized to visit the synod) in the capital. This was possible for those hierarchs whose sees were near Constantinople, and for those who were not able (or willing) to stay in their more distant bishoprics because of external circumstances. The latter phenomenon became more frequent from the last decades of the 11th century onwards with the advance of the Seljuks in Asia Minor, where the vast majority of metropolitan sees of the patriarchate were located.3 But some metropolitans also remained in the capital simply to exert influence on the politics of the center. In addition, for the ‘daily business’ of the patriarch the presence of a number of hierarchs was necessary; the canons defined a quorum among other things for the election of bishops (at least two bishops4), for the deposition of a priest (six bishops), or for the deposition of a bishop (12 bishops).5 Consequently, a permanent synod emerged, especially from the 11th and 12th century. When, after the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204, patriarchate and synod reconstituted themselves in exile in Nicaea, there the development into a permanent synodos endemousa seems to have come to an end. After the recapture of Constantinople by the Byzantines in 1261, the permanent synod became ‘endemic’ again at its old meeting place and played an extremely important role in Church history of the last two centuries of Byzantium.6 With the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople—preserved for the years 1315– 1402 in two manuscripts in the Austrian National Library—we possess, for the 14th century, a primary source that provides us with valuable insights into the

1 Cf. Miethke, “Formen der Repräsentation”, esp. p. 21, and the contribution by F. Lauritzen in this volume, also for further literature and the state of research on the synod in the Byzantine Church. 2 Hajjar, Synode permanent; see also the contribution by C. Rapp on the early patriarchate in this volume. 3 Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism; Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. xlix–lvi. 4 Milaš, Das Kirchenrecht, pp. 237–42, 278, 363–64. 5 Canons, ed. Ioannou, pp. 225–26; Milaš, Das Kirchenrecht, p. 320. 6 Congourdeau, “Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274–1453”, pp. 143–44; Preiser-Kapeller, “Die hauptstädtische Synode”.

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

65

agendas and decisions of the synod.7 Therefore, this period will be at the center of our considerations. 3

Composition and Competences of the Synod

The members of the synod were the metropolitans and bishops of the patriarchal diocese present in Constantinople, headed by the patriarch; its composition therefore depended on the recruitment of the late Byzantine episcopate in general.8 The monastic background, already very dominant in the centuries before, became almost exclusive in this period. Very rarely, for instance, do we find bishops coming from the patriarchal clergy, which had been an important source of them in the 12th century.9 Also, most of the patriarchs came from a monastic background and therefore regarded reliable monks as especially suited for episcopal service; some actively supported the election of brothers from their former monastic community.10 Besides, education (more in sacred than in secular matters), success in a leadership position (such as abbots), or exact knowledge and observance of canonical rules, are mentioned as indicators qualifying for a bishopric.11 Besides the patriarch, the emperor—and in the case of foreign metropolitan sees, such as in Russia or in the Danube principalities, regional rulers as well—could influence the selection of bishops.12 In rare cases we learn about initiatives coming from the population (clergy and laymen) of a bishopric, as in the city of Anchialos in 1400. In this case, the patriarch invited the candidate (also a monk) nominated by the people to come to Constantinople for further examination, but warned them that such a proposal was “against the order of the Church of Christ and the divine and holy canons”, which would allow only for an election in the synod (see also below).13 Significant changes in the composition of the episcopate were often the consequence of major (Church) political and theological decisions, such as those regarding the union with the western Church or the teachings of 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Gastgeber, “Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel”, and his contribution to this volume. Tinnefeld, “Faktoren des Aufstiegs”, pp. 89–115; Failler, “La promotion du clerc”, pp. 125–46. Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. xxi–xxvii. Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. xxv–xxvi. See Tinnefeld, “Faktoren des Aufstiegs”. Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. xxiv–xxv. Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. xxix–xxxi. Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 548 eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 345–47, resp. no. 645, pp. 491– 92; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3105, 3206; Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, p. xxxiii.

66

Preiser-Kapeller

Gregory Palamas. Supporters of defeated factions would lose their office while others would rise to the highest position; nine metropolitans for instance were deposed as Antipalamites after 1347, while 12 representatives of the Palamite camp would become members of the high episcopate.14 It should also be noted that the permanent synod was never attended by a majority of the hierarchs of the patriarchate. During the patriarchate of John XIII Glykys (1315–19) the number of participants fluctuated, for example, between five and 25 (from 44 different churches); in the years 1364–67 under Philotheos Kokkinos between three and 19 (from 30 different churches); and in the patriarchate of Neilos Kerameus (in the years 1380 to 1387) between five and 12 (from 41 different churches). If one considers that the Notitiae episcopatuum still recorded at this time about 150 metropolitan sees and archbishoprics in the territory of the patriarchate—although of course many churches in partibus infidelium were no longer occupied—it becomes clear that actually only a relatively small number of hierarchs were involved in the decisions concerning the management of the Church.15 Based on the canons and tradition, the core spheres of legislation of the synod were the fields of dogmatics, rite, ecclesiastical discipline, and morals. For fundamental dogmatic decisions—as in the cases of the union with the western Church or on the teachings of Gregory Palamas—‘larger’ synods were convened. Indeed, in the negotiations with the Papacy, the Byzantine even demanded a new ecumenical council.16 Another essential field of activity of the synod was Church administration, especially for metropolitan sees and bishoprics. The synod selected or relocated metropolitans and archbishops; it allocated further bishoprics for administration and provision to a bishop if his own church could not provide sufficient income or was not accessible due to foreign rule (epidosis). It decided on the promotion of bishoprics to archbishoprics or metropolitan sees (as well as on their degradation), on the attribution of the higher rank (topos) of a vacant see to a bishop, and on the borders between bishoprics.17 Finally, the synod also served as a court, with the bishops acting as judges in ecclesiastical matters. Members of the clergy were not allowed to turn to secular courts; issues between clerics were tried in a 14 15 16 17

Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. lxxxiii–lxxxiv and table on p. xcii; Gastgeber, “Das Patriarchatsregister als Spiegel der Religionspolitik”. Preiser-Kapeller, “Die hauptstädtische Synode”. Preiser-Kapeller, “Die hauptstädtische Synode”. See the contribution by M.-H. Blanchet on this topic in the present volume. Darrouzès, Le registre synodal, pp. 244–77; Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. lxiii–lxxviii; cf. also Hunger, “Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel als Spiegel”, p. 119; Kraus, “Xειροτονία, ἱερωμένος und λαός”.

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

67

hierarchy of appeal stages, from the local bishop via the metropolitan to the synod in Constantinople as court of last instance. For disputes between metropolitans and archbishops—in most cases, over rights on property, monasteries, villages or entire bishoprics—the synod was the court of first instance.18 The synod could decide to elide measures of a bishop, such as the ordination of a priest, or even to dethrone him according to the canons, with a quorum of 12 bishops (see above).19 The jurisdiction of the synod also included the patriarch. In February 1347, for instance, the synod dethroned Patriarch John XIV Kalekas, due to his anti-Palamite politics, in the presence of Emperor John V Palaiologos and his mother Empress Anna. This verdict, of course, had a highly political dimension, and contributed to an understanding between the factions of the Palaiologoi and of John VI Kantakouzenos in the civil war.20 The most severe penalties awarded by the synod were permanent exclusion from the ecclesiastical community (anathema), excommunication and exclusion from the sacraments (aphorismos), and for clerics the deposition and denial of their rank of ordination (kathairesis).21 A mitigation of penalties prescribed by the canons could be decreed on the basis of oikonomia, a ‘spirit of indulgence’ which allowed for a more flexible application of law.22 Also for the laity, the Church demanded jurisdiction in issues of faith and morality; one central field was marriage law, where ecclesiastical jurisdiction had replaced the secular one during the Byzantine centuries.23 But the sentence of Jesus Christ (Mt. 18:15–17), which served as a basis for ecclesiastical jurisdiction, could also be used as a starting point for dealing with other secular cases (in the field of property or inheritance law, for instance). Even before 18 19

20 21 22 23

Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 30, 31, eds. Hunger and Kresten, pp. 256–62; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2058, 2059; Preiser-Kapeller, “Die hauptstädtische Synode”; see also the contribution by F. Lauritzen to this volume. Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 40, eds. Hunger and Kresten, p. 294; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2069 (annulment of the election of a bishop); Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 395, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 99–102 (annulment of the ordination of a priest). Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 109, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 86–94; Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 353, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 37–39. Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 147, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 340–82; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2270; Congourdeau, “Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274–1453”, pp. 174–75. Kraus, Kleriker, pp. xix–xx. Cf. Hunger, “Zum Stil und zur Sprache”, p. 45. See, for instance, Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 11, eds. Hunger and Kresten, pp. 176–80; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2039. More generally, see Meyendorff, “Christian marriage”; Kraus, Kleriker, pp. 336–39.

68

Preiser-Kapeller

the late Byzantine period, lay litigants could agree to appeal to an ecclesiastical court. With the decay of secular jurisdiction in the Palaeologan period—as documented in the affair of the four ‘general judges’ (katholikoi kritai) whom Emperor Andronikos III had appointed in 1334 in order to improve jurisdiction, of whom three were deposed in 1337 due to corruption—more and more people approached ecclesiastical jurisdiction and its court of last instance, the synod.24 If we look at the relative share of the various thematic fields the synod had to deal with in the years 1315 to 1350, for instance (published in the first two volumes of the new edition of the Register of the Patriarchate), out of 105 documents, 25 covered questions of ecclesiastical discipline (23.8 per cent), 30 of Church administration (28.6 per cent), 19 of Church property (18.1 per cent), 25 of private property (23.8 per cent) and six of marriage law (5.7 per cent).25 4

Ideals and the Regulation of Decision-Making

How did decision making in the synod, as a group of perhaps a dozen hierarchs, work? The documents in the Register of the Patriarchate evoke the ideal of brotherly love and harmony, according to which the patriarch and his “beloved brethren and co-priests”, guided by the Holy Spirit, unfolded their work for the blessing of the Church of Christ. In fact, we are very rarely informed that a decision was not taken unanimously or in “the consentient decision of the synod” (koine synodike psephos).26 But even the earliest councils of the Church laid down rules for the cases that unanimity was not achieved in ecclesiastical meetings; canon 6 of the Nicaenum I (325) decreed with respect to the election of bishops, among other things: “If, however, two or three bishops shall from 24

25 26

Lemerle, “Recherches sur les institutions judiciaires”, pp. 318–33; Kresten, “Ein Indizienprozeß”, pp. 299–337; Bénou, Pour une nouvelle histoire, esp. pp. 299–300. Of importance was also the ecclesiastical court located at the Hagia Sophia (ekdikeion), which was subordinate to the so-called patriarchal protekdikos, and dealt with perpetrators who had sought church asylum: Darrouzès, Offikia, pp. 323–32. A decision of the ekdikeion from November 1338, regarding a charge of magic, can also be found in the Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 113, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 123–26. The verdict of the ekdikeion was later confirmed by Patriarch John XIV Kalekas: Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 114, pp. 126–28; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2183. Register of the Patriarchate 1–2. See, for instance, Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 257, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, p. 496, lines 1–11; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, no. 2432; Hunger, “Zum Stil und zur Sprache”. Cf. also Miethke, “Formen der Repräsentation”, pp. 25, 28; Schwedler, “Formen und Inhalte”, esp. p. 151.

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

69

natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”27 A similar formulation with respect to the election of a bishop is found in canon 19 of the Synod of Antioch (341).28 Both canons designate the majority decision as an instrument to prevent a blockage of the decision by the contentiousness of a minority, not as a sign of a ‘democratic’ spirit in the synod. The consensus was considered the ideal, the dissent was a disturbance.29 As we know from the few cases in which different views in the synod are documented in the Register of the Patriarchate, the canons on majority decision were used. Also in late Byzantine writings on ecclesiastical practices, such as those by Metropolitan Symeon of Thessaloniki in the early 15th century, the validity of ton pleionon psephos is recorded.30 This, however, did not mean that a ‘crucial vote’ actually took place in the synod. A telling example is found in a document dated to June 1380. At that time the synodos endemousa, under the chairmanship of Patriarch Neilos Kerameus, dealt with a difficult case concerning the important Russian Church, which was often unsettled by political disputes.31 After the death of Metropolitan Alexis of Kiev in 1378, Grand Prince Dimitry of Moscow had sent his own candidate for the vacant throne to Constantinople. Yet, still under Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos in 1375, at the request of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Algirdas, the patriarch’s confidant Cyprian had been appointed as metropolitan of a part of the Russian diocese, and he had been assured that he would take over the entire Russian Church province after the death of Alexis. The assembled synod under Neilos Kerameus now wanted to annul this previous decision and to elect the candidate of Moscow.32 However, for this purpose they had to abrogate a charter which had been issued under the most esteemed Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos; in addition, some hierarchs now present in the 27 28

29 30 31 32

COGD 1, ed. Alberigo, p. 23, 135–57, esp. 153–57. Canons, ed. Ioannou, p. 119, lines 1–25, esp. 24–25: “it is indispensable that a majority should either be present or take part by letter in the election, and that thus the appointment should be made in the presence, or with the consent, of the majority; but if it should be done contrary to these decrees, the ordination shall be of no force. And if the appointment shall be made according to the prescribed canon, and any should object through natural love of contradiction, the decision of the majority shall prevail.” (my translation). See also Canons, vol. 2, eds. Rhalles and Potles, pp. 128–29 (commentary of Zonaras from the 12th century on these canons). See also the contribution by F. Lauritzen to this volume. Symeon of Thessaloniki, De sacris ordinationibus 192 in Patrologia Graeca 155, col. 404A. See the contribution by K. Vetochnikov to this volume. Salamon, “Cyprian”.

70

Preiser-Kapeller

synod had been involved in the initial decision in 1375.33 In this delicate situation, the synod turned to one of its most reliable members of the two previous decades, Metropolitan Theophanes of Nicaea, who was absent for health reasons. Theophanes had been a close confidant of Patriarch Philotheos; he was a highly respected theologian and Church politician. In recent years he had become a leading authority in the synod, and was even awarded the rank of the highest metropolis of Caesarea (in Cappadocia). Thus, according to the custom of the synod, he was able to always make the first speech within the synod.34 If Theophanes agreed to the modification of the regulation for the Russian Church province, this would have been much easier to justify, but he did not want to annul the decision made in favor of Cyprian. Without the consent of Theophanes a decision against Cyprian was apparently not enforceable among the participants of the synod: “many words were exchanged in the synod”, as we read. Finally, however, Theophanes made way for an annulment of the charter of 1375 without abandoning his position.35 He declined to throw his vote in the scale pan in the synod. At the same time he pointed to the canons on the majority decision; thereby, on the one hand even in spite of dissent he did not to put himself in permanent opposition to the synod, and on the other, he made it possible for the assembled hierarchs to accept his position, without having to consider it in their decision making. A vote on the two options—keeping the regulation of 1375, or the revocation and appointment of the candidate of Moscow—did not actually take place; the hierarchs came to a consensus in favor of Moscow after the reading of Theophanes’ statement. So, in effect, the provisions for majority decisions in the year 1380 made a decision possible, but in a different way than one would have perhaps expected.36 But how did the hierarchs give their gnomai, their opinions, when in fact there was a discussion in the synod? One of the rare and most relevant documents in this respect treats a case of disagreement in the second tenure of 33 34 35

36

Preiser-Kapeller, “Our in the Holy Spirit beloved brothers and co-priests”. Polemis, Theophanes of Nicaea, pp. 25–30. We can read his statement in the relevant document: Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 337, eds. Miklosich and Müller, p. 16; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2705: “I believe that the decision [of 1375] is unchallenged, so I do not want to give a vote (gnome) on this person for certain reasons, which seem justified to me. But I also do not isolate myself from the synod, but, because the canons say that the decision of the majority wins, may the (provision) of the canon have validity; regarding the synodal decision [of 1375] however”, he said, “I thought and think that it is indeed canonical. But because the hierarchs who have created this [charter] with me, all decide together that it was unlawful and un-canonical, I do not disagree.” See also Preiser-Kapeller, “Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos”. Preiser-Kapeller, “Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos”.

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

71

Patriarch Kallistos.37 In 1361 there was an attempt from the ranks of the episcopate to shatter the position of the controversial patriarch; for that purpose, his opponents made use of various offenses in the area of matrimonial law and other misconducts, which the patriarch was said to have not punished severely enough. The opposition to the patriarch was under the leadership of the metropolitan (Jacob) of Chalcedon38 and the designated metropolitan of Thessaloniki, Neilos Kabasilas,39 who presented a dossier (katastichon) with their demands to the patriarch. Thereupon, the patriarch assembled the synod “and ordered that the said katastichon, which included what it included, was read out before them all”.40 Significantly, the exact wording of that dossier was not included in the preserved document, although this was quite common in similar cases. After all the metropolitans present in Constantinople, plus the patriarch of Jerusalem, but (interestingly enough) not the metropolitan of Chalcedon, had assembled “this (katastichon) was now … read out”; but it was found (so the document) “that this katastichon is unnecessary and only creates confusion”, since all these misconducts had been already adequately treated by the patriarch and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction.41 But, since the metropolitan of Chalcedon and the designated metropolitan of Thessaloniki, together with the metropolitan (Eusebios) of Sugdaïa (in the Crimea), demanded “a more comprehensive correction and a harsher punishment” of those offenses listed in the dossier “and thus did not follow the joint decision of the synod (koine psephos) and the unanimity (homonoia)”, there took place an investigation, and “the opinions (gnomai) of the holy priests were registered for future security.”42 As the perfect homonoia was not achieved, the participants of the synod were called to issue their statements on the demands of the metropolitan of Chalcedon and the designatus of Thessaloniki. The issue of gnomai took place in accordance with the hierarchical ranking order of the individual bishoprics. The statements of the 12 present metropolitans were recorded verbatim. But if we study them in detail, it becomes clear that there was no real vote; the 37 38 39 40 41 42

Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 257, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 492–514, esp. lines 72–144; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2432. Congourdeau, “Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274–1453”, pp. 179–80. PLP, no. 7899. PLP, no. 10,102. Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 257, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, p. 498, lines 28–34, 42–44. Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 257, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten p. 500, lines 45–62. Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 257, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten p. 500, lines 63–71.

72

Preiser-Kapeller

canons on majority decisions were not even mentioned in the document.43 It was rather a reaffirmation of the position of the patriarch, which was presented by the public issue of statements as a consensus of the overwhelming majority of the synod; this session of the synod served for the ‘staging of unanimity’. The opposition had receded before: the metropolitan of Chalcedon was not event present at the session; he had well recognized that his demands had not been accepted in the synod.44 We do find a real voting procedure, in contrast, in the election of bishops, for which the canons had also originally decreed for majority decisions. As mentioned above, the election of metropolitans and archbishops was reserved for the synod in Constantinople, and of bishops for the metropolitan’s synod in the respective ecclesiastical province. In 1400, Patriarch Matthew I, in a charter, described the proper election procedure.45 A parallel piece of evidence is provided by Metropolitan Symeon of Thessaloniki in his work on the holy practices of the Church: after the opening of the session the metropolitan or the patriarch left the synod, while the participants examined proposed candidates and tried to verify their suitability through oral and written evidence; the session was chaired by the chartophylax, the head of the patriarchal chancellery, who himself had no right to vote. The casting of the votes was carried out again according to the hierarchical rank (kata taxin) of the participants under questioning by the chartophylax, who recorded the votes. When the vote was unanimous the choice was considered a pneumatikon ergon, which was accomplished by the help of the Holy Spirit. When no unanimity was reached, the number of votes was crucial; the chartophylax recorded the names of the three candidates which had received the most votes in the order of the number of received votes without regard to their hierarchical rank. The chartophylax then presented this list of three to the metropolitan (or patriarch), who then chose a candidate; he was not tied to the ranking according to the number of votes, but he selected “whomever he wants”, as the charter of Patriarch Matthew I explains. With this procedure, a direct measurement of forces within the synod was again avoided.46 How episcopal elections were held in practice, can again be reconstructed only with difficulty. The documents in the Register of the Patriarchate almost 43 44 45 46

Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 257, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 502–08. Preiser-Kapeller, “Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos”, with a detailed discussion of this document. Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 548, eds. Miklosich and Müller, p. 346; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3105. Symeon of Thessaloniki, De sacris ordinationibus 191, in Patrologiae Graeca 155, col. 401D–404A; Milaš, Das Kirchenrecht, pp. 360–61; Congourdeau, “Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274–1453”, pp. 145–46; Preiser-Kapeller, “Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos”.

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

73

always only present the end result of such an election process: the appointment and consecration of the winning candidate. We possess a unique piece of evidence for the late Byzantine period for 13 elections in the Russian metropolitan district for the period between May 1328 and August 1347 in the time of Metropolitan Theognostos of Kiev. In a Vatican manuscript of the 14th century, 13 notes by different hands are preserved, presumably copies of the register (rotulus) of the elections of bishops prepared under Metropolitan Theognostos. In most cases, there were registered: first the date, second the bishopric, for which the election was conducted, third the names and sees of those bishops who in person besides the metropolitan took part in the election and consecration, fourth the names of the “three worthy persons” who “in accordance with canonical rules” had received the votes of the participants (i.e., the tripartite proposal submitted to the metropolitan), and fifth, finally, the name of the one of the three candidates, who was selected by the metropolitan and ordained as bishop.47 From these 13 elections apparently only one was unanimous; in two cases (1343 and 1345) only the name of the successful candidate was registered, but the creation of a tripartite proposal is explicitly mentioned. For the other ten elections (1328–35), the order of the three candidates should reflect their ranking according to the number of votes. If this is the case, the metropolitan of Kiev chose, in seven of the ten cases for which we have a complete list of candidates, the candidate who had received most votes in the synod; in the other three sessions the one with the second highest number of votes was chosen. To grant these numbers significance beyond these 13 cases for all elections of bishops in the late Byzantine Church, we would need further electoral registers from other provinces and from the synodos endemousa in Constantinople itself, yet we do not have them.48 These short notes from the Russian Church do not record major conflicts; but the actual risks of the majority rule for the election of bishops becomes evident from another case in the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 1375/76, the synod under Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos assembled to elect a new metropolitan for the city of Serres in Macedonia, as the then elected Matthew Phakrases informs us in a document from the time of Neilos Kerameus. The election of Matthew found opponents: Makarios, then metropolitan of Sebasteia, along with two other metropolitans. But, as Phakrases reported: “I was consecrated on the one hand, because the decision of the majority prevailed according to the canons, and on the other hand they, who spoke in a quarrelsome manner, however, were ignored in accordance with 47 48

Short Chronicle, 85, ed. Schreiner, pp. 604–08. Preiser-Kapeller, “Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos”.

74

Preiser-Kapeller

the canon.”49 In this case, there was apparently only one candidate: Matthew Phakrases; against his (unanimous) election, however, opposition arose. The number of those who, under the leadership of the then metropolitan Makarios of Sebasteia, disagreed with the vote of the majority, may not have been so small when we look at the above-mentioned figures for the normal number of participants in synodal sessions during the patriarchate of Philotheos Kokkinos (three to 19); how many metropolitans were actually present at the election of Phakrases, we unfortunately do not know. The wording of the document directly relates to the canons on majority decisions and suggests explicit disagreement. This time, a decision of the majority actually ‘won’, while the defeated participants were “not accounted for in accordance with the canon.” But when Makarios—as a favorite of Emperor Andronikos IV Palaiologos after a coup d’état in June 1377—succeeded to the patriarchal throne, he was offered the opportunity to revise the decision by other means: with false accusations, including murder, he deposed Matthew Phakrases as metropolitan and tried to drive him from his bishopric. While Matthew had evidently so much support in Serres that he could remain there in spite of the allegations by Makarios, he then, in 1383, during the Ottoman conquest of the city, went into captivity, from which he was only released after 1387 and was given the opportunity to bring about his rehabilitation by the new patriarch Neilos Kerameus, ten years after the original accusations.50 In view of such long-lasting divisions within the episcopate, as in the last case,51 it seems understandable why the synod apparently quite rarely made use of the instrument of majority rule to reach a decision. Consensus was not only an ideal due to the apostolic model, it also helped “to minimize risks of decision-making”, as Egon Flaig has exemplified. Also, the apparent “nonchalance” of the language of the documents in the Register of the Patriarchate, which Herbert Hunger had analysed under the headings of “obfuscation, protection and irony”, appears as an expression of this “consensus-oriented practice”.52 In the documents of the Register of the Patriarchate, a “language of confrontation” was avoided in the same way as the synod avoided the “risk of serious disunity” associated with majority decision, that could undermine the

49 50 51 52

Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 374, eds. Miklosich and Müller, p. 78; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2819 (my translation). Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 374, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 77–79; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2819; PLP, no. 29,584; Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, p. 405. On two very long lasting conflicts between bishops in the Register of the Patriarchate, see Kresten, “Die Affäre des Metropoliten Symeon von Alania”; and Kresten, “Pyrgion”. Hunger, “Zur scheinbaren Nonchalance”.

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

75

“cohesion of the community”.53 The synod also fulfilled other preconditions for the functioning of “rules of unanimity” as indicated by Flaig: we can assume an “intensive socialisation”, a “strong consensus on norms” and a high homogeneity due to the common origin of most hierarchs from a monastic background. At the same time, the monastic ideal, at least theoretically, impeded the binding of the members of the synod through strong allegiances to other parts of society.54 This does not mean that we do not observe cliques and networks among and beyond the members of the synod as well as the emergence of factions, especially in situations of political and theological conflict.55 But, the general framework of ecclesiastical organization and decision-making centered on the synod and the patriarch, in most cases was not put into question, although the actual balance of power between these two poles was an issue for debate. 5

Cohesion and Division: The Patriarch and the Synod

As mentioned above, the documents from the Register of the Patriarchate evoke the ideal of a harmonious navigation of the Church by the patriarch and his “beloved brethren and co-priests” in the synod. In reality, some patriarchs were not prepared to accept the participation of the hierarchs in the government of the Church at all times. The patriarch needed the synod when the canons prescribed a specific quorum of bishops (see above); in these cases, special care was taken to register the names of all hierarchs present in the synodal session.56 But otherwise, patriarchs used opportunities not only to exclude the synod from decisions regarding areas of immediate patriarchal jurisdiction for Constantinople and the numerous patriarchal monasteries and properties all over the empire and beyond,57 but also from the regulation of the administration of entire metropolitan provinces. In 1355, for instance, Kallistos I assigned the administration of the archbishopric of Derkos to Metropolitan Neophytos of Bizye in Thrace, and, in 1366, Philotheos Kokkinos the supervision over the

53 54 55 56 57

Flaig, Die Mehrheitsentscheidung, pp. 125–31; Preiser-Kapeller, “Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos”. Flaig, Die Mehrheitsentscheidung, pp. 49–51; Preiser-Kapeller, “Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos”. Preiser-Kapeller, “Our in the Holy Spirit beloved brothers and co-priests”; Preiser-Kapeller, “Calculating the Synod”. Potz, Patriarch und Synode in Konstantinopel; Preiser-Kapeller, “Die hauptstädtische Synode”. See Mitsiou, “The administration of the property of the Great Church”.

76

Preiser-Kapeller

metropolitan sees of Athens and of Euripos to the priest-monk Neophytos;58 in these documents, the synod is not mentioned at all. Further such cases, in which the patriarch was acting alone in circumstances where normally the synod was included in the decision-making, can be found. But these documents do not include cases, such as the election of a bishop, in which the canons explicitly demanded decision-making by the synod.59 The most explicit (and most cited) documents for a patriarch’s aversion to the permanent presence of hierarchs in Constantinople, are the letters of Athanasios I from the period of his second incumbency, between 1303 and 1309.60 Frequently, the patriarch asked Emperor Andronikos II to take care of the departure of the hierarchs to their respective bishoprics—some of which had meanwhile fallen into the hands of the Turks, while others were still under Byzantine control—which lacked their spiritual guidance. According to Athanasios, the bishops (mis)used their presence in the capital to frequently oppose the patriarch, for claims on the already strained financial resources of the patriarchate, and for corruption in their function as judges in the synodos endemousa.61 For some time, Athanasios also convened a ‘synod’ of the abbots of the monasteries of Constantinople, but a plan to replace the bishop’s synod with this new assembly, sometimes attributed to Athanasios, lacks any canonical basis. This interpretation is based on a passage in the history of George Pachymeres, who reports that Athanasios organized “synodal sessions” with the abbots in 1307 during his severe conflict with the clerics of Hagia Sophia.62 But one has to take into consideration that this dispute with his clergy was within the sole jurisdiction of the patriarch, who had no need to involve the synod. At the same time, Athanasios convened the synodos endemousa for relevant questions before, as well as after, this period.63 The decision to consult the abbots of the capital instead of the hierarchs with regard to Hagia Sophia, can be attributed to the personal preferences of Athanasios, but he could never have enforced an abolishment of the synod via these means. Athanasios also abdicated once more in 1309 due to opposition from within the synod. 58 59 60 61 62 63

Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 212, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 200–02 (Derkos); Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2377; Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 224, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 483–84 (Euripos); Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2512. Preiser-Kapeller, “Die hauptstädtische Synode”. Athanasios, Letters, ed. Talbot; Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1589–1780. Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. lvi–lvii. George Pachymeres, History, version brève 13.37, ed. Failler, Georges Pachymérès, vol. 4, p. 717, lines 8–9; Talbot, “The Patriarch Athanasius and the Church”, p. 24. Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1636, 1660–62; Boojamra, Church Reform in the Late Byzantine Empire, pp. 108–09, 130–31.

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

77

In the early Palaeologan period (1258–1310) four patriarchs in total, Gregory II, Athanasios I, John XII and Niphon, had to resign because of pressure from the ranks of the hierarchs. Especially during conflicts over episcopal administration, discipline, and income, which dominated parts of these incumbencies, the bishops in the synod offered strong resistance.64 Questions of episcopal election and administration also provided the pretense for the severe opposition against Matthew I (1397–1410), who had been designated metropolitan of Chalcedon, and then for a short period was ordained metropolitan of Kyzikos before he had been elected patriarch of Constantinople at the request of Emperor Manuel II, but against the wishes of some members of the synod. This group, under the leadership of the Metropolitans Matthew of Medeia and Makarios of Ancyra, used the presence of Emperor Manuel II in western Europe during the years 1399 to 1402, to organize resistance, and succeeded in having the patriarch deposed by the synod because of his allegedly threefold episcopate (of Chalcedon, Kyzikos, and Constantinople), which was against the canons. With difficulty, Manuel II, after his return, was able to enforce the rehabilitation of Matthew I, while the hierarchs of Medeia and of Ancyra were deposed in 1405.65 Another source of conflict between hierarchs and the patriarch was the latter’s right to claim immediate jurisdiction over churches or monasteries and access to their dues (‘stauropegial’ privilege) to the disadvantage of the local bishop. Frequently, the synod had to reject the claims of such bishops on patriarchika dikaia. Yet, as two verdicts against the encroachment of delegates (exarchoi) of the patriarch on monasteries and churches of the metropolitan of Mitylene in 1256 and 1324 demonstrate, the synod was also prepared to rule against patriarchal demands if they were considered unfounded.66 In a few cases (besides the proposal of candidates for episcopal elections described above), the synod formally decided some issues without the patriarch. This can be seen in two documents from 1315 and 1324, via which income or subsidies from other metropolitan sees were allocated to the financially depressed patriarchate. Here the synodal decision is described in the plural

64 65 66

Congourdeau, “Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274–1453”, pp. 168–72; Preiser-Kapeller, “Die hauptstädtische Synode”. Laurent, “Le trisépiscopat”, pp. 5–166, see also Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3260*, 3261, 3262, 3267, 3270–76, 3284; Congourdeau, “Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274–1453”, pp. 184–85. Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 79–81, eds. Hunger and Kresten, pp. 456–86; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2117–18; Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1331; Païze-Apostolopoulou, Ο θεσμός της πατριαρχικής εξαρχίας, pp. 39–49; Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. lxviii–lxxi.

78

Preiser-Kapeller

as a common decision only of the hierarchs, who also signed the text.67 The dethronement of Patriarch John XIV Kalekas by the synod in 1347 was also executed in this way (see above). On the other hand, the synod in September 1379, during a vacancy in the patriarchate, shied away from a dismissal of the metropolitan of Ikonion, who was accused of heresy, even though the evidence was strong. The accused hierarch was deposed only in June 1380, when the new patriarch, Neilos Kerameus, chaired the synod. How and when the patriarch and the synod actually acted together, against, or without each other, not only depended on the canons, but also on the actors and their personalities.68 The final conflict between patriarch and hierarchs in Byzantium after the Union of Ferrara/Florence (1439), culminated in the flight of Gregory III Melissenos to Rome in 1451. The anti-unionists organized themselves as the “Holy Synaxis of the Orthodox” and acted as synod—for instance in their contacts with the Utraquist community in Prague—but no new patriarch was elected. The Byzantine Church survived the Ottoman conquest in 1453 without a patriarch, but with a synod.69 6

Conclusion

During the turbulent history of the late Byzantine centuries, the central institutions of the administration of the Byzantine Church, the patriarchate and the synod in Constantinople, proved to be relatively resilient pillars of ecclesiastical life, both in the capital and beyond. Despite all the political and theological upheavals, and based on a well-established set of rules and norms, they both remained operational and attracted an increasing share of arbitrament which had previously been the responsibility of the state. In the internal power struggles between patriarchs and the hierarchs in the synod, the latter, time and again, demonstrated their ability to act against, and also in the absence of a patriarch, both before and after the collapse of the empire. 67 68 69

Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 4, eds. Hunger and Kresten, pp. 126–32, resp. no. 88, pp. 502–08; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2032; Congourdeau, “Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274–1453”, pp. 142–43; Preiser-Kapeller and Mitsiou, “Hierarchies and fractals”. Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 332, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 1–8. See also Darrouzès, Le registre synodal, pp. 164–67. See Gill, The Council of Florence; Gill, Konstanz und Basel—Florenz; Congourdeau, “Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274–1453”, pp. 188–89; Preiser-Kapeller, Der Episkopat, pp. lxxxvii–lxxxviii; Blanchet, Georges Gennadios Scholarios; Papademetriou, Render unto the Sultan, pp. 21–29. See also Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3380–81, 3384, 3391, 3396, 3407– 08. On the patriarchate and the synod in the early Ottoman period, see the contributions by M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and D. Apostolopoulos to this volume.

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

79

Bibliography Primary Sources

Acta patriarchatus 1–2, eds. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitani MCCCXV–MCCCCII e codicibus manu scriptis Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonesis, 2 vols. (Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana 1–2) (Vienna, 1860, 1862). Athanasios, Letters, ed. A.-M. Talbot, The Correspondence of Athanasius I Patriarch of Constantinople (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 7) (Washington, D.C., 1975). Canons 1–6, eds. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων, 6 vols. (Athens, 1852–59). Canons, ed. G. Alberigo, Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, I. The Oecumenical Councils. From Nicaea I to Nicaea II (325–787) (Turnhout, 2006); ed. P.-P. Ioannou, Discipline générale antique (IVe–IXe s.) (Pontifica commissione per la redazione del codice di diritto canonico orientale, fonti 9) (Rome, 1962). George Pachymeres, History, ed. A. Failler, Georges Pachymérès Relations Historiques IV (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 24.4) (Paris, 1999). Register of the Patriarchate 1–3, eds. H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 1: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315–1331 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.1) (Vienna, 1981); eds. H. Hunger, O. Kresten, E. Kislinger, and C. Cupane, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 2: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1337–1350 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.2) (Vienna, 1995); eds. J. Koder, M. Hinterberger, and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 3: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.3) (Vienna, 2001). Short Chronicle, ed. P. Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, vol. 1: Einleitung und Text (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 12.1) (Vienna, 1975). Symeon of Thessaloniki, De sacris ordinationibus, ed. J.-P. Migne, in Patrologia Graeca 155, cols. 361–468.

Secondary Literature

Bénou, L., Pour une nouvelle histoire du droit byzantine. Théorie et pratique juridiques au XIVe siècle (Paris, 2011). Blanchet, M.-H., Georges Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400–vers 1472): un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’Empire byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 20) (Paris, 2008). Boojamra, J.L., Church Reform in the Late Byzantine Empire. A Study for the Patriarchate of Athanasios of Constantinople (Analekta Blatadon 35) (Thessaloniki, 1982).

80

Preiser-Kapeller

Congourdeau, M.-H., “Die byzantinische Kirche von 1274–1453”, in Die Geschichte des Christentums, vol. 6: Die Zeit der Zerreißproben (1274–1449), eds. M.M. du Jourdin, A. Vauchez, and B. Schimmelpfennig (Freiburg, 1991), pp. 132–204. Darrouzès, J., Recherche sur les ὀφφίκια de l’Église byzantine (Archives de l´Orient Chrétien 11) (Paris, 1970). Darrouzès, J., Le registre synodal du patriarcat byzantin au XIVe siècle. Étude paléographique et diplomatique (Archives de l´Orient Chrétien 12) (Paris, 1971). Darrouzès, J., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 5: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376 (Paris, 1977); part 6: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410 (Paris, 1979); part 7: Les regestes de 1410 à 1453 (Paris, 1991). Failler, A., “La promotion du clerc et du moine à l´épiscopat et au patriarcat”, Revue des Études Byzantines 59 (2001), 125–46. Flaig, E., Die Mehrheitsentscheidung. Entstehung und kulturelle Dynamik (Paderborn, 2013). Gastgeber, C., “Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek”, Historicum. Zeitschrift für Geschichte 96 (2008), 9–19. Gastgeber, C, “Das Patriarchatsregister als Spiegel der Religionspolitik: Registerführung unter dem Palamiten Isidoros I (1347–1350)”, in Le Patriarcat Œcuménique de Constantinople et Byzance “hors frontières” (1204–1586), eds. M.-H. Blanchet, M.-H. Congourdeau, and D.I. Mureşan (Dossiers Byzantins 15) (Paris, 2015), pp. 99–131. Gill, J., The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959). Gill, J., Konstanz und Basel—Florenz (Geschichte der Ökumenischen Konzilien 9) (Mainz, 1967). Hajjar, J., Le synode permanent (Σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα) dans l’église byzantine des origines au XIe siècle (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 164) (Rome, 1962). Hunger, H., “Zum Stil und zur Sprache des Patriachatsregisters von Konstantinopel. Rhetorik im Dienste der orthodoxen Hierarchie”, in Studien zum Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel, ed. H. Hunger, vol. 1 (Sitzungsberichte d. Österr. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 383) (Vienna, 1981), pp. 11–60. Hunger, H., “Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel als Spiegel byzantinischer Verhältnisse im 14. Jahrhundert”, in H. Hunger, Epidosis. Gesammelte Schriften zur byzantinischen Geistes- und Kulturgeschichte (Munich, 1989), no. X, pp. 117–36. Hunger, H., “Zur scheinbaren Nonchalance der Kanzleisprache des Patriarchatsregisters. Verschleierung, Absicherung und Ironie in Urkunden des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel”, in Studien zum Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel, eds. H. Hunger and O. Kresten, vol. 2 (Sitzungsberichte d. Österr. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 647) (Vienna, 1997), pp. 11–43. Kraus, Ch.R., Kleriker im späten Byanz. Anagnosten, Hypodiakone, Diakone und Priester 1261–1453 (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 9) (Wiesbaden, 2007).

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

81

Kraus, Ch.R., “Xειροτονία, ἱερωμένος und λαός. Die Ernennungs-, Versetzungs-, Epidosisund Exarchenurkunden des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel: die Weihen, Einsetzungen und die Kirchlichen Gruppen”, in The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An Essential Source to the History and Church of Late Byzantium, eds. C. Gastgeber, E. Mitsiou, and J. Preiser-Kapeller (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 32) (Vienna, 2013), pp. 139–60. Kresten, O., “Ein Indizienprozeß gegen die von Kaiser Andronikos III. Palaiologos eingesetzten katholikoi kritai”, Fontes Minores 9 (1993), 299–337. Kresten, O., “Die Affäre des Metropoliten Symeon von Alania im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel”, Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 137 (2002), 5–40. Kresten, O., “Pyrgion. Peripetien in der kirchlichen Rangordnung einer kleinasiatischen Metropolis”, Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 138 (2003), 5–81. Laurent, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 4: Les regestes de 1208 à 1309 (Paris, 1971). Laurent, V., “Le trisépiscopat du patriarche Matthieu Ier”, Revue des Études Byzantines 30 (1972), 5–166. Lemerle, P., “Recherches sur les institutions judiciaires à l’époque des Paléologues II. Le tribunal du patriarcat ou tribunal synodal”, Analecta Bollandiana 58 (1950 = Mélanges Paul Peeters), 318–33. Meyendorff, J., “Christian marriage in Byzantium: the canonical and liturgical tradition”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990), 99–107. Miethke, J., “Formen der Repräsentation auf Konzilien im Mittelalter”, in Politische Versammlungen und ihre Rituale. Repräsentationsformen und Entscheidungsprozesse des Reichs und der Kirche im späten Mittelalter, eds. J. Peltzer, G. Schwedler, and P. Töbelmann (Mittelalter-Forschungen 27) (Ostfildern, 2009), pp. 21–36. Milaš, N., Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländischen Kirche. Nach den allgemeinen Kirchenrechtsquellen und nach den in den autokephalen Kirchen geltenden SpezialGesetzen (Mostar, 2nd edn. 1905). Mitsiou, E., “The administration of the property of the Great Church of Constantinople on the basis of the villages tu Oikonomiu and Brachophagos (MM364)”, in The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An Essential Source to the History and Church in Late Byzantium, eds. C. Gastgeber, E. Mitsiou, and J. Preiser-Kapeller (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 32) (Vienna, 2013), pp. 79–90. Païze-Apostolopoulou, M., Ο θεσμός της πατριαρχικής εξαρχίας (14ος–19ος αιώνας) (Athens, 1995). Papademetriou, T., Render unto the Sultan. Power, Authority, and the Greek Orthodox Church in the Early Ottoman Centuries (Oxford, 2015).

82

Preiser-Kapeller

PLP = Trapp, E. et al. eds., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, updated CD-ROM (Vienna, 2001). Polemis, I.D., Theophanes of Nicaea: His Life and Works (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 20) (Vienna, 1996). Potz, R., Patriarch und Synode in Konstantinopel. Das Verfassungsrecht des ökumenischen Patriarchates (Kirche und Recht 10) (Vienna, 1971). Preiser-Kapeller, J., Der Episkopat im späten Byzanz. Ein Verzeichnis der Metropoliten und Bischöfe des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel in der Zeit von 1204 bis 1453 (Saarbrücken, 2008). Preiser-Kapeller, J., “Die hauptstädtische Synode von Konstantinopel (Synodos endemusa). Zur Geschichte und Funktion einer zentralen Institution der (spät)byzantinischen Kirche”, Historicum. Zeitschrift für Geschichte 96 (2008), 20–31. Preiser-Kapeller, J., “Hē tōn pleionōn psēphos. Der Mehrheitsbeschluss in der Synode von Konstantinopel in spätbyzantinischer Zeit—Normen, Strukturen, Prozesse”, in Genesis und Dynamiken der Mehrheitsentscheidung, ed. E. Flaig (Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 85) (Munich, 2013), pp. 203–27. Preiser-Kapeller, J., “Our in the Holy Spirit beloved brothers and co-priests. A network analysis of the synod and the episcopacy in the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the years 1379–1390”, in The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An Essential Source for the History and Church of Late Byzantium, eds. C. Gastgeber, E. Mitsiou, and J. Preiser-Kapeller (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 32) (Vienna, 2013), pp. 107–33. Preiser-Kapeller, J., “Calculating the synod? New quantitative and qualitative approaches for the analysis of the patriarchate and the synod of Constantinople in the 14th century”, in Le Patriarcat Œcuménique de Constantinople et Byzance “hors frontières” (1204–1586) eds. M.-H. Blanchet, M.-H. Congourdeau, and D.I. Mureşan (Dossiers Byzantins 15) (Paris, 2015), pp. 159–71. Preiser-Kapeller, J. and E. Mitsiou, “Hierarchies and fractals: ecclesiastical revenues as indicator for the distribution of relative demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the late Byzantine Empire in the early 14th century”, Byzantina Symmeikta 20 (2010), 245–308. Salamon, M., “Cyprian (Kyprianos, Kiprian) the Metropolitan of Kiev and Byzantine policy in east central Europe”, in Byzantium and East Central Europe, eds. G. Prinzing and M. Salamon (Byzantina et Slavica Cracoviensia 3) (Cracow, 2001), pp. 221–36. Schwedler, G., “Formen und Inhalte: Entscheidungsfindung und Konsensprinzip auf Hoftagen im späten Mittelalter”, in Politische Versammlungen und ihre Rituale. Repräsentationsformen und Entscheidungsprozesse des Reichs und der Kirche im späten Mittelalter, eds. J. Peltzer, G. Schwedler, and P. Töbelmann (MittelalterForschungen 27) (Ostfildern, 2009), pp. 151–79.

Patriarch and Synod in the Late Byzantine Period

83

Talbot, A.-M., “The Patriarch Athanasius and the Church (1289–1293; 1303–1309)”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973), 11–28. Tinnefeld, F., “Faktoren des Aufstiegs zur Patriarchenwürde im späten Byzanz”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 36 (1986), 89–115. Vryonis, S., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley, 1971).

chapter 5

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches Marie-Hélène Blanchet The various attempts to reunite the Churches marked at regular intervals the relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the papacy between 1054 and 1453. This endeavor aimed at the reconciliation between Roman and Byzantine Christians by lifting the situation of schism between them; it became the main concern of Church history in that period between the Latin West and the Byzantine East. However, the patriarchate of Constantinople, and especially its leader, the patriarch, was just one player among many others in these negotiations. Whereas the pope was a key figure in the West, due to his institutional legitimacy as patriarch of Rome and his ability to preach a crusade to rescue the Byzantines from the Turks, the patriarch of Constantinople could paradoxically claim no specific area of competence in these discussions. The Byzantine representative with whom the pope was negotiating was almost exclusively the emperor, sometimes in agreement with the Orthodox Church, sometimes in opposition to it, and occasionally even independent of it; at times the patriarch was not even informed about imperial projects. Among other events, the two councils which led to the union of the Churches—the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 and that of Florence in 1438–39—evinced the balance of power between the two of them: in both cases, the Emperors Michael VIII and John VIII Palaiologos1 negotiated directly with the pope, while the patriarchs Joseph I and Joseph II played a merely advisory part. This situation stemmed from the distribution of power between Church and state in Byzantium: since Constantine I, the emperor had a legitimate claim to convene and preside over Church councils, even if he had no say on the definition of the dogma, as this was an exclusive prerogative of the Church. Patriarchs regularly reminded the emperors of this limitation of imperial intervention, but most of the time without any result. By more or less direct means, the emperors went so far as to interfere in doctrine in order to achieve the union with the Latin church in which they were involved. Consequently, the patriarchs had to bow to the imperial will, even if this will was driven as much by geopolitical considerations as by a desire for Christian unity. 1 On John VIII and his union policy, see now Kolditz, Johannes VIII Palaiologos.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_006

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches

85

Does this mean that the patriarchs were willingly or unwillingly won over to the idea of union and endorsed it? Most of those who were involved in the attempts between the 11th and 15th centuries were very reluctant to return to a full communion with Rome, as they considered the differences between them and the Latins crippling. The few unionist patriarchs in Byzantine history— John Bekkos after the Union of Lyon, Metrophanes II and Gregory III after that of Florence—were exceptions in this regard. If the other leaders of the Byzantine Church overwhelmingly disapproved of the union, how was their hostility being expressed? Given their prominent position, which stand did they take in a conflict which concerned all of Byzantine society? Should we think that some patriarchs actually belonged to an anti-unionist movement? Did they oppose the union and did they implement any strategy to make it fail in covert opposition to the emperor? Dry as it may be, a systematic research of the patriarchal acts related to the question of the union of the Churches is a prerequisite for this analysis. The state of research on this topic is very poor: the question of the personal involvement of the patriarchs of Constantinople in the realization of the union of the Churches has never been the subject of any synthetic research. Some historians, especially specialists in ecclesiastical history, such as Jean Darrouzès, Vitalien Laurent, and Joseph Gill, edited some texts of a particular patriarch or analyzed his ecclesiastical policy, but no comprehensive approach has been devoted to this question until now. In this article, the patriarchs involved will thus be identified, and a corpus of patriarchal documents will be formed. On the basis of these sources, I will attempt to understand better the stand taken by successive patriarchs, and to set them within the spectrum of Byzantine opinions about union. 1

Survey of the Patriarchal Acts Related to the Union of the Churches

Between 1054—a date chosen by convention as the one from which the Churches were aware of having broken their communion—and 1453 (the fall of Constantinople), and apart from the Councils of Lyon and Florence—which are by far the two most productive periods of patriarchal documents about the union—we can identify more than a dozen attempts for union in which a patriarch officially took part. I will confine myself to the official documentation and rely on a key tool, the Regestes des actes du patriarcat du Constantinople.2 In the 2 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes parts 2–3; Laurent, Regestes, part 4; Darrouzès, Regestes, parts 5–7.

86

Blanchet

list below, the only acts mentioned are the presupposed authentic patriarchal acts (retained and lost) specifically related to a union project with Rome, while other texts, especially letters from patriarchs to popes on another topic, are not taken into account. Similarly, union projects in which a patriarch was not involved are excluded. The retained patriarchal acts, which form the corpus of the patriarchal documents related to the issue of union, are highlighted in bold. – Nicholas III Grammatikos (1084–1111), reg. 944, 945, 946, 950, 951 (letter to the pope). In 1088–89, following a letter from Pope Urban II who complained of not being commemorated in the diptychs of Constantinople, a council was convened under the presidency of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. It was decided that the commemoration of the pope could be restored when he would have sent his letter of accession including his profession of faith. The patriarch wrote to the pope in this regard and expressed his desire that union could be achieved. – Michael III of Anchialos (1170–78), reg. 1125 (letter to the emperor), 1125a (letter to the pope). In 1173, the patriarch replied to a letter of Pope Alexander III, who encouraged him to work for the union. In his letter to the pope, Michael III argued that he relied on the emperor; however, in his letter to the emperor he was very critical vis-à-vis the Latins. – George II Xiphilinos (1191–98), reg. 1183 (letter to the pope, composed by Demetrios Tornikes). In 1193, the patriarch replied to Pope Celestine III on the question of primacy and expressed his desire that union could be achieved. – John X Kamateros (1198–1206), reg. 1194 (letter to the pope). In 1199, the patriarch replied to Pope Innocent III on the question of primacy and about the project of union. – Theodore II Eirenikos (1214–16), reg. 1219 (encyclical letter to the faithful). In 1214/15, the patriarch recommended that all orthodox Christians should refuse any communion with the Latins and should not submit to the pope. – Germanos II (1223–40), reg. 1256 (letter to the pope), 12573 (letter to the cardinals), 1267, 12684 (response of the patriarch and his synod about the Holy Spirit, composed by Nikephoros Blemmydes), 1269, 1270, 1271, 1272, 1273 (dogmatic definition of the Holy Spirit), 1274, 1275 (response to the pope), 1276, 1277 (letter to the Latin patriarch of Constantinople). In 1232, 3 There is now a critical edition of this letter: Germanos II, Letter to the Cardinals, ed. Arampatzes, pp. 363–78. 4 There is a new translation of this response: Nikephoros Blemmydes, Mémoire de 1234, ed. M. Stavrou, pp. 184–205.

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches

–

–

–

–

87

the patriarch took the initiative to correspond with Pope Gregory IX and the cardinals for the sake of the union of the Churches. Discussions were held at Nicaea, then at Nymphaeum in 1234, but they failed. In 1234, the patriarch reaffirmed the orthodox doctrine, namely the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. Manuel II (1243–54), reg. 1311, 1313, 1319 (letter to the pope). In the summer of 1253 (or 1250), the patriarch wrote to Pope Innocent IV within the context of sending a Byzantine embassy responsible for arranging the union. He expressed his desire that union would be achieved and mentioned the preparation of a council. Arsenios Autoreianos (1254–60, 1261–64), reg. 13325 (letter to the pope). In 1256, the patriarch wrote to Pope Alexander IV within the context of sending a Byzantine embassy responsible for arranging the union. He expressed his desire that union could be achieved and mentioned the preparation of a council. Joseph I (1266–75, 1282–83), reg. 1384, 1385, 1399, 14006 (Apologia to the emperor, composed by Job Iasites), 1401 (oath), 1404 (profession of faith), 1408, 1409 (letter permitting the bishops to approve the union to be signed), 1410, 1413. In 1273, as he was consulted by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos about his project of union, Patriarch Joseph I expressed great reluctance to such an agreement; in early 1274 he withdrew from his office and announced his resignation if the union was concluded. John XI Bekkos (1275–82), reg. 1425, 1428, 1429, 1430, 14317 (synodal tomos), 1432 (letter to the pope), 14338 (letter to the pope), 1434, 1435 (encyclical letter excommunicating the schismatics), 1436 (joint letter with the eastern patriarchs to the pope), 1444, 1449, 1450. John XI Bekkos became patriarch in early 1275, after the signing of the Union of Lyon. During his patriarchate he did everything in order to enforce the union and advocated it in all his writings, especially in his letters to Pope John XXI dated 1277.

5 There is a new edition of this letter: Arsenios Autoreianos, Letter to the Pope, ed. Pieralli, pp. 171–89. 6 All the acts of Joseph I related to the Union of Lyon were edited or reedited in Laurent and Darrouzès, Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon. 7 This act and the following one were edited or reedited in Laurent and Darrouzès, Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon, pp. 462–67, 479–85. For recent editions of the official acts of John Bekkos, see Riebe, Rom in Gemeinschaft, pp. 128–29. 8 This act was reedited in its Greek and Latin versions by Pieralli, La corrispondenza diplomatica, appendix no. 3, pp. 415–31.

88

Blanchet

– Joseph I (1282–83, 2nd patriarchate), reg. 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458. The patriarch deposed his predecessor John XI Bekkos and took disciplinary action against those who had been in favor of the union. – Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–89), reg. 1463, 1484 (letter possibly addressed to the emperor), 1485 (encyclical letter against Bekkos and the unionists), 1486 (letter to the grand logothetes), 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490 (tomos against Bekkos). In 1285, the patriarch convened a synod in the Palace of Blachernae and condemned John Bekkos and his unionist companions, and also redefined the orthodox doctrine. – John XIV Kalekas (1334–47), reg. 2170. In 1334/35, the patriarch may have appointed Barlaam of Calabria as a spokesman for the Byzantines during the synodal discussions with the papal legates sent by Pope John XXII. – Kallistos I (1350–53, 1355–63), reg. 24379 (letter to the emperor), 2443 (letter to the clergy of Cyprus). In 1361, in his letter to the emperor, the patriarch dismissed any prospect of union and stated his hostile opinion; in 1361/62, he urged the Cypriot clergy not to accept the union proposed by the papal legate Peter Thomas, sent by Pope Innocent VI. – Philotheos Kokkinos (1353–54, 1364–76), reg. 2523, 2524 (letter to the archbishop of Ohrid), 2525, 2526. In 1367, after discussions with Paul of Smyrna, the papal legate of Urban V, it was decided that a union council should be organized in Constantinople in 1369. The patriarch then convened the archbishop of Ohrid. – Neilos (1380–88), reg. 2773 (letter to the pope). In 1384, the patriarch replied to Pope Urban VI and expressed his desire for union while clarifying his terms. – Antony IV (1389–90, 1391–97), reg. 3039 (letter to the král of Poland), 3040 (letter to Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev). In 1397, the patriarch replied to the king of Poland and to Cyprian of Kiev who called for union; he expressed his desire for union when the circumstances would permit to organize a council. – Euthymios II (1410–16), reg. 3294. In 1415/1416, within the context of the preparations for the Council of Constance, the patriarch may have sent an embassy to discuss the union. – Joseph II (1416–39), reg. 3305, 3306, 3309, 3312 (letter to Pope Martin V), 3313, 3314, 3316, 3334, 3337, 3338, 3339, 3341, 3342 (letter to the ambassadors of the Council of Basel; preserved in Latin), 3343, 3344, 3346 (letter to Pope Eugene IV; preserved in Latin), 3347 (letter to the ambassadors of 9 This act was reedited in Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 260, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 538–43.

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches

89

the Council of Basel; preserved in Latin), 3348 (letter to the ambassadors of the Council of Basel; preserved in Latin), 3349 (letter to an ambassador of the Council of Basel, Henry Menger; preserved in Latin), 3350 (letter to the ambassadors of the Council of Basel, preserved in Latin), 3351, 3352, 3353, 3354, 3355, 3356, 3357 (letter to the Greek ambassadors; preserved in Latin), 3358, 3359, 3360 (letter to the ambassadors of the Council of Basel; preserved in Latin), 3361, 3362, 3363, 3364, 3365, 3367, 3368, 3369, 3370, 3371 (letter to the Greek metropolitans; preserved in Latin), 3373, 3374, 3375, 3376, 3377 (official opinion of the patriarch), 3378 (profession of faith). In 1422, the patriarch sent a nine-point reply to the proposals of Pope Martin V about the union, where he expressed his desire for union, he clarified under which conditions it could be achieved, and he mentioned especially the preparation of a council. From 1425 onwards, the patriarch was a partner in the negotiations for union, on the one hand with representatives of the Council of Basel, on the other with Pope Eugene IV. He participated in the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1438–39 and advocated the union by signing a unionist profession of faith, just before his death in Florence, 10 June 1439. – Metrophanes II (1440–43), reg. 3387 (letter to the clergy of Methoni), 3388 (letter to the clergy of Crete), 3391. In 1440, Metrophanes II announced the implementation of the Union of Florence to the orthodox clergy in the Latin possessions of Methoni and Crete. – Gregory III Mammas (1445–59), reg. 3398 (letter to the prince of Kiev; preserved in Old East Slavic and in Latin translation), 3404 (letter to the emperor of Trebizond). In 1447, the patriarch replied to Prince Alexander of Kiev and tried to justify the union. In 1445/50, the patriarch replied to John IV of Trebizond and tried to justify the union. This long list aims at providing references to the summaries of the acts and the related bibliography in the Regestes. It sheds light on two aspects of the patriarchs’ position about the union: their role in the religious policy of the Byzantine Empire, especially from the 13th to the 15th century, and their official thinking about the issues raised by the union with Rome, especially in doctrinal matters. 2

The Role of the Patriarchs in the Negotiations for Union

The union was neither a minor nor an infrequent topic in Byzantium: on the contrary, it was a constant point in the agenda, and few patriarchs could avoid a confrontation with it. The recurrence of union projects resulted from the quasi-constant diplomatic contacts between Rome and Constantinople,

90

Blanchet

as well as from the strong presence of the Latins in the East, especially the Dominicans10 and the Franciscans. From the 13th century onwards, both orders had been settled permanently in the eastern Mediterranean, having as a major aim the conversion of orthodox Christians to the Latin dogma. From the above list a few key moments emerge which allow us to draw a broad timeline. The need for uniting the separated Churches was perceived for the first time at the end of the 11th century, but, until the second half of the 12th century, this led to no results. By the end of the 12th century a clear interest in union was apparent. The capture of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 and the expansion of the Latin Empire11 entailed a break with the previous period; the requirement for the submission of orthodox clergy to Rome imposed by Innocent III widened the rift. From the 1230s to the 1270s, several discussions and diplomatic steps took place, leading to the Union of Lyon in 1274, which aroused a violent reaction in Byzantium. After the rejection of the Union of Lyon in 1283–85, and the disciplinary measures taken against unionists, especially the former patriarch John XI Bekkos, the prospect of any union faded for decades. It resurfaced in 1334/35 and regularly appeared after this: the second half of the 14th century was punctuated with frequent diplomatic contacts for union, and this became more intense in the early 15th century. From the 1420s until 1439 (Union of Florence), the patriarch was absorbed in negotiations and preparations for a future council. The final phase, from 1439 to 1453, saw patriarchs attempting to enforce the union signed in Florence throughout the entire orthodox world. However, a survey of the patriarchal acts does not reflect completely the union negotiations conducted in Byzantium. The bulk of diplomatic activity in this area was actually assumed by the emperor. In fact, most of the letters sent by the patriarchs to the popes accompanied imperial letters, when they were not exact copies of the latter; moreover, the emperor also negotiated alone with the papacy at times. In this regard, it is important to note that no patriarchal act is listed from the 1260s and 1270s: Michael VIII negotiated alone with Urban IV, Clement IV, and Gregory X, and did not seek the advice of the Church and its patriarch before 1273, on the eve of the council. Similarly, throughout his reign, John V Palaiologos (1354–90), who was in favor of reconciliation with Rome at all costs, and had personally converted to the Latin doctrine in 1369, almost never involved any patriarch in his endeavors to achieve the union. Some acts by Kallistos I demonstrate, however, that although the patriarch was

10 11

Delacroix-Besnier, Les dominicains. Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio.

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches

91

aware of John V’s discrete maneuvering for union and disapproved of it, he was unable to oppose it. The weakness and even powerlessness of the patriarchs characterize all these negotiations for union. It was quite exceptional for a patriarch to take the initiative in starting a correspondence with the pope: Germanos II did this in 1232 and then, together with Emperor John III Vatatzes, he continued supervising the organization of embassies and discussions with the Latins, until the venture finally failed.12 In the vast majority of cases, though, and already in the 1250s, during the reign of Vatatzes, Patriarch Manuel II could only comply with the policy followed by his sovereign. John III initiated all the discussions held with Innocent IV, obviously aiming to restore the Byzantine Empire. In order to achieve this goal, he was even willing to offer in return the submission of the Byzantine Church to the authority of the pope. Without going so far, the terms that Michael VIII Palaiologos negotiated for the Union of Lyon also implied a loss of autonomy for the Byzantine Church through the reintroduction of the right to appeal to Rome. The emperors handled the union as an instrument of foreign policy, sometimes successfully, and were often ready to make major concessions on an ecclesiastical level in order to gain an alliance with the papacy. This point demonstrates the ambiguous status of the emperor: he could act not only as the defender of Orthodoxy deciding to conclude a union with Rome, but he could also invoke the principle of economy, forcing the Church to accommodate the interests of the empire. In his capacity as an epistemonarches, he was entitled to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs and direct them as he deemed proper.13 How could a patriarch withstand this direct pressure from the emperor and indirect authority from the papacy in the context of the preparations for union? Obviously, his leeway was very limited. He could not risk obstructing imperial policy, and there is indeed no mention of an open conflict between an emperor and a patriarch on this matter. The strongest opposition was that of Joseph I in 1273, who, at the beginning of 1274, decided to withdraw to a monastery and resign, if the union was concluded;14 the union actually occurred later that year. The balance of power was evidently always in favor of the emperor, and for that reason the patriarchs sought rather to warn the sovereign, and exert as much influence as possible over his decisions. Joseph II followed this strategy prior to and during the Council of Ferrara-Florence; he always 12 13 14

Chadwick, East and West, pp. 238–43. See especially, Geanakoplos, “Church and state”, pp. 381–403; Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, pp. 260–63, 267, 303–07, 317. See also the contribution of E. Mitsiou in this volume. Darrouzès, Regestes, reg. 1408.

92

Blanchet

reaffirmed the priority given by the Church to the preservation of dogma, and opposed a union to be concluded only “for a semblance of temporary utility”.15 The patriarch could also entreat the emperor not to exert undue coercion upon the Church. Thus, in April 1439 in Florence, while the discussions with the Latins had reached an impasse, the patriarch suggested to the emperor that the Byzantine delegation should return to Constantinople; John VIII took this request into account and used it as a threat to put pressure upon the pope, even though he certainly did not intend to carry out the repatriation project.16 The patriarch had seemingly no decision-making role in regard to the union. Moreover, the worse the military situation of the empire got, the more the emperors considered that their only chance of salvation was reliance on Latin military support, which was conditioned by union. 3

The Reluctance of the Church

Even if they were forced to be docile, the patriarchs had their own views about the union and the possible ways of achieving it. Together with the theologians around them, they had a thorough idea on the conditions of an acceptable union; they also developed an argumentation which aimed at condemning the doctrinal errors of the Latins. With a hint of provocation one could say that all Byzantine patriarchs were unionists, in that they all wished—as expressed in their correspondence with the popes—a return to the unity of the Church. This form of unionism was based on an evangelical commandment: in his letters, the Apostle Paul always urged the communities that he had founded to preserve their unity, whereas he warned them against the spirit of discord and internecine conflicts. Local Churches were viewed all together as a single universal Church, which could be assimilated into the seamless robe of Christ (John 19:23), according to one of the many symbolic images of the ecclesiastical institution. The schism, a split par excellence, was at the same time a sin, a clear violation of God’s will, and a suffering, a painful separation, both in the eyes of the Byzantines and the Latins. Consequently, they all shared the same desire for unity, which constituted the ground for all discussions between the two parts of the Church. None of them could deny or even relativize the absolute good that a union represented, it being a reconciliation of all Christians and at the same time a reconstitution of the original Church. This rhetoric of ideal unity could be 15 16

See Joseph II, Letter to Pope Martin V, ed. Laurent, p. 46, line 228, and p. 56. See Silvester Syropoulos, Memoirs, ed. Laurent, pp. 406–09.

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches

93

found in the writings of the patriarchs, as well as in the assimilation of union to peace, the supreme value of Christianity.17 This fervor, however, was tempered with serious reservations, those justifying that the situation of schism lingered. Several theological issues were the subject of a controversy that dated back to the late first millennium, in particular to Photios. Among many other grievances against the Latins, four major points of conflict appeared in the patriarchal acts related to union: the use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist, the papacy’s claim to primacy, the existence of purgatory, and the double procession of the Spirit from the Father and from the Son, or filioque. As Tia Kolbaba has clearly demonstrated,18 all these criticisms were not made uniformly by the Byzantines to the Latins from the late 11th to the late 15th century, however. The question of the filioque recurred constantly, and was considered by patriarchs and theologians the most unacceptable doctrinal error of the Latins, but the other divisive issues appeared with a specific chronology. From the 9th to the 13th century, the use of unleavened bread was seen as a major transgression with severe theological consequences, since it was connected with a Judaizing practice, yet the issue lost much of its controversial content after the Union of Lyon, and was not even discussed at the Council of Florence. It actually only appeared in the writings of the Patriarchs Germanos II, Joseph I, and John XI Bekkos. Purgatory was a Western invention of the late 12th century. Therefore this topic, which was never set out as a fundamental complaint, was only mentioned in Greco-Latin polemics from the 13th century onwards, in the writings of John XI Bekkos and in the acts of Joseph II at the Council of Florence. Finally, the question of Roman primacy was passionately debated in the 12th century by the Patriarchs George II Xiphilinos and John X Kamateros. From the 13th to 15th century it remained ongoing, especially in the context of conciliar discussions, since the recognition of the primacy of Rome was the first condition required by the papacy. The Byzantines did not challenge the primacy of honor of Rome and could admit that the pope was a primus inter pares, but they refused to accept that this theoretical primacy should confer on the pope a jurisdictional privilege or a higher authority in matters of dogma. In their diplomatic correspondence, the patriarchs briefly mentioned one or other of these issues, mostly the filioque. However, when required to provide a more elaborate theological

17 18

On the frequent similarities between the letters of the patriarchs and the letters of the emperors to the popes on this topic, see Pieralli, La corrispondenza diplomatica, pp. 61–66. Kolbaba, “Byzantine perceptions”, pp. 117–43; Kolbaba, Errors. See also the contribution of T. Kolbaba in this volume.

94

Blanchet

argumentation, they could expound their position in detail as well. In this respect, the most exemplary text is the very long Apologia by Joseph I. As early as the beginning of the 13th century, when genuine negotiations for a union began, the Byzantine patriarchs claimed that all these conflicting issues should be examined in the context of a council with the Latins; on the other side, the papacy was not opposed to this. In fact, both camps had their own understanding of the nature and authority of a council. The Byzantines wanted to organize a future council of a type seen in the early Christian centuries. They regarded a council, which would have brought together the bishops of the entire Church, as an opportunity to clarify dogma and rebut heresy, and not as a place for contradictory discussions where each camp would seek to convince the other. Moreover, they were convinced of the correctness of their doctrine, while they accused the Latins of having innovated by adding the filioque and introducing other theological speculation. They therefore believed that an examination of these issues in a council would end in the triumph of truth—that is to say, Orthodoxy, the right faith—and would prove wrong the supporters of an erroneous doctrine.19 On the Roman side, the council was in no way seen as a necessary tool for the completion of any union: the pope had the plenitudo potestatis allowing him to be accepted as the supreme authority in the Church. The papacy therefore sought to obtain the return of the Greeks (reductio Graecorum) through an agreement between a pope and a Byzantine emperor, since in Rome, to the detriment of the patriarch, the basileus was identified as the supreme authority over the Byzantine Church. In this context, the union was to be prepared in advance by diplomatic exchanges between Rome and Constantinople, and the council was of no use but for the proclamation and ratification of that union. This discrepancy between the two understandings of a council’s function became obvious in the 13th century. A first council sanctioned the union of the Churches in 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council. In it, Pope Innocent III considered that the capture of Constantinople and the existence of the Latin Empire effectively brought back the Byzantines into the jurisdiction of the Roman Church; in this respect, in canon 4 of the Lateran Council, he proclaimed their return to Roman obedience and only allowed them to retain their own rites. This conciliar decision was never accepted by the Byzantine Church, whose patriarchs at that time were in Nicaea together with the emperors of the Laskaride dynasty. This kind of reconciliation through forced submission did not really form a precedent, since in retrospect it was clear that the union of 19

See Nicol, “Byzantine requests”, pp. 69–95; Boojamra, “The Byzantine notion”, pp. 59–76.

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches

95

the Churches had not been achieved in 1215.20 The situation with the Union of Lyon in 1274 was different; it represented the model of a genuine council of union as understood by the papacy. This included the profession of faith by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos read by the Byzantine ambassadors in Lyon, that bound both its author and the entire Byzantine Church to the recognition of the three points required by the pope, namely: Roman primacy, the right of appeal to Rome; and the commemoration of the pope in the diptychs in Constantinople. Controversial points of doctrine were not examined at all during the Council, contrary to what the Byzantines expected. The pope was satisfied with the text that he himself had previously dictated to Michael VIII, and the union was proclaimed. This was obviously not the sort of council demanded by the Byzantines.21 The violent reactions in Constantinople against the decisions of the Council of Lyon showed that it was impossible to impose a union upon the Byzantine Church in this way. Throughout the period, especially during the preparations for the Council of Florence, the patriarch took care to specify the conditions that the Byzantines would be granted in the future.22 First, the council should imperatively be ecumenical, that is to say all Eastern patriarchs should be present or represented; moreover, the heads of the Slavic autocephalous Churches should be invited as well. In addition, the discussion should be public and focus on the contentious issues. Also, the Byzantines should have the opportunity to present and defend their doctrine, and the only acceptable arguments should be based on the authority of the Scripture and the texts of the Christian Fathers. The decisions made by the council should not be dictated by the will of the pope alone, but by general consensus, since the discussions on controversial issues should bring to light the unquestionable dogmatic truth. These ideal conditions had been negotiated by Joseph II and John VIII Palaiologos, and were initially observed at Ferrara and Florence in 1438–39, but as the situation was at a complete impasse at the end of the debates, especially on the filioque issue, some expedients were found in order to nevertheless come

20 21

22

Andrea, “Innocent III and the Byzantine rite”, pp. 111–22. On the issues of the Union of Lyon, see Roberg, Das zweite Konzil von Lyon; see also Laurent and Darrouzès, Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon. The most important Byzantine historical source about the events related to the Council of Lyon, is George Pachymeres, History, eds. Laurent and Failler. See Sieben, “Griechische Konzilsidee”, pp. 184–215. See Joseph II, Letter to Pope Martin V, ed. Laurent, pp. 31–57; Epistolae pontificiae, ed. Hofmann, p. 20, no. 26, and p. 39 line 38–p. 40 line 39, no. 47.

96

Blanchet

to a solution and to conclude the union, as both the pope and the emperor desired.23 Whereas the Byzantine Church, especially the patriarchs, had high hopes that the conciliar way would guarantee full respect for traditional dogma, they happened to be constantly disappointed. Successive patriarchs appear to have been ultimately incapable of protecting the Byzantine Church from imperial maneuvering, and were unable to ensure the inviolability of Orthodoxy. Despite their disagreements, they bent and bowed to the imperial will, even when it affected dogma. However, one may question the core of their position, beyond the official discourse they held. Whereas the patriarchs seem to have been reluctant to conclude a union— some more than the others, especially those coming from an often anti-Latin monastic environment, such as Arsenios and Kallistos I—we cannot find any patriarch or former patriarch within the resistance movements to union. They did not actively commit themselves against it when it was achieved, neither after the Council of Lyon, nor after Florence. It is impossible to know how Joseph II would have acted if he had not died in Florence, yet, after 1274, Joseph I showed his willingness to withdraw from the conflict.24 Another example is significant: after his return from Florence, John VIII needed a new patriarch, since the see was vacant. He proposed that office to Mark of Ephesus, the metropolitan who was the most involved in the opposition to the union during the council itself, but Mark refused it; holding the position of patriarch would have not allowed him to carry on his fight.25 It thus seems that the Byzantine Church as an institution represented by its patriarch could only comply with imperial policy. Active resistance came from persons who had broken away from it, either members of the patriarchal administration who had resigned, or monks or laymen, all of them having greater freedom of speech than the patriarch. Only one text presents a leader of the Byzantine Church who openly proclaims his anti-unionism and finally manages to rally the emperor to his opinion. This is a fictional dialogue between Patriarch Michael of Anchialos and Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, which was probably composed, as shown by 23

24

25

On the issues of the Council of Florence, see Gill, The Council of Florence; Alberigo, Christian Unity; Kolditz, Johannes VIII Palaiologos. The most important Byzantine historical source about the events related to the Council of Florence is Silvester Syropoulos, Memoirs, ed. Laurent. Pachymeres argues that Joseph I was exiled by the emperor to the Black Sea because he received anti-unionists in his cell in his monastery. But Joseph I was not one of the leaders of the protest against the union, and Pachymeres goes so far as to claim that Joseph would have accepted the union had he not previously taken an oath to reject it: see George Pachymeres, History, eds. Laurent and Failler, vol. 2, pp. 528–33. See Silvester Syropoulos, Memoirs, ed. Laurent, pp. 548–49.

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches

97

Jean Darrouzès, in the context of the Union of Lyon.26 This dialogue reverses the roles of the emperor and the patriarch and assigns to the latter the control of the debate. He starts with questioning the concessions given to achieve the union, in particular the recognition of the right of appeal to the pope: how could indeed any authority be recognized to someone who is mistaken? From that point, the patriarch continues with the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of which the Latins are guilty, and the question of their condemnation as heretics. The content of the argumentation is quite conventional and similar to that of the Apologia by Joseph I, but the staging of the dialogue is original: the patriarch is set in the position of master and provides the teachings of the Orthodox Church, while the emperor asks naive questions and raises easily refutable objections. In the 13th century, there were thus ecclesiastics (the author must have belonged to this environment) who dreamt of a reversal of power relations between emperor and patriarch, and of a formal rejection of the union by the Byzantine Church. 4

The Particular Case of the Unionist Patriarchs

No patriarch openly opposed union; on the contrary, some of them supported it and sought to enforce it. This is by no means the least of the paradoxes, as the Byzantine Church as a whole appears to have been rather hostile to union, and it should be interpreted as a sign that different tendencies coexisted within the Church. Strictly speaking, over the entire period there are only three unionist patriarchs who defended the union concluded with Rome: John XI Bekkos, Metrophanes II, and Gregory III Mammas. All three accepted the union as an afterthought, after having been initially opposed to it, and all three were chosen by the emperor to hold the patriarchal office because of their overt unionist convictions. All three remained faithful to their commitment to the end, and together with some other theologians, embodied the Byzantine unionist movement. They declared themselves genuinely Orthodox and felt that their faith was not endangered by the recognition of the Roman prerogatives and the validity of the Latin doctrine. Were all three vile opportunists who became patriarchs out of ambition? Such an indictment was launched by their opponents, but their lasting influence, especially that of John Bekkos, invalidates this thesis. In his writings, Bekkos,27 as well as Mammas to a lesser

26 27

Laurent and Darrouzès, Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon, pp. 346–75 and 45–52. On John Bekkos, see Riebe, Rom in Gemeinschaft; Ragia, “Confessions of an ingenious man”.

98

Blanchet

extent,28 upheld the compatibility of Eastern and Western doctrines, while most Byzantine theologians considered Latin teachings heretical. The issue at stake and, in fact, the main doctrinal question raised repeatedly in the discussions about union, was that of the double procession of the Holy Spirit, namely the Latin notion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son ( filioque). John XI Bekkos was the one who first gave legitimacy and authority to an Orthodox interpretation of the double procession of the Holy Spirit. He did not alone create his doctrine, but was inspired by the pneumatological treatises of Niketas of Maroneia and Nikephoros Blemmydes. The issue lay in the participation or not of the Son in the intra-Trinitarian life of the Holy Spirit. The teachings of the Greek Fathers on this point recalled that the Father is the only source of divinity within the Trinity, while the Son is begotten by him and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him. But some Fathers added that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ‘through the Son’, and thus attributed a role to the Son in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. Bekkos considered these texts of the Greek Fathers to be in agreement with those of the Latins in which the doctrine of the filioque was grounded. The idea that all Church Fathers express the same truth without contradicting each other (consensus patrum) was a major argument for Bekkos and for later supporters of union. Bekkos was the first who strove to collect within florilegia all the quotations of the Greek Fathers that justified his doctrinal position. Convinced as he was of the possibility of a dogmatic agreement with the Latins on this basis, Bekkos supported the principle of union, and started a lasting pro-Latin and unionist trend within Orthodoxy, which had its adherents even after the fall of Constantinople. Nevertheless, Bekkos also had to champion the Union of Lyon as it had been achieved with the papacy. The unionist patriarchs could not escape a deeply ambiguous situation: on the one hand, they took a theoretical stand supposedly compatible with the Orthodox faith, of which they were the highest representatives, while on the other hand they had to meet the often outrageous requirements of the popes. Whereas the Greek symbol of faith should not have been affected by the Union of Lyon, and no profession of faith including the filioque was to be sent except those of the emperor and the patriarch, as Bekkos himself reminds us in his letters in 1277, Pope Nicholas III (1277–80) eventually required that the Byzantines use the Latin creed.29 The patriarch was then completely out of step with the faithful,

28 29

On Gregory Mammas, see Harris, “The patriarch”. See Acta Romanorum pontificum, ed. Delorme, pp. 70–77, especially p. 72, no. 35.

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches

99

and torn between the guarantees that he had given concerning the limits of papal interventionism, and the true expectations of Rome. The position of a unionist patriarch proved to be untenable: the compromise that Bekkos, and after him Metrophanes II and Gregory III, sought to enforce had no chance of being accepted by the anti-unionists, whereas it was also considered inadequate by the papacy. 5

Conclusion

The issue of the union of the Churches was one of the most difficult for a patriarch of Constantinople. None of them would ever claim to be hostile to it, because they could not escape their moral duty to contribute to the restoration of Christian unity. As long as the Church was ideally regarded as one and indivisible, union was, by definition, desirable. The Orthodox Church actually freed itself from this requirement only after the Council of Florence, when the division between Rome and Constantinople came to be considered insurmountable, and the existence of two distinct denominations was confirmed. Bound to this abstract form of unionism, the patriarchs were at the same time very aware of the obstacles that the Byzantines might raise and the legitimate resistance they might offer to union with Rome. Whatever their personal point of view, they were forced to take into consideration the arguments of the anti-unionists, because the latter were likely to derail the unionist project. In this respect, the very strong opposition to the Union of Lyon formed a precedent which all subsequent patriarchs had to take into account. For these leaders of the Church, union mostly represented a matter of discord that threatened the internal cohesion of their institution. Under these circumstances, it may have been a less costly solution for them to offload their responsibilities onto imperial power. Emperors entered into negotiations about union with the papacy in order to gain political and military aid; it was then within their remit to meet the pope’s expectations without increasing, at the same time, the hostility of the clergy and the Byzantine faithful. The patriarchs could remind the sovereign of the importance of the dogmatic issues at stake in union, and otherwise content themselves with playing a fairly secondary role by getting involved as least as possible. I have emphasized in this analysis the weakness and submissiveness of all the patriarchs towards imperial authority, the opponents to union as well as the unionist patriarchs: this passiveness may have been the result of the insoluble contradiction they faced when confronted with any attempt at union.

100

Blanchet

Bibliography Primary Sources

Acta Romanorum pontificum ab Innocentio V ad Benedictum XI, 1276–1304, eds. F.M. Delorme and A.T. Tăutu (Pontificia Commissio ad redigendum Codicem Iuris Canonici Orientalis, Fontes 3.5.2) (Vatican City, 1955). Arsenios Autoreianos, Letter to the Pope, ed. L. Pieralli, “Una lettera del patriarca Arsenios Autorianos a papa Alessandro IV sull’unione delle Chiese”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 48 (1998), 171–89. George Pachymeres, History, eds. V. Laurent and A. Failler, Relations historiques, vol. 1–5 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 24, 1–5) (Paris 1984–2000). Germanos II, Letter to the Cardinals, ed. C.A. Arampatzes, “Ἀνέκδοτη ἐπιστολὴ τοῦ πατριάρχη Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Γερμανοῦ Β΄ πρὸς τοὺς Καρδιναλίους τῆς Ρώμης (1232)”, Ἐπετηρὶς ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 52 (2004–06), 363–78. Epistolae pontificiae ad Concilium Florentinum spectantes, ed. G. Hofmann, vol. 1: Epistolae pontificiae de rebus ante Concilium Florentinum gestis (1418–1438) (Concilium Florentinum, Documenta et scriptores 1.1) (Rome, 1940). Joseph II, Letter to Pope Martin V, ed. V. Laurent, “Les préliminaires du concile de Florence. Les neuf articles du pape Martin V et la réponse inédite du patriarche de Constantinople Joseph II (octobre 1422)”, Revue des Études Byzantines 20 (1962), 5–60. Laurent, V. and J. Darrouzès, Dossier grec de l’Union de Lyon 1273–1277 (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 16) (Paris, 1976). Nikephoros Blemmydes, Mémoire de 1234, trad. M. Stavrou, Nicéphore Blemmydès, Œuvres théologiques I (Sources chrétiennes 517) (Paris, 2007), pp. 184–205. Pieralli, L., La corrispondenza diplomatica dell’imperatore bizantino con le potenze estere nel tredicesimo secolo (1204–1282): studio storico-diplomatico ed edizione critica (Vatican City, 2006). Register of the Patriarchate, vol. 3: Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 3: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363, eds. J. Koder, M. Hinterberger, and O. Kresten (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.3) (Vienna, 2001). Silvester Syropoulos, Memoirs, ed. V. Laurent, Les « Mémoires » du Grand Ecclésiarque de l’Église de Constantinople, Sylvestre Syropoulos, sur le concile de Florence (1438– 1439) (Concilium Florentinum, Documenta et scriptores 9) (Rome, 1971).

Secondary Literature

Alberigo, G., Christian Unity. The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/39–1989 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 97) (Louvain, 1991). Andrea, A.J., “Innocent III and the Byzantine rite, 1198–1216”, in Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its Consequences, ed. A. Laiou (Paris, 2005), pp. 111–22.

The Patriarchs and the Union of the Churches

101

Boojamra, J., “The Byzantine notion of the ‘ecumenical council’ in the 14th century”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 80 (1987), 59–76. Chadwick, H., East and West. The Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford, 2003). Dagron, G., Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le « césaropapisme » byzantin (Paris, 1996). Darrouzès, J., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 5: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376 (Paris, 1977); part 6: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410 (Paris, 1979); part 7: Les regestes de 1410 à 1453 (Paris, 1991). Delacroix-Besnier, Cl., Les dominicains et la chrétienté grecque aux XIVe et XVe siècles (Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome 237) (Rome, 1997). Geanakoplos, D.J., “Church and state in the Byzantine Empire. A reconsideration of the problem of caesaropapism”, Church History 34 (1965), 381–403 (republished in Geanakoplos, D.J., Byzantine East and Latin West (Oxford, 1966), pp. 55–83). Gill, J., The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959). Grumel, V. and J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, parts 2–3: Les regestes de 715 à 1206 (Paris, 1989). Harris, J., “The patriarch of Constantinople and the last days of Byzantium”, in The Patriarchate of Constantinople in Context and Comparison. Proceedings of the International Conference, Vienna, September 12th–15th 2012 (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 41), eds. C. Gastgeber, E. Mitsiou, J. Preiser-Kapeller, and V. Zervan (Vienna, 2017), pp. 9–16. Kolbaba, T.M., The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Urbana, 2000). Kolbaba, T.M., “Byzantine perceptions of Latin religious ‘errors’: themes and changes from 850 to 1350”, in The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim world, eds. A. Laiou and R.P. Mottahedeh (Washington, D.C., 2001), pp. 117–43. Kolditz, S., Johannes VIII. Palaiologos und das Konzil von Ferrara-Florenz (1438/39): das byzantinische Kaisertum im Dialog mit dem Westen (Monographien zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 60), 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 2013–14). Laurent, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 4: Les regestes de 1208 à 1309 (Paris, 1971). Nicol, D.M., “Byzantine requests for an oecumenical council in the 14th century”, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 1 (1969), 69–95 (republished in Nicol, D.M., Byzantium: its Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World (London, 1972), no. 8). Ragia, E., “Confessions of an ingenious man: the confessions of faith of John XI Bekkos in their social, political and theological background”, in L’Union à l’épreuve du formulaire. Professions de foi entre Églises d’Orient et d’Occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe s.), eds. M.-H. Blanchet and F. Gabriel (Monographies du Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Collège de France 51) (Paris, 2016), pp. 39–76. Riebe, A., Rom in Gemeinschaft mit Konstantinopel. Patriarch Johannes XI. Bekkos als Verteidiger der Kirchenunion von Lyon (1274) (Wiesbaden, 2005). Roberg, B., Das zweite Konzil von Lyon (1274) (Paderborn, 1990).

102

Blanchet

Sieben, H.J., “Griechische Konzilsidee zur Zeit des Florentinums”, Theologie und Philosophie 65 (1990), 184–215. Van Tricht, F., The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium. The Empire of Constantinople (1204– 1228), trans. P. Longbottom (The Medieval Mediterranean. People, Economies and Cultures 400–1500 90) (Leiden, 2011).

chapter 6

Continuity and Change: The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 1 The Survival of a Byzantine Institution Dimitris G. Apostolopoulos 1

State of Research

The study of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s history within the framework of the Ottoman Empire is not a new topic within the international historiography. The new element is the discovery of sources that date from the patriarchate’s early critical years after the conquest of 1453, and their use through an interdisciplinary perspective. The ‘new sources’ are Greek as well as Ottoman. For example, the oldest extant patriarchal berat considered by Steven Runciman in his classical work The Great Church in Captivity was the one of 1662, issued for Patriarch Dionysios III,1 while now we know that the earliest preserved Ottoman appointment document is the one issued in 1477 for Patriarch Maximos III.2 Furthermore, the oldest Greek source used by N.I. Pantazopoulos in his work Church and Law in the Balkan Peninsula during the Ottoman Rule, which deals with law and the way in which it was applied by the Orthodox Church during the period of Ottoman rule, dates from 1701.3 Today researchers even use sources dating from the early years after the re-establishment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.4 Nevertheless, beyond the discovery and the use of new sources, current research has adopted more collective approaches. There are members of a research program studying the post-Byzantine Ecumenical Patriarchate and its role in Christian society under Ottoman rule, within a program conducted 1 Runciman, The Great Church, p. 179. The continuity and the changes in the patriarchal see were examined mainly in two chapters: “The new pattern” and “The Church and the infidel state”, pp. 165–207. 2 Four Centuries, eds. Arı and Kırval, “Appendix”. The next extant patriarchal berat (published in Ten Turkish Documents, ed. Zachariadou, pp. 157–62), dates from 1483. 3 Pantazopoulos, Church and Law, p. 58. 4 In her work on the life of Gennadios Scholarios, Marie-Hélène Blanchet has studied the position of the patriarch of Constantinople within the structure of the Ottoman state: Blanchet, Georges-Gennadios Scholarios, pp. 85–168.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_007

104

Apostolopoulos

at the Institute of Historical Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation in Athens. It cooperates with analogous research programs conducted in other European cities (Vienna and Paris) that study the late Byzantine period. These research programs have organized congresses and have published proceedings.5 This cooperation led also to the establishment of the “Association Internationale pour l’Étude du Patriarcat de Constantinople” (PATRHIST), which aims to inform researchers and the general public about research projects, events, and publications concerning the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as well as to produce new ‘research tools’ on the topic.6 During the last few decades (post-1996), many specific studies have also been published,7 while the research team in Athens (D.G. Apostolopoulos, P. Mihailaris, Machi Païzi-Apostolopoulou, and Youli Evangelou) has undertaken to continue the work of the Pères Assomptionnistes Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, for the post-Byzantine period. The second volume of the series, Les regestes de 1498 à 1565, is forthcoming.8 2

The Situation after 1453

The re-establishment, in early 1454, of the quintessentially Byzantine institution of the patriarchate of Constantinople within the framework of the Ottoman state constitutes a multivalent phenomenon, the interpretation of which requires that we explore the various reasons that brought this development about. To do this, we need first to take a look at the background. The fall of Constantinople in 1453, the capital of the east Roman state9—or Byzantine Empire as Western historiography has preferred to call it—signaled the collapse of an empire which for around a thousand years was a dominant player in the East. It also signaled a defining moment in the establishment of another empire in the same region, that which came to be known as the Ottoman Empire. For Byzantinists, the reasons leading to the collapse of the 5 Odorico, Le patriarcat œcuménique; Blanchet, Congourdeau, and Mureşan, Le patriarcat œcuménique; Gastgeber, Mitsiou, Preiser-Kapeller, and Zervan, The Patriarchate of Constantinople. 6 https://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/sites/patrhist/ (accessed 31 December 2020). 7 See a survey of the bibliography in the recent book Çolak and Bayraktar-Tellan eds., Orthodox Church, p. 21 note 13, a book that inaugurates a new series (Ecclesiastica Ottomanica) on the history of the Church and Christian communities in the Ottoman Empire. 8 For the publications of the research team (up to September 2014) see: http://www.eie.gr/ nhrf/institutes/inr/structure/apologismos_v2014.pdf (accessed 31 December 2020). 9 On this date, see Philippides and Hanak, The Siege and the Fall; Angold, The Fall of Constantinople; Déroche and Vatin eds., Constantinople 1453.

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 1

105

Byzantine Empire have traditionally comprised the subject matter of the last chapter in their studies. Here, however, we need to understand and explain how the Christian Orthodox Greeks, the former subjects of the Byzantine Empire, managed to survive when they found themselves within the grip of Ottoman rule. At a basic level the answer seems simple: they managed to survive and were able to reassemble their lives from among the ruins left by the Ottoman conquest because they held onto their language and religion. Yet they also managed to regain institutions, to impose more or less stable rules of law on their daily lives and, within the context of their community, to creatively engage with their historical heritage. But, however simple all this may seem, this did not come about automatically; the conquered Christian Greeks had to devise and pursue subtle methods by which to attain them, and expend great effort in order to hold onto them once gained. One more preliminary remark before taking a closer look at these endeavors is that the dissolution of the Byzantine Empire did not happen overnight; it had begun well before the fall of the Byzantine capital on 29 May, shortly after midnight, and its completion was effected some decades after this date.10 During this long period of time the inhabitants of Byzantine territories either experienced conquest or chose, sooner or later, to surrender their towns and communities, with the result that, by the time Constantinople was conquered—the event of May 1453 symbolizing the final dissolution of the Byzantine state— not all the Christian inhabitants under Ottoman rule were of equal status. 3

The Reappearance of a Byzantine Institution and the Reorganization of the Christian Community

After the fall of the capital of the Byzantine state, nothing was easy for the defeated Christians. The city had been besieged and captured—it had not surrendered—and had therefore forfeited any claim to certain privileges from the conquerors, while the loss of human life, property and cultural artefacts appeared incalculable. In addition, the likelihood of liberation by forces from the West now seemed increasingly remote. However, those endowed with political intuition could hope that things would not stay like this for long. If the aim of the conquerors was to exploit not only the territory and the resources of the lands they took by force, but to make profitable use of the people who dwelt there, they could hope that the conquerors’ political leaders would seek 10

See Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism; Chrysostomides, “The Byzantine Empire”.

106

Apostolopoulos

ways by which they might incorporate the Christian populations. And those endowed with political acuity could perhaps discern the two chinks through which a little more light might pass for them. The first was the political ambition of Mehmed II the Conqueror to play the role of emperor in what was now clearly a multi-ethnic state emerging in the East.11 The second, was the social aspirations of those Christian Greeks who had already become subjects of the Ottoman state prior to the fall of Constantinople, and accordingly for whom the events of 1453 did not signal defeat. Indeed, just a few months after the fall of the city came the first piece of news: the Conqueror had decided, in January 1454—contrary to the practice normally required under Muslim law in respect of cities that did not surrender—to allow not only the appointment of an Orthodox Christian prelate to oversee the spiritual needs of the city’s Christian inhabitants (such as they were, who still remained in the city), but also the re-establishment of the patriarchate of Constantinople within the framework of his realm.12 In other words, he reinstated, along with all relevant responsibilities, the second most important Byzantine institution within the realm of the Ottoman monarch. Why did he choose to do this? That it was a politically driven decision hardly requires further persuasion, but we need to identify what the political benefits must have been for the mighty Sultan, such that he felt it expedient to go ahead with this policy so soon after the capture of the city. In the past it was thought that the political motivation behind the Sultan’s decision began and ended with the attempt to repopulate Constantinople;13 indeed, a repopulation obviously by Orthodox Christians, since the re-establishment of the patriarchate would hardly be an incentive for his Muslim subjects. We need to ask, therefore, why he would want Christian inhabitants in a city that he intended to make the new capital of his realm? The general political plan, of which only a part concerned the restoration of the patriarchate of Constantinople and the decision to repopulate the city, 11 12 13

See Apostolopoulos, “Les mécanismes d’une conquête”, pp. 197–201; Vatin, “L’ascension des Ottomans”, pp. 81–105. Gennadios Scholarios, Letters, eds. Petit, Sidéridès, and Jugie, pp. 231–33; Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, no. 2, pp. 48–51. On the repopulation of Constantinople, see the studies by Yerasimos, “Η επανοίκηση”, pp. 3–21; Yerasimos, “Les Grecs d’Istanbul”, pp. 375–99; Zachariadou, “Constantinople se repeuple”, pp. 47–59. The Conqueror’s attitude towards the Greek population and Byzantine monuments in Constantinople is examined by Inalcik, “The policy of Mehmed II”, pp. 231–49; with regard to one of his sources, see Vatin, “Tursun Beg”, pp. 317– 29; see also Kafescioğlu, Constantinopolis/Istanbul, pp. 16–22, 99, 101–02, 225.

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 1

107

was for Mehmed II to play the role of emperor, to appear to Christian subjects as the heir to the Byzantine rulers, without, at the same time, changing his own faith. It was certainly not his piety and adherence to Islam that caused him to adopt this approach—all the sources indicate that he was barely interested in religion14—but rather a key political requirement. He could never relinquish his Muslim status, since it was this status, and specifically that of ghazi (a warrior fighting for the promotion of the faith of the Prophet) that legitimized his power in the minds of his Muslim subjects. But, of course, this ideology could not work in the minds of his Christian subjects who, following the waves of conquest by the Ottomans, now numbered almost as many as the Muslim population. Accordingly, given that Mehmed II the Conqueror’s political vision included playing the role of emperor and not just ghazi, it was necessary to devise a similar process that would have a legitimizing appeal to his Christian subjects. Mehmed II and his advisors believed that his involvement in the world of the Orthodox Church could bear similar ideological fruit: that he would be the one to allow the election of a new patriarch of Constantinople; he would be the one to give the newly-elected patriarch the crosier, as required by Byzantine custom during the consecration of the supreme prelate; he would be a bulwark, if not formal protector, for the Eastern Church in the face of the pursuits of the Western Catholic Church. And the Church, built on the Byzantine system of canon law, would be able to equate the non-Christian monarch with the Christian emperor (basileus) wherever legal arrangements so required.15 To the question, “Who thought up this truly inspired plan, the Conqueror himself or one of his advisors?” I believe that we shall never have a definitive answer. Some Orthodox Christians16 who were in his service even before the final fall of Constantinople, claimed, according to the assertion of an official from the post-Byzantine patriarchate, Theodore Agallianos,17 that they had played a significant role in what happened. If, for the moment, we accept their assertion, we can conjecture what they did: they presented the Conqueror with strong arguments that such an act would be to his advantage. What they probably did not tell him, however, was that this move would also serve their own social ambitions. For they certainly seem to have had these, that directly 14 15 16 17

See, for example, Babinger, Mahomet II, p. 501. I first put forward this view in Apostolopoulos, “Les mécanismes d’une conquête”, pp. 191–204. The most distinguished and influential ones were Thomas Katabolenos and Demetrios Apokaukos Kyritzes. See Theodoros Agallianos, Discourses, ed. Patrinelis, pp. 71–78.

108

Apostolopoulos

concerned the Greek Orthodox population and its social composition after the conquest. In other words, the Christians, who were now, in one way or another, under Ottoman rule, as they were not allowed to move around to ensure they did not gather in one area and become a substantial community, were left, in theory, with the following choice as to how to organize their lives. Either to remain in scattered Christian communities around the empire, unconnected with one another, or to seek a formal institutional bond and organize themselves and acquire the characteristics of a community, albeit dispersed within the Ottoman-ruled lands. Two factors ultimately led the Greek Orthodox Christians to prefer the second solution: the imperial ambitions of Mehmed II the Conqueror and the social ambitions of his Christian advisors. We have already mentioned the political ambitions of Mehmed II. To assess the social ambitions of those Christians who at the time of the fall of Constantinople were not on the side of the defeated, we need to look beyond the testimony of Theodore Agallianos, the official of the post-Byzantine patriarchate, who recounts, as already noted, that these Christians claimed to have played a part in the reestablishment of the patriarchate of Constantinople. One needs also to take into account another fact: the decimation of the Byzantine aristocracy in the immediate wake of the conquest. The Christian Greeks who were already close to the Sultan believed they could fill this ‘gap’ in the consciences of their fellow Christians by promoting themselves as benefactors of the Christian people through the venerable institution of the patriarchate of Constantinople.18 With such forces supporting the latter solution, it was hardly surprising that it eventually prevailed. Accordingly, it led the multitude of Christians who found themselves under the sway of Ottoman rule to endeavor (ultimately for their benefit) to rebuild themselves as a community. A decisive role in this solution was to be played by the re-establishment of the patriarchate of Constantinople. It was an institution with great influence throughout the empire wherever there were Christians, and could maintain a single legal regime, and at the same time act as a transmitter of ideology to Christian subjects in the new empire that was emerging in the East.

18

See note 17; Ten Turkish Documents, ed. Zachariadou, pp. 63–77 (“Les notables laïques”); Ganchou, “Le prôtogéros”, p. 238.

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 1

4

109

The Patriarchate of Constantinople as an Administrative Body of the Church and an Institution of the Christian Community

On the basis of this political plan, the Orthodox Church was able to continue its life and work within the context of the Ottoman Empire, with the patriarchate of Constantinople serving as its fundamental administrative body. At the same time, the Greek Orthodox community, necessarily continuing its life under the new regime, was able to use the patriarchate of Constantinople as an institutional tool that could help it fulfill its aspirations. This ‘political plan’, however, could easily have had an expiry date; for while the decision to reestablish the patriarchate was taken by the central Ottoman political authority with their own interests in mind,19 it followed that if they considered that the reasons that led them to this decision no longer existed, they could just as easily abolish it. The Christians, therefore, had to find ways to secure this very beneficial institution. To serve this end, as well as to resolve certain disputes that had broken out, a Greek initiative was launched in 1474. The patriarch of the Orthodox Christian subjects in the empire was to thereafter assume responsibility for collecting from the Christians and delivering to the Sublime Porte (i.e., the Ottoman state) a tax on an annual basis.20 The proposal received a positive response from the Sublime Porte, producing an immediate political result:21 the strengthening of the institution of the patriarchate, as it became bound to the most powerful mechanism in the Ottoman state, that of taxation. This bond was, at the same time, to provide a solution to the question of what form of social organization would be applied to the Christians (as a religious community, or civic society), as the clergy, assigned with an annual tax obligation to the Porte,22 were organically dependent on the Greek Orthodox community, since it was from the members of this community that they would collect the money they were obliged to hand over each year.

19 20 21

22

For our point of view concerning Mehmed II’s policy, see above pp. 106–107. See Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 52, pp. 152–54 and no. 53, pp. 154–55. Even though no Ottoman source has been preserved about this political decision, a synodal act of October 1474 refers to the Ottoman authority’s decision to impose an annual tax on the patriarchate: “ἡ Πόρτα προστάξει τοῦ κρατοῦντος ἐπέθηκεν ἡμῖν … τὸ τοιοῦτον βάρος”, in Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, no. 15, p. 127 lines 31–32. See Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 52, pp. 152–54 and no. 53, pp. 154–55.

110

Apostolopoulos

It is useful here to take a look at the framework within which relations between the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the patriarch now emerged, and how the Christian community was involved in this process, so that we can understand the meaning of the change that occurred in 1474, just 20 years after the conquest of Constantinople. Under the Ottoman system the patriarch was personally responsible for payment of the annual tax; he was under express obligation to do this, and the date for payment of the tax was always officially defined. What was never certain was whether the money to be paid would be collected by the date specified. Under the system that was adopted from around the same time the patriarchate’s tax obligation was first established, the amount of annual tax collected was allocated among Orthodox dioceses (metropoleis) on the basis of the size and wealth of the Christian population in each diocese. In the final analysis, the amount of tax due was paid by the flock; the prelates collected it and had to send it to the patriarchate in Constantinople by the due date.23 The consequences of late payment were borne personally, as already noted, by the patriarch. Accordingly, to avoid the consequences he would endeavor to persuade, or even press, the metropolitans to hand over their share promptly. In the event that the deadline arrived without the full amount having been collected, he had three options to choose from to avoid ‘the inevitable’: either to pay the tax out of his own pocket (if he could afford it); request financial support from economically powerful members of the Greek Orthodox community; or resort to borrowing the outstanding amount. In the latter case, the patriarch’s ‘natural’ lenders were of course the wealthy Greeks, who possessed the financial means and were interested—beyond the prospect of reaping a profit—in supporting the institution of the Orthodox Church, and the patriarch himself, who would most likely have been removed from his position for having defaulted on his tax collection obligation to the Ottoman state. If, however, invoking the ‘common good’ was not enough to rally Christian financiers, the need had to be met by appealing to others, regardless of their religion. 5

The Testimony of the Sources

The framework presented here is well testified by the historical record and the sources. Let us take a look at them. We have noted that the Sublime Porte imposed on each patriarch the obligation to pay an annual tax to the Ottoman 23

For a similar obligation in the early 14th century, see Preiser-Kapeller and Mitsiou, “Hierarchies and fractals”.

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 1

111

state and that a specific payment date was stipulated. This date was set as the ‘Feast of the Christians’, that is Easter or St George’s Day.24 However, both are movable feasts to be celebrated in spring, the latter depending on the day of Easter. As regards the distribution of the patriarch’s tax obligation among the prelates, the first piece of evidence regarding this matter is contained in the same text that provides us with information on the relevant Greek initiative, a text that was entered into the patriarchal register: the so called ‘sacred codex’ (ἱερὸς κῶδιξ) containing important documents of the patriarchal chancery, in 1474. Under this synodal decision, it is explicitly stated—following a description of what led up to the imposition by the Sublime Porte of the annual tax on the patriarch—that this obligation was undertaken in common by the entire synod: “we all undertake by mutual agreement to meet the said tax obligation annually.”25 Secondly, it is known that a register was kept by the patriarchate,26 in which the amount that each ecclesiastical district had to contribute was recorded. We know of the existence of this financial register (katastichon) from what Patriarch Symeon I wrote in a letter (pittakion) he sent during his third term as patriarch (1482–86). In this letter he states that the synod that convened under Maximos III decided, inter alia, to correct “the register stipulating the annual amount due of each prelate.”27 A second ‘correction’ to the register is found in 1517/18, when, under Patriarch Theoleptos I, a “synodal tome” was issued determining a reduction in the annual tax due of the metropolis of Adrianoupolis (today Edirne) and a corresponding increase in the tax owed by the metropolis of Philippoupolis (today Plovdiv).28 This decision was based on 24

25 26 27 28

The patriarchal decision, in which extensive reference is made to those who backed the initiative and to how the patriarchate of Constantinople finally consented to arranging payment of an annual tax to the Ottoman state, is still preserved: see Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 52, pp. 152–54. For the most recent version of the relevant text, see Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, pp. 126–29. The obligation to collect tax is mentioned in the oldest preserved document issued by the Ottoman authorities for the appointment of a Christian patriarch: the berat of Sultan Mehmed II concerning Patriarch Maximos III (16 June 1477), published in Four Centuries, eds. Arı and Kırval, “Appendix”. For the patriarchal berats see the recent book Çolak and Bayraktar-Tellan eds., Orthodox Church, with previous literature. Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, no. 52, p. 127, lines 40–41: “ἐπέστημεν ἅπαντες ἐκ κοινοῦ συμφώνου τὸ εἰρημένον χαράτζιον κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν τελεῖν.” See above, note 22. Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 80, pp. 200–01: “τὸ κατάστιχον τὸ περὶ τῆς ἑκάστου τῶν ἀρχιερέων κατ᾽ ἔτος … δόσεως.” The relevant patriarchal text has been published in Patriarch Theokletos I, ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, p. 492.

112

Apostolopoulos

the fact that the Christian population of Adrianoupolis was smaller than that of Philippoupolis, meaning that the latter was economically stronger and better able to shoulder a greater part of the tax burden. Data has not survived from the early years on how each patriarch sought to persuade the prelates to be consistent and punctual in delivering their tax dues to the Ottoman state. However, the matter was addressed, as already stated, by a grand synod that met in 1477, only a few years after the imposition of the tax obligation, suggesting that certain measures were put in place to deal with those who were not punctual. Perhaps it was from this time that a hierarch’s failure to meet his financial obligations to the patriarch was considered sufficient reason for dethronement. In any case, during the difficult years following the major financial and monetary crisis that hit the Ottoman Empire in the mid-1580s,29 drawing also the patriarchate’s finances into its vortex, patriarchal letters of the period issued threats of deposition.30 This became part of the regular legal framework in the late 16th century.31 Lastly, as regards the ways in which the patriarch could raise the money he was obliged to deliver, there were three main methods at his disposal in the early period. Almost immediately after the imposition of the tax obligation, the then patriarch (Symeon I) decided to take a tour to collect the money he had to pay shortly afterwards to the Ottoman state, and thereby avoid dismissal. In the text of the encyclical recorded in the patriarchal register, just before Christmas 1474, he clearly states the purpose of his departure: … on account of the great burden … imposed on the Church by its enemies … I am obliged to set off on this course … and while it is not in my nature to beg, I find this a most abject and onerous task.32 29

30 31 32

During the last two decades of the 16th century, the Ottoman Empire faced serious financial, political, economic, and demographic difficulties. The long wars of the Ottomans gradually drained the state finances, leading the Ottoman authorities to seriously devaluate the akçe (asper) in 1584–86 and to raise taxes, measures that caused military rebellions and general unrest. See Konortas, “Η οθωμανική κρίση”, pp. 45–76; Faroqhi, “Crisis and Change”, pp. 433–38. See, indicatively, the letters issued by the patriarch Jeremias II in 1589/90 and in the autumn of 1590, published in Sathas ed., Biography of Jeremias II, pp. 160–62 and 163–65 respectively. See Evangelou, “Ένας νέος λόγος καθαίρεσης”, pp. 95–119; the institutionalization of the new cause for a prelates’ deposition dates back to 1593. The relevant folio of the patriarchal codex containing the text of the encyclical has been preserved, see Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 54, pp. 155–57. For the most recent version of the relevant text see: Official Documents, eds.

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 1

113

One of his successors, Patriarch Dionysios I, managed, it seems, to rid himself in a different way of such ‘worldly’ concerns. According to a 16th century church chronicle, the Ecthesis chronica (Ἔκθεσις χρονική): “all church revenues … income and expenses” were in the hands of the noble Christian (archon) Demetrios Apokaukos Kyritzes.33 Obviously he had been assigned the task of overseeing the patriarchate’s finances, including revenues and the payment of obligations to the Sublime Porte. Against this historical background, questions automatically arise: prior to 1474 were things radically different? Were the leaders of the Orthodox Christians concerned only with spiritual matters? Although Gennadios II Scholarios, the first patriarch after the conquest, paints an almost idyllic picture of the absence of ‘worldly’ obligations during the first ten years—referring to the years following his accession, and the period immediately thereafter he wrote in 1464/65: “thanks to me … the Church remained free and stayed that way for my successors”34—it is fairly certain that the initiative to incorporate the patriarchate into the tax system of the Ottoman state was not motivated solely by the desire to bring it under the control of the powerful members of the Greek Orthodox community, but was also calculated to secure its position more effectively vis-a-vis the Ottoman authorities. The first step in this direction was in fact made prior to 1474, when the newly-appointed patriarch had to pay a sum of money, the peskesi (gift), to the political authorities, just as, for that matter, all other appointed officials did in return for their being assigned an office. It is clear that the initiative introduced in 1474—that the patriarch would collect and render a tax annually to the Ottoman state on a specific date—on the one hand helped the patriarchate to better consolidate its position within the framework of the Ottoman administrative apparatus and, on the other, obliged it to concern itself with ‘worldly’ affairs, primarily of a financial nature, that led it to organic dependence on the Christian community.

33 34

Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, pp. 131–36, at p. 133, lines 39–44: “διὰ τὸ μέγα φορτίον τῆς Ἐκκλησίας … ἐπενεχθὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ταύτης ἐχθρῶν … ἐπείγομαι καὶ νῦν ἅψασθαι τῆς προκειμένης ὁδοῦ … ὅτι καὶ τοῦ αἰτεῖν ὅλως οὐ πέφυκα, ἀπεχθῶς πρὸς τοῦτ’ ἔχων καὶ δυσχερῶς.” Ecthesis chronica, ed. Lambros, p. 47, lines 18–21: “ἦσαν … ἅπαντα τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ εἰσοδήματα … ἔν τε ἐσόδοις καὶ ἐξόδοις.” Demetrios Apokaukos Kyritzes was Sultan Mehmed II’s secretary: see Theodoros Agallianos, Discourses, ed. Patrinelis, pp. 75–78. His remarks are contained in his letter to Theodoros Branas. The text of the letter, preserved in an autograph manuscript by Gennadios II, was published in Gennadios Scholarios, Letters, eds. Petit, Sidéridès, and Jugie, vol. 4, pp. 264–74, at p. 266, lines 1–3: “ἐλευθέρας καθισταμένης τότε τῆς ἐκκλησίας … δι’ ἡμῶν … καὶ μέχρι τῶν διαδόχων οὕτω μεινάσης.”

114 6

Apostolopoulos

Conclusion

To conclude, about 20 years after the fall of Constantinople, the institutional framework within which the Orthodox Greeks were to conduct their lives—for those at least who did not depart for the West and remained in the Ottoman Empire—had been forged and consolidated within the realm of the East. Thereafter the evolution of the Greek Orthodox community acquired its own dynamic, as various social groups sought to assert control over it, as new ideas came to the surface or old ones reemerged in a new guise. Whatever the case, it was within the institutional framework just outlined that this was to take place. Bibliography Primary Sources

Biography of Jeremias II, ed. K.N. Sathas, Βιογραφικόν σχεδίασμα περί του πατριάρχου Ιερεμίου Β´ (1572–1594) (Athens, 1870). Constantinople 1453. Des Byzantins aux Ottomans, eds. V. Déroche and N. Vatin (Toulouse, 2016). Ecthesis chronica, ed. S. Lambros, Ecthesis chronica and Chronicon Athenarum (London, 1902). Four Centuries, eds. B. Arı and L. Kırval, Four Centuries of Diplomatic and Economic Relations between Turkey and the Netherlands (1612–2012) (Istanbul, 2014). Gennadios Scholarios, Letters, eds. L. Petit, X.A. Sidéridès, and M. Jugie, Γενναδίου του Σχολαρίου Άπαντα τα Ευρισκόμενα. Œeuvres complètes de Georges Scholarios, vol. 4 (Paris, 1935). Official Documents, eds. M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and D.G. Apostolopoulos, Επίσημα κείμενα του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Τα σωζόμενα από την περίοδο 1454–1498 (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Iνστιτούτο Ιστορικών Ερευνών / Τoμέας Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 121, Θεσμοί και Ιδεολογία στη νεοελληνική κοινωνία) (Athens, 2011, 2nd edn. 2016). Orthodox Church, eds. H. Çolak and E. Bayraktar-Tellan, The Orthodox Church as an Ottoman Institution. A Study of Early Modern Patriarchal Berats (Istanbul, 2019). Patriarch Theokletos I, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Περί του οικουμενικού πατριάρχου Θεοκλήτου A΄”, Δελτίον Iστορικής και Eθνολογικής Eταιρείας της Eλλάδος 3 (1889), 486–93. Sacred Codex, ed. D.G. Apostolopoulos, Ο “Ιερός Κώδιξ” του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως στο β΄ μισό του ΙΕ΄ αιώνα. Τα μόνα γνωστά σπαράγματα (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών, Θεσμοί και ιδεολογία στη νεοελληνική κοινωνία 43) (Athens, 1992).

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 1

115

Ten Turkish Documents, ed. E. Zachariadou, Δέκα τουρκικά έγγραφα για την Μεγάλη Εκκλησία (1483–1567) (Athens, 1996). Theodoros Agallianos, Discourses, ed. C.G. Patrinelis, Ο Θεόδωρος Αγαλλιανός ταυτιζόμενος προς τον Θεοφάνην Μηδείας και οι ανέκδοτοι Λόγοι του (Athens, 1966).

Secondary Literature

Angold, M., The Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans: Context and Consequences (Harlow, 2012). Apostolopoulos, D.G., “Les mécanismes d’une conquête: adaptations politiques et statut économique des conquis dans le cadre de l’Empire ottoman”, in Centre de Recherches Néohelléniques. Fondation nationale de la Recherche Scientifique. Actes du IIe Colloque International d’Histoire (Athènes, 18–25 septembre 1983). Économies méditerranéennes, équilibres et intercommunications, XIIIe–XIXe siècles, vol. 3 (Athens, 1986), pp. 191–204. Apostolopoulos, D.G. and M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Επιτομή—Παράδοση—Σχολιασμός, vol. 1: 1454–1498 / Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinopole, vol. 1: Les regestes de 1454 à 1498 (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Ινστιτούτο Ιστορικών Ερευνών / Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 136, Θεσμοί και Ιδεολογία στη νεοελληνική κοινωνία) (Athens, 2013). Babinger, F., Mahomet II le Conquérant et son temps (1432–1481). Le grand peur du monde au tournant de l’histoire, trans. H.E. del Medico (Paris, 1954). Blanchet, M.-H., Georges Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400–vers 1472). Un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’Empire byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 20) (Paris, 2008). Blanchet, M.-H., M.-H. Congourdeau, and D.I. Mureşan, eds., Le patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople et Byzance hors frontières (1204–1586). Actes de la table ronde dans le cadre du 22e Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Sofia, 22–27 août 2011 (Dossiers Byzantins 15) (Paris, 2014). Chrysostomides, J., “The Byzantine Empire from the eleventh to the fifteenth century”, in The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 1, Byzantium to Turkey 1071–1453, ed. K. Fleet (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 6–50. Evangelou, G., “Ένας νέος λόγος καθαίρεσης θεσμοθετείται το 1593”, O Eρανιστής 28 (2011), 95–119. Faroqhi, S., “Crisis and change, 1590–1699”, in An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, vol. 2, 1600–1914, eds. H. Inalcik and D. Quataert (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 411–636. Ganchou, T., “Le prôtogéros de Constantinople Laskaris Kanabès (1454). À propos d’une institution ottomane méconnue”, Revue des Études Byzantines 71 (2013), 209–58.

116

Apostolopoulos

Gastgeber, C., E. Mitsiou, J. Preiser-Kapeller, and V. Zervan eds., The Patriarchate of Constantinople in Context and Comparison. Proceedings of the International Conference, Vienna, September 12th–15th 2012. In memoriam Konstantinos Pitsakis (1944–2012) and Andreas Schminck (1947–2015) (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 41) (Vienna, 2017). Inalcik, H., “The policy of Mehmed II toward the Greek population of Istanbul and the Byzantine buildings of the city”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23–24 (1969), 231–49. Kafescioğlu, Ç., Constantinopolis/Istanbul. Cultural Encounter, Imperial Vision, and the Construction of the Ottoman Capital (University Park, Penn., 2009). Konortas, P., “Η οθωμανική κρίση του τέλους του ιστ´ αιώνα και το Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο”, Τα Ιστορικά 2 (1985), 45–76. Odorico, P. ed., Le patriarcat oecuménique de Constantinople aux XIVe–XVIe siècles: rupture et continuité. Actes du colloque international, Rome 5–6–7 décembre 2005 (Dossiers byzantins 7) (Paris, 2007). Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M. and D.G. Apostolopoulos, Μετά την Κατάκτηση. Στοχαστικές προσαρμογές του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως σε ανέκδοτη εγκύκλιο του 1477 (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 136) (Athens, 2006). Pantazopoulos, N.I., Church and Law in the Balkan Peninsula During the Ottoman Rule (Thessaloniki, 1967). Philippides, M. and W. Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies (Farnham, 2011). Preiser-Kapeller, J. and E. Mitsiou, “Hierarchies and fractals: ecclesiastical revenues as indicator for the distribution of relative demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the late Byzantine Empire in the early 14th century”, Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 20 (2011), 245–308. Available at: https://doi.org/10.12681/ byzsym.993 (accessed 31 December 2020). Runciman, S., The Great Church in Captivity (Cambridge, 1968). Vatin, N., “L’ascension des Ottomans (1451–1512)”, in Histoire de l’empire Ottoman, ed. R. Mantran (Paris, 1989), pp. 81–116. Vatin, N., “Tursun Beg assista-t-il au siège de Constantinople en 1453”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 91 (2001), 317–29. Vryonis, S. Jr, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley, 1971). Yerasimos, S., “Η επανοίκηση της Κωνσταντινούπολης μετά την Άλωση”, in 1453: H Άλωση της Kωνσταντινούπολης και η μετάβαση από τους Mεσαιωνικούς στους Nεώτερους Xρόνους, ed. T. Kiousopoulou (Συμβολές στις Επιστήμες του Ανθρώπου, Ιστορία) (Heraklion, 2005), pp. 3–21. Yerasimos, S., “Les Grecs d’Istanbul après la conquête ottomane. Le repeuplement de la ville et de ses environs (1453–1550)”, Revue des mondes musulmans et de la

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 1

117

Méditerranée 107–110 (2005), 375–399. Available at http://journals.openedition.org/ remmm/2822 (accessed 31 December 2020). Zachariadou, E., “Les notables laïques et le patriarcat œcuménique après la chute de Constantinople”, Turcica 30 (1998), 119–34 (also in Ten Turkish Documents, ed. E. Zachariadou, pp. 63–77). Zachariadou, E., “Constantinople se repeuple”, in 1453: H Άλωση της Kωνσταντινούπολης και η μετάβαση από τους Mεσαιωνικούς στους Nεώτερους Xρόνους, ed. T. Kiousopoulou (Συμβολές στις Επιστήμες του Ανθρώπου, Ιστορία) (Heraklion, 2005).

chapter 7

Continuity and Change: The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 2 Institutions and Administration: Continuity and Rupture Machi Païzi-Apostolopoulou 1

Introduction

Ecclesiastical institutions, the rules regulating them, and the administrative structure of the Orthodox Church, as these had evolved within the Byzantine state, were revived in early 1454 when, just a few months after the conquest of Constantinople, the Ottoman leader Mehmed II the Conqueror decided to allow the patriarchate of Constantinople to resume its functions within the framework of the new realm. We shall not explore here the reasons that led Mehmed II to this essentially political decision, as these have been treated in the previous section.1 Here, gathering evidence from Greek and Ottoman sources, we shall examine to what extent the institutions, legal framework, and administrative structure of the Orthodox Church, as they had evolved within the Byzantine state, did indeed survive or were compelled to transform themselves when needed, in order to function once again within the new political order. 2

The Legal Framework

The earliest extant or preserved information is supplied by Greek sources and concern legal governance. In one of the first encyclicals to Greek Orthodox subjects under their new Ottoman ruler, the first patriarch after the conquest, Patriarch Gennadios II Scholarios, exhorted them to follow “the legal prescripts of the holy mother Church and the laws that had prevailed in the most devout Christian state”,2 in other words, the law that was enacted and that prevailed during the years of the Byzantine empire. It is apparent from the time these 1 See chapter 6, Apostolopoulos, “The Survival of a Byzantine Institution”. 2 See the recent publication of the encyclical dated to 7 October 1474 in Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, pp. 48–51; the passage quoted here: p. 49,

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_008

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 2

119

exhortations were formulated and from the official way in which they were made public, that the patriarch’s exhortations had been defined and were fully approved by the Ottoman political power. This therefore provides very early evidence that the Ottoman state allowed parts of Byzantine law to be applied as a legal regime to its Christian subjects.3 It was this legal framework that the Church was required to apply in its relations with its Christian flock, as regards matters of civil law, as we might term it today. Two cases recorded in the preserved documents dating back to the earliest post-Byzantine period, demonstrate that Byzantine law survived. During the period 1456–62 the question arose as to whether a second marriage could be allowed to take place if the first had not been dissolved, as required by the relevant provisions of Byzantine law. The case that brought the matter to light requested a license for a second marriage, although the first had not been legally dissolved. Despite the requirements of Byzantine law,4 the synod gave permission for the second marriage to take place, resorting to implementation by analogy of the rules of Byzantine law which stipulated that if a husband is declared to have disappeared then this is tantamount to death, and that the impediment to marriage applying to cases of adultery is lifted due to circumstances of captivity.5 The second example is also drawn from marriage law. Byzantine law set a minimum age limit for the couple to be married (bride: 12 years, groom: 14 years, according to Emperor Justinian’s Code), otherwise the marriage could not take place. The source dates to 1463 and the information, to the effect that the Byzantine legal framework still applies, is stated indirectly: “Look around at the clergy, who have to overlook the laws regarding underage marriage so that the boys, before reaching maturity, do not fall into the nets of the conquerors [i.e. enforced conscription].”6 In its internal administration, indeed, the Church was required, again, to implement Byzantine law and, specifically, canon and ecclesiastical law.

3 4 5 6

lines 39–41: “τὰς τῆς ἁγίας μητρὸς τῆς ἐκκλησίας διατάξεις καὶ τοὺς κρατήσαντας νόμους ἐν τῇ τῶν χριστιανῶν εὐσεβεστάτῃ πολιτείᾳ.” Apostolopoulos, “Le droit byzantin”, pp. 71–78. See Apostolopoulos, Ανάγλυφα, pp. 204–207. For details of this interesting case and the solution adopted by the synod, see Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 18, pp. 84–85. From the Discourses by Theodore Agallianos, the first head of the patriarchal chancellery (megas chartophylax / grand chartophylax) at the patriarchate during the early postByzantine era. See the relevant passage in Patrinelis, Αγαλλιανός, p. 150, lines 2131–35: “Ἆρον κύκλῳ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου καὶ ἴδε … τοὺς ἑκασταχοῦ τῆς ἱερωσύνης προϊσταμένους τοὺς τῆς ἀνηβότητος παρεωρακότας νόμους τῷ φόβῳ τῶν ἐπικρατησάντων, ἵνα μὴ φθάσωσιν ἐμπεσόντα τῇ τούτων σαγήνῃ πρὸ τῆς ἤβης τὰ ἄνηβα.”

120

Païzi-Apostolopoulou

Evidence for this development is supplied by synodal decisions preserved from the first post-Byzantine period, which make clear references to rules of law from the Byzantine era so as to back the legal grounds for their decisions. To present some examples illustrating this point: the year 1474 saw the last phase of a conflict that had broken out within the patriarchate between a group of clerics comprised of a bishop and two officials (offikialioi) and the then patriarch (Symeon I), whom they accused of having breached canon laws, of having committed illegal (under the applicable law) acts that could likely lead to his dethronement. To resolve the dispute the synod was convened which, judging “in accordance with the law [of the Church]”, decided that the accusations against the patriarch were not sufficiently justified and acquitted him. The synod’s decision was announced in writing to the Sublime Porte, which ordered the temporarily banished patriarch to return to the patriarchate. The grounds for the exoneration do not mention the specific canons whose violation would impose the penalty of dethronement; it is clear, however, that they were a provision of Orthodox canon law concerning the priesthood and cases of deposition and defrocking.7 In another case, a synodal decision was issued in early 1475 announcing the deposition of a bishop and two officials of the patriarchate. The decision was based on the fact that the persons in question had violated specific canons of the Holy Apostles and, above all, of ecumenical and local synodal decisions passed during the Byzantine era. It should be noted that the specific synodal decision on deposition, along with the previous case discussed, had been handed down through texts entered in the official register of the patriarchate, so we have no reason to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of what they preserve.8 Confirmation of what the Greek sources tell us about the survival and official recognition of components of Byzantine law within the new Ottoman order comes in the form of the oldest surviving berat (appointment document) issued in 1483 by Bayezid II for Patriarch Symeon I.9 In this official document, the then sultan notes that the patriarch is entitled to judge cases concerning 7 For full text, see Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, pp. 126–29. 8 For full text, see Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, pp. 138–44. 9 The text of the berat, that is preserved in a certified copy in the archive at Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos, has been published twice: in Documents of Sultans, ed. Salakides, pp. 31–38 (an exact copy of the document is presented first, followed by a translation of the text in German), and in Ten Turkish Documents, ed. Zachariadou, pp. 157–62 (a Greek translation of the text is followed, on pp. 160–62, by a photographic reproduction of the document).

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 2

121

marriages, divorces, and inheritances of Christians in the Empire “in accordance with their own customs.” These terms clearly indicate that parts of Byzantine law had been recognized by the Ottoman authorities as applicable to its Orthodox Christian subjects. As regards the legal application of the rules of Byzantine canon and ecclesiastical law related to the administration of the patriarchate and the Orthodox Church in general, the berat of 1483 contains explicit reference. It states, for example, that if Patriarch Symeon I, for whom the berat was issued, acts “contrary to their own [Christian] religious practices, the body of metropolitans must investigate in unity and, if he indeed deserves to be removed, should appoint another patriarch in his place.” Terms such as “their own customs” and “their own religious practices” in these documents indicate that the Ottoman authorities recognized parts of Byzantine law as valid for their Christian subjects. 3

Administrative Structure and Ecclesiastical Institutions

During its long life in Byzantium, the patriarchate had evolved its method of administration and shaped the structure of power it wielded. Power was exercised by the patriarch and the synod, while the basic unit of the administrative network was the diocese to which the bishops belonged, with the archbishopric as a parallel administrative unit. In the late Byzantine era this system was enhanced with the institution of the patriarchal exarchate. Evidence provided by Greek sources from the first post-Byzantine period reveals that the administration of the Church continued to have the same form and its power, to begin with, the same structure. The new patriarch was elected, subject to the approval of political authorities, by a synod comprised of metropolitans who had been elected prior to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.10 The title used by the first patriarchs after the restitution of the patriarchate in 1454 is the same as the one they had used until then: “by the mercy of God archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and ecumenical patriarch”, implying that it had also been accepted by the Ottoman authorities.11 The new patriarch sought to reorganize the administration by appointing new prelates to deserted or abandoned ecclesiastical sees, while 10 11

Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 1, pp. 51–52. Only Patriarch Gennadios II Scholarios did not wish to use this title, as he did not consider it fitting to the new status of subjection. He preferred to sign as “Servant of God’s children, the humble Gennadios” (“Ὁ δοῦλος τῶν τέκνων τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ ταπεινὸς Γεννάδιος”).

122

Païzi-Apostolopoulou

these new hierarchs were elected in line with the formal ritual established back in the Byzantine era. The oldest post-Byzantine text on electing prelates dates back to the period 1464–65, when the new metropolitan of Adrianople (today Edirne) was elected. His “act of election” (hypomnema ekloges) has not survived, but the text of the “synodal act” (synodike praxis) has. As in the Byzantine era, this document was given to the newly elected metropolitan by the patriarch and the synod before he departed for his province. In the document the patriarch informed Christians in the diocese that the new prelate had been elected in accordance with ecclesiastical rules, calling upon the faithful in the diocese to recognize him as their hierarch, and threatening those who did not submit themselves to his authority with penalties provided for in the holy canons. The same document informs us that the synod was attended by five metropolitans.12 We should recall that Adrianople was no ordinary provincial town conquered 80 years before Constantinople and still inhabited by a Christian population; it was the capital of the Ottoman state up until the conquest of Constantinople, upon which the capital of the Ottoman Empire was moved to the ‘Queen of Cities’. As regards the administration of the ecclesiastical dioceses under the authority of the patriarch of Constantinople, the structure was left unchanged; metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops comprised, as in Byzantium, the system that spiritually governed the now subject Christians. Yet, apart from the survival and restaffing of ecclesiastical provinces, information has survived from the first post-Byzantine period on the survival of another late Byzantine administrative institution: that of the patriarchal exarchate. The terms “patriarchal (settlements)” and “patriarchal castles” appear for the first time in 1321 in the preserved part of the Byzantine patriarchal register (ἱερὸς κῶδιξ).13 It becomes apparent from the records listed in the register that this new term denotes not only churches and monasteries dependent on the patriarch, but also settlements that were not answerable to the local prelate but directly to the patriarch. This amounted to a development of the Byzantine institution of the ‘charistikion’ (χαριστίκιον), a contract of predominantly monastic properties to private individuals. 12 13

See relevant details in Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 32, pp. 114–15. For the text of the act, see Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, pp. 94–96. Preserved on fol. 47v of the manuscript: Vienna, Austrian National Library, hist. gr. 47; see Acta patriarchatus 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, p. 95; Register of the Patriarchate 1, nos. 63–64, eds. Hunger and Kresten, pp. 398–400. For the roots of the institution and its post-Byzantine development, see Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Ο θεσμός της πατριαρχικής εξαρχίας, pp. 39–50.

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 2

123

Clearly the institution of the patriarchal exarchate, with the features outlined above, was more flexible and better suited to the new political and social circumstances. The contraction of the Christian population, resulting from the violent conquest of some regions, made it impossible in many cases to maintain a prelate there. In such cases the institution of the exarchate offered the best solution: the conquered Christian Orthodox settlements answered directly to the patriarch who chose a person, whether cleric or layman, to be the ‘catholic exarch for life’, to govern the Christians, to collect ecclesiastical revenues from the settlement, and, in the event he was a layperson, to appoint a cleric to perform the holy rites and duties for the inhabitants. Over time the institution of the patriarchal exarchate became a structural element of ecclesiastical administration as, apart from anything else, it allowed the patriarch to reward Church officials and other laymen who provided services to the patriarchate, financial or otherwise. This was particularly when the annual poll-tax, for the payment of which the patriarch was liable, loomed over him like the sword of Damocles, threatening his incumbency or even his life itself if he did not collect the amount required by the Sublime Porte.14 The earliest preserved mention of the patriarchal exarchate from the post-Byzantine era dates to the spring of 1475. At that time, Moudania (today Mudanya)—a settlement in Asia Minor built near the ruins of Byzantine Apameia, when the latter was destroyed by Sultan Osman’s I troops in 1318— was assigned by the patriarch to an exarch.15 Naturally 1475 is not the actual date of the conversion of the ecclesiastical status of this settlement into a patriarchal exarchate, which had previously been under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Bursa; it is, however, a relatively early piece of evidence for the survival of an institution that, as said before, was created in the late Byzantine centuries and flourished during the period of Ottoman rule, particularly from the 16th century onwards. It is worth stressing that, from the Byzantine era onwards, officials (ὀφφικιάλιοι)—both clergy and laity—were involved in the administration of the patriarchate, and by extension, the administration of the dioceses, performing administrative and judicial functions. One of the first acts by Patriarch Gennadios II Scholarios, in 1454, was to bestow the office of megas chartophylax on Theodore Agallianos, who had served as a hieromnemon (keeper of 14 15

For further information, see the previous chapter by D. Apostolopoulos. See Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 59, pp. 166–67. Two texts concerning the exarchate of Moudania are preserved in: ms Vind. hist. gr. 48, fol. 224v, ed. Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Aνεπίσημα, pp. 86–87, 104–05. For further information on the exarchate of Moudania, see Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Ο θεσμός, pp. 208–11.

124

Païzi-Apostolopoulou

liturgical books and master of the ceremonial) in the Byzantine patriarchate. The duties of the new megas chartophylax included reorganizing the patriarchal chancellery. Evidence from the early post-Byzantine era informs us that Byzantine practices were maintained in the patriarchal chancellery; they continued to keep records in the patriarchal register of all decisions taken by the patriarchate and whatever concerned it, for all eternity.16 The role played by the offikialioi in the administration of the patriarchate is vividly revealed in an act that was passed on 12 March 1488, when, during a patriarchal vacancy, three officials at the patriarchate—the megas oikonomos (major financial official in the patriarchate), the megas skeuophylax (keeper of the liturgical devices of the Great Church), and the megas chartophylax—issued and signed a letter of confirmation verifying a former decision taken by Patriarch Symeon on the possessions of the Athos monasteries of Iviron and Hilandar.17 Before examining the structure of power, as evidenced by preserved records, we can take a closer look at the information provided by the Ottoman berat of 1483. The berat states that the patriarch of Constantinople had the power to appoint and dismiss bishops in the ecclesiastical sees that it lists. In other words, it recognizes the patriarchate’s division into metropolitan sees, while the bishopric as an administrative unit also survives in the post-Byzantine age, as highlighted by the fact that the same berat clearly states that the patriarch ruled over bishops, besides the metropolitans. Yet, this official Ottoman document does not mention patriarchal exarchates, presumably because their legal status was established through the general terms and conditions pertaining to the patriarch, who was exclusively responsible for the institution. Matters concerning the structure of power in the post-Byzantine patriarchate appear more complicated. The berat makes reference to the synod, indeed to one of its leading functions, that of electing the patriarch. But the Ottoman authorities place greatest significance on the figure of the patriarch. He was appointed by the berat; he was responsible to the Sublime Porte for delivering to the Ottoman state the annual tax that, since 1474, he had undertaken to 16

17

Original folios of the post-Byzantine ‘Sacred Codex’, dating to the years 1474–98, were found bound among the folios of the ‘ms. Samos 12’ of the Library of the Metropolis of Samos and Ikaria: Sacred Codex, ed. Apostolopoulos, pp. 71–76. For further information on the staffing and function of the patriarchal chancellery during the first years after the fall of Constantinople, see Païzi-Apostolopoulou, “Γραφείς επισήμων”, esp. pp. 65–82 for details of the patriarchal secretariat during the period 1454–1500, and Stefec, “Kopisten”, pp. 303–323. See further details in Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, no. 90, pp. 219–20. For the text of the act, see Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, pp. 224–26 (2nd edn. pp. 228–30).

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 2

125

collect.18 He also had absolute power to appoint and dismiss the staff associated with the patriarchate, and he dealt with matters concerning family and inheritance law. This person-centered power may be explained by the fact that Islamic law ignored the notion of legal entity; it only recognized a natural person as having legal personality.19 This is what it used, and on this basis it constructed whatever the political authorities decided to grant the Orthodox populations that found themselves under its rule. The administrative structure, comprised of ecclesiastical dioceses (i.e., metropolitan sees, archbishoprics, and bishoprics) and patriarchal exarchates, was used by the patriarchate for the allocation of the tax burden that it was obliged to render to the Ottomans. The patriarchal secretariat’s keeping of a financial “register” (katastichon), alongside the patriarchal register, helped ensure the fair and transparent allocation of the financial burden.20 This financial register was adjusted every time the data determining the amount of the tax burden for each diocese, that is the number of Christian inhabitants or their financial strength, changed. 4

Judicious Adjustments and Violent Changes

The discussion so far should not give the impression that Byzantine law and the administrative organization of the Orthodox Church were implemented in the frame of the Ottoman state without any alteration, just as they had functioned in the Byzantine Empire. As far as the law was concerned, two factors played a decisive role: first, the bearer of secular power was no longer an Orthodox Christian, a basic assumption that was obviously built into Byzantine law; and second, the conditions under which Byzantine law was enacted had changed, indeed sometimes very radically. These two factors are reflected in the following cases. When, in 1475, the synod sought to ground its decision to dismiss those who were accused by citing canons of ecumenical synods that had convened in the Byzantine centuries—when, of course, the wielder of political power was Christian—it proved necessary to introduce subtle alterations to the text 18 19 20

See in the previous chapter by D. Apostolopoulos, p. 109. Classical Islamic law recognizes only natural persons; it does not grant standing to corporations: see Kuran, “Absence”. Cf. Ten Turkish Documents, ed. Zachariadou, p. 91. For testimonials of a similar nature from the late Byzantine era, see Preiser-Kapeller and Mitsiou, “Hierarchies and fractals”.

126

Païzi-Apostolopoulou

cited. For instance, one of the canons cited—the text of canon 11 adopted by the Synod of Antioch—includes the following statement: any clergyman who “takes his case to the basileus … daring to weary the attention of our godbeloved basileus, instead of addressing the institution of the Church” shall be disowned and deposed.21 In stating the rationale of the decision of 1475 the wording of the canon is reproduced, but omitting the words italicized (by us) here, that is the adjective describing the basileus in Christian terms and the possessive pronoun. In other words, for the purposes of the indictment, use is made of this Byzantine canon, which is adapted here in line with the postByzantine political reality: the sultan takes the place of the basileus as the context requires, and he is duly stripped of the Christian attribute (god-beloved) that characterized the Byzantine emperor.22 Another good example of adaptation to the new conditions concerns the strict prohibition on marriage before a certain age, as mentioned above. The post-Byzantine patriarchate was naturally familiar with the provision, but, according to a source contemporary with the events it concerns, a major dilemma had arisen that forced the Church to bypass the strict implementation of this provision. This was the forced recruitment of Christian Orthodox children for service in the Ottoman military, the so called devshirme, known in Greek as the paidomazoma, or round-up of children; this was carried out by the Ottomans only if the boy was unmarried. So, tacit circumvention of the relevant provision and the celebration of marriage ceremonies without regard to age were considered justified by virtue of the fact that, in this way, the boys in question might avoid forced lifelong recruitment into the Ottoman military.23 As for the changes made to the administration of the Church, these are reflected amongst others in the frequent adjustments to the rankings of ecclesiastical sees when, for instance, some of them suffer a dramatic decline or even complete loss of Christian population, implying also an alteration to the tax burden that such dioceses would be expected to contribute. Over time the situation began to stabilize; the conquest was now the status quo to which the Christian inhabitants’ life had to adjust in order to continue. The principle of oikonomia—in other words flexibility in applying the rules, and the frequent need to improvise in order to survive the harsh reality—was mobilized from the very beginning by Patriarch Gennadios II and his successors. At the same time an attempt was made to bring Christians considered 21 22 23

See a rough draft of the text of the canon in Canons 3, eds. Rhalles and Potles, p. 144. For further details, see Sacred Codex, ed. Apostolopoulos, p. 118. Relevant information is provided by Theodore Agallianos, see: Patrinelis, Αγαλλιανός, p. 70. On the παιδομάζωμα, see Papoulia, Ursprung und Wesen.

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 2

127

Latin-minded back into the bosom of the Great Church.24 However, once the new ‘order’ had become the established norm, this oikonomia, or flexibility, was officially withdrawn as a tactical tool so as to stamp out the idea that infringement could be considered legitimate. About 24 years after the fall of Constantinople, in the encyclical sent in 1477 to the Christians, Patriarch Maximos III calls for strict observance of the canons.25 The aim of the new policy was now to rally Christians around the core of the official and legitimate institution of the patriarchate of Constantinople, an aim that required obedience and equal treatment under the law. Bibliography Primary Sources

Acta patriarchatus 1–2, eds. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitani MCCCXV–MCCCCII e codicibus manu scriptis Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonensis, 2 vols. (Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana 1–2) (Vienna, 1860, 1862). Canons 1–6, eds. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων, 6 vols. (Athens, 1852–59). Circular of 1477, eds. M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and D.G. Apostolopoulos, Μετά την Κατάκτηση. Στοχαστικές προσαρμογές του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως σε ανέκδοτη εγκύκλιο του 1477 (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 91) (Athens, 2006). Documents of Sultans, ed. G. Salakides, Sultansurkunden des Athos-Klosters Vatopedi aus der Zeit Bayezid II. und Selim I (Thessaloniki, 1995). Official Documents, eds. M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and D.G. Apostolopoulos, Επίσημα κείμενα του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Τα σωζόμενα από την περίοδο 1454–1498 (Iνστιτούτο Ιστορικών Ερευνών, Τομέας Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών, Θεσμοί και Ιδεολογία στη νεοελληνική κοινωνία 121) (Athens, 2011; repr. 2016). Register of the Patriarchate 1–3, eds. H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 1: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315–1331 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.1) (Vienna, 1981); eds. H. Hunger, O. Kresten, E. Kislinger, and C. Cupane, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 2: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1337–1350 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.2) (Vienna, 1995); eds. J. Koder, 24 25

See Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, nos. 2, 9, 14, 15, 18, and 3, 9, 10, 11, 23. See Circular of 1477, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos.

128

Païzi-Apostolopoulou

M. Hinterberger, and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 3: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.3) (Vienna, 2001). Sacred Codex, ed. D.G. Apostolopoulos, Ο “Ιερός Κώδιξ” του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως στο β΄ μισό του ΙΕ΄ αιώνα. Τα μόνα γνωστά σπαράγματα (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών, Θεσμοί και ιδεολογία στη νεοελληνική κοινωνία 43) (Athens, 1992). Ten Turkish Documents, ed. E. Zachariadou, Δέκα τουρκικά έγγραφα για την Μεγάλη Εκκλησία (1483–1567) (Athens, 1996).

Secondary Literature

Apostolopoulos, D.G., Ανάγλυφα μιας τέχνης νομικής. Βυζαντινό δίκαιο και μεταβυζαντινή “νομοθεσία” (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 69) (Athens, 1999). Apostolopoulos, D.G., “Le droit byzantin dans le cadre de l’empire ottoman. Problèmes et solutions adoptées à partir du premier siècle après la Prise de Constantinople”, in Byzantine Law. Proceedings of the International Symposium of Jurists, Thessaloniki, 10–13 December 1998, ed. C. Papastathes (Thessaloniki, 2001), pp. 71–78. Apostolopoulos, D.G. and M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Επιτομή—Παράδοση—Σχολιασμός, vol. 1: 1454–1498 / Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les regestes de 1454 à 1498 (Athens, 2013). Gastgeber, C., E. Mitsiou, and J. Preiser-Kapeller eds., The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An Essential Source for the History and Church of Late Byzantium (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 32) (Vienna, 2013). Kuran, T., “The absence of the corporation in Islamic law: origins and persistence”, American Journal of Comparative Law 53 (2005), 785–834. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1093/ajcl/53.4.785 (accessed 31 December 2020). Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M., Aνεπίσημα από το Πατριαρχείο Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Παρασχέδια και μαρτυρίες του 1476 (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 36) (Athens, 1988). Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M., Ο θεσμός της πατριαρχικής εξαρχίας 14ος–19ος αιώνας (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 54) (Athens, 1995). Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M., “Γραφείς επισήμων. Στοιχεία για τη λειτουργία της Πατριαρχικής Γραμματείας την περίοδο 1454–1500”, in Η ελληνική γραφή κατά τους 15ο και 16ο αιώνες. The Greek Script in the 15th and 16th Centuries, ed. S. Patoura (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών (Ε.Ι.Ε.). Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Διεθνή Συμπόσια 7) (Athens, 2000), pp. 65–82. Papoulia, B., Ursprung und Wesen der “Knabenlese” im osmanischen Reich (Munich, 1963).

The Patriarchate in the Early Ottoman Period 2

129

Patrinelis, C.G., Ο Θεόδωρος Αγαλλιανός ταυτιζόμενος προς τον Θεοφάνην Μηδείας και οι ανέκδοτοι Λόγοι του (Athens, 1966). Preiser-Kapeller, J., and E. Mitsiou, “Hierarchies and fractals: ecclesiastical revenues as indicator for the distribution of relative demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the late Byzantine Empire in the early 14th century”, Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 20 (2010), 245–308. Stefec, R. S., “Zwischen Urkundenpaläographie und Handschriftenforschung: Kopisten am Patriarchat von Konstantinopel im späten 15. und frühen 16. Jahrhundert”, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici n. s. 50 (2013), 303–323.

chapter 8

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Greek-Orthodox Patriarchates of the East Klaus-Peter Todt 1

State of Research

No particular articles or monographs exclusively treat the relationship between the patriarchate of Constantinople and the Greek-Orthodox patriarchates of the East.1 But in many articles and monographs concerning the history of the three Greek-Orthodox patriarchates of the East (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) the subject is discussed in varying degrees of detail, for example in Papadopoulos’ classic histories of the three patriarchates of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch (published in 1910, 1935, and 1951), in Beck’s manual on Church and ecclesiastical literature from 1977, in Hamilton’s monograph on the Latin Church in the Crusader States from 1980, in the studies of Giankou on Nicon of the Black Mountain, and of Pitsakes on the patriarchs of Antioch in exile, both from 1991. We also see the subject examined in Kościelniak’s excellent history of the Melkite Church in the middle ages from 2004, in Codoñer’s studies on the Melkites and icon worship during the iconoclast period, both from 2013, or in two of my own publications from 2007 and 2011.2 2

The Emergence of the Patriarchates during the First Six Centuries of Church History

The formation of the patriarchates of the East constituted a process covering almost six centuries. Already in the early Christian period, Alexandria and Antioch were leading centers of the Church.3 Only in the century between 330 and 451 did Constantinople rise to a leading position within the hierarchy, 1 This article has been translated into English by my friend and colleague Bernd Andreas Vest. 2 For the bibliographical references, see the list of secondary literature at the end of this contribution. 3 Canons, canon 6 of Nicaea 325, ed. Joannou, p. 28; Beck, Kirche, pp. 28, 93; Maximos of Sardes, Oecumenical Patriarchate, pp. 62–63, 64–68; S. Légasse and A. Le Boulluec, in: Geschichte des Christentums 1, ed. Piétri, pp. 164–70, 576–621, 1007–11.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_009

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

131

directly after Rome, a rank codified by canons 3 and 28 of the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), respectively, and justified with the political significance of the city as imperial residence and its position as the ‘new Rome’.4 Also, at the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, it was decreed that the archbishop of the imperial capital henceforward should consecrate the metropolitans of the imperial dioceses of Thracia, Asia, and Pontus, thereby assigning to him a clearly defined area of jurisdiction.5 In canons 9 and 17 of this same council, the bishop of Constantinople was granted the overall right of appeal.6 The title ‘patriarch’, reserved until 429 for the spiritual leader of the Jews in the Eastern Roman Empire, by legislation of Emperor Justinian I (527–65), now designated the supreme heads of the Churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.7 The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon had been convoked to restore the dogmatic unity of the Church throughout the empire. Instead, it was the dispute about the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon (Jesus Christ as true God and true human in one hypostasis; or one person, but in two natures) that, until the end of the 6th century, turned out to be decisive for the definitive division of the patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, and the establishment of parallel hierarchies. In the end, alongside both Melkite patriarchs (i.e., those belonging to the imperial Church), there was also a Coptic patriarch of Alexandria in Egypt, and a west Syrian (“Jacobite”) patriarch of Antioch in Syria.8

4 Canons, canon 3 of Constantinople 381, ed. Joannou, pp. 47–48; canon 28 of Chalcedon 451, pp. 90–93; Beck, Kirche, pp. 30–31, 32–33, 45, 46; Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, pp. 410–87, especially pp. 454–61, 473–80, 487; Maximos of Sardes, Oecumenical Patriarchate, pp. 80–116, 203–33; De Halleux, “Le décret chalcédonien”, pp. 288–323; L. Piétri, C. Piétri, L. Brottier, and P. Maraval, in: Geschichte des Christenums 2, eds. Piétri and Piétri, pp. 453–54, 560–68, 1050– 59; B. Flusin, in: Geschichte des Christentums 3, ed. Piétri, pp. 549–51. 5 Canons, canon 28 of Chalcedon, ed. Joannou, pp. 90–93; Dagron, Naissance d’un capitale, pp. 477–87; Maximos of Sardes, Oecumenical Patriarchate, pp. 203–33; P. Maraval, and B. Flusin, in: Geschichte des Christentums 3, ed. Piétri, pp. 115–17, 553–56. 6 Canons, canon 9 of Chalcedon, ed. Joannou, pp. 77; canon 17, p. 83; Beck, Kirche, p. 33; Maximos of Sardes, Oecumenical Patriarchate, pp. 141–58; P. Maraval and B. Flusin, in: Geschichte des Christentums 3, ed. Piétri, pp. 118, 556. 7 Justinian, Novels, nov. 6.3, 6.4, 6.8, epilogus, eds. Schoell and Kroll, pp. 40, 41, 46; nov. 7 epilogus, p. 62; nov. 42.1, p. 265; nov. 123.3, p. 597; nov. 133.1, p. 668; Gahbauer and Goldenberg, “Patriarchat, I. Kirchengeschichte; II. Judentum”, pp. 85–91, 91–94; B. Flusin, in: Geschichte des Christentums 3, ed. Piétri, pp. 556–61, 563–75. 8 Honigmann, Évêques et évêchés monophysites; Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East; P. Maraval and C. Fraisse-Coué, in: Geschichte des Christentums 3, ed. Piétri, pp. 120–210, 432– 61, 491–518; Flusin, “Église monophysite et église chalcédonienne”, pp. 667–705; Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople, pp. 115–489; Hage, Christentum, pp. 30–38, 81–82, 96–99, 132–36.

132 3

Todt

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchates of the East during the Early Islamic Period

When the Muslim Arabs conquered the Byzantine provinces of the Near East (633–42), Emperor Herakleios (610–41) appointed Makedonios patriarch of Antioch (c.639/640–after 662). From this time onwards and until the beginning of the 8th century, he and his successors resided in Constantinople.9 The Antiochene patriarchate-in-exile ended after the Arab conquest of Cilicia in 703–12. Isauria, Antioch’s last ecclesiastical province still under Byzantine control, was put under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople.10 Only in 741/42 and 744, the Umayyad caliphs Hišām (724–43) and Marwān II (744– 50) permitted the Melkites of Syria to have the monk Stephen (before 742–744) elected as patriarch of Antioch.11 A thorough estrangement between the patriarchate of Constantinople and the three patriarchates of the East emerged during the iconoclastic controversy. At the iconoclastic synod of Hiereia (10 February–8 August 754), neither representatives of Rome nor of the oriental patriarchates were present.12 The monks John and Thomas, who acted as representatives of the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria at the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787), had only been designated as such to win over remaining iconoclastic circles in the Byzantine population for the acceptance of the synod’s decisions.13 Actually, it was not before 969 that the decisions of this council were finally accepted by the Melkite patriarchates of the East. When Emperor Leo V (813–20) in 815 renewed iconoclasm, Theodore Stoudites in 818 wrote letters to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem to ask for support.14 The rejection of iconoclasm by Rome and the patriarchates 9 10 11 12 13

14

Eutychios, Annals, ed. Pirone, p. 332 (Makedonios); Brandes, “Die melkitischen Patriarchen”, pp. 37–57; Kościelniak, Grecy, pp. 88–90. Hild and Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien, pp. 46–47, 90–91; G. Troupeau, in: Geschichte des Christentums 4, eds. Dagros, Riché, and Vauchez, p. 401. Theophanes, Chronography, ed. de Boor, p. 416; trans. Mango, Scott, and Greatrex, p. 577; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, pp. 151–52. Beck, Kirche, pp. 55, 301–02; Gil, History of Palestine, p. 457; G. Troupeau, in: Geschichte des Christentums 4, eds. Dagros, Riché, and Vauchez, pp. 403–04, 411–13; Codoñer, “Melkites”, pp. 145–52. Theophanes, Chronography, ed. de Boor, p. 460; trans., Mango, Scott, and Greatrex, p. 634; Theodore Studites, Letters, ep. 38, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, pp. 182*, 110–11; Henry, “Initial eastern assessments of the Seventh Ecumenical Council”, pp. 75–92, esp. pp. 77–78; Skreslet, Greeks, pp. 128–32; Codoñer, “Melkites”, p. 148. Theodore Studites, Letters, epp. 275–76, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, pp. 319*–21*, vol. 2, pp. 406–12; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησιάς Ἱεροσολύμων, pp. 323–25; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀλεξανδρείας, p. 513.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

133

of the East constituted one of his main arguments.15 When after 858 conflicts arose over the legitimacy of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople (858–67 and 877–86) and the position of the Church of Bulgaria, in 862, 866, and 867 both Pope Nicholas I (858–67) and Photios tried to gain the support of the eastern patriarchs.16 The representatives of the Melkite patriarchs attending the synod in Constantinople in the late summer of 867 were seemingly no better authorized as the putative deputies of the Eastern patriarchates had been in Nicaea in 787. In contrast, thanks to the diplomatic interventions of Emperor Basil I (867–86), accredited representatives of the eastern patriarchates travelled to the Councils of Constantinople in 869/70 and 879.17 When Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos of Constantinople (901–07 and 912–25) refused to permit the fourth marriage of Emperor Leo VI (886–912), in 906 Leo sent the magistros Leo Choirosphaktes to the three Patriarchs Simeon I ibn Zarnāq of Antioch (892–907), Elias III ibn Manṣūr of Jerusalem (878–907), and Christodoulos of Alexandria (906–32) to have his marriage legitimized by them. In 907, Choirosphaktes returned to Constantinople bearing documents, and accompanied by representatives of these patriarchs. A synod then acknowledged the fourth marriage of the emperor by declaring that it was an exceptional case (“kat’ oikonomian”).18 4

Constantinople and the Patriarchates of the East in the 10th and 11th Centuries

Byzantium’s military successes against the Muslim Arabs from 927 brought the Melkite patriarchates back into the focus of Byzantine interests. In 937/38, after the conclusion of a truce between the Byzantines and Arabs, Patriarch Theophylact Lakapenos (933–56)—by means of an embassy to the Melkite Patriarchs Theodosios II of Antioch (936–43), Christodoulos of Jerusalem (937–50), and Eutychios of Alexandria (933–40)—achieved the entry of his name into the diptychs and its commemoration during the liturgy. According

15 16 17 18

Theodore Studites, Letters, epp. 406–07, ed. Fatouros, vol. 1, pp. 390*, vol 2, pp. 562–66. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 497; Codoñer, “Patriarchen”, pp. 106–10, 113–17. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 530, 542, 543, 548, 549; Dölger, Müller, and Beihammer, Regesten 1.2, reg. 473, 485; Kościelniak, Grecy, pp. 155–59; Codoñer, “Patriarchen”, pp. 110–13, 114, 117–22; Codoñer, “Melkites”, p. 148. Leo Choirospaktes, Letters, ep. 15, ed. Kolias, pp. 49–53, 90–91; ep. 23, pp. 112–13; Vita Euthymii patriarchae CP, ch. 15, ed. Karlin-Hayter, pp. 100–03; Eutychios, Annals, ed. Pirone, pp. 422–23; Skreslet, Greeks, pp. 196–99; Kościelniak, Grecy, pp. 159–61.

134

Todt

to the chronicler Yaḥyā, this practice had ceased since the beginning of the reign of the Umayyad caliphs (660–750).19 After the Byzantine reconquest of Antioch at the end of October 969, Emperor John I Tzimiskes (969–76), on 23 January 970, appointed Theodore of Koloneia the new patriarch of Antioch. From then onwards, until the 13th century, the appointment of the Melkite patriarch of Antioch remained the sole prerogative of the emperor. After his consecration, Patriarch Theodore II (970– 76), by means of an imperial chrysoboullos logos, had the ancestral rights of his patriarchate confirmed and received the Constantinopolitan monastery of the Theotokos τῶν Ὁδηγῶν, so that the patriarch of Antioch, whenever he sojourned in the capital, could take up residence there and celebrate the liturgy.20 After the abdication of Patriarch Agapios II of Antioch (978–96), Emperor Basil II (976–1025) on 4 October 996, appointed John, the chartophylax of the patriarch of Constantinople, patriarch of Antioch (John III Polites, 996–1021).21 From this time onwards the emperors elevated exclusively Greek clerics from the clergy of the patriarch of Constantinople to the throne of Antioch. John III had not only himself consecrated by the patriarch of Constantinople, but yielded the right of ordination of the patriarch of Antioch in perpetuity to the patriarch of the imperial city. In Antioch, this was regarded as a major infringement on the patriarchate’s autocephaly.22 When Emperor Romanos III Argyros (1028–34) had a trial conducted against the west Syrian patriarch Yōḥannān VIII ʿAḇdūn (1004–28/31) on charges of heresy, Patriarch Nicholas II of Antioch (1025–30) and his retinue refused to take part.23 But Nicholas’ successor as patriarch of Antioch, Elias II (1032–33),

19

20 21 22 23

Eutychios, Annals, ed. Pirone, p. 436; Yaḥyā, Taʾrikh al-Dhayl, vol. 1, eds. Kratčkovskij and Vasiliev, pp. 710–11, lines 12–13; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἱεροσολύμων, p. 346; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀλεξανδρείας, p. 530; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀντιοχείας, pp. 805–06; Skreslet, Greeks, pp. 209–12; Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 787. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 795, 796; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, pp. 93, 94, 107–08, 117–33; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, pp. 141–42, 153–54. Yaḥyā, Taʾrikh al-Dhayl, vol. 2, pp. 445–46 [237–38]; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀντιοχείας, p. 837; Dölger, Müller, and Beihammer, Regesten 1.2, reg. 784a; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, p. 156. Nikon, Taktikon/Logos, ed. Aerts, pp. 31, 164–65; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, pp. 94–95; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, pp. 156–57. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 838; Benner, Syrisch-jakobitische Kirche, pp. 67, 80–89, 117–19; Vest, Geschichte der Stadt Melitene und der umliegenden Gebiete, vol. 2, pp. 1197–1219; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, pp. 157–59.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

135

at the occasion of his ordination and enthronement on 30 March 1032, signed the patriarchal synod’s tomos of May 1030 against the Jacobites.24 Given the Antiochenes’ discontent with the patriarchs dispatched to them from the capital, Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–55), in 1052, appointed Peter, the skeuophylax of the Hagia Sophia, as the new patriarch of Antioch (Peter III, 1052–57). Like the emperor himself, Peter originated from Antioch.25 Peter III, although having been ordained and enthroned in Constantinople, was not willing to accept any violation of the rights of his patriarchate. When Patriarch Michael I Keroularios of Constantinople (1043– 58) conferred the honorary rank of a kouboukleisios to the Antiochene deacon Christodoulos, Peter III protested and asserted explicitly that the apostolic throne of Antioch was not subject to the patriarch of Constantinople. He complained about his predecessor John III, who had given away the privileges of the Church of Antioch by a canonically unlawful document (“sphragis paranomos”).26 Nevertheless, the practice that the patriarch of Antioch was consecrated by the patriarch of Constantinople persisted. In the year 1000, Patriarch Orestes of Jerusalem (986–1005/06) at the behest of the Fāṭimid Caliph al-Ḥākim (996–1021), concluded a truce with Emperor Basil II (976–1025), after which he did not return to Jerusalem, but preferred to stay in Constantinople until his death.27 At the beginning of 1023, Sitt alMulk, then regent for the still minor Caliph aẓ-Ẓāhir (1021–36), sent Patriarch Nikephoros of Jerusalem as her envoy to Constantinople, where, after the delivery of a confession of faith, his name was inscribed into the diptychs of the Churches of Constantinople and Antioch.28 In the truce concluded between Emperor Michael IV (1034–41) and the Fāṭimid caliph in 1036 or 1037,

24 25 26 27 28

Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 839 and 840; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, p. 102; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, p. 159. Michel, “Die Botschaft Petros’ III von Antiocheia”, pp. 111–18; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, pp. 160–61. Nikon, Taktikon/Logos, ed. Aerts, pp. 31, 164–65; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀντιοχείας, pp. 845–46; Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 860–61; Giankou, Νίκων ὁ Μαυρορείτης, pp. 155–56; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, pp. 161–62. Yaḥyā, Taʾrikh al-Dhayl, vol. 2, eds. Kratčkovskij and Vasiliev, pp. 415 [207], 461 [253]; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἱεροσολύμων, p. 355; G. Troupeau, Geschichte des Christentums 4, eds. Dagron, Riché, and Vauchez, p. 416. Yaḥyā, Taʾrikh al-Dhayl, vol. 3, Kratčkovskij, pp. 468–71 [100–03]; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἱεροσολύμων, p. 362; Gil, History of Palestine, p. 380; G. Troupeau, Geschichte des Christentums 4, eds. Dagron, Riché, and Vauchez, p. 416; Dölger, Müller, and Beihammer, Regesten 1.2, reg. 816c.

136

Todt

the emperor was granted the right to appoint the patriarch of Jerusalem.29 The patriarchs of Jerusalem, too, during their sojourns in Constantinople, attended the synods presided over by the patriarchs of Constantinople; so for instance Euthymios I (c.1080), on 11 April 1082, attended the synod against the disciples of John Italos.30 5

Constantinople and the Patriarchates of the East in the Age of the Crusades

A still stronger dependence of the patriarchs of Antioch and of Jerusalem on the emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople emerged when, in 1099 and 1100, Latin clerics, after the conquests of the crusaders, usurped the patriarchal sees, first in Jerusalem and then in Antioch.31 Though already in October 1100, Patriarch John IV the Oxite, after his involuntary return to Constantinople, had abdicated,32 it was not before c.1106 that Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) appointed John Haploucheir his successor (John V, 1106–after 1134). Although John Haploucheir could not reside in Antioch itself, he nevertheless ordained the metropolitans of his patriarchate (and probably other clerics, too) in the Constantinopolitan monastery τῶν Ὁδηγῶν.33 In 1106/07 Patriarch John VIII of Jerusalem (before 1106–before 1122) also emigrated to Constantinople, where, in 1107/08, he was confirmed by Patriarch Nicholas III of Constantinople (1084–1111) and his synod as rightful patriarch of Jerusalem. From this time onwards, he and his successors had to take up residence in their metochion in Constantinople, the Monastery of St. Diomedes.34 In the so-called Treaty of Deabolis (September 1108), Prince Bohemund I of Antioch had to confirm by oath that no member of the Latin Church would 29 30 31 32 33 34

Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἱεροσολύμων, pp. 363–64; Gil, History of Palestine, pp. 402–03; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 843; Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, pp. 42–43. Gautier, “Le synode des Blachernes (fin 1094)”, esp. pp. 227–31; Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 927, 965; Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, pp. 46–50. Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 6–9, 12–17, 172; Matzke, Daibert von Pisa, pp. 156–62; Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, pp. 89–100; Kirstein, Die lateinischen Patriarchen von Jerusalem, pp. 104–9, 110, 112, 150–52; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, p. 165. John the Oxite, Resignation, ed. Gautier; Giankou, Νίκων ὁ Μαυρορείτης, pp. 194–95. Canons, eds. Rhalles and Potles, vol. 3, pp. 159–60 (Theodore Balsamon to canon 18 of the synod of Antioch of 341); Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, pp. 95–96, 108; Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, p. 148. Treatise of Transfers, no. 55, ed. Darrouzès, pp. 183, 209; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἱεροσολύμων, p. 394; Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 179–81; Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 981; Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, pp. 101–09.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

137

ever again become patriarch of Antioch, only a candidate selected by the emperor from the clergy of the Great Church of Constantinople could take this office.35 But in vain, the Emperors John II Komnenos (1118–43) and Manuel I Komnenos (1143–80), during their respective expeditions to Syria in 1137/38 and 1158/59, tried to enforce the enthronement of the Greek Patriarchs Luke (after 1134–c.1155/56) and Athanasios I Manasses (1157–70) in Antioch.36 Only in 1165 was Prince Bohemund III of Antioch (1164–1201) forced to accept the enthronement of Patriarch Athanasios I Manasses.37 Whenever in the course of the 12th century synods convened in Constantinople to discuss canonistic and theological matters of general interest for the Church, both the patriarchs-in-exile of Antioch and of Jerusalem were invited to join the discussion, as was the patriarch of Alexandria, when he was staying in the capital. In January 1157, Patriarch Nicholas of Jerusalem (before 1122–c.1156) was among the participants of the Constantinopolitan synod which determined that the Eucharistic oblation was offered to all persons of the trinity.38 On the occasion of the marriage of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos with Mary of Antioch at Christmas 1162, the Patriarchs Athanasios I Manasses and Sophronios of Alexandria (1137–71) co-celebrated with Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges of Constantinople (1157–69/70).39 At the beginning of March 1166, the Patriarchs Athanasios I of Antioch and Nikephoros II of Jerusalem (before 1166–76) signed the decisions of a synod dealing with the proper interpretation of the biblical phrase “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).40 The reconquest of large parts of Palestine and of Jerusalem from the crusaders by Sultan Saladin in 1187 provided (probably before 1206/07) the patriarchs of Jerusalem with the possibility to return to their patriarchal see.41 35 36

37 38 39 40 41

Anna Komnena, Alexias 13.12.20, eds. Reinsch and Kambylis, p. 420; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, pp. 92–93, 94; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1243; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, pp. 165–66. John Kinnamos, Epitome 4.18, ed. Meineke, p. 183; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀντιοχείας, pp. 925–26, 931–33; Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 33–34, 44, 173–74, 175; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, pp. 96–97; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1430; Failler, “Athanase Ier Manassès”, pp. 66–67. Failler, “Athanase Ier Manassès”, pp. 70–75; Hamilton, “Three patriarchs at Antioch”, pp. 199–207; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, p. 166. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1038; Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, p. 139. John Kinnamos, Epitome 5.4, ed. Meineke, pp. 210–11; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἱεροσολύμων Ἀλεξανδρείας, p. 552; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀντιοχείας, pp. 933, 1162; Mayer, Varia Antiochena, pp. 47, 52–54. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1058a–62; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, p. 102; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1466a, 1469; Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, p. 146. Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 310–12; Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, pp. 242–58; Kościelniak, Grecy, p. 280.

138

Todt

From the commentary of Patriarch Theodore IV Balsamon of Antioch (before 1183–1204), the most distinguished canonist of the Byzantine Church, thanks to canon 37 of the Trullanum, and from Theodore IV’s treatise on the rights of the patriarchs of Antioch and of Jerusalem living in exile in Constantinople, it is clear that their status was not undisputed. Some members of the Constantinopolitan clergy and some canonists contested the right of the patriarchs and bishops in exile, who had never been enthroned to their episcopal see, to attend synods and to engage in official acts reserved for bishops.42 In the responses of Patriarch George II Xiphilinos (1191–98), edited by Balsamon and John Kastamonites of Chalcedon, to the requests of Patriarch Mark III of Alexandria (who visited Constantinople in 1195), Balsamon also established the principle that all Churches, that is the patriarchates of the East as well, had to follow the example of the Church of Constantinople.43 Only when Byzantine imperial power and the patriarchate of Constantinople had become paralyzed by the conquest of Constantinople on 12 April 1204, as well as by the establishment of the Latin Empire and the Latin patriarchate, did the indigenous bishops of the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem regain their right to elect their own patriarchs. Before 4 March 1208, Prince Bohemund IV of Antioch (1201–33) permitted the Melkites of Antioch to elect Symeon II (1207/08–35).44 After a prolonged sojourn in the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia (from 1211 onwards), Symeon II of Antioch and his bishops, in 1217/18, emigrated to Nicaea. There the clerics from Antioch were forced to fulfil some kind of penitence—probably because during their stay in Cilicia they had entered into ecclesiastical communion with the Armenian Church— before Patriarch Manuel I Sarantenos of Constantinople (1217–22) and his synod established communion with them.45 In spring 1235, the Patriarchs Symeon II of Antioch, Nicholas I of Alexandria (before 1210–after 1235), and

42

43

44 45

Canons, eds. Rhalles and Potles, vol. 2, pp. 389–90; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, pp. 110–11; Pahlitzsch, Graeci und Suriani, pp. 147–49. On Theodore IV Balsamon, see Tiftixoglu, “Zur Genese der Kommentare des Theodoros Balsamon”; Gallagher, Church Law and Church Order, pp. 153–86. Balsamon, Canonical Questions, eds. Rhalles and Potles, pp. 448–49, 451; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀλεξανδρείας, pp. 556–61; Nasrallah, Mouvement littéraire, vol. 3.1, pp. 94, 108– 09; Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1184; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, pp. 99–101, 104; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, pp. 167–68. Register Innocenz III, vol. 10, no. 186, eds. Hageneder, Egger, Selinger, and Weigl, pp. 315–16; Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 217–19, 221, 313–14; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, pp. 98, 99; Kościelniak, Grecy, p. 245. Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1220; Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 314–15; Hild and Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien, p. 94.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

139

Athanasios II of Jerusalem (c.1231–44) consented to the elevation of the archbishop of Bulgaria to the rank of a patriarch.46 6

Constantinople and the Patriarchates of the East in the Late Byzantine Period (c.1250–1453)

In the late Byzantine period, the situation of the Melkite patriarchates remained difficult. The Mamlūk sultans (1250–1517) in the 13th and 14th centuries repeatedly acted with great hostility against the Coptic, Melkite, and westSyrian Christians living within their realm.47 When in May 1268 Antioch was totally destroyed, the patriarchs of Antioch lost their patriarchal residence and resided alternately in Constantinople, on Cyprus, in Cilicia (Tarsus), or in the Near East.48 During their shorter or longer stays in Constantinople, the Melkite patriarchs, too, became entangled in the controversies within the Byzantine Church. While the Patriarchs Euthymios I (c.1260–77) and Theodosios Iv Prinkips of Antioch (1278–83/84) supported the policy of ecclesiastical union pursued by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (1259–82),49 Patriarch Athanasios II of Alexandria (before 1275–after 1305) avoided giving any statement whatsoever regarding the pros and cons of a union with the papacy.50 Patriarch Arsenios of Antioch (1283–86/87) was deposed by a Constantinopolitan synod after having entered into Eucharistic communion with the King of Cilician Armenia and the Armenian Church.51 His successor Cyril II (1287–1308) in 1288 came to

46 47 48 49 50

51

Register of the Patriarchate, vol. 3, no. 264, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 568– 69; Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1282; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1744, 1746. Nasrallah, Mouvement littéraire, vol. 3.2, pp. 37–43; Kościelniak, Grecy, pp. 313–18. Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀντιοχείας, pp. 949–54, 960–76; Nasrallah, Mouvement littéraire, vol. 3.2, pp. 43–47. Georges Pachymeres, History 5.24, eds. Failler and Laurent, vol. 2, pp. 512–15; 6.1, pp. 546– 47; 6.5, pp. 554–57; 6.31, pp. 638–39; Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1436; Hamilton, Latin Church, pp. 326–27, 328; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, p. 169. George Pachymeres, History 6.1, eds. Failler and Laurent, vol. 2, pp. 546–47; 7.8, vol. 3, pp. 34–35; 7.19, pp. 68–69; 7.35, pp. 102–19, 8.5, pp. 136–37; 9.5, pp. 228–31; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 2023c; Failler, “Séjour d’Athanase II”, pp. 46–50, 62–71 (letter of Pachymeres to Athanasios II of Alexandria); Nasrallah, Mouvement littéraire, vol. 3.2, pp. 59–61; Kościelniak, Grecy, pp. 332–34. George Pachymeres, History 7.19, eds. Failler and Laurent, vol. 3, pp. 66–69; 8.5, pp. 136–37; Nikephoros Xanthopoulos, Church History, PG 146, col. 1197–98B; Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1498; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, p. 169.

140

Todt

Constantinople, but only in 1296 was he accepted by Patriarch John XII (1294– 1303) and his synod as the rightful patriarch of Antioch.52 Around the year 1338 a schism arose within the patriarchate of Jerusalem. During a stay by Patriarch Lazaros of Jerusalem (before 1341–after April 1368) in Constantinople, he found himself accused vis-à-vis the emperor by the monk Gerasimos and others. In the autumn of 1339, Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos (1328–41) commissioned the members of an embassy to the Mamlūk sultan to investigate the accusations in Palestine. After the death of the emperor (15 June 1341) and the outbreak of the Byzantine civil war, Patriarch John XIV Kalekas (1334–47) backed Gerasimos, who, from 1342 to 1349, held office as Patriarch of Jerusalem. By now, it had become clear for Lazaros that only through John Kantakouzenos could he expect to find the support necessary to return to his former office.53 On 21 May 1346 in Adrianople he crowned Kantakouzenos emperor, and on that same day presided over a synod deposing John XIV Kalekas.54 In return, John VI Kantakouzenos by means of a diplomatic intervention at the court of the Mamlūk sultan al-Malik an-Nāṣir Nāṣir ad-Dīn al-Ḥasan (1347–51 and 1354–61), arranged for Lazaros’ return to Jerusalem and to his position as patriarch (before 30 October 1349).55 In the course of the hesychastic controversy, Patriarch Ignatios II of Antioch (c.1341/42–c.1363/64) and Metropolitan Arsenios of Tyre sided with the opponents of Gregory Palamas. During a stay in Constantinople, Ignatios II provided Patriarch John XIV Kalekas with a statement (tomos) against the doctrines of Palamas. Following the testimony of Gregory Akindynos and Nikephoros Gregoras, Patriarch Gerasimos of Jerusalem too consented to the condemnation of Palamism.56 When at the first session of the council convoked by 52

53

54 55

56

George Pachymeres, History, 7.19, eds. Failler and Laurent, vol. 3, pp. 68–69; 8.6, pp 140–41; Treatise of Transfers, no. 70, ed. Darrouzès, pp. 187, 213; Laurent, “Le patriarche d’Antioche Cyrille II”, pp. 310–17; Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1511, 1568; Todt, “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen”, pp. 169–70. John Kantakouzenos, History 4.14, ed. Schopen, vol. 3, pp. 91–93; ed. Miller, pp. 130–32, 224–26, 377–79; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἱεροσολύμων, pp. 425–27; Canard, “Lettre”, pp. 29–30; Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2839; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2220; Pahlitzsch, “Mediators”, pp. 36–37. John Kantakouzenos, History 3.92, ed. Schopen, vol. 2, p. 564; 4.4, vol. 3, p. 29; Nikephoros Gregoras, History 15.5.1, ed. Schopen, vol. 2, p. 762; Canard, “Lettre”, p. 29; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. *2262. John Kantakouzenos, History 4.14, 15, ed. Schopen, vol. 3, pp. 90–91, 93–99; ed. Miller, pp. 129, 132–39, 223–24, 226–31, 376, 380–86; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἱεροσολύμων, pp. 427–32; Canard, “Lettre”, pp. 30–31, 39–42, 45–52; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 2950; Pahlitzsch, “Mediators”, p. 38; Kyriakides, “Letter”. Gregory Akindynos, Letters, 47 and 50, ed. Hero, pp. 202–03; 216–17; Gregory Palamas, Against Ignatios, eds. Mantzarides, Matsoukas, and Pseutonkas, pp. 625–47; Nikephorus

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

141

Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–54) to decree the final acceptance of Palamism (28 May 1351) Arsenios of Tyre gave his support to the opponents of Palamas, at the second meeting of this synod on 30 May 1351 he found himself excluded from the attendance of the ensuing proceedings.57 Still, the Antiochene monastery τῶν Ὁδηγῶν remained pivotal to the opposition against the pro-Palamite ecclesiastical policy, until Patriarch Kallistos I (second term 1355–63), around the beginning of the year 1360, succeeded in deposing its abbot Ananias. Since the monastery was subject to the jurisdiction of Patriarch Ignatios II of Antioch (1344–before 1359), Kallistos justified this encroachment by pointing to the general prerogative of the Ecumenical Patriarch to investigate ecclesiastical affairs all over the world.58 At the beginning of 1365 the members of the synod of the patriarchate of Antioch sent Metropolitan Niphon of Apameia to Patriarch Philotheos I Kokkinos of Constantinople (second term 1364–76) with a letter, by which they confirmed that they had elected Metropolitan Pachomios of Damascus as patriarch of Antioch (Pachomios I, 1365–66 and 1376–c.1387).59 Pachomios I and his successor Michael I (1366–76) presumably were the first patriarchs of Antioch to permanently set up their residence in Damascus.60 When on 10 October 1365 Alexandria was devastated by the troops of King Peter I of Cyprus (1359–69), the persecution of Christians triggered by this event focused not the least upon the Melkite Christians of the Mamlūk Empire. Thus, the Patriarchs Niphon of Alexandria and Lazaros of Jerusalem, before spring 1367, fled to Constantinople.61 In April or May 1367, together with Patriarch Philotheos I Kokkinos of Constantinople, they sent a letter concerning an ecclesiastical union to Pope Urban V (1362–70).62 Among the documents of

57 58 59 60 61 62

Gregoras, History 25.5, ed. Schopen, vol. 3, pp. 24; 25.7, pp. 26–27; Polemis, “Arsenius of Tyrus”, p. 257. Nikephorus Gregoras, History 18.5.4, ed. Schopen, vol. 2, pp. 893; 20.6.9, p. 991; 21.3.13, p. 1012; Polemis, “Arsenius of Tyrus”, pp. 241–42, 249–50, 261–73. Register of the Patriarchate, vol. 3, no. 239, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 376– 85; no. 265, pp. 578–81; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2391, 2397; Pitsakes, “Ο πατριάρχης Αντιοχείας”, pp. 125–30; Kresten, Beziehungen, pp. 10–22, 44–46. Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 207, eds. Miklosich and Müller, vol. 1, pp. 463–65; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2483; Kresten, Beziehungen, pp. 47–54; Todt, “Die Neustrukturierung des griechisch-orthodoxen Patriarchates von Antiocheia”, pp. 245–55. Schreiner, “Bemerkungen”, pp. 391–92; Kościelniak, Grecy, pp. 327–28; Pahlitzsch, “Mediators”, pp. 40–41; Todt, “Griechisch-orthodoxe (melkitische) Christen”, pp. 85–87. Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 233, eds. Miklosich and Müller, vol. 1, pp. 491–93; Schreiner, “Byzanz und die Mamlūken”, pp. 296–304; Schreiner, “Bemerkungen”, pp. 394–95; Pahlitzsch, “Mediators”, pp. 39–40. Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2526; Nasrallah, Mouvement littéraire, vol. 3.2, p. 62; Kościelniak, Grecy, p. 347.

142

Todt

Patriarch Antony IV of Constantinople (1391–97) there is a confession of faith by Patriarch Michael II of Antioch (1395–1404) from late spring or summer 1395 containing an anathema against Barlaam, Akindynos, and their retinue.63 This demonstrates clearly that in the meantime Palamism had been accepted as official dogma in the patriarchate of Antioch, too. At the Council of Union held in Ferrara and Florence (1438/39), the three patriarchates of the East were represented by metropolitans of the patriarchate of Constantinople, who also signed the horos of union of 5 July 1439 in their name: Metropolitan Antony of Herakleia and the protosynkellos Gregory Mammas for Patriarch Philotheos of Alexandria (before 1438–after 1443), Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev and the whole Rus’ for Patriarch Dorotheos I of Antioch (1435–51), and finally Metropolitan Dositheos of Monembasia for Patriarch Ioakeim of Jerusalem (c.1430).64 The authenticity of a horos ascribed to the three Patriarchs Philotheos of Alexandria, Ioakeim of Jerusalem, and Dorotheos I of Antioch against the offences (skandala) provoked by the Council of Union of Ferrara-Florence remains controversial. This document had allegedly been composed by a synod in Jerusalem in 1443. It condemned the confirmation of the addition of filioque to the Confession of Faith and the legitimation of the use of unleavened bread (azyma) in the Eucharist.65 7

Summary

Though the bishops of Constantinople could not trace back the foundation of their Church to one or several apostles—as the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem did—it was the fact that their city had been declared the capital of the Eastern Empire that provided them with precedence over those three more ancient Churches. This preeminence was first formulated in the canons of the two Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451). Here, it was the establishment of the archbishop of Constantinople as supreme 63 64

65

Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 491, eds. Miklosich and Müller, vol. 2 pp. 248–49; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3001; Nasrallah, Mouvement littéraire, vol. 3.2, p. 71. Gill ed. Quae supersunt actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini, p. 465; Sylvestros Syropoulos, Memoirs 10.13, ed. Laurent, pp. 492–95; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀλεξανδρείας, p. 581; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀντιοχείας, p. 978; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3486; Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3380; Kościelniak, Grecy, pp. 349–50. Council of Florence, Documents, no. 45, ed. Hofmann, pp. 68–72; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἱεροσολύμων, pp. 439–42; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀλεξανδρείας, p. 581; Papadopoulos, Ἐκκλησία Ἀντιοχείας, pp. 978–79; Beck, Kirche, p. 60; Nasrallah, Mouvement littéraire, vol. 3.2, pp. 73–75; Kościelniak, Grecy, pp. 351–52; Blanchet, “Patriarcat”.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

143

instance of appellation in canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon which proved most important. Also, in the spring of 479, for the first time, an archbishop of Antioch was consecrated by the archbishop of Constantinople. Then, and at later instances though, the archbishops of Constantinople acted at the behest of the emperor. The status of autocephaly of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, was generally never called into question by the archbishops and patriarchs of Constantinople. Over the course of the three centuries following the Arab conquest of the Near East, the relations between the patriarchs of Constantinople and their Melkite colleagues were often interrupted for long periods, with the result that the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787), as well as at the Council of Photios (867), witnessed the appearance of persons acting as representatives of the Melkite patriarchs, who in fact had not been legitimized by them. Only in 937/38 were more regular contacts between the patriarchs of Constantinople and those of the Near East established. After 969 the patriarchate of Antioch was reintegrated into the imperial Church. By the promotion of Byzantine clerics to the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, a gradual ‘byzantinization’ of ecclesiastical administration, liturgy, and canonical law began.66 When during the era of the Crusades the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem were forced to retreat into exile to Constantinople, the bonds between them and the patriarchs of Constantinople in fact tightened. By the 12th century, the patriarchs-in-exile of Antioch and Jerusalem took part in synods held in the capital every time when issues of general ecclesiastical concern were being discussed. However, their legal status was not always undisputed. After 1187, the patriarchs of Jerusalem could return to the Holy City. Equally, before March 1208 the election of a new Melkite patriarch could took place in Antioch, but neither Symeon II nor his successors could permanently reside in the city prior to its destruction in 1268. In fact in 1217/18 they were forced to reside in Nicaea, and then from 1261 onwards in Constantinople. In late Byzantine times, the relations between the patriarchs of Constantinople and their eastern colleagues were close, but laden with tensions. For example, a great conflict arose between Patriarch Athanasios I of Constantinople (1289–93 and 1303–09) and his fellow Patriarchs Athanasios II of Alexandria (before 1275–after 1305) and Cyril II of Antioch (1287–1308). Especially during the hesychastic controversy, internal opponents of the patriarch of Constantinople gathered in the capital city’s metochia of the Melkite patriarchs and 66

Nasrallah, Mouvement littéraire, vol. 3.2, pp. 146–72; Nasrallah, Mouvement littéraire, vol. 3.1, pp. 353–55, 359–86; Nasrallah, “La liturgie des Patriarcats melchites”, pp. 156–81; Hohmann, “Der Rituswechsel der Melkiten”, pp. 347–54.

144

Todt

tried to win their backing against the ecclesiastical policy of Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–54) and the patriarchs of Constantinople appointed by him. In the 14th century, the patriarchs of Constantinople were driven by a quasi-papal image of themselves, and were therefore convinced that they were entitled, by canons and relevant precedents, to review and, if necessary, to rectify decisions made by the three patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.67 When the Council of Union of Ferrara-Florence (1438/39) was impending, the Melkite patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem gave their consent to have hierarchs and clerics of the patriarchate of Constantinople to act as their representatives. It cannot be said with certainty whether the union of 1438/39 was already revoked in 1443 by the three patriarchs of the East, since the authenticity of this synod’s documents is highly questionable. The Melkite patriarchs of Alexandria, though presiding over only a tiny minority of the Christians of Egypt, enjoyed the highest degree of autonomy from Constantinople, but were dependent on maintaining good relations with the country’s Muslim rulers. Only occasionally did they visit Constantinople. They had to rely on the emperor’s diplomatic interventions in case of antiChristian actions by the Mamlūk sultans (1250–1517), rather than being able to sustain a close relationship with the patriarchs of Constantinople. This was all the more important since their position—quite to the contrary of those of their fellow patriarchs in Antioch and Jerusalem—was never threatened by the representatives of the papal Church of the West. Bibliography Primary Sources

Acta patriarchatus 1–2, eds. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitani MCCCXV–MCCCII, vols. 1–2 (Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi Sacra et Profana 1–2) (Vienna, 1860, 1862; repr. Aalen, 1968). Anna Komnena, Alexias, eds. D.R. Reinsch and A. Kambylis, Annae Comnenae Alexias (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 40.1) (Berlin, 2001). Balsamon, Canonical Questions, eds. G.A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνοδῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων, vol. 4 (Athens, 1854), pp. 447–96.

67

Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 264, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 568–69; no. 239, pp. 380–81.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

145

Canard, M., “Une lettre du Sultan Malik Nâṣir Ḥasan à Jean VI Cantacuzène (750/1349)”, Faculté des Lettres de l’Université d’Alger, Annales de l’études orientales 3 (1937), 27–52. Canons, eds. G.A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνοδῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων, vols. 2–3 (Athens, 1852–53). Canons, ed. P.-P. Joannou, Les canons des conciles oecuméniques (Grottaferrata, 1962). Council of Florence, Documents, ed. G. Hofmann, Orientalium Documenta Minora (Concilium Florentinum, Documenta et Scriptores A.3.3) (Rome, 1953). Eutychios, Annals, ed. B. Pirone, Eutichio, Gli Annali. Introduzione, traduzione e note (Studia Orientalia Christiana, Monographiae 1) (Cairo, 1987). George Pachymeres, History, eds. and trans. A. Failler and V. Laurent, Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, vols. 1–4 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 24.1–4) (Paris, 1984–99). Gill, J. ed., Quae supersunt actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini, vol. 2: Res Florentiae gestae (Concilium Florentinum, Documenta et Scriptores B.5.2) (Rome, 1953). Gregory Akindynos, Letters, ed. and trans. A. Constantinides Hero (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 21) (Washington, D.C., 1983). Gregory Palamas, Against Ignatios, eds. G. Mantzarides, N. Matsoukas, and B. Pseutonkas, Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ συγγράμματα [Gregory Palamas, works], vol. 2 (Thessaloniki, 1966), pp. 625–47. John Kantakouzenos, History, ed. L. Schopen, Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris historiarum libri IV (Bonn, 1828, 1831, 1832); ed. T. Miller, The History of John Cantacuzenus (Book IV ): Text, Translation, and Commentary (Washington, D.C., 1975). John Kinnamos, Epitome, ed. A. Meineke, Ioannis Cinnami epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Manuele Comnenis gestarum (Bonn, 1836). John Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. I. Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 5) (Berlin, 1973). John the Oxite, Resignation, ed. P. Gautier, “Jean V l’Oxite, patriarche d’Antioche, notice biographique”, Revue des Études Byzantines 22 (1964), 136–41. John Zonaras, Summary of Histories, ed. T. Büttner-Wobst, Ioannis Zonarae epitomae historiarum libri XIII–XVIII (Bonn, 1897). Justinian, Novels, eds. R. Schoell and G. Kroll, Novellae (Corpus Iuris Civilis 3) (Berlin, 1895; repr. Hildesheim, 1993). Leo Choirospaktes, Letters, ed. G. Kolias, Léon Choerospactès, magistre, proconsul et patrice. Biographie—correspondance (texte et traduction) (Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie 31) (Athens, 1939). Nikephoros Gregoras, History, ed. L. Schopen, Nicephori Gregorae historia Byzantina, vols. 1–3 (Bonn, 1829, 1830, 1855). Nikephoros Xanthopoulos, Church History, ed. J.-P. Migne, Nicephori Callisti Xanthopuli ecclesiasticae historiae libri XVIII (Patrologia Graeca 145–47) (Paris, 1865).

146

Todt

Nikon, Taktikon/Logos 31, ed. W.J. Aerts, Nikon of the Black Mountain, Witness to the First Crusade? Some remarks on his person, his use of language and his work, named Taktikon, esp. Λόγος 31, in East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean, vol. 1: Antioch from the Byzantine Reconquest until the End of the Crusader Principality. Acta of the Congress held at Hernen Castle in May 2003, eds. K. Ciggaar and M. Metcalf (Leuven, 2006), pp. 125–170, edn. and transl. pp. 140–69. Register Innocenz III, eds. R. Murauer, A. Sommerlechner, O. Hageneder, C. Egger, R. Selinger, and H. Weigl, Die Register Innocenz’ III, vol. 10: 10. Pontifikatsjahr, 1207/1208 (Publikationen des Historischen Instituts beim Österreichischen Kulturforum in Rom 2.1.10) (Vienna, 2007). Register of the Patriarchate 1, eds. H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 1: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315–1331 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.1) (Vienna, 1981). Register of the Patriarchate 3, eds. J. Koder, M. Hinterberger, and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 3: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.3) (Vienna, 2001). Scylitzes Continuatus, Chronography, ed. E.T. Tsolakes, Ἡ συνέχεια τῆς χρονογραφίας τοῦ Ἰωάννου Σκυλίτση (Ioannes Skylitzes Continuatus) (Ἑταιρεία Μακεδονικῶν Σπουδῶν, Ἵδρυμα Μελετῶν Χερσονήσου τοῦ Αἵμου 105) (Thessaloniki, 1968). Sylvestros Syropoulos, Memoirs, ed. V. Laurent, Les « Mémoires » du Grand Ecclésiarque de l’Église de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438– 1439) (Paris, 1971). Theodore Studites, Letters, ed. G. Fatouros, Theodori Studitae epistulae (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 31), 2 vols. (Berlin, 1992). Theophanes, Chronography, ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1883; repr. Hildesheim, 1980); transl. C. Mango, R. Scott, and G. Greatrex, The Chronicle of Theophanes, Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813 (Oxford, 1997). Treatise of Transfers, ed. J. Darrouzès, “Traité des transferts, édition critique et commentaire”, Revue des Études Byzantines 42 (1984), 147–214. Vita Euthymii patriarchae CP., ed. and trans. P. Karlin-Hayter (Bibliothèque de Byzantion 3) (Brussels, 1970). Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Anṭākī, Ta’rikh al-Dhayl, ed. I. Kratčkovskij, transl. F. Micheau and G. Tropeau, vol. 3 (Patrologia Orientalis 47.4) (Turnhout, 1997); Yaḥyā ibn Sa‘īd al-Anṭākī, Ta’rikh al-Dhayl, eds. and trans. I. Kratčkovskij and A. Vasiliev, vols. 1–2 (Patrologia Orientalis 18.5, 23.3) (Paris, 1924, 1932; vol. 1 repr. Paris, 1957).

Secondary Literature

Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12.2.1) (Munich, 1977).

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

147

Benner, T.H., Die syrisch-jakobitische Kirche unter byzantinischer Herrschaft im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert (Marburg, 1989). Blanchet, M.-H., “Le patriarcat de Constantinople et le rejet de l’union de Florence par les patriarches orientaux en 1443. Réexamen du dossier documentaire”, in Le patriarcat oecuménique de Constantinople et Byzance hors frontières (1204–1586). Actes de la table ronde organisée dans le cadre du 22e Congrès international des études byzantines, Sofia, 22–27 août 2011, eds. M.-H. Blanchet, M.-H. Congourdeau, and D.I. Mureşan, (Dossiers byzantins 15) (Paris, 2014), pp. 309–26. Blaudeau, P., Alexandrie et Constantinople (451–491) (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 327) (Rome, 2006). Brandes, W., “Die melkitischen Patriarchen von Antiocheia im 7. Jahrhundert. Anzahl und Chronologie”, Le Muséon 111 (1998), 37–57. Codoñer, J.S., “Die melkitischen Patriarchen, Konstantinopel und der Bilderkult in der zweiten Hälfte des 9. Jahrhunderts”, in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantinischen Mittelalter, vol. 2, eds. M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, and M.M. Vučetić (Byzantinistische Studien und Texte 4) (Berlin, 2013), pp. 99–136. Codoñer, J.S., “Melkites and icon worship during the iconoclast period”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 67 (2013), 135–87. Dagron, G., Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Bibliothèque byzantine, Études 7) (Paris, 1974). Dagron, G., P. Riché, and A. Vauchez eds., Die Geschichte des Christentums, vol. 4: Bischöfe, Mönche und Kaiser (642–1054) (Freiburg, 1994; repr. Freiburg, 2004). Darrouzès, J., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 5: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376 (Paris, 1977); part 6: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410 (Paris, 1979); part 7: Les regestes de 1410 à 1453 (Paris, 1991). De Halleux, A., “Le décret chalcédonien sur les prérogatives de la nouvelle Rome”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 64 (1988), 288–323. Devreesse, R., Le patriarcat d’Antioche depuis la paix de l’Église jusqu’a la conquête arabe (Paris, 1945). Dölger, F., Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453, vol. 4: Regesten von 1282–1341 (Munich, 1960). Dölger, F., A.E. Müller, and A. Beihammer, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453, vol. 1.2: Regesten von 867–1025 (Munich, 2nd edn. 2003). Dölger, F. and P. Wirth, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453, vol. 2: Regesten von 1025–1204 (Munich, 2nd edn. 1995); vol. 3: Regesten von 1204–1282 (Munich, 2nd edn. 1977); vol. 5: Regesten von 1204–1282 (Munich, 1965). Failler, A., “Le séjour d’Athanase II d’Alexandrie à Constantinople”, Revue des Études Byzantines 35 (1977), 43–71.

148

Todt

Failler, A., “Le patriarche d’Antioche Athanase Ier Manassès (1157–1170)”, Revue des Études Byzantines 51 (1993), 63–75. Flusin, B., “Église monophysite et église chalcédonienne en Syrie à l’arrivée des Arabes”, in Cristianità d’Occidente e Cristianità d’Oriente (Secoli VI–XI), vol. 1 (Settimane di Studio della Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo 51) (Spoleto, 2004), pp. 667–705. Gahbauer, F.R. and R.A. Goldenberg, Art. “Patriarchat, I. Kirchengeschichte; II. Judentum”, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 26 (Berlin, 1996), pp. 85–94. Gallagher, Cl., Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium. A Comparative Study (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 8) (Aldershot, 2002). Gautier, P., “Le synode des Blachernes (fin 1094). Étude prosopographique”, Revue des Études Byzantines 29 (1971), 213–84. Giankou, T.X., Νίκων ὁ Μαυρορείτης. Βίος-συγγραφικὸ ἔργο-κανονικὴ διδασκαλία (Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης, Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα Θεολογικής Σχολής, Τμήμα Ποιμαντικής, Παράρτημα 2) (Thessaloniki, 1991). Gil, M., A History of Palestine, 634–1099 (Cambridge, 1992). Gray, T.R., The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451–553) (Studies in the History of Christian Thought 20) (Leiden, 1979). Grumel, V., and J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches; parts 2–3: Les regestes de 715 à 1206 (Paris, 1989). Hage, W., Das orientalische Christentum (Die Religionen der Menschheit 29.2) (Stuttgart, 2007). Hamilton, B., The Latin Church in the Crusader States. The Secular Church (London, 1980). Hamilton, B., “Three patriarchs at Antioch, 1165–70”, in Dei gesta per Francos, eds. M. Balard, B.Z. Kedar, and J. Riley-Smith (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 199–207. Henry, P., “Initial eastern assessments of the Seventh Ecumenical Council”, The Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 25 (1974), 75–92. Hild, F., and H. Hellenkemper, Kilikien und Isaurien (Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5) (Vienna, 1990). Hohmann, G., “Der Rituswechsel der Melkiten”, Der Christliche Osten 53 (1998), 347–54. Honigmann, E., Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 127.2) (Louvain, 1951). Kirstein, K.-P., Die lateinischen Patriarchen von Jerusalem (Berliner Historische Studien 35; Ordensstudien, 16) (Berlin, 2002). Kościelniak, K., Grecy i Arabowie. Historia Kościoła melkiciego (katolickiego) na ziemiach zdobytych przez muzułmanów (634–1516) (Cracow, 2004). Kresten, O., Die Beziehungen zwischen den Patriarchaten von Konstantinopel und Antiocheia unter Kallistos I. und Philotheos Kokkinos im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur,

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

149

Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 2000.6) (Mainz, 2000). Kyriakides, S., “The letter of the Mamluk Sultan Al-Nāṣir Hasan to the Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (30 October 1349)”, in Graeco-Africana. Proceedings of the International Conference on Graeco-African and Afro-Byzantine Studies at the University of Johannesburg (27 Oct.–1 Nov. 2014). Supplement to Ekklesiastikos Pharos, eds. T. Sansaridou-Hendrickx, and B. Hendrickx (Johannesburg, 2016), pp. 144–53. Laurent, V., “Le patriarche d’Antioche Cyrille II”, Analecta Bollandiana 68 (1950) (Mélanges Paul Peeters 2), 310–17. Laurent, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 4: Les regestes de 1208 à 1309 (Paris, 1971). Matzke, M., Daibert von Pisa. Zwischen Pisa, Papst und erstem Kreuzzug (Vorträge und Forschungen, Sonderband 44) (Sigmaringen, 1998). Maximos of Sardes, The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church. A Study in the History and the Canons of the Church (Analekta Blatadon 24) (Thessaloniki, 1976). Mayer, H.E., Varia Antiochena. Studien zum Kreuzfahrerfürstentum Antiochia im 12. und frühen 13. Jahrhundert (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Studien und Texte 6) (Hannover, 1993). Michel, A., “Die Botschaft Petros’ III. von Antiocheia an seine Stadt über seine Ernennung”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 38 (1938), 111–18. Nasrallah, J., “La liturgie des Patriarcats melchites de 969 à 1300”, Oriens Christianus 71 (1987), 156–81. Nasrallah, J., Histoire du mouvement littéraire dans l’Église melchite du V e au XXe siècle. Contribution à l’étude de la littérature arabe chrétienne, vol. 2.2: 750–Xe s. (Louvain, 1988); vol. 3.1: 969–1250 (Louvain, 1983); vol. 3.2: 1250–1516 (Louvain, 1981). Oikonomides, N. ed., Byzantium in the 12th Century. Canon Law, State and Society (Diptychon Paraphylla 3) (Athens, 1991). Pahlitzsch, J., Graeci und Suriani im Palästina der Kreuzfahrerzeit. Beiträge und Quellen zur Geschichte des griechisch-orthodoxen Patriarchats von Jerusalem (Berliner Historische Studien 33; Ordensstudien, 15) (Berlin, 2001). Pahlitzsch, J., “Mediators between East and West: Christians under Mamluk rule”, Mamlūk Studies Review 9.2 (2005), 31–47. Papadopoulos, C., Ἱστορία τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων (Jerusalem, 1910). Papadopoulos, C., Ἱστορία τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ἀλεξανδρείας (62–1934) (Alexandria, 1935). Papadopoulos, C., Ἱστορία τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ἀντιοχείας (Alexandria, 1951). Piétri, C. and L. Piétri eds., Die Geschichte des Christentums, vol. 2: Das Entstehen der einen Christenheit (250–430) (Freiburg, 1996; repr. Freiburg, 2005). Piétri, L. ed., Die Geschichte des Christentums, vol. 1: Die Zeit des Anfangs (bis 250) (Freiburg, 2003; repr. Freiburg, 2005).

150

Todt

Piétri, L. ed., Die Geschichte des Christentums, vol. 3: Der lateinische Westen und der byzantinische Osten (431–642) (Freiburg, 2001; repr. Freiburg, 2005). Pitsakes, K.G., “Η έκταση της εξουσίας ενός υπερόριου πατριάρχη. Ο Αντιοχείας στην Κωνσταντινούπολη τον 12ο αιώνα”, in Byzantium in the 12th Century, Canon Law, State and Society, ed. N. Oikonomides (Athens, 1991), pp. 91–139. Polemis, I.D., “Arsenius of Tyrus and his tome against the Palamites”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 43 (1993), 241–81. Schreiner, P., “Bemerkungen zu vier melkitischen Patriarchen des 14. Jahrhunderts”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 45 (1979), 387–96. Schreiner, P., “Byzanz und die Mamlūken in der 2. Hälfte des 14. Jahrhunderts”, Der Islam 56 (1979), 296–304. Skreslet, S., The Greeks in Medieval Islamic Egypt: a Melkite Dhimmī Community Under the Patriarch of Alexandria (640–1095) (Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, 1987). Tiftixoglu, V., “Zur Genese der Kommentare des Theodoros Balsamon. Mit einem Exkurs über die unbekannten Kommentare des Sinaiticus gr. 1117”, in Byzantium in the 12th Century, Canon Law, State and Society, ed. N. Oikonomides (Athens, 1991), pp. 483–532. Todt, K.-P., “Griechisch-orthodoxe (melkitische) Christen im zentralen und südlichen Syrien. Die Periode von der arabischen Eroberung bis zur Verlegung der Patriarchenresidenz nach Damaskus (635–1365)”, Le Muséon 119 (2006), 33–88. Todt, K.-P., “Das ökumenische Patriarchat von Konstantinopel und die griechischorthodoxen (melkitischen) Patriarchate unter muslimischer Herrschaft”, Historicum. Zeitschrift für Geschichte (Spring–Summer 2007), 54–61. Todt, K.-P., “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen: die Rolle der griechischorthodoxen Patriarchen von Antiocheia in den politischen und kirchlichen Auseinandersetzungen des 11.–13. Jh. in Byzanz”, in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantinischen Mittelalter, vol. 1, eds. M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, and M.M. Vučetić (Byzantinistische Studien und Texte 3) (Berlin, 2011), pp. 137–76. Todt, K.-P., “Die Neustrukturierung des griechisch-orthodoxen Patriarchates von Antiocheia im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel”, in The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An Essential Source for the History and Church of Late Byzantium, eds. C. Gastgeber, E. Mitsiou, and J. Preiser-Kapeller (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 32) (Vienna, 2013), pp. 245–55. Vest, B.A., Geschichte der Stadt Melitene und der umliegenden Gebiete. Vom Vorabend der arabischen bis zum Abschluß der türkischen Eroberung (um 600–1124), vol. 2 (Byzanz, Islam und Christlicher Orient 1.2) (Hamburg, 2007).

chapter 9

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans Mihailo St. Popović 1

State of Research

The rise of nation states in south-eastern Europe in the second half of the 19th century and the simultaneous disintegration of the Ottoman Empire not only led to the emergence of political issues, but also ecclesiastical ones. These have been addressed in academia through research and publications on the medieval church history of Bulgaria and Serbia as well as of the archbishopric of Ohrid, with a special emphasis on their relationship with the patriarchate of Constantinople. Research on the church history of medieval Bulgaria has been systematically conducted by Bulgarian scholars (e.g., I. Dujčev, I. Snegarov, V. Gjuzelev, I.G. Iliev, etc.) and international experts (e.g., G. Podskalsky, H.-D. Döpmann, A. Delikari, etc.) since the 20th century. Regarding the history of the archbishopric of Ohrid, which is intertwined with the current question of the canonical status of the ‘Macedonian Orthodox Church’, quite different opinions and publications, deriving from North Macedonia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, intersect (e.g., those of J. Belčovski, B. Ilievski, St. Novaković, B. Prokić, B. Ferjančić, I. Snegarov, V.N. Zlatarski, etc.). A differentiated and balanced picture is provided by the German scholar G. Prinzing in manifold publications. With respect to the Church of Serbia the questions of the Christianization of the Serbian people and the Church’s status between Constantinople and Rome have been the main topics of research since the 20th century. Until the middle of the 20th century a strong emphasis was put on scholarly research of the ecclesiastical organization in the period of the Nemanjid dynasty. Exceptions to this, to a certain extent, are the scholarly works published in the 1920s and 1930s by M.A. Purković. Thanks to the remarkable development of Byzantine Studies in Yugoslavia after 1945, a systematic study of Byzantine sources on the medieval history of the Yugoslav peoples has begun, which included/ includes outstanding scholars (and pioneers) like G. Ostrogorski, B. Ferjančić, and L. Maksimović. This circle also comprises eminent historians of medieval history like S. Ćirković and M. Blagojević. Numerous important publications were also written by the historian T. Zivković, who has proven the remarkable potential for research in Slavic and Church history before the 12th century.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_010

152 2

Popović

Introduction

The (Ecumenical) Patriarchate of Constantinople, being the ‘New (Second) Rome’, played an integral part in the Christianization of the Balkan peninsula. When the Slavs crossed the Danube and settled on the vast European territories of the Byzantine Empire in the last quarter of the 6th century AD, the Byzantine emperors and the Great Church in the Byzantine capital joined forces in a common effort to spread the Christian faith and Byzantine culture among their new neighbors. Thus, the Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria and Serbia, that evolved from the 9th century onwards, were in the beginning subordinate to the Great Church in Constantinople, but became independent due to various political as well as military reasons and, finally, gained autocephaly by the mother Church. Retrospectively, it is possible to discern various periods in the ecclesiastical relationship between Constantinople and Bulgaria as well as Serbia, in which, especially in the late Byzantine period, times of conflict alternated with times of close spiritual links.1 A special case in this respect is without doubt the archbishopric of Achrida (today Ohrid in North Macedonia) (see below), which played a vital role in the ecclesiastical structuring of the Balkan peninsula after the Byzantine reconquista by the Byzantine Emperor Basil II (976–1025).2 One of the most essential sources on the ecclesiastical history of east and south-east Europe during the late Byzantine period is the so-called Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is preserved in two Greek manuscripts at the Austrian National Library, and contains more than 800 documents, which were written between 1315 and 1402 by the patriarchate and the synod of bishops of Constantinople.3 Although the evidence in the Register regarding the Church of Russia is richer than that for the Balkans, there still exists several specimens of outstanding historical importance for these latter Churches. It was the Ottoman conquest of the Balkan peninsula in the second

1 Beck, Geschichte der orthodoxen Kirche im byzantinischen Reich, pp. 7–147; Koder, Der Lebensraum der Byzantiner, pp. 103–09; Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, pp. 64–140; Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 18–86; Živković, Sloveni i Romeji, pp. 43–143; Živković, Južni Sloveni pod vizantijskom vlašću (600–1025), pp. 159–262. 2 See on this reconquista: Pirivatrić, Samuilova država. The military campaigns by the Byzantine emperor Basil II have been analysed meticulously in Strässle, Krieg und Kriegführung in Byzanz. 3 Cf. on this issue in detail the contribution of C. Gastgeber to this volume.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

153

half of the 14th century and in the first half of the 15th century, which arranged anew the relationship between the Churches at the end of this period.4 3

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Church of Bulgaria

The areas of the north-eastern Balkan peninsula, what is now Bulgaria, changed their Church affiliation several times in the Middle Ages. The late antique ecclesiastical provinces of Dacia mediterranea (Metropolis Serdica) and Dacia ripensis (Metropolis Ratiaria), as well as the entire western Balkans, originally belonged to the see of Rome. Since the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I (527–65) both provinces were assigned, in 535, to the newly founded archbishopric of Iustiniana Prima, today identified with Caričin Grad, about 50 km to the south of the Serbian city of Niš.5 An important source for the administrative and ecclesiastical history of Byzantium in the first half of the 6th century, depicting the times of Justinian I, is a geographical list of cities called the Synekdemos, which was most probably written by a certain Hierokles before the year 535.6 Presumably in the first half of the 8th century the above-mentioned areas were extracted by the Byzantine emperors from Roman canonical jurisdiction and handed over to the patriarch of Constantinople.7 From the very beginning, the areas of Thrace (Metropolis Philippupolis), Moesia (Metropolis Markianupolis) and Scythia (Tomi) had belonged to the canonical jurisdiction of Constantinople. However, most of the local dioceses did not overcome the turmoil of the so-called ‘Völkerwanderung’ (‘Migration Period’) from the 4th to the 7th century, especially the immigration of the Slavs and Proto-Bulgarians, although some isolated Christian communities managed to survive.8 4 Janković, Episkopije, pp. 79–100; Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity, pp. 159–238; Tjutjundžiev, Tărnovskata mitropolija prez XV–XIX v, pp. 23–94. 5 Barišić, “Dosadašnji pokušaji ubikacije grada Justiniana Prima”, pp. 127–42; Döpmann, “Zur Problematik von Justiniana Prima”, pp. 221–32; Duval, Caričin Grad; Granič, “Die Gründung des autokephalen Erzbistums von Justiniana Prima”, pp. 123–40; Prinzing, “Entstehung und Rezeption der Justiniana-Prima-Theorie”, pp. 269–87; Stamenković, Rimsko nasledje u Leskovačkoj kotlini; Šukarova, Justinijana Prima. 6 Edited in Hierokles, Synekdemos, ed. Honigmann. See also, Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. vol. 1, p. 531. 7 Cf. the recent research on this issue: Brandes, “Das Schweigen”, pp. 187–200, esp. p. 200; on older bibliography: Koder, Der Lebensraum der Byzantiner, p. 105. 8 Bratož, “Die Entwicklung der Kirchenorganisation”, pp. 149–96; Fine Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans, pp. 13–73; Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 15–29, 35–48; Schreiner, “Das Christentum in Bulgarien vor 864”, pp. 51–61.

154

Popović

A structured ecclesiastical administration could only be re-established with the Christianization of the Bulgarian empire by Byzantium after 865. It was Chan Boris I who accepted baptism by the Great Church in Constantinople and the Byzantine emperor Michael III (842–67) as his godfather in the spring of 865, thus being renamed Boris-Michael and opening the way for a thorough Christianization of his lands. In 870, the newly formed Bulgarian Church was handed over to the canonical jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople.9 In the wake of this political and military upheaval the Bulgarian tsar Symeon (893–927) elevated the archbishop of his capital Preslav to the rank of patriarch of Bulgaria in 918 without the consent of Constantinople. It was during the reign of Boris-Michael that Saint Clement (of Ohrid) went to Bulgarian-ruled Macedonia in order to begin his missionary activity. Saint Clement was most probably born around 840 in the historical region of Macedonia and originated from the Slavic population in the vicinity of the Byzantine city of Thessaloniki. His Christian name is not known. Fundamental biographical data is provided by two lives of the saint, which were written in Greek, but which are based on no longer preserved Old Slavonic models. The first life was composed by Archbishop Theophylact of Ohrid (late 11th/early 12th century) and is known as the Vita Clementis within the scholarly community. The second was probably written by Archbishop Demetrios Chomatenos of Ohrid (first half of the 13th century) and bears the name Clementis Vita brevis.10 Additional information on Clement can be found in the Life of Saint Naum of Ohrid11 and in a Slavic liturgy in honor of Clement.12 Moreover, his feast day is listed in the Glagolitic Codex Assemanianus (end of 10th/early 11th century).13 Clement joined Saints Constantine-Cyril and Methodius, the apostles of the Slavs, at a young age and accompanied them first to the Crimea, then to southern Russia, and after that on their mission to Great Moravia 9 10

11 12 13

Döpmann, “Kyrillos und Methodios in ihrer Bedeutung für die Bulgaren”, pp. 313–27; Gjuzelev, Knjaz Boris pŭrvi, pp. 76–118; Gjuzelev, “Das Papsttum und Bulgarien im Mittelalter (9.–14. Jh.)”, pp. 175–99. Greek Sources on Bulgarian History, ed. Iliev, pp. 10–41; Vita of Saint Clement of Ohrid, ed. Milev; a partial German translation of the Vita Clementis is provided in Bujnoch, Zwischen Rom und Byzanz, pp. 135–65. See also Iliev, Sv. Kliment Ohridski; Obolensky, “Clement of Ohrid”, pp. 8–33; Podskalsky, “Zwei Erzbischöfe von Achrida (Ochrid)”, pp. 239–52; Popović, “Kliment von Ohrid”, pp. 494–500. Bulgarian Antiquities from Macedonia, ed. Ivanov, pp. 305–07. See also Filiposki, “Sveti Naum i negovite epiteti”, pp. 153–74. Bulgarian Antiquities from Macedonia, ed. Ivanov, pp. 322–27. Assemanianus Evangeliary, ed. Kurz. See also Grozdanov, “Mesecoslov Asemanovog jevandjelja”, pp. 13–27.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

155

(in 863). Clement received his monastic name from Saint Clement of Rome, whose relics had been discovered by Constantine-Cyril on the Crimea and had been taken to Rome (Church of S. Clemente). From 869 until 885 he remained in Great Moravia, which he had to leave under pressure from Latin missionaries coming from East Francia. Clement departed together with Naum, Angelarij, and Sava to Preslav in the First Bulgarian Empire. There, they instructed the future clergy, promoted, amongst others, at the wish of the Bulgarian rulers, the Old Slavonic language as the language of the Church, and made a groundbreaking contribution to the development of the Cyrillic alphabet. Around 887/88 Clement went to Bulgarian-ruled Macedonia in order to organize the life of the Church and to strengthen the newly converted Slavic population in its faith. He was a preacher, a teacher, and a writer, and became the bishop of Dremvitza and Velitza (today Veles?). One of the most important zones of his missionary activity included Ohrid and Glavinitza (now the site of Ballsh in Albania). In Ohrid, Clement erected the Church of Sveti Panteleimon (also known as Star Sveti Kliment) on the hill of Plaošnik on the foundations of early Christian basilicas. It is there, where he was buried after his death on 27 July (of the Julian calendar) 916. Clement is venerated as a saint in the Orthodox Church and is celebrated on two days (27 July and 25 November of the Julian calendar). His literary œuvre is manifold and includes praises to the principal feasts of the Church year, Church poetry, liturgical hymns, as well as translations of hagiographical texts from the Greek language.14 The veneration of Saint Clement is closely related to the question of the territorial extent of his diocese in the 9th/10th centuries. His diocese was mainly located between the towns of Veles and Ohrid, but seems also to have included parts of today’s Albania, for example Devol.15 However, the focus of the mission and of the culture of commemoration of Saint Clement of Ohrid is primarily linked to the hill of Plaošnik, which lies to the west of Ohrid’s old town (Varoš) and to the south of the fortress of Ohrid (Samuilova tvrdina), and which is at the same time his place of burial.16 Archbishop Theophylact of 14

15 16

Dujčev and Hannick, “11. Clemens v. Ochrid”, pp. 2146–48 (with extensive bibliography); Browning, “Kliment of Ohrid”, pp. 1133–34; Hahn, “Kliment Ochridski”, pp. 418–19; Popović, Žitija Svetih za juli, pp. 670–81; Popović, Žitija Svetih za novembar, p. 749; Ducellier, “Glavinitza”, p. 1494; Snegarov, “Les sources sur la vie et l’activité de Clément d’Ochrida”, pp. 79–115. A German translation of his literary œuvre can be found in Baumann, Die Faszination des Heiligen bei Kliment Ochridski. See also Matevski ed., Kliment Ohridski i ulogata na ohridskata kniževna škola. Delikari, Der hl. Klemens; Delikare, Η Αρχιεπισκοπή Αχριδών κατά τον μεσαίωνα. See, on the archaeological evidence, Apostolski et al. eds., Ohrid i Ohridsko niz istorijata vol. 1, pp. 175–246, vol. 2, pp. 298–99; Koco, “Klimentoviot manastir”, pp. 129–82; Nikolova,

156

Popović

Ohrid refers in his Vita Clementis to Saint Clement as the “new apostle Paul”, whose works he compared with the deeds of the apostle, and thus laid the foundation for a comprehensive local veneration of the saint. This worship is clearly reflected in the art from 916 (Clement’s death) until 1767 (the abolition of the archbishopric of Ohrid).17 Ohrid became the center of the artistic definition of the canon of the portrait of Saint Clement, whose oldest representation on a fresco was found in the Church of Sveta Sofija, that dates to about 1045.18 After long lasting wars and conflicts the rank of the patriarch of Bulgaria was finally recognized by Byzantium in a contract with Symeon’s successor Peter in October 927. But the patriarchate in Preslav did not have a long-lasting existence. In the spring of 971, the Byzantine emperor John I Tzimiskes (969– 76) conquered the city of Preslav and the east of the First Bulgarian Empire. That is why the patriarch had to seek refuge in the south-western part of the Bulgarian realm. Finally, he found a new see in Ohrid, which was subjugated by the Byzantine emperor Basil II in 1018. This conquest led to a substantial transformation in the ecclesiastical affairs of the Balkans. Basil II downgraded the patriarchate in Ohrid to an archbishopric, but at least the newly formed archbishopric was granted autocephaly beyond the direct canonical jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople, and was given authority over all former Bulgarian territories. The appointment of the archbishop, who was usually of Greek origin in the following years, was carried out by the Byzantine emperor (until 1453), while the election and consecration was done by the local synod of the diocese. 4

The Archbishopric of Ohrid

The year of the establishment of the archbishopric of the Byzantine province of Bulgaria with the see in Ohrid is considered to be the year 1019/20, when the Byzantine emperor Basil II conquered the town of Ohrid19 and issued three charters (in Greek sigillia), by which the legal state and the jurisdiction of the

17 18 19

Pravoslavnite cărkvi prez Bălgarskoto srednovekovie, pp. 152–55 (with extensive bibliography); Fingarova, Schellewald, and Soustal, “Ohrid”, pp. 161–353. Mullett, Theophylact of Ochrid; Obolensky, “Theophylact of Ohrid”, pp. 34–82; Popović, “Kliment von Ohrid”, pp. 494–500. Angeličin-Žura, “Dali vo Ohrid e otkrien katedralniot hram na Samuilovata patrijaršija?”, pp. 44–48. Györffy, “Zur Geschichte der Eroberung Ochrids durch Basileos II”, pp. 149–54; Novaković, “Ohridska arhiepiskopija u početku XI veka”, pp. 37–47; Papadopulos-Kerameus, “Συμβολὴ εἰς τὴν ἱστορίαν τῆς ἀρχιεπισκοπῆς ᾿Αχρίδος”, vol. 1, pp. 227–50.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

157

archbishopric were defined. The authenticity of these charters is still contested in the historiography.20 Nevertheless, John, most probably of Slavonic origin,21 is called archbishop in the first charter, a title which would be borne by his successors until the abolishment of the archbishopric in 1767. It reads as follows: “Therefore, we decided to confirm the most pious monk Ioannes to be archbishop of Bulgaria.”22 Basil II protected the archbishopric of Ohrid from internal and external influences. Thus, one can discern that the Byzantine emperor granted autocephaly to Ohrid and did not define the archbishopric as a continuation of the Bulgarian patriarchate. According to the abovementioned three charters, the archbishopric then had 32 dioceses, which often changed in number and in extent over the course of time depending on the political and military circumstances in the Balkans. The see of the archbishopric and many of its dioceses were located in the geographical territory of today’s North Macedonia. As has already been mentioned above, the archbishop of Ohrid was usually of Greek origin and his appointment was carried out by the Byzantine emperor, while the election and consecration was done by the local synod of the diocese. Often, the archbishops of Ohrid were chosen among the clergy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Although the archbishopric of Ohrid was autocephalous, the archbishop participated in the meetings of the synod in Constantinople.23 These interdependencies are attested by the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 14th century, for example for the years 136724 and 1394.25 The second archbishop of Ohrid was a Greek named Leo (1037–56).26 He is known to be the founder of the famous cathedral Church of Saint Sophia in 20

21 22 23 24 25 26

Edited in Bulgarian Antiquities from Macedonia, ed. Ivanov, pp. 550–62. On the authenticity of the sigillia, see Delekare, Η Αρχιεπισκοπή Αχριδών κατά τον μεσαίωνα; Konstantinou-Stergiadou, “Die Echtheit der Sigillia von Basilius II für das Erzbistum von Achrida”, pp. 265–84; Pirivatrić, Samuilova država, p. 99. See also Granić, “Kirchenrechtliche Glossen zu den vom Kaiser Basileios II”, pp. 395–415. Prokić, “Prvi Ohridski arhiepiskop Jovan”, pp. 267–303. “Ἐντεῦθεν οὖν καὶ τὸν εὐλαβέστατον μοναχὸν Ἰωάννην ἀρχιεπίσκοπον Βουλγαρίας ἐκυρώσαμεν εἶναι”: Bulgarian Antiquities from Macedonia, ed. Ivanov, p. 550 (my translation). Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 70–72. See also Prokić, “Postanak Ohridskog patrijarhata”, pp. 175–267; Snegarov, Istorija na Ohridskata arhiepiskopija; Tăpkova-Zaimova, “Entre Ochrid et Tirnovo”, pp. 25–37. Acta patriarchatus 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, no. 234, pp. 491–93; cf. also Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2524, pp. 439–40. Acta patriarchatus 2, eds. Miklosich and Müller, no. 477, pp. 230–31; cf. also Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2975, pp. 245–46. Büttner, Erzbischof Leon von Ohrid (1037–1056). A list of the archbishops from the 11th until the 14th centuries is provided in Prinzing, “The autocephalous Byzantine ecclesiastical

158

Popović

Ohrid.27 It was under Archbishop John Komnenos in the second half of the 12th century that the above-mentioned archbishopric of Iustiniana Prima of the 6th century was intentionally included in the title of the archbishops of Ohrid in order to postulate a seeming ecclesiastical tradition and continuation of, in reality, two different spiritual centers, the title being: ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Πρώτης Ἰουστινιανῆς καὶ πάσης Βουλγαρίας (archbishop of Iustiniana Prima and all Bulgaria).28 The conquest of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders in 1204 and the expansion of the Serbian and Bulgarian empires reduced the jurisdiction of the archbishopric of Ohrid to a great extent, but yet it did not disintegrate.29 In 1273, the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos issued a chrysobull in favor of the archbishopric of Ohrid by confirming its initial rights given by his predecessor Basil II.30 This step has to be viewed from the perspective of the struggle between the Byzantine, Serbian, and Bulgarian empires in the southern Balkan peninsula. From the second half of the 14th century, the inclusion of the name of Ohrid in the designation of the archbishopric is attested in the following form: “ἀρχιεπισκοπὴ Πρώτης Ἰουστινιανῆς Αχριδῶν καὶ πάσης Βουλγαρίας” (“archbishopric of Iustiniana Prima, of Ohrid, and all Bulgaria”).31 Between the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the archbishopric of Ohrid times of conflict and times of reconciliation alternated in the centuries to follow until the fall of Byzantium to the Ottomans. In a correspondence between the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the autocephalous archbishop of Ohrid, and the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) from the period around 1411, it is possible to discern how the Ecumenical Patriarch accused the archbishop of Ohrid to have dared to make an encroachment on the territory of the patriarchate of Constantinople by consecrating the metropolitans of Sofia and of Vidin:

27 28

29 30 31

province”, pp. 379–82. A list of the archbishops from the 14th until the 18th centuries can be found in Angeličin-Žura, Poglavari na Ohridskata crkva, pp. 39–52. Fingarova, Schellewald, and Soustal, “Ohrid”, pp. 202–17. Demetrios Chomatenos, Works, ed. Prinzing, pp. 3*–45* (introduction); Gelzer, Das Patriarchat von Achrida; Prinzing, “The autocephalous Byzantine ecclesiastical province”, p. 363 (with additional bibliography on this specific issue). See also Naxidou, “An aspect of the medieval history of the archbishopric of Ohrid”, pp. 153–67; Pavlikianov, “Unknown Byzantine document”, pp. 227–45; Popović, “Titulatura ohridskog arhiepiskopa”, pp. 279– 85; Zlatarski, “Prima Justiniana im Titel”, pp. 484–89. Ferjančić, “Avtokefalnost Srpske crkve”, pp. 65–72; Georgiev, “Văprosi iz istorijata na Ohridskata arhiepiskopija”, pp. 167–75. Müller, “Zur Datierung”, pp. 427–32. Prinzing, “The autocephalous Byzantine ecclesiastical province”, p. 364.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

159

Beloved Brother and co-celebrant of my modesty, grace and the peace of God be with you. Certain tidings reached us in connection with which we find it difficult to believe that it is so because of the excess of wickedness. We have namely heard that, taking advantage of your authority, you have encroached on our territory and consecrated a metropolitan in Sofia and another in Bidyne [i.e., Vidin].32 The archbishop responded that he had carried out the consecration of the two metropolitans in accordance with canon law. Moreover, due to the attacks by foreign peoples, the archbishops of Ohrid had not been able to travel to Constantinople. It was Archbishop Matthew (1407/08–10), the predecessor of the author of the letter, who had shown the chrysobull of the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos from 1273 (see above) to the Ecumenical Patriarch and his synod as well as to the ruling Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos.33 The archbishop urged the emperor to remember this very chrysobull and bring the dispute within the Church to an end.34 Similar struggles continued in the centuries to come, until inner conflicts in the archbishopric of Ohrid and its significant debts led to a mounting pressure by the Ottoman authorities. For example, Archbishop Abraham of Ohrid addressed a letter to the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire Ferdinand II of Habsburg (1619–37) in 1629, in which he presented himself as Patriarcha Achridonensis, Primae Justinianae, Serviae, Bulgariae, Albaniae et caetera and asked for imperial support because the Ottoman authorities had confiscated his ecclesiastical belongings.35 Finally, the Ottoman sultan Mustafa III (1757–74) decreed in 1767 that all dioceses of the archbishopric of Ohrid shall be united with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and that the latter shall take on the debts of the archbishopric owed to the Ottoman administration. Thus, the story and history of the archbishopric of Ohrid ended after nearly 750 years since its foundation.36 It can hardly be a coincidence that the ‘Macedonian Orthodox Church’, which was established in 1967, places

32 33 34 35 36

Prinzing, “Emperor Manuel II and Patriarch Euthymios II”, p. 257. Ibid., pp. 261–65. Ibid., pp. 267–71. Austrian State Archives, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Reichshofrat, Gratialia et Feudalia, Patentes und Steckbriefe 1 A–F. Jovan, Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skopje, Brief History of the Ohrid Archbishopric, pp. 54–56.

160

Popović

itself within the tradition of the former autocephalous ecclesiastical province of Ohrid.37 5

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Second Bulgarian Empire

In the summer of 1185, the brothers Peter (Theodore) and Asen initiated a rebellion against the Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelos (1185–95, 1203/04) and restored Bulgarian statehood by establishing the Second Bulgarian Empire.38 They originated from a noble Bulgaro-Cuman family, which had large estates around Veliko Tărnovo. The uprising was therefore supported by their fellow Cumans north of the river Danube.39 But the Vlachs also had their share in the successful outcome of the rebellion, which becomes obvious by the fact that the Bulgarian rulers entitled themselves as the tsars of “Bulgarians and Vlachs”.40 The new center of the Bulgarian realm became the town of Veliko Tărnovo, which was extracted from the suzerainty of the archbishopric of Ohrid and where the brothers installed one of their followers, called Vasilij, as archbishop. Bulgaria experienced a first wave of expansion to the south and south-west under Kaloyan (1197–1207), the brother of Peter and Asen, who was seeking an agreement with Rome on the eve of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Archbishop Vasilij of Veliko Tărnovo was consecrated by the papal legate and cardinal Leo in 1204, which made him the Bulgarorum et Blachorum primas, although he regarded himself as patriarch of the Bulgarian Church. Kaloyan agreed to a Church union with Pope Innocent III († 1216) and was thereupon crowned by the legate of the Curia. After the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, Kaloyan came into conflict with them and defeated them at Adrianople (Edirne) in 1205. Although the relations between Bulgaria

37

38 39 40

For this very controversial topic within the Orthodox Church, see Belčovski, “Stranskite istražuvači za Ohridskata arhiepiskopija”, pp. 203–18; Ilievski, Makedonsko-srpskite crkovni odnosi 1944–1970; Jovan, Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skopje, Brief History, pp. 70–95; Kraft, “Die Religionsgemeinschaften in Makedonien”, pp. 339–76; Nikolić, Ekumenski odnosi Srpske pravoslavne i Rimokatoličke crkve; Prinzing, “Die umstrittene Selbständigkeit der Makedonischen Orthodoxen Kirche”, pp. 31–43. Kajmakamova, Vlast i istorija v srednovekovna Bălgarija; Nystazopoulou-Pélékidou, “La domination byzantine en Bulgarie”, pp. 13–23; Prinzing, “Demetrios-Kirche und Aseniden-Aufstand”, pp. 257–65; Radić, “Oblasni gospodari u Vizantiji”, pp. 172–92. Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars, pp. 13–56. Božilov, Familijata na Asenevci (1186–1460), p. 17.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

161

and the Curia remained friendly in the aftermath, the Church union was formally ended in 1232.41 Following the death of Kaloyan, the new Bulgarian tsar, Ivan Asen II (1218– 41), replaced Byzantine bishops with Bulgarian clergy in several cities, and even tried to insinuate Thessaloniki and Mount Athos to ‘his’ patriarchate in Veliko Tărnovo. Ivan Asen II came to an agreement with the Empire of Nicaea, where the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople had resided in exile since 1208. In spring 1235, the Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos II, as well as the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, consented de facto to the recognition of the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and to grant the title of patriarch to its spiritual leader according to his ‘old’ rank within the Mediterranean system of the pentarchy.42 This very pentarchy had been described by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I in his novel 109 (preface) in the first half of the 6th century as follows: … member of God’s holy catholic and apostolic church, in which all the most holy patriarchs of the whole inhabited world (the Western Rome, this sovereign city, Alexandria, Theoupolis [Antioch] and Jerusalem), and all the most holy bishops under them, unanimously proclaim the apostolic faith and tradition.43 In return for the concession of Patriarch Germanos II, the Bulgarian side accepted the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over Thessaloniki and Mount Athos. The interpretation of this agreement by Germanos II appears in a passage of the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from 1360/62 as follows: … to the honored archpriest of the Bulgarian people our all holiness Germanos II did not cede entire autocephaly in a tomos, but he has to continue to pay tribute, that is dues and taxes, to the patriarch, who has 41 42 43

Gjuzelev, “Das Papsttum und Bulgarien im Mittelalter”, pp. 34–58; Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 70–79. Koder, “Die räumlichen Vorstellungen”, pp. 15–34; Koder, “Zu den Folgen der Gründung einer zweiten Reichshauptstadt”, pp. 1–18; Schmalzbauer, “Überlegungen zur Idee der Oikumene in Byzanz”, pp. 408–19; Chrysos, Το Βυζάντιο ως Οικουμένη. “… μέλος τῆς ἁγίας τοῦ θεοῦ καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, ἐν ᾗ πάντες ὁμοφώνως οἱ ἁγιώτατοι πάσης τῆς οἰκουμένης πατριάρχαι, ὅ τε τῆς ἑσπερίας Ῥώμης καὶ ταύτης τῆς βασιλίδος πόλεως καὶ Ἀλεξανδρείας καὶ Θεουπόλεως καὶ Ἱεροσολύμων, καὶ πάντες οἱ ὑπ’ αὐτοὺς τεταγμένοι ὁσιώτατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὴν ἀποστολικὴν κηρύττουσι πίστιν τε καὶ παράδοσιν.”: Justinian, Novels, nov. 109, eds. Schöll and Kroll, p. 518, trans. Miller and Sarris, The Novels, p. 712.

162

Popović

honored him, and to mention his name in the liturgy, as metropolitans subordinated to Constantinople do, and he will be put on trial at a court, if at any time one of the future archpriests is found guilty of evading the payment of tribute.44 As a consequence, the recognition of the Patriarchate of Veliko Tărnovo by the Empire of Nicaea led to an extraction of the territory of the diocese of Bulgaria from the jurisdiction of the archbishopric of Ohrid. Following the autocephaly of the Serbian Church in 1219, this was a second, severe blow to the canonical territory of the famous Archbishop Demetrios Chomatenos of Ohrid. But in 1273, the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos renewed the rights for Ohrid, which had originally been granted by the Byzantine emperor Basil II in 1019/20.45 When a Papal envoy named Paul met the monk Joasaph—that is the former Byzantine emperor John VI Kantakouzenos—in Constantinople in 1367, the latter stated that a convocation for an ecumenical council has to be regarded as a precondition for the union with the Western Church, and that among the Orthodox Church leaders, which therefore have to be invited, the patriarch of Veliko Tărnovo and the archbishop of Serbia have to be taken into account.46 The Ottoman conquest of the Bulgarian tsardom, in particular the capital Veliko Tărnovo in 1393, forced the Bulgarian patriarch Evtimij to flee to the monastery of Bačkovo, to the south of Plovdiv, where he died around 1403. As a consequence, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople took over the canonical jurisdiction of the Bulgarian lands.47 This state of affairs lasted until the year 1870, when the Bulgarian exarchate was established by the Ottoman administration as part of the Bulgarian national awakening in the Balkans. Conditions for the restoration of the Bulgarian patriarchate and the election of a head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were only set after World War II. In 1945, the schism was lifted, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople recognized the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.48 44 45 46 47 48

Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 264, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, Kresten, p. 568, lines 75–81 (my translation); see also Gjuzelev, “Bulgarien und das Kaiserreich von Nikaia”, pp. 143–54. Müller, “Zur Datierung”, pp. 427–32; Prinzing, “A quasi patriarch in the state of Epiros”, pp. 165–81. Meyendorff, “Projets de Concile oecuménique a. 1367”, pp. 147–77; see also Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2524, and Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 234, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 491–93. Tachiaos, “Die Aufhebung des bulgarischen Patriarchats von Tirnovo”, pp. 67–82; Prinzing, “Kaiser Manuel II. Palaiologos und die kirchliche Jurisdiktion in Bulgarien”, pp. 115–19. Döpmann, Kirche in Bulgarien von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, pp. 48–54; Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 169–70.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

6

163

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Church of Serbia

The Christianization of the Serbs took place in the period from the 7th to the 9th centuries. The Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913– 59) reports in his De administrando imperio two versions of the events. The first version informs us that the Serbs were baptized during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Herakleios (610–41), while the second states that the baptism took place under the Byzantine emperor Basil I (867–86).49 The spreading of Christianity among the south Slavs can be dated to the late 7th and the middle of the 8th centuries.50 It seems that the Christianization of the Serbs had been a long process from the 7th until the 9th centuries, but was completed before the middle of the 9th century, and was pursued to a significant extent by the Church of Rome.51 In May 873, Pope John VIII (872–82) tried to establish his episcopal jurisdiction over Serbian lands,52 but it seems very probable that Serbian areas were attached to the patriarchate of Constantinople in the last quarter of the 9th century.53 During the reign of the Bulgarian tsar Peter (927–69) the autocephalous Bulgarian Church enthroned its own bishops in the Morava-Vardar valley as well as in the region of Ras.54 The Notitia episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae no. 10 (after 971) mentions the bishopric of Dioclea together with the bishoprics of Antivari, Scutari, Drivasto, Pulati, and Gradac as part of the metropolis of Durazzo of the patriarchate of Constantinople.55 Literacy among the Serbs was spread by the pupils of the ‘Apostles of the Slavs’, the Saints Cyril and Methodius, in the last quarter of the 9th and the first half of the 10th centuries.56 49

50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De administrando imperio, ch. 29, ed. Moravscik, trans. Jenkins, pp. 124–26, lines 68–84; ch. 32, p. 154, lines 27–29; Theophanes continuatus, Vita Basilii, ch. 52, ed. Ševčenko, p. 188, lines 6–14; ch. 54, pp. 194–96, lines 1–29. See also Antonović, “Evangelizacija Srbije u srednjem veku do Sv. Save”, vol. 1, pp. 565– 81; Komatina, Crkvena politika, pp. 261–66; Maksimović, “The Christianization of the Serbs and the Croats”, pp. 167–84; Maksimović, Η εθνογένεση των Σέρβων στον Μεσαίωνα; Maksimović, “Pokrštavanje Srba i Hrvata”, pp. 155–74; Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 62–64; Popović, “Die Gesandtschaften des byzantinischen Kaisers Basileios I. zu den Serben”, pp. 103–08; Radojičić, “La date de la conversion des Serbes”, pp. 253–56; Živković, “On the baptism of the Serbs and the Croats”, pp. 35–38. Komatina, Crkvena politika, p. 272; Maksimović, “Pokrštavanje Srba i Hrvata”, p. 171. Komatina, Crkvena politika, pp. 272–83; Maksimović, “Pokrštavanje Srba i Hrvata”, p. 163. Komatina, Crkvena politika, pp. 276–82. Komatina, Crkva i država, pp. 48–50; Živković, Crkvena organizacija u srpskim zemljama. Bistümerverzeichnis, ed. Gelzer, p. 43, lines 14–33; p. 44, line 13–p. 45, line 13. Notitiae episcopatuum, no. 10, ed. Darrouzès, p. 330, lines 607–23. Trifunović, Ka počecima srpske pismenosti, pp. 71–115.

164

Popović

In the wake of the controversy between Patriarch Michael Keroularios and Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in July 1054, Serbian lands experienced a religious division. Its interior part belonged to the archbishopric of Bulgaria, and from 1019/20 to the archbishopric of Ohrid, while the coastal regions were attached to the archbishopric of Ragusa of the Roman Church.57 7

The Nemanjid Dynasty

After the death of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1143–80) the grand prince (Veliki Župan) Stefan Nemanja of Ras succeeded in uniting his territories with the region of Zeta (today Montenegro), shaking off Byzantine suzerainty. He founded the Nemanjid dynasty in Serbian lands, which would reign continuously until the year 1371. In spring 1196, he abdicated voluntarily in favor of his son Stefan the First-Crowned (1196–1228) and retired to the monastery of Studenica, which he had endowed. As monk Simeon, who is venerated as a saint by the Serbian Orthodox Church (13th/26th February), he spent a part of his monastic life on Mount Athos.58 Together with his son Rastko, who later became known as Saint Sava, he founded the Serbian monastery of Chilandar on Mount Athos in 1198.59 Although Stefan the First-Crowned had received his crown by a Papal emissary in 1217, and thus his nickname, Saint Sava had achieved, two years later (1219), the acknowledgement of the foundation of a Serbian archbishopric, its canonical status of autocephaly was recognized, and he was enthroned as its first archbishop by Patriarch Manuel I. For this reason Saint Sava travelled in person to Nicaea in Asia Minor in order to undertake the necessary negotiations, where the Ecumenical Patriarch had established his see after the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204.60 57 58

59

60

Komatina, Crkva i država, pp. 68–123. On Holy Mount Athos, see Müller, Berg Athos; Müller, Treasures of Mount Athos. On Zeta, see Antonović, “Od Duklje do Zete”, pp. 85–94; Blagojević, “Nemanjići i državnost Duklje-Zete-Crne Gore”, pp. 7–24; Kalić, “Episkopski gradovi Srbije u srednjem veku”, pp. 433–47. For the life of Saint Sava, see Đurić ed., Međunarodni naučni skup Sava Nemanjić; Obolensky, “Sava of Serbia”, pp. 115–72; Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 86–89, 366– 82. For the monastery of Chilandar, see Bogdanović, Đurić, and Medaković eds., Hilandar; Subotić ed., Manastir Hilandar, among numerous other publications. Ferjančić, “Avtokefalnost Srpske crkve”, pp. 65–72; Ferjančić and Maksimović, “Sava Nemanjić and Serbia between Epiros and Nicaea”, pp. 37–54; Kalić, “Crkvene prilike u srpskim zemljama”, pp. 27–53.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

165

Until this very far-reaching moment in Church history in the Balkans, Serbian lands were canonically attached to the archbishopric of Ohrid, which consisted of three eparchies, namely Ras, Prizren, and Lipljan. Saint Sava gave an important incentive to the development of religious life in his homeland, and thus created the spiritual basis for the medieval Serbian kingdom, whereas his father Stefan Nemanja had established the political foundations. Saint Sava organized the administration of the Serbian archbishopric, appointed the most capable monks of the monastery of Chilandar as bishops, and established eight new eparchies, namely Žiča, Zeta, Hvosno, Hum, Toplica, Budimlja, Dabar, and Moravica. Each eparchy had a monastery as a see, while the monastery of Žiča was elevated to the see of the Serbian archbishops in 1219. In 1221, a state council (sabor)61 was convoked in Žiča, during which Saint Sava crowned his brother Stefan the first Serbian king. He enriched religious life during his archbishopric by travelling twice to the Holy Land (1229 and 1234/36).62 He died during his second pilgrimage and was buried in Veliko Tărnovo. In May 1237, the Serbian king Stefan Vladislav transferred his relics to the monastery of Mileševa, where they rested until their incineration by the Ottomans in 1594.63 8

The Serbian Archbishopric from 1236 until 1346

Altogether 11 archbishops succeeded Saint Sava until the year 1346. In 1253, the Tatar-Cuman invasion led to a relocation of the see of the Serbian archbishopric from the monastery of Žiča to the monastery of Peć.64 Henceforth, Peć served as a mausoleum for the Serbian archbishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs. Two of the most prominent archbishops, following Saint Sava, were Nikodim and Danilo II in the 14th century, who were also writers and translators.65 In the wake of the Serbian expansion into Byzantine Macedonia at the end of the 13th and in the first third of the 14th century,66 new epar61 62 63 64 65 66

For the state councils in the medieval Serbian kingdom, see Radojčić, Srpski državni sabori u srednjem veku, pp. 83–157; Blagojević, “Srpski sabori i sabori otačastva Nemanjića i Lazarevića”, pp. 1–40. Marković, Prvo putovanje Svetog Save u Palestinu. Blagojević, “O spornim mitropolijama”, p. 360; Janković, Episkopije, pp. 17–33; Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 87–89; Popović, Srpska crkva, pp. 12–21; Purković, Srpska kultura srednjega veka, pp. 54–56. Uzelac, Pod senkom Psa. Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 387–403, 410. Maksimović, “Makedonija u politici srednjovekovne Srbije”, pp. 29–50; the same article has also been published in Greek: Maksimović, “Η βυζαντινή Μακεδονία”, pp. 261–85.

166

Popović

chies were established by the Serbian Church, namely Končula, Lim, Mačva, Braničevo, Belgrade, Debar, and Skopje.67 In January 1301, Charles Count of Valois, the brother of the French king Philippe IV le Bel (1285–1314), married Catherine I of Courtenay, the granddaughter of the last Latin emperor of Constantinople, Baldwin II of Courtenay (1240–61), and consequently the titular empress of Constantinople. This had far-reaching consequences for the Byzantine Empire, because Charles of Valois had the aim to re-establish the Latin Empire in Constantinople, and he began to pave the way for powerful alliances as well as to collect money for the military campaign to come.68 From his perspective, one of his preferential partners had to be the Serbian King Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282–1321). That is why both political and religious contacts between West and East intensified from 1301. On 23 December 1303, Pope Benedict XI wrote a letter to Milutin urging him towards the union of Churches. When Raymond Bertrand de Got became Pope Clement V in 1305 and moved the Curia away from Rome, ushering in the period known as the Avignon Papacy, the diplomatic and pending military pressure on the Byzantine Empire, as well as on south-eastern Europe, were rising. That is why King Milutin decided to take the initiative and to send an embassy to the Pope and to Charles of Valois. He named the Latin-speaking Marko Lukarić and Trifun Mihailović as emissaries, who travelled to France at the beginning of the year 1308, and met Clement V in Poitiers. They expressed their ruler’s wish to achieve union with the Church of Rome and to receive protection from the Pope, which they confirmed by handing over a personal letter of Milutin to the Pope. This letter is not preserved, but we have Clement V’s answer to Milutin. The Pope decided to send Patriarch Egidius of Grado, the Dominican Lapo, and the Franciscan Artinisius to Serbia in order to implement the union of the Serbian Orthodox Church with Rome. Moreover, he named the Franciscan Gregory of Kotor and the Dominican Henry of Rimini as personal advisors to the Serbian king. In his answer, Clement V sent a creed to Milutin, his clergy and his subjects, and defined the preconditions of the union. Milutin’s emissaries left Poitiers and continued their journey to Charles Count of Valois, whom they met in the Monastery of Notre-Dame du Lys in Dammarie-les-Lys, to the south of Paris, in March 1308. Marko Lukarić and Trifun Mihailović handed

67 68

Blagojević, “O spornim mitropolijama”, p. 360. Moranvillé, “Les projets de Charles de Valois”, pp. 63–86; Petit, Charles de Valois (1270–1325).

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

167

over to him a letter of Milutin, in which the king proposed a French-Serbian alliance for the conquest of the Byzantine Empire.69 On 27 March 1308, Charles of Valois and the Serbian emissaries concluded a treaty in the Latin language concerning the partition of areas of influence in the case of the re-establishment of the Latin Empire in Constantinople. In accordance with its dispositions, the Serbian king would have received territories up to the line of the Deber (Debar), Prilep (Prilep), Prisec (Prosek), Ouciepoullie (Ovče Pole), and Stip (Štip). This geographical outline in the treaty enables us to identify the approximate border zones between the Byzantine Empire and Serbian lands at that time. The emissaries returned to King Milutin in the summer of the year 1308 and the ruler himself ratified the treaty on 25 July 1308. However, the close ties between France and Serbia did not last for long. When the Serbian side found out that Catherine I of Courtenay had died in October 1307, that Charles of Valois had changed his political ambitions towards Germany after the death of Albert I of Habsburg (1282–1308) in 1308, and that Venice had come into conflict with the Papacy in Avignon in 1309, Stefan Uroš II Milutin decided to bring his policy of appeasement towards the Pope and France to an abrupt end. This fact testifies to his pragmatic approach regarding the union with the Church of Rome, and led, as a consequence, to Serbia’s definitive cultural orientation towards Byzantium.70 The greatest extent of the Serbian medieval kingdom was reached during the reign of Stefan Uroš IV Dušan (1331–55), who conquered the Byzantine territories of Macedonia, Epirus, and Thessaly.71 The following metropolises fell under Serbian influence, which at that time were subordinate to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, namely: Berroia, Christupolis, Melenikos, Philippoi, Serres and Zichnai in Macedonia, Larissa in Thessaly, and Ioannina in Epirus. Many metropolitans were able to keep their sees; others, like in Serres, were replaced by Serbian clergymen.72

69 70 71

72

Mavromatis, “La Serbie de Milutin”, pp. 120–50; Purković, Avinjonske pape i srpske zemlje, pp. 8–19. Kral Milutin, ed. Mavromatis, pp. 123–36 (Appendix II); Uzelac and Radovanović, “Crkvena i svetovna politika kralja Milutina”, pp. 593–608. Ferjančić and Ćirković, Stefan Dušan, kralj i car (1331–1335); Soulis, The Serbs and Byzantium during the Reign of Tsar Stephen Dušan; Steindorff, “Zar Stefan Dušan von Serbien”, pp. 183–203; for church history from 1236 until 1346, see Janković, Episkopije, pp. 35–60; Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 87–89; Popović, Srpska crkva, pp. 21–24. Blagojević, “O spornim mitropolijama”, p. 362.

168 9

Popović

The Foundation of the Serbian Patriarchate and Its Relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople

The intention of Stefan Uroš IV Dušan to be crowned emperor, had as a consequence the arbitrary elevation of the Serbian archbishopric to the rank of a patriarchate, in order to create the required legitimacy. On Easter 1346 a council took place in Skopje, during which, by the wish of King Dušan, the Serbian archbishop Joanikije II was named patriarch; he then crowned King Dušan emperor.73 The archbishopric of Ohrid, which had become with its dioceses territorially an integral part of the Serbian Empire, kept its autocephaly, and its archbishop received the honor to be second in rank after the Serbian patriarch.74 The dioceses of Ras, Zeta, Prizren, and Skopje were elevated to metropolises, and Skopje received amongst them the highest rank as the most prominent Serbian imperial residence. A reaction from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople did not take long. Most probably in autumn 1350, Patriarch Kallistos I of Constantinople banished the Serbian emperor as well as the Serbian patriarch and his clergy.75 A reconciliation between the two Churches was not achieved during the lifetime of Stefan Uroš IV Dušan. After his death in 1355 his empire disintegrated into numerous local dominions, which were ruled by his noblemen.76 In 1363, Patriarch Kallistos I travelled to Dušan’s widow Jelena in an attempt to overcome the schism, but he died at her court in Serres during his mission in June 1364.77 In the 14th century, Serbian rulers and noblemen were influential donors and benefactors of Mount Athos,78 which led to the repeated election of Serbian protoi (i.e. heads) of the Athos, for example of a certain Antony (1348)79 and a certain Dorotheos (1356–66).80 73

74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Ćirković, “Between kingdom and empire”, pp. 110–20; Ćirković, “Srbija i Carstvo”, pp. 143– 53; Dinić, “Dušanova carska titula”, pp. 87–118; Dinić, “Srpska vladarska titula za vreme carstva”, pp. 9–19; Ferjančić, “Vizantija prema srpskom carstvu”, pp. 155–71; Maksimović, “Grci i Romanija u srpskoj vladarskoj tituli”, pp. 61–78; Maksimović, “Srpska carska titula”, pp. 173–89; Maksimović, “L’empire de Stefan Dušan”, pp. 415–28; Maksimović, “Srbija i ideja univerzalnog carstva”, pp. 371–77; Pirivatrić, “Ulazak Stefana Dušana u Carstvo”, pp. 381–409; Purković, Srpski episkopi i mitropoliti srednjeg veka; Purković, Srpski patrijarsi srednjega veka. Blagojević, “O spornim mitropolijama”, pp. 365–66; Janković, Episkopije, p. 61–62. Mošin, “Sv. patrijarh Kalist i Srpska crkva”, pp. 192–206; Mešanović, “Još jednom o Kalistovoj anatemi”, pp. 221–32; Janković, “Nove karakteristike”, pp. 80–81; Blagojević, “O spornim mitropolijama”, pp. 361–62. Mihaljčić, Kraj srpskog carstva. PLP, no. 6006; Purković, Jelena, žena cara Dušana, p. 21. Korać, “Sveta Gora pod srpskom vlašću”, pp. 15–179. PLP, no. 91,253. PLP, no. 5946.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

169

In 1368 the Serbian local ruler in Serres, Despot Jovan Uglješa,81 undertook an initiative in order to reconcile the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and thus overcome the schism. A letter of Jovan Uglješa, dated to March 1368, is preserved in the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in which he suggested that the metropolises in the territory of his dominion— among them the metropolises of Drama, Christupolis, Serres, and Zichnai— should be handed over to the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. He also said that Stefan Uroš IV Dušan had taken iniquitous steps concerning the elevation of the Serbian archbishopric to the rank of a patriarchate: Because of the fact that the late Stephanos Ureses, who called himself emperor of Serbia and the Romania and had acted presumptuously due to the importance of his dignity and the extent of his power, did not only look with voracious eyes at foreign towns, which did not belong to him, use force against those, who had never committed injustice, and stripped those mercilessly of their Roman freedom and communion, who had grown, lived and thrived in it, but extended the injustice also on heavenly things and tried to trespass nastily the ancient statutes of the church, in addition to the limitations defined by the Fathers, to separate and cut them unjustly … installed single-handedly and uncanonically a Patriarch, wrested many Metropoles impudently from the catholic church of Christ and gave them to the aforesaid Patriarch.82 However, the reconciliation of Churches in this part of the Balkan peninsula did not materialize immediately. Only in May 1371 did Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos and his synod officially announced the union with the dioceses under the rule of Jovan Uglješa by declaring: Many years ago the mother of the churches, the most holy and catholic Great Church of Christ, was deprived of its own metropoles in the territory of Serbia, which had always belonged to her, when the former king of the Serbs, the deceased Stephanos, took the territory of the Romans and separated the churches from the catholic Church and mother, gave them to the archbishop of Peć and Serbia and made them subject to his 81 82

For his dominion, see Ostrogorski, Serska oblast posle Dušanove smrti. Acta patriarchatus 1, eds Miklosich and Müller, no. 306, pp. 560–64 (my translation). See also Petrović, “Povelja—pismo despota Jovana Uglješe”, pp. 29–51; Rigo, “La missione di Teofane di Nicea”, pp. 113–27; Rigo, “La politica religiosa degli ultimi Nemanja in Grecia”, pp. 203–23.

170

Popović

parish … [but] the most beatific lord of Serbia, Ioannes Ugljesa, who became ruler of a region, which is to be found in the vicinity of our territories, a discreet and noble man, of good ethos and conscience and God-fearing wanted to unite these churches again with their own mother and head of the churches and put his aim forward with remarkable zeal to our modesty and to the assembled holy and great synod of the most holy clergy.83 But these ecclesiastical developments were overtaken by the political and military facts of the day, when the brothers Despot Jovan Uglješa and King Vukašin were defeated by Ottoman forces near Černomen at the shores of the river Marica in September 1371 and lost their lives, which paved the way for the Ottoman expansion into Thrace and Macedonia.84 The Ottoman incursions and pending conquest of the Balkans without doubt accelerated the reconciliation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Serbian Church. Through the mediation of a delegation of Athonite monks, the Serbian prince Lazar Hrebeljanović and the Serbian patriarch Sava IV on the one side, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on the other, achieved a definitive solution, which brought an end to the schism.85 10

The End of Serbian Statehood and the Serbian Patriarchate

After the battle of Kosovo Polje in June 1389, which ended with the death of Prince Lazar Hrebeljanović and Sultan Murad I (1360–89), most Serbian local rulers and noblemen became Ottoman vassals. Due to the ongoing Ottoman expansion, Despot Stefan Lazarević (1389–1427), Prince Lazar’s son, relocated the core area of his dominion to the north to the shores of the river Danube, and developed the city of Belgrade into his new center.86 His successor, Despot Djuradj Branković (1427–56), strictly opposed the Union of Ferrara and Florence in 1438/39.87

83 84 85 86 87

Acta patriarchatus 1, eds Miklosich and Müller, no. 300, pp. 553–55 (my translation). See also Hunger, “Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel”, pp. 117–36. For the battle, with hints to further literature, see Popović, “Entscheidung an der Marica 1371”, pp. 22–23. Barišić, “O izmirenju srpske i vizantijske crkve 1375”, pp. 159–82; Bogdanović, “Izmirenje srpske i vizantijske crkve”, pp. 81–91. Purković, Knez i despot Stefan Lazarević. Spremić, “Srbi i Florentinska unija crkava 1439. godine”, pp. 413–22.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

171

The expansion of the Ottoman Empire towards the Danube led to a considerable transformation of the structure and administration of the Serbian Church in the first half of the 15th century. In this way new metropolises were established alongside the traditional ones, namely: Zeta, Raška, Hvosno, Lim, Toplica, Budimlja, Mileševo-Dabar, Moravica-Arilje, Lipljan-Gračanica, Prizren, Gradac, Končul, Belgrade, Braničevo-Smederevo, and Srebrenica. The see of the patriarch was moved from Peć to Žiča, then to Belgrade, and finally to Smederevo. In 1459, the Ottomans conquered the fortress of Smederevo, where Arsenije II was residing as the last patriarch. After that, regular elections of new patriarchs were not possible due to the political circumstances, so the ecclesiastical influence of the archbishopric of Ohrid rose again.88 A new chapter in Serbian Church history began in the year 1557, when the Serbian patriarchate in Peć was re-established on the initiative of the Ottoman grand vizier, of Serbian origin, Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, also known as Mehmed Paša Sokolović (c.1505–79).89 Bibliography Primary Sources

Acta patriarchatus 1–2, eds. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1860, 1862). Assemanianus Evangeliary, ed. J. Kurz, Evangeliář Assemanův. Kodex Vatikánský 3. Slovanský (Codex Vaticanus Slavicus 3). Díl II Úvod, text v přepise cyrilském, poznámky textové, seznamy čtení (Prague, 1955). Bistümerverzeichnis, ed. H. Gelzer, “Ungedruckte und wenig bekannte Bistümerverzeichnisse der orientalischen Kirche II”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2 (1893), 22–72. Bujnoch, J., Zwischen Rom und Byzanz. Leben und Wirken der Slavenapostel Kyrillos und Methodios nach den Pannonischen Legenden und der Klemensvita. Bericht von der Taufe Rußlands nach der Laurentiuschronik (Slavische Geschichtsschreiber 1) (Graz, 1958; repr. Graz, 1972). Bulgarian Antiquities from Macedonia, ed. J. Ivanov, Bălgarski starini iz Makedonija (Sofia, 1931; repr. Sofia, 1970). Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De administrando imperio, ed. G. Moravcsik, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, trans. R.J.H. Jenkins (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantine 1) (Washington, D.C., 1967). 88 89

Janković, Episkopije, pp. 61–100; Podskalsky, Theologische Literatur, pp. 89–93; Popović, Srpska crkva, pp. 24–38. Samardjitch, Mehmed Sokolovitch.

172

Popović

Demetrios Chomatenos, Works, ed. G. Prinzing, Demetrii Chomateni ponemata diaphora (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 38) (Berlin, 2002). Greek Sources on Bulgarian History, ed. I.G. Iliev, Grăcki izvori za Bălgarskata istorija 9.2 (Izvori za Bălgarskata istorija 30) (Sofia, 1994). Hierokles, Synekdemos, ed. E. Honigmann, Le synekdèmos d’Hiéroklès et l’opuscule géographique de Georges de Chypre (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae, Forma Imperii Byzantini 1) (Brussels, 1939). Justinian, Novels, eds. R. Schöll and G. Kroll, Novellae (Corpus Iuris Civilis 3) (Berlin, 1895; repr. Hildesheim, 1993); English trans. D.J.D. Miller and P. Sarris, The Novels of Justinian. A Complete Annotated English Translation (Cambridge, 2018). Kral Milutin, ed. L. Mavromatis, La fondation de l’empire serbe. Le kralj Milutin (Βυζαντινά κείμενα και μελέται 16) (Thessaloniki, 1978). Notitiae episcopatuum, ed. J. Darrouzès, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (Paris, 1981). Register of the Patriarchate 3, eds. J. Koder, M. Hinterberger, and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 3: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.3) (Vienna, 2001). Theophanes continuatus, Vita Basilii, ed. I. Ševčenko, Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur Liber quo Vita Basilii imperatoris amplectitur (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 42) (Berlin, 2011). Vita of Saint Clement of Ohrid, ed. A. Milev, Grăckite žitija na Kliment Ohridski. Uvod, tekst, prevod i objasnitelni beležki [The Greek vita of Saint Clement of Ohrid. Introduction, translation and explanatory remarks] (Sofia, 1966).

Secondary Literature

Angeličin-Žura, G., “Dali vo Ohrid e otkrien katedralniot hram na Samuilovata patrijaršija?” [Has the cathedral church of Samuel’s patriarchate been found in Ohrid?], Pelagonitisa 16–20 (2005–2008), 44–48. Angeličin-Žura, G., Poglavari na Ohridskata crkva [The heads of the Church of Ohrid] (Ohrid, 2008). Antonović, M., “Od Duklje do Zete: Srbija i Zeta krajem XII veka i u prvoj polovini XIII” [From Duklja to Zeta: Serbia and Zeta at the end of the 12th century and in the first half of the 13th century], Beogradski istorijski glasnik 3 (2012), 85–94. Antonović, M., “Evangelizacija Srbije u srednjem veku do Sv. Save”, in Sveti car Konstantin i hrišćanstvo. Medjunarodni naučni skup povodom 1700. Godišnjice Milanskog edikta, 31. Maj–2. Jun 2013, vol. 1, ed. D. Bojović (Niš, 2013), pp. 565–81. Apostolski, M. et al. eds., Ohrid i Ohridsko niz istorijata [Ohrid and the region of Ohrid in history], 2 vols. (Skopje, 1978, 1985). Barišić, F., “Dosadašnji pokušaji ubikacije grada Justiniana Prima” [Previous attempts at the localisation of the town of Justiniana Prima], Zbornik Filozofskog Fakulteta 7.1 (Belgrade, 1963), 127–42.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

173

Barišić, F., “O izmirenju srpske i vizantijske crkve 1375” [The reconciliation of the Serbian and Byzantine Church 1375], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 21 (1982), 159–82. Baumann, W., Die Faszination des Heiligen bei Kliment Ochridski (Slavische Sprachen und Literaturen 1) (Munich, 1983). Beck, H.-G., Geschichte der orthodoxen Kirche im byzantinischen Reich (Göttingen, 1980). Belčovski, J., “Stranskite istražuvači za Ohridskata arhiepiskopija do krajot na vtorata svetska vojna (1945)” [Foreign scholars studying the archbishopric of Ohrid until the Second World War (1945)], in Otkrivanjeto i proučuvanjeto na Makedonija vo evropskata nauka do formiranjeto na Makedonskite državni institucii [The discovery and the study of Macedonia in European sciences until the formation of the Macedonian state institutions], eds. C. Grozdanov, K. Tomovski, and Z. Topolinjska (Skopje, 2009), pp. 203–18. Blagojević, M., “Srpski sabori i sabori otačastva Nemanjića i Lazarevića” [The Serbian state councils and the councils of the Nemanjići and Lazarevići], Glas 410 Srpske Akademije Nauka i Umetnosti, Odeljenje istorijskih nauka knj 14 (2008), 1–40. Blagojević, M., “Nemanjići i državnost Duklje-Zete-Crne Gore” [The Nemanjid dynasty and the statehood of Duklja-Zeta-Montenegro], Zbornik Matice srpske za istoriju 83 (2011), 7–24. Bogdanović, D., “Izmirenje srpske i vizantijske crkve” [The reconciliation of the Serbian and Byzantine Church], in O knezu Lazaru, eds. I. Božić and V.J. Ɖurić (Kruševac, 1975), pp. 81–91. Bogdanović, D., V.J. Đurić, and D. Medaković eds., Hilandar (Belgrade, 1978). Božilov, I., Familijata na Asenevci (1186–1460). Genealogija i prosopografija [The Asen family (1186–1460). Genealogy and prosopography] (Sofia, 1985). Brandes, W., “Das Schweigen des Liber Pontificalis. Die ‘Enteignung’ der päpstlichen Patrimonien Siziliens und Unteritaliens in den 50er Jahren des 8. Jahrhunderts”, Fontes Minores 12 (2014), 97–203. Bratož, R., “Die Entwicklung der Kirchenorganisation in den Westbalkanprovinzen (4. bis 6. Jahrhundert)”, in Das Christentum in Bulgarien und auf der Balkanhalbinsel in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter, eds. V. Gjuzelev and R. Pillinger (Vienna, 1987), pp. 149–96. Browning, R., “Kliment of Ohrid”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 2, ed. A.P. Kazhdan (Oxford, 1991), 1133–34. Büttner, E., Erzbischof Leon von Ohrid (1037–1056). Leben und Werk (mit den Texten seiner bisher unedierten asketischen Schrift und seiner drei Briefe an den Papst) (Bamberg, 2007). Chrysos, E. ed., Το Βυζάντιο ως Οικουμένη. Πρακτικά του 16ου Διεθνούς Συμποσίου (Athens, 2005). Ćirković, S., “Between kingdom and empire: Dušan’s state 1346–1355 reconsidered”, in Byzantium and Serbia in the XIV Century (Athens, 1996), pp. 110–20.

174

Popović

Ćirković, S., “Srbija i Carstvo” [Serbia and stardom], Glas 384 Srpske Akademije Nauka i Umetnosti, Odeljenje istorijskih nauka knj 10 (1998), 143–53. Darrouzès, J., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 5: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376 (Paris, 1977); part 6: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410 (Paris, 1979). Delikari, A., Der hl. Klemens und die Frage des Bistums von Velitza. Identifizierung, Bischofsliste (bis 1767) und Titularbischöfe (SS Cyril and Methodius Center for Cultural Studies) (Thessaloniki, 1997). Delikari, A., Η Αρχιεπισκοπή Αχριδών κατά τον μεσαίωνα. Ο ρόλος της ως ενωτικού παράγοντα στην πολιτική και εκκλησιαστική ιστορία των Σλάβων των Βαλκανίων και του Βυζαντίου (Thessaloniki, 2014). Dinić, M., “Dušanova carska titula u očima savremenika” [Dušan’s imperial title in the eyes of the contemporaries], in Zbornik u čast šeste stogodišnjice Dušanovog zakonika [Proceedings in honor of the 6th anniversary of Dušan’s code], ed. N. Radojčić (Belgrade, 1951), pp. 87–118. Dinić, M., “Srpska vladarska titula za vreme carstva” [The Serbian imperial title during the time of the empire], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 5 (1958), 9–19. Döpmann, H.-D., “Zur Problematik von Justiniana Prima”, in Das Christentum in Bulgarien und auf der Balkanhalbinsel in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter, eds. V. Gjuzelev and R. Pillinger (Vienna, 1987), pp. 221–232. Döpmann, H.-D., “Kyrillos und Methodios in ihrer Bedeutung für die Bulgaren”, in Methodios und Kyrillos in ihrer europäischen Dimension, ed. E. Konstantinou (Frankfurt, 2005), pp. 313–27. Döpmann, H.-D., Kirche in Bulgarien von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Bulgarische Bibliothek N.F. 11) (Munich, 2006). Ducellier, A., “Glavinitza”, Lexikon des Mittelalters 4 (1989), 1494. Dujčev, I. and C. Hannick, “11. Clemens v. Ochrid”, Lexikon des Mittelalters 2 (1983), 2146–48. Đurić, V. ed., Međunarodni naučni skup Sava Nemanjić—Sveti Sava. Istorija i predanje [International scientific conference Sava Nemanjić—Saint Sava. History and tradition] (Belgrade, 1979). Duval, N. ed., Caričin Grad: recherches archéologiques franco-yougoslaves à Caričin Grad (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 75) (Belgrade, 2010). Ferjančić, B., “Avtokefalnost Srpske crkve i Ohridska arhiepiskopija” [The autocephaly of the Serbian Church and the archbishopric of Ohrid], in Međunarodni naučni skup Sava Nemanjić—Sveti Sava, ed. V. Đurić (Belgrade, 1979), pp. 65–72. Ferjančić, B. “Vizantija prema srpskom carstvu” [Byzantium towards the Serbian empire], Glas 384 Srpske Akademije Nauka i Umetnosti, Odeljenje istorijskih nauka knj 10 (1998), 155–71.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

175

Ferjančić, B. and S. Ćirković, Stefan Dušan, kralj i car (1331–1335) [Stefan Dušan, king and tsar (1331–1335)] (Belgrade, 2005). Ferjančić, B. and L. Maksimović, “Sava Nemanjić and Serbia between Epiros and Nicaea”, Balcanica 45 (2014), 37–54. Filiposki, T., “Sveti Naum i negovite epiteti: Ohridski i Čudotvorec” [Saint Naum and epithets: Ohrid and Miracle Creator], in 1100 godini od upokojuvanjeto na Sveti Naum Ohridski, Ohrid, 3–5 oktomvri 2010 godina (Zbornik na trudovi od megjunarodniot naučen simpozium) [1100 years since the death of St. Naum of Ohrid, Ohrid, 3–5 October 2010 (proceedings of the international symposium)] (Ohrid, 2011), pp. 153–74. Fine Jr., J.V.A., The Early Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century (Ann Arbor, 1993). Fingarova, G., B. Schellewald, and P. Soustal, “Ohrid”, Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst 7 (2011), 161–353. Gelzer, H., Das Patriarchat von Achrida (Leipzig, 1902; repr. Aalen, 1980). Georgiev, P., “Văprosi iz istorijata na Ohridskata arhiepiskopija prez 30-te i 40-te godini na XIII v.” [Questions on the history of the archbishopric of Ohrid in the 30s and 40s of the 13th century], Svetogorska obitel Zograf 3 (1999), 167–75. Gjuzelev, V., “Bulgarien und das Kaiserreich von Nikaia (1204–1261)”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 26 (1977), 143–54. Gjuzelev, V., “Das Papsttum und Bulgarien im Mittelalter (9.–14. Jh.)”, Bulgarian Historical Review 5.1 (1977), 34–58. Gjuzelev, V., “Das Papsttum und Bulgarien im Mittelalter (9.–14. Jh.)”, in Forschungen zur Geschichte Bulgariens im Mittelalter, ed. V. Gjuzelev (Vienna, 1986), pp. 175–99. Gjuzelev, V., Knjaz Boris pŭrvi [Prince Boris the first] (Sofia, 2014). Granič, B., “Die Gründung des autokephalen Erzbistums von Justiniana Prima durch Kaiser Justinian I im Jahre 535 n. Chr.”, Byzantion 2 (1925), 123–40. Granič, B., “Kirchenrechtliche Glossen zu den vom Kaiser Basileios II. dem autokephalen Erzbistum von Achrida verliehenen Privilegien”, Byzantion 12 (1937), 395–415. Grozdanov, Cv., “Mesecoslov Asemanovog jevandjelja i starije zidno slikarstvo u Makedoniji” [The menologium in the Assemanianus Evangeliary and the older mural paintings in Macedonia], Zbornik za likovne umetnosti 21 (1985), 13–27. Györffy, G., “Zur Geschichte der Eroberung Ochrids durch Basileios II.”, in Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, Ochride 10–16 septembre 1961, vol. 2, (Belgrade, 1964), pp. 149–54. Hahn, J., “Kliment Ochridski”, Biographisches Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas 2 (1976), 418–19. Hunger, H., Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, vol. 1: Philosophi e-Rhetorik-Epistolographie-Geschichtsschreibung-Geographie (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12.5.1) (Munich, 1978).

176

Popović

Hunger, H., “Das Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel als Spiegel byzantinischer Verhältnisse im 14. Jahrhundert”, Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 115 (1978), 117–36. Iliev, I., Sv. Kliment Ohridski. Život i delo [Saint Clement of Ohrid. Life and work] (Plovdiv, 2010). Ilievski, B., Makedonsko-srpskite crkovni odnosi 1944–1970 [Macedonian-Serbian Church relations 1944–1970] (Skopje, 2011). Janković, M., Episkopije i mitropolije srpske crkve u srednjem veku [The dioceses and metropolises of the Serbian Church in the Middle Ages] (Belgrade, 1985). Janković, Ž., “Nove karakteristike dosadašnjeg pisanja o crkvenom sporu iz XIV veka” [New characteristics of the previous research on the Church dispute of the 14th century], Glasnik Srpske pravoslavne crkve 71 (1990), 80–81. Jovan, Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skopje, Brief History of the Ohrid Archbishopric (Ohrid, 2007). Kajmakamova, M.V., Vlast i istorija v srednovekovna Bălgarija (VII–XIV vek) [Power and history in medieval Bulgaria (7th–14th century)] (Sofia, 2011). Kalić, J., “Crkvene prilike u srpskim zemljama do stvaranja arhiepiskopije 1219. godine” (The ecclesiastical circumstances in the Serbian lands until the foundation of the archbishopric in the year 1219), in Međunarodni naučni skup Sava Nemanjić—Sveti Sava, ed. V. Đurić (Belgrade, 1979), pp. 27–53. Kalić, J., “Episkopski gradovi Srbije u srednjem veku” [Serbia’s episcopal towns in the Middle Ages], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 50 (2013), 433–47. Koco, D., “Klimentoviot manastir ‘Sv. Pantelejmon’ i raskopkata pri ‘Imaret’ vo Ohrid” [Clement’s monastery of ‘Sv. Pantelejmon’ and the archaeological excavation near ‘Imaret’ in Ohrid], Godišen zbornik na Filozofskiot Fakultet 1 (1948), 129–82. Koder, J., “Zu den Folgen der Gründung einer zweiten Reichshauptstadt an der ‘Peripherie’ des Römischen Reiches am Übergang von der Antike zum Mittelalter”, Südost-Forschungen 48 (1989), 1–18. Koder, J., Der Lebensraum der Byzantiner. Historisch-geographischer Abriß ihres mittelalterlichen Staates im östlichen Mittelmeerraum. Nachdruck mit bibliographischen Nachträgen (Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber, Erg.bd 1) (Vienna, 2001). Koder, J., “Die räumlichen Vorstellungen der Byzantiner von der Ökumene (4. bis 12. Jahrhundert)”, Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 137.2 (2002), 15–34. Komatina, I., Crkva i država u srpskim zemljama od XI do XIII veka [Church and state in Serbian lands from the 11th to the 13th century] (Istorijski institut, Posebna izdanja, Knjiga 66) (Belgrade, 2016). Komatina, P., Crkvena politika Vizantije od kraja ikonoborstva do smarti cara Vasilija I [The Church policy of Byzantium from the end of iconoclasm to the death of the Emperor Basil, vol. 1] (Belgrade, 2014).

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

177

Konstantinou-Stergiadou, E., “Die Echtheit der Sigillia von Basilius II für das Erzbistum von Achrida”, Byzantiaka 17 (1997), 265–84. Korać, D., “Sveta Gora pod srpskom vlašću (1345–1371)” [The Holy Mount Athos under Serbian rule (1345–1371)], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 31 (1992), 15–179. Kraft, E., “Die Religionsgemeinschaften in Makedonien”, in Makedonien. Geographie— Ethnische Struktur—Geschichte—Sprache und Kultur—Politik—Wirtschaft—Recht, eds. W. Lukan and P. Jordan (Österreichische Osthefte 40.1–2) (Vienna, 1998), pp. 339–76. Maksimović, L., “Grci i Romanija u srpskoj vladarskoj tituli” [The Greeks and Romanians under Serbian rule], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 12 (1970), 61–78. Maksimović, L., “The Christianization of the Serbs and the Croats”, in The Legacy of Saints Cyrill and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Millennium of the Conversion of Rus’ to Christianity, Thessaloniki 26–28 November 1988, ed. A.-Ai.N. Tachiaos (Thessaloniki, 1992), pp. 167–184. Maksimović, L., Η εθνογένεση των Σέρβων στον Μεσαίωνα (Athens, 1994). Maksimović, L., “Pokrštavanje Srba i Hrvata” [The conversion of the Serbs and Croats], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 35 (1996), 155–74. Maksimović, L., “Srpska carska titula” [The Serbian imperial title], Glas 384 Srpske Akademije Nauka i Umetnosti, Odeljenje istorijskih nauka knj. 10 (1998), 173–89. Maksimović, L., “L’Empire de Stefan Dušan: genese et caractère”, Travaux et Mémoires 14 (2002), 415–28. Maksimović, L., “Makedonija u politici srednjovekovne Srbije” [Macedonia in the politics of medieval Serbia], Glas 404 Srpske Akademije Nauka i Umetnosti, Odeljenje istorijskih nauka knj 13 (2006), 29–50. Maksimović, L., “Srbija i ideja univerzalnog carstva” [Serbia and the idea of the universal empire], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 44 (2007), 371–77. Maksimović, L., “Η βυζαντινή Μακεδονία στην πολιτική της μεσαιωνικής Σερβίας”, Πρακτικά της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών 85 Β΄ (2010), 261–85. Marković, M., Prvo putovanje Svetog Save u Palestinu i njegov značaj za srpsku srednjovekovnu umetnost [The first journey of Saint Sava to Palestine and its significance for Serbian medieval art] (Belgrade, 2009). Matevski, M. ed., Kliment Ohridski i ulogata na ohridskata kniževna škola vo razvitokot na slovenskata prosveta [Saint Clement of Ohrid and the role of the literary school of Ohrid in the evolution of Slavonic education], Materijali od naučen sobir održan vo Ohrid od 25 do 27 septemvri 1986 godina [Materials from a scientific conference, held in Ohrid from 25 to 27 September 1986] (Skopje, 1989). Mavromatis, L., “La Serbie de Milutin entre Byzance et l’Occident”, Byzantion 43 (1973), 120–50. Mešanović, S., “Još jednom o Kalistovoj anatemi” [Once again on Kallistos’ anathema], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 29–30 (1991), 221–32.

178

Popović

Meyendorff, J., “Projets de Concile oecuménique a. 1367: dialogue inédit entre Jean Cantacuzène et le légat Paul”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14 (1960), 147–77. Mihaljčić, R., Kraj srpskog carstva [The end of the Serbian Empire] (Belgrade, 1975). Moranvillé, H., “Les projets de Charles de Valois sur l’Empire de Constantinople”, Bibliothèque de l’école des chartes 51 (1890), 63–86. Mošin, V., “Sv. patrijarh Kalist i Srpska crkva” [The saint patriarch Kallistos and the Serbian Church], Glasnik Srpske pravoslavne crkve 27 (1946), 192–206. Müller, A.E., Treasures of Mount Athos (Thessaloniki, 1997). Müller, A.E., Berg Athos. Geschichte einer Mönchsrepublik (Beck’sche Reihe 2351) (Munich, 2005). Müller, A.E., “Zur Datierung des Chrysobulls Michaels VIII. für Ochrid: nicht August 1272, sondern 1273”, in Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, eds. L.M. Hoffmann and A. Monchizadeh (Wiesbaden, 2005). Mullett, M., Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Archbishop (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 2) (Aldershot, 1997). Naxidou, E., “An aspect of the medieval history of the archbishopric of Ohrid: its connection with Justiniana Prima”, Byzantinoslavica 64 (2006), 153–67. Nikolić, M., Ekumenski odnosi Srpske pravoslavne i Rimokatoličke crkve 1962–2000. godine [The ecumenical relations between the Serbian Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches 1962–2000] (Belgrade, 2011). Nikolova, B., Pravoslavnite cărkvi prez Bălgarskoto srednovekovie (IX–XIV v.) [Orthodox Churches in the Bulgarian Middle Ages (9th–14th centuries)] (Sofia, 2002), pp. 152–55. Novaković, S., “Ohridska arhiepiskopija u početku XI veka” [The archbishopric of Ohrid at the beginning of the 11th century], Glas Srpske Kraljevske Akademije 76 (1908), 37–47. Nystazopoulou-Pélékidou, M., “La domination byzantine en Bulgarie (1018–1185). Introduction à la problématique”, in Βυζάντιο και Βούλγαροι (1018–1185)/Byzantium and the Bulgarians (1018–1185), eds. K. Nikolaou and K. Tsiknakes (Athens, 2008), pp. 13–23. Obolensky, D., The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500–1453 (London, 1974). Obolensky, D., “Clement of Ohrid”, in Six Byzantine Portraits, D. Obolensky (Oxford, 1999), pp. 8–33. Obolensky, D. “Sava of Serbia”, in Six Byzantine Portraits, D. Obolensky (Oxford, 1999), pp. 115–72. Obolensky, D., “Theophylact of Ohrid”, in Six Byzantine Portraits, D. Obolensky (Oxford, 1999), pp. 34–82. Ostrogorski, G., Serska oblast posle Dušanove smrti [The region of Serres after Dušan’s death] (Posebna izdanja Vizantološkog instituta 9) (Belgrade, 1965).

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

179

Papadopulos-Kerameus, A., “Συμβολὴ εἰς τὴν ἱστορίαν τῆς ἀρχιεπισκοπῆς ᾿Αχρίδος”, in Sbornik statej, posvjaščennych … V.I. Lamanskomu [Collection of articles, dedicated to … V.I. Lamanskomu], vol. 1 (Saint Petersburg, 1907), pp. 227–50. Pavlikianov, C., “Unknown Byzantine document from the archives of the archbishopric of Ochrid”, Bulgaria Mediaevalis 3 (2012), 227–45. Petit, J., Charles de Valois (1270–1325) (Paris, 1900). Petrović, M., “Povelja—pismo despota Jovana Uglješe iz 1368. godine o izmirenju Srpske i Carigradske crkve u svetlosti nomokanonskih propisa” [Charter-letter of despot John Uglješa, of 1368, regarding the reconciliation between the Churches of Serbia and Constantinople in the light of nomocanonical rules], Istorijski časopis 25–26 (1978–79), 29–51. Pirivatrić, S., Samuilova država. Obim i karakter [The state of Samuil. Extent and character] (Belgrade, 1997); Bulgarian translation: Samuilovata dŭržava. Obhvat i harakter (Sofia, 2002). Pirivatrić, S., “Ulazak Stefana Dušana u Carstvo” [The accession of Stefan Dušan to tsardom], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 44.2 (2007), 381–409. PLP = Trapp, E. et al., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, vol. 1–12, Add. 1–2, register (Vienna, 1976–96; updated CD-ROM Vienna, 2001). Podskalsky, G., “Zwei Erzbischöfe von Achrida (Ochrid) und ihre Bedeutung für die Profan- und Kirchengeschichte Mazedoniens: Theophylaktos und Demetrios Chomatenos”, in La spiritualité de l’univers byzantin dans le verbe et l’image. Hommage offerts à Edmond Voordeckers, eds. K. Demoen and J. Verecken (Turnhout, 1997), pp. 239–52. Podskalsky, G., Theologische Literatur des Mittelalters in Bulgarien und Serbien 865–1459 (Munich, 2000). Popović, A.V., “Titulatura ohridskog arhiepiskopa u pismima Dimitrija Homatijana” [The titles of the archbishop of Ohrid in the letters of Demetrios Chomatianos], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 38 (1999–2000), 279–85. Popović, J.S., Žitija Svetih za juli [The lives of the saints for July] (Belgrade, 1996). Popović, J.S., Žitija Svetih za novembar [The lives of the Saints for November] (Belgrade, 1998). Popović, M., “Die Gesandtschaften des byzantinischen Kaisers Basileios I. zu den Serben”, in Byzantium, New Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone, from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century, eds. M. Kaimakamova, M. Salamon, and M. Somrąg Różycka (Byzantina et Slavica Cracoviensia 5) (Cracow, 2007), pp. 103–08. Popović, M., “Entscheidung an der Marica 1371—Eine Schlacht als Fanal der osmanischen Eroberung Südosteuropas”, Karfunkel Combat 7 (2011), 22–23. Popović, M., “Kliment von Ohrid”, in Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmitteleuropa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, eds. J. Bahlcke, S. Rohdewald, and T. Wünsch (Berlin, 2013), pp. 494–500.

180

Popović

Popović, R., Srpska crkva u istoriji [The Serbian Church in history] (Srbinje, 1997). Prinzing, G., “Entstehung und Rezeption der Justiniana-Prima-Theorie im Mittelalter”, Byzantino-Bulgarica 5 (1978), 269–87. Prinzing, G., “Kaiser Manuel II. Palaiologos und die kirchliche Jurisdiktion in Bulgarien”, Études Balkaniques 26.3 (1990), 115–19. Prinzing, G., “Die umstrittene Selbständigkeit der Makedonischen Orthodoxen Kirche in historischer Sicht”, in Makedonien. Probleme und Perspektiven eines jungen Staates, ed. W. Althammer (Munich, 1999), pp. 31–43. Prinzing, G., “Demetrios-Kirche und Aseniden-Aufstand. Zur chronologischen Präzisierung der Frühphase des Aseniden-Aufstandes”, Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 38 (1999/2000), 257–65. Prinzing, G., “A quasi patriarch in the state of Epiros: the Autocephalus Archbishop of ‘Boulgaria’ (Ohrid) Demetrios Chomatenos”, Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 41 (2004), 165–81. Prinzing, G., “The autocephalous Byzantine ecclesiastical province of Bulgaria/Ohrid: how independent were its archbishops?”, Bulgaria Mediaevalis 3 (2012), 355–83. Prinzing, G., “Emperor Manuel II and Patriarch Euthymios II on the jurisdiction of the Church of Ohrid”, in Le Patriarcat Œcuménique de Constantinople et Byzance hors frontières (1204–1586), eds. M.-H. Blanchet, M.-H. Congourdeau, and D.I. Mureşan (Paris, 2014), pp. 243–71. Prokić, B., “Prvi Ohridski arhiepiskop Jovan” [Jovan the first archbishop of Ohrid], Glas Srpske Kraljevske Akademije 88 (1911), 267–303. Prokić, B., “Postanak Ohridskog patrijarhata” [The establishment of the patriarchate of Ohrid], Glas Srpske Kraljevske Akademije 90 (1912), 175–267. Purković, M.A., Avinjonske pape i srpske zemlje [The popes in Avignon and Serbian lands] (Požarevac, 1934). Purković, M.A., Srpski episkopi i mitropoliti srednjeg veka [Serbian bishops and metropolitans in the Middle Ages] (Biblioteka hrišćanskog dela 4–6) (Library of Christian Work 4–6) (Skopje, 1937–38). Purković, M.A., Jelena, žena cara Dušana [Jelena, the wife of Emperor Dušan] (Diseldorf, 1975). Purković, M.A., Srpski patrijarsi srednjega veka [The Serbian patriarchs of the Middle Ages] (Diseldorf, 1976). Purković, M.A., Knez i despot Stefan Lazarević [The prince and despot Stefan Lazarević] (Belgrade, 1978). Purković, M.A., Srpska kultura srednjega veka [Serbian culture of the Middle Ages] (Himelstir, 1985). Radić, R., “Oblasni gospodari u Vizantiji krajem XII i u prvim decenijama XIII veka” [Local rulers in Byzantium at the end of the 12th and in the first decades of the 13th centuries], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 24–25 (1986), 151–289.

The Patriarchate and the Churches of the Balkans

181

Radojčić, N., Srpski državni sabori u srednjem veku [Serbian state councils in the Middle Ages] (Belgrade, 1940). Radojičić, G.S., “La date de la conversion des Serbes”, Byzantion 22 (1952), 253–56. Rigo, A., “La missione di Teofane di Nicea a Serre presso Giovanni Uglješa”, Bolletino della Badia greca di Grottaferrata n.s. 52 (1997), 113–27. Rigo, A., “La politica religiosa degli ultimi Nemanja in Grecia (Tessaglia ed Epiro)”, Medievo Greco 4 (2004), 203–23. Runciman, S., 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, 1985). Samardjitch, R., Mehmed Sokolovitch. Le destin d’un Grand Vizir (Lausanne, 1994). Schmalzbauer, G., “Überlegungen zur Idee der Oikumene in Byzanz”, in Wiener Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik. Beiträge zum Symposion Vierzig Jahre Institut für Byzantinistik und Neogräzistik der Universität Wien im Gedenken an Herbert Hunger (Wien, 4.–7. Dezember 2002), eds. W. Hörandner, J. Koder, and M. Stassinopoulou (Byzantina et Neograeca Vindobonensia 24) (Vienna, 2004), pp. 408–19. Schreiner, P., “Das Christentum in Bulgarien vor 864”, in Das Christentum in Bulgarien und auf der Balkanhalbinsel in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter, eds. V. Gjuzelev and R. Pillinger (Vienna, 1987), pp. 51–61. Snegarov, I.I., Istorija na Ohridskata arhiepiskopija [The history of the archbishopric of Ohrid] (Sofia, 1924). Snegarov, I.I., “Les sources sur la vie et l’activité de Clément d’Ochrida”, Byzantinobulgarica 1 (1962), 79–115. Soulis, G.C., The Serbs and Byzantium during the Reign of Tsar Stephen Dušan (1331–1355) and His Successors (Washington, D.C., 1984). Spremić, M., “Srbi i Florentinska unija crkava 1439. godine” [The Serbs and the Union of Florence in the year 1439], Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta 24–25 (1986), 413–22. Stamenković, S., Rimsko nasledje u Leskovačkoj kotlini [The Roman legacy in the Leskovac Valley] (Belgrade, 2013). Steindorff, L., “Zar Stefan Dušan von Serbien”, Quellen und Studien 14 (2004), 183–203. Strässle, P.M., Krieg und Kriegführung in Byzanz. Die Kriege Kaiser Basileios’ II. gegen die Bulgaren (976–1019) (Cologne, 2006). Subotić, G. ed., Manastir Hilandar [The monastery of Hilandar] (Belgrade, 1998). Šukarova, A., Justinijana Prima (Skopje, 1994). Tachiaos, A.-E.N., “Die Aufhebung des bulgarischen Patriarchats von Tirnovo”, Balkan Studies 4 (1963), 67–82. Tăpkova-Zaimova, V., “Entre Ochrid et Tirnovo : problèmes d’Église après 971”, in Βυζάντιο και Βούλγαροι (1018–1185)/Byzantium and the Bulgarians (1018–1185), eds. K. Nikolaou, and K. Tsiknakes (Athens, 2008), pp. 25–37.

182

Popović

Tjutjundžiev, I., Tărnovskata mitropolija prez XV–XIX v. [The metropolis of Tărnovo from the 15th until the 19th century] (Veliko Tărnovo, 2007). Trifunović, D., Ka počecima srpske pismenosti [Towards the beginning of Serbian literacy] (Belgrade, 2001). Uzelac, A., Pod senkom Psa. Tatari i južnoslovenske zemlje u drugoj polovini XIII veka [Under the shadow of the dog. The Tatars and south Slavic lands in the second half of the 13th century] (Belgrade, 2015). Uzelac, A. and B. Radovanović, “Crkvena i svetovna politika kralja Milutina prema zapadnim silama početkom XIV veka—nekoliko novih zapažanja” [The ecclesiastical and secular policies of King Milutin towards the western powers at the beginning of the 14th century—some new observations], in Sveti car Konstantin i hrišćanstvo—Saint Emperor Constantine and Christianity (Niš, 2013), pp. 593–608. Vásáry, I., Cumans and Tatars. Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans 1185–1365 (Cambridge, 2005). Ware, T., The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth, 1997). Živković, T., Sloveni i Romeji [The Slavs and the Rhomaioi] (Belgrade, 2000). Živković, T., Južni Sloveni pod vizantijskom vlašću (600–1025) [The south Slavs under Byzantine rule (600–1025)] (Belgrade, 2002). Živković, T., Crkvena organizacija u srpskim zemljama. Rani srednji vek [Church organisation in Serbian lands. The early Middle Ages] (Belgrade, 2011). Živković, T., “On the baptism of the Serbs and the Croats in the time of Basil I (867– 889)”, Studia Slavica et et Balcanica Petropolitana 1.13 (2013), 35–38. Zlatarski, V.N., “Prima Justiniana im Titel des bulgarischen Erzbischofs von Achrida”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1929–30), 484–89.

chapter 10

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries in the Middle Ages Konstantinos Vetochnikov 1

State of Research*

The question of the dependence of the metropolis of Russia on the Ecumenical Patriarchate has attracted the attention of several historians; the Christianization of Kievan Rus has been studied in various works and manuals in particular. The book of Vladimir Vodoff traces the consequences of the conversion of Prince Vladimir of Kiev.1 Another very important work on the subject is that of Sophia Senyk, which raises a number of questions concerning the dependence of the Russian metropolis on the Ecumenical throne.2 Pierre Gonneau and Aleksander Lavrov examine in one chapter of their book the state of affairs of the Russian Church since the conversion to Christianity up to the separation from the patriarchate of Constantinople after the Council of Florence.3 The actions of the patriarchate in the matters of the metropolis, however, are discussed, with a few rare exceptions, in a rather vague way. In this regard the fundamental work of Timofej Vasil’evič Barsov, published in the 19th century, is important.4 He observes the interventions of the Great Church on the distant metropolis of Russia. John Meyendorff’s book survey on the rise of Russia in the 14th century touches upon the subject of the dependency of the metropolis of Russia on the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well.5 Another important contribution is that of Martin Hinterberger.6 He focuses on the content of the patriarchal acts sent to the metropolis of Russia and the legates who were responsible for delivering them or were concerned with tasks concerning the * I would like to thank Nicolas Duchesne for the time that he devoted to the translation of this article and Dr. Federico Montinaro for improving the English of this text. 1 Vodoff, Naissance. 2 Senyk, History, vol. 1–2. 3 Gonneau and Lavrov, Des Rhôs. 4 Barsov, Konstantinopol’skij patriarh. 5 Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia; see also Gastgeber, “Aspects of variations”. 6 Hinterberger, “Relations diplomatiques”.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_011

184

Vetochnikov

Russian state of affairs. An article of Johannes Preiser-Kapeller analyses the religious policy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarding Russian countries relying on the acts of the two register manuscripts preserved in the National Library of Austria.7 The subject is therefore fairly well studied, but requires some canonical interpretations. 2

Introduction

The present contribution deals chiefly with the Church of Kievan Rus during the period of its dependence on the patriarchate of Constantinople. The Church’s area of control spanned modern Ukraine, Belarus, Western Russia and Lithuania. Initially, Greek Christianity in Russian countries began to settle along rivers, through which the trade with the Byzantine Empire passed, and was in competition with western Christianity. At first, one can only speak of the Christianization of small groups of Varangians and Slavs. The first ‘conversion of Russia’, however, did not take place until about 864, and Christianity became the official religion only in 988. There has been much debate indeed about the ‘Rhos’ who were baptized in 864.8 According to the Russian Chronicle, however, Prince Vladimir of Kiev assumed the Christian faith in its Byzantine form, together with his people. The prince was baptized in the Byzantine city of Cherson, in the Crimea, and married a Byzantine princess; after that, he returned to Kiev where he had the population of the capital baptized as well.9 The early Russian Church consisted of a unique metropolis, but it seems that there were, for a short period, two others: the metropolises of Chernihiv and Pereyaslavl. Due to geopolitical divisions, there appeared the necessity to create new metropolises in Russian lands: in Lithuania and Halych. The canonical see of the metropolitan of Russia was the city of Kiev, even if from 1300 the residence of the metropolitan moved first to the city of Vladimir on Klyazma and then to Moscow, but the official canonical see was always the city of Kiev. The official title of the head of the Church in Russian countries was originally the ‘metropolitan of Russia’, then ‘metropolitan of all Russia’, and finally later ‘metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia’, with two exceptions; the metropolitans of Lithuania and Halytch bore their respective titles.10 7 8 9 10

Preiser-Kapeller, “Das Patriarchat von Konstantinopel”. See Vodoff, Naissance, pp. 29–34; Senyk, History, vol. 1, pp. 1–48. For details, see Vodoff, Naissance, pp. 62–107; Senyk, History vol. 1, pp. 49–81. For details, see Vetochnikov, “Le titre officiel”.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

3

185

The Dependence of the Church in Russian Countries on the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

Some historians have cast doubt on the original dependence of the Church in Russian countries on the patriarchate of Constantinople, arguing that it was initially ‘autocephalous’.11 This point of view, however, is disputed.12 Kiev’s dependence on Constantinople seems to be supported by two facts: the Christianization of the country by missionaries from this Church, and canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. The latter’s text reads as follows: “the metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia (proconsular) and Thrace, and only them, as well as the bishops of these dioceses parts occupied by the barbarians, will be consecrated by the holy see of the Church of Constantinople”. The official Byzantine commentators, Zonaras and Balsamon, state that the patriarchs do not usurp the right to ordain the bishops but ordain only the metropolitans (“only them”). Concerning the territories “occupied by the barbarians”, which must be understood as being lands outside the empire, they cite the Alans and the Russians, who neighbored the dioceses of Pontus and Thrace respectively.13 Despite being bigger than many other metropolises of the patriarchate— even some Russian bishoprics were more important than other metropolises— the metropolis of Russia was placed at the end of the diptychs of the patriarchate. This should be explained by the fact that the order in the diptychs depends on other criteria beyond the size of the diocese, such as the date of foundation, and their historical, ecclesiastical, and political importance.14 4

The Metropolis of Russia and the Byzantine Emperor / The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople

The fact that the metropolis of Russia was dependent not only on the patriarch, but also on the Byzantine emperor, may seem strange, but in Byzantine 11 12 13 14

Golubinskij, Istorìâ russkoj cerkvi, vol. 1, pp. 261, 264, 268. Apart from Golubinskij’s theory, there are others that subordinate the early Russian Church to different jurisdictions (Ohrid, Tmutarakan, Cherson, etc.). For details see Vodoff, Naissance, p. 82. Cypin, Cerkovnoe pravo: kurs lekcij, p. 226. Canons, vol. 2, ed. Rhalles and Potles, p. 285. In the Notitiae, the metropolis of Russia was ranked between positions 58 and 72. The other metropolises of Russian countries (Halych and Lithuania) were further down. See Notitiae episcopatuum, ed. Darrouzès, pp. 333, 335, 343–44, 349, 367, 381, 388, 398, 399, 403, 407, 409, 413, 418.

186

Vetochnikov

ecclesiastical and political ideology the emperor was seen as the guardian of the faith and of piety, the defender of Orthodoxy, and as the emperor of all the Christian peoples.15 The Orthodox people of Russian countries were subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and his leader was the patriarch, who, as such, exercised certain rights in those countries. The patriarch had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of a diocese other than his own as long as affairs were conducted in a canonical way. But the patriarchal synod was entitled to elect the metropolitan. For example, the patriarch, with the synod, was the judge of last resort for all ecclesiastical affairs. He had right to the stauropegion,16 and his name had to be commemorated by all the metropolitans and archbishops of his jurisdiction.17 5

The Election of Metropolitans

One of the main aspects of the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople over the metropolis of Russia consisted of the election and ordination of the metropolitan of Russia.18 Russian metropolitans, with few exceptions, were elected and ordained by the synod of Constantinople, often under the influence of the patriarch and the emperor, without the participation of Russian princes and bishops. Thus, most metropolitans were installed in the period before the invasion of the Mongols (988–1240). Furthermore, almost all the hierarchs were of Greek origin: 17 out of 23 metropolitans were probably Greeks; only four were Russians: Hilarion (1051–71), Ephrem (1092–97),19 Clement (1147–57), and Cyril (1247–81), and two were of unknown origin. All these metropolitans, except for Hilarion and Clement, were elected and ordained by the patriarch.20 The appointment of Metropolitan Hilarion by the Russian authorities was probably prompted by Prince Yaroslav’s aspiration to break the dependence of

15 16 17 18 19 20

See Vetochnikov, “Le pouvoir”. For details, see Kazdan and Talbot, “Stauropegion”. See, for example, Nikodim (Milaš), Pravoslavnoe cerkovnoe pravo, pp. 334–35. Vodoff, Naissance, p. 126. On the installation of the metropolitan in Kiev, see Senyk, History, vol. 1, pp. 82–92. Metropolitan of Pereyaslavl. See Vodoff, Naissance, p. 115; Senyk, History, vol. 1, pp. 98–129.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

187

the Russian Church on the patriarchate, him being at war with the empire.21 It is probable that events in Kiev went unnoticed in Constantinople.22 However, the installation of Clement (Smoliatych) in the metropolitan see caused great controversy both in Russian lands and in Constantinople. When Iziaslav II Mstislavich acceded to the throne of the grand prince, he did not find the metropolitan in Kiev, Michael II (1130–45); he was in Constantinople and did not want to return to his metropolis under the pretext that there were conflicts between the princes.23 On being informed of Michael II’s death, the prince assembled the Russian bishops in Kiev to proceed to the election and ordination of the new metropolitan without hearing the patriarchal opinion. The prince himself pointed to Clement, a pious monk and scholar, as the best candidate, which caused a dispute between the bishops. Some of them argued that a synod of bishops does have the right to elect and ordain the metropolitan, while others said the opposite. Finally, those who favored the independent election from Constantinople took the upper hand, and Clement was ordained.24 In the end, it seems that the prince himself had a strong desire to separate the Church of these countries from canonical dependence on the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, for later the metropolitan, installed in an informal, non-traditional way, had no relationship with the patriarchate, and never tried to regulate its canonical status in any way.25 The schism was finally resolved with the accession on 20 March 1155 of the new grand prince, Yuri Dolgorukiy, who dismissed Clement and accepted the new metropolitan (Constantine) ordained in Constantinople. The latter was entrusted by the patriarchate with the task of suppressing the schism. He anathematized post mortem Iziaslav, and also pronounced canonical sanctions against all the clergy ordained by his illegitimate predecessor, accepting only those who signed a charter of denial of Clement.26 But, ultimately, Metropolitan Constantine had to abandon his see after the death of Prince Yuri Dolgorukiy; the new grand prince, Rostislav, decided, together with Iziaslav’s sons, after due consideration, that he would not accept either Clement or Constantine, and that he would search for a new candidate. Theodore (1161–63) 21 22 23 24 25 26

See History of Past Years, ed. Lihačev, pp. 103–04. See History of Past Years, ed. Lihačev, pp. 104–05; Poppe, “La tentative de réforme ecclésiastique en Russie”, pp. 5–31; Vodoff, Naissance, pp. 116–17; Senyk, History, vol. 1, pp. 98–105. On Hilarion’s works, see Müller, Werke; Müller, Lobrede. See PSRL, vol. 1, pp. 136, 312; vol. 2, p. 24; vol. 9, p. 205; vol. 12, pp. 152, 341. PSRL, vol. 1, p. 315; vol. 2, pp. 340–41; vol. 9, pp. 172–73, pp. 205–06; Vodoff, Naissance, pp. 118–20; Senyk, History, vol. 1, pp. 110–16. Vodoff, Naissance, p. 120. See the Russian chronicles: PSRL, vol. 1, p. 148; vol. 2, pp. 79–80; Senyk, History, vol. 1, p. 116.

188

Vetochnikov

was thus sent to the Russian countries.27 After his death, Rostislav changed his mind about Clement and decided to reinstall him, but, this time, canonically: he sent his ambassador to Constantinople. Finally, his attempt was foiled as the ambassador met the new metropolitan on the way, already ordained in Constantinople and sent from there. This diplomatic incident provoked the prince’s anger, who threatened the imperial ambassador to no longer accept a metropolitan who was ordained without the prince’s advice.28 Afterwards, however, relations between the Russian metropolis and the Ecumenical Patriarchate seem to have been peaceful for a while. Eventually, a consensus appears to have been found, and some candidates were proposed by the Russian Church and accepted by the Constantinopolitan authorities. The first metropolitan installed at the Russian prince’s suggestion was Cyril II (1247–80) following the invasion of the Mongols, when Kiev was devastated and Metropolitan Joseph disappeared during the raid. Prince Daniel of Galicia, who was also master of Kiev, chose Cyril as metropolitan.29 The latter, however, went to ask for patriarchal confirmation after Prince Daniel was recognized by the Mongol khan as grand prince, that is to say only a few years after having started to govern the metropolis. In addition, it seems that Patriarch Manuel II (1240–55), residing in Nicaea, fully accepted the appointment.30 After the recapture of Constantinople we find several metropolitans proposed by the Russian Church and accepted by the patriarchate, but also some who were elected in Constantinople (some of whom were of Russian origin). Thus, apart from Cyril III (†  1281), Peter (1308–26)31 and Alexis (1354–78)32 were also proposed by the Russians and elected and ordained in Constantinople. Pimen, Dionysios (1384–85), and Michael (or Mitjaj) were selected by the Russians and sent to Constantinople to be ordained, although the latter died on arrival there.33 At the same time there were metropolitans who were elected in Constantinople without any intervention by the Russians: Maximos (1283–1305), Theognostos (1328–53),34 Cyprian (1376–77),35 Photios 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

PSRL, vol. 2, pp. 485, 514–15, 522; Vodoff, Naissance, p. 120; Senyk, History, vol. 1, pp. 116–17. PSRL, vol. 2, p. 522; Senyk, History, vol. 1, pp. 117–18. There is not much information on this metropolitan: see PSRL, vol. 2, p. 173. Vodoff, Naissance, pp. 122–23. Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, pp. 148–53. See Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 45–55. On the affair concerning Mitjaj and Pimen, see Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 63–69; Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, pp. 214–21. See PSRL, vol. 10, pp. 194–95, 212; vol. 15.1, pp. 43, 54–55; First Chronicle of Novgorod, ed. Tihomirov, p. 353; Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 34–35. Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 63–64; Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, pp. 201–25.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

189

(1409–31),36 and Isidore (1437–41).37 Cyprian was of Slavic origin, while the others were Greek. Sometimes the metropolitans were installed at the Russians’ suggestion and some were directly elected in Constantinople. In this respect, it must be remembered that the act of the election of Alexis as metropolitan of Russia included a clause, which states that in the future all metropolitans should be elected and ordained by the patriarchate.38 The case of Isidore, the last metropolitan of Russia appointed by the Byzantine authorities, deserves special attention. He was a great scholar with an excellent reputation as a diplomat and theologian, and had a good knowledge of the Latin language. During the progression of the Ottoman conquest he had a growing feeling that the last chance of rescue would come from western sovereigns, following a religious union. Isidore was sent by Emperor John VIII Palaiologos to the Council of Basel for negotiations; in 1437, with the support of the emperor, he was elected metropolitan of Russia, with the mission to convince the Russians to accept the union, and to help fight the Ottomans. He persuaded the civil and ecclesiastical authorities to participate in the Council of Florence. There, Isidore was among those in favor of the union, and was appointed a cardinal. On his return to Moscow, however, he was not welcomed as he may have expected and was put in jail. In September 1443, after two years of imprisonment, Isidoros fled to Tver, then to Lithuania and Rome.39 Dependence on Constantinople technically ended with the Ottoman occupation of the city and the Council of Florence. The Russians took advantage of the situation to install a new metropolitan, without patriarchal advice and with Isidoros still in charge, bringing forth the pretext that the latter was a heretic that united with the Church of Rome.40 The writings of the first patriarch under Ottoman rule, Gennadios II Scholarios, show that the metropolitan elected and installed by the Russians was recognized in Constantinople.41 According to an act—transmitted only in the Slavonic version, whose authenticity is debated—it seems that Patriarch Dionysios I, after accepting Metropolitan Gregory of Kiev in 1467 (ordained by the unionist Patriarch Gregory Mammas), 36 37 38 39 40 41

See PSRL, vol. 6, pp. 144–48; vol. 11, pp. 211; vol. 12, pp. 11–15; vol. 17, pp. 53–54; Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 82–83. Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 109–18. Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2363; Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 151, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 336–40; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 9, ed. Pavlov, pp. 41–51; Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 193, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 104–17. See Papadakis, “Isidore of Kiev”. AI, vol. 1, pp. 71–75; Documents of Canonical Law, ed. Pavlov, pp. 525–36; PSRL, vol. 6, pp. 162–67; vol. 8, pp. 121–22; vol. 12, p. 74; Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 118–22. Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulos, p. 80.

190

Vetochnikov

appointed him as the only legitimate and canonical metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, and stipulated that the metropolitans elected in Moscow are not recognized as canonical.42 6

Judgment of Ecclesiastical Affairs

The other prerogative of the ecumenical see of Constantinople with regard to the metropolis of Russia was the right to judge in the last instance all the ecclesiastical affairs of the Russian countries, including cases involving the head of the Russian Church. Metropolitans could only be judged by the patriarchal court, and Russian metropolitans were no exception, especially because they were normally elected and ordained by the synod of Constantinople; the right to judge a prelate is linked to that to elect and ordain him. Thus, the patriarch and his synod examined the cases taken to the patriarchal court by bishops, princes, or others against the metropolitan, as well as any disputes between two metropolitans in the Russian countries. Those concerned were invited to Constantinople, or exarchoi were sent to investigate the matter on the spot; they could be given the responsibility to pronounce the judgment on behalf of the patriarch. The first known example of this could be that of Patriarch Nicholas IV Mouzalon, who seems to have commissioned Metropolitan Constantine to impose canonical sanctions against Clement and the members of the clergy ordained by him.43 In a later case, Metropolitan Peter was accused by Bishop Andrew of Tver: the case was examined by an exarchos together with the Russian bishops in Pereslavl-Zalessky in 1311; the metropolitan was acquitted.44 Other cases arising from divisions within the metropolis were frequently examined by the patriarchal court, like accusations between metropolitans and accusations by princes against metropolitans. The first such case concerned a dispute between Metropolitan Roman of Lithuania45 and Metropolitan Alexis of Kiev and All Russia. Roman, who was not content with the extent of his own metropolis, wanted to seize Kiev. The matter was discussed in 1356 by a synod presided over by the emperor, in the presence of the patriarch. The verdict was intended to satisfy both parties: Alexis kept possession of Kiev, but Roman 42 43 44 45

Ŝapov, Vostočnoslavânskie i ûžnoslavânskie rukopisnye knigi, pp. 145–47; Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Πράξεις, pp. 141–42 (reg. 45*). PSRL, vol. 2, p. 485; Senyk, History, vol. 1, p. 116. See PSRL, vol. 4, p. 118; vol. 3, p. 69; vol. 5, p. 204; vol. 7, p. 185. On this metropolitan, see Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 50–53.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

191

received, at the emperor’s suggestion, two bishoprics located in Lithuania, those of Polotsk and Turov, with Novogrudok as a metropolitan see, and the bishoprics of Little Russia. The two metropolitans were required to respect the verdict and the limits of their metropolises under threat of canonical prosecution. Roman did more than just disrespect this decision. To begin, on leaving Constantinople, he did not even take his own copy of the deed. Once in Kiev he began to serve and even ordain clergy as metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia, under the protection of the prince of Lithuania, Olgerd (Algirdas). Two exarchoi were sent to further investigate the matter: Metropolitan Dionysios of Keltzene and the deacon and sakellarios46 George Perdikes. Following the death of Roman in 1361, however, the investigation became pointless and was dropped.47 The affair concerning Metropolitan Alexis, however, did not stop. The prince of the Lithuanians, Olgerd, continued to accuse him, and the patriarchal synod had to re-examine the charges. Although Patriarch Philotheos, who accessed the patriarchal throne following the resignation of Kallistos, was in favor of the unity of the Russian metropolis, the Lithuanian prince had not abandoned the idea of having a separate metropolis on his lands, and was ill-disposed towards Metropolitan Alexis, who acted as the prince regent in Moscow, but was involved in a political dispute, and even waged war against Lithuania. First, the prince accused the metropolitan of having abandoned the bishoprics in the western Russian countries, caring only for Muscovy. The patriarch tried to appease the situation, but in 1371 the prince added to the old accusations that the metropolitan was meddling in politics by releasing the allies of the Lithuanian prince from their oath of allegiance and blessing his enemies to make war. Following this last accusation, the metropolitan was summoned in person to Constantinople for clarification. Finally, the patriarch sent two apocrisiarii48 to pacify the two adversaries. One of the apocrisiarii, the monk Cyprian, was ordained later as metropolitan of Kiev and of the Lithuanians, on condition that he would succeed Alexis as the unique metropolitan. Cyprian was accompanied to his new metropolis by two

46 47

48

The title of both an administrative and ecclesiastical official: Kazhdan and Magdalino, “Sakkelion”. See Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2434; Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 153, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 425–30; no. 185(bis), pp. 434–36; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 13, ed. Pavlov, pp. 69–85; no. 14, pp. 85–91; Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 259, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 520–37; no. 262, pp. 548–57; Hinterberger, “Relations diplomatiques”, pp. 125–26; Meyendorff, “Alexis and Roman”, pp. 278–88. The apocrisiarius of the Byzantine Church was an episcopal or patriarchal envoy who was usually a member of the clergy: Magdalino, “Apocrisiarius”.

192

Vetochnikov

apocrisiarii entrusted with investigating Alexis’s life, but both found that the accusations against the latter were slanderous.49 Cases involving Alexis were not limited to this affair. Another prince, Olgerd’s brother-in-law Michael of Tver, also complained about him and asked for a trial. Patriarch Kallistos summoned the metropolitan, but after hearing him and his representative, tried to calm down both parties. Under Patriarch Philotheos, the prince again complained that the metropolitan had excommunicated him and his brother for perjury. The patriarch in this case supported the metropolitan and answered the prince suggesting that he maintain his oath, but then ordered the metropolitan to lift the sanction.50 The other case that was submitted for patriarchal judgment concerned Alexis’ succession. The prince of Moscow did not accept Cyprian and sent his own candidate to Constantinople, in order to have him ordained as metropolitan. The affair turns here into a detective novel. The candidate was found dead on arrival and some members of the Muscovite delegation claimed that the death was not natural. The delegates thus forged princely charters in favor of one of them, Pimen, who is finally ordained, but who, once back in Moscow, was not recognized by the prince. After that, Cyprian and Pimen were alternately metropolitans in Moscow, until a new candidate appeared: Bishop Dionysios of Suzdal. The patriarch and the synod, on the emperor’s advice, sent apocrisiarii with the right to enthrone Dionysios, which was carried out. Pimen was tried in absentia and, though having appealed against the original sentence during his last trip, died in Chalcedon, which closed the case. The metropolitan see was still vacant; the new metropolitan, Dionysios, on his return from Constantinople, was arrested in Kiev by Prince Vladimir of Lithuania, and died in captivity on 15 October 1385. In the end, Cyprian became metropolitan of all Russia, although the metropolis of Halych was considered vacant and was not annulled.51 Other cases were submitted to the patriarch. These concerned conflicts between the bishops and the metropolitan. Firstly, reference must be made here to the conflicts between the bishops of Novgorod and the head of the 49 50 51

Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2625, Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 321, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 582–85; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 25, ed. Pavlov, pp. 141–50. Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2626; Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 322, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 585–86; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 26, ed. Pavlov, pp. 149–51; Hinterberger, “Relations diplomatiques”, pp. 126–27. Acta patriarchatus 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 120–21; Acta patriarchatus 2, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 12–18, 98–99, 116–29; PSRL, vol. 5, p. 238; vol. 8, pp. 28–33, 48; vol. 11, pp. 41, 44, 81–83, 86, 93, 97; vol. 15.1, pp. 124–29, 142, 147–50; vol. 16, p. 442; vol. 18, pp. 131, 136; vol. 25, pp. 206, 211–12; Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 50–53.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

193

metropolis of Russia. The first case occurred in 1353, when Bishop Moses wrote to the patriarch and the emperor complaining about the metropolitan’s “violence”, about which we do not have further information. The complaint probably concerned the privileges of the archbishop, including the right to wear the polystaurion,52 as can be inferred from the only preserved act. These privileges seem to have been confirmed, for the Russian Chronicle states that the messenger from Constantinople brought a “charter with a golden seal” (chrysobull).53 According to this act, the archbishop was trying to gain independence from his metropolitan, that is to say, to become a ‘true’ archbishop, like others in the patriarchate of Constantinople, or ‘autocephalous’ in the Byzantine sense of the word. Indeed, the archbishops or ‘autocephalous bishops’ had their dioceses inside a metropolis, but were under the direct jurisdiction of the patriarch. Despite the grant of the right to wear a polystaurion, the archbishop of Novgorod still had to report to his metropolitan, a rare case of submission in the patriarchate of Constantinople during the Middle Ages. Moses’ successor, Alexis, also wore a polystaurion, without authorization, and did not submit to the metropolitan, who then told the patriarch, who suggested that the archbishop should not wear a polystaurion and submit to the metropolitan and the grand prince. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the privilege, and therefore the title, was given to Moses personally, and not to the bishopric of Novgorod in general. Furthermore, no preserved acts call the prelates of this city archbishops, only bishops.54 The other case on which the synod had to rule concerned the ecclesiastical courts of Novgorod. During a city council, the Novgorodians vowed never again to accept the judgment of the metropolitan of Kiev; they wanted to be judged solely by their archbishop. This made every verdict by a bishop of Novgorod one of last instance, without appeal, which was contrary to the canons. The patriarchal letter concerned with this matter did not have any effect, but Cyprian forbade the celebration of divine services in the city. The public ignored the sanction. The metropolitan and the Novgorodians wrote to Constantinople and sent representatives. Following a discussion with Novgorodian representatives, in September 1393, the patriarch had a new charter delivered by Archbishop Michael of Bethlehem together with the imperial envoy Alexis Aaron. The Novgorodians persisted in their requests, and announced that 52 53 54

A liturgical cape decorated with crosses; his wearing of it may have originally been the prerogative of the patriarchs, but later its use was extended to metropolitans: Ševčenko, “Polystauron”. PSRL, vol. 11, p. 206. Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2583; Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 265, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 522–23; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 19, ed. Pavlov, pp. 115–17.

194

Vetochnikov

they would rather join the Latin Church if their demands were not satisfied. Another patriarchal charter was then written, by which their excommunication was confirmed. Finally, the Grand Prince of Moscow attacked the town and subjected it to his, and the metropolitan’s, authority.55 A similar case concerned the dispute between Metropolitan Cyprian and Bishop Euphrosynos of Suzdal over two cities: Nizhny Novgorod and Gorodets.56 The affair was assigned to the same apocrisiarii. Patriarch Antony believed that these cities had been granted to Bishop Dionysios by Patriarch Neilos, at the request of the bishop. The bishop was asked to present witnesses or “land titles” for the possession of these two cities. It should be noted that the existence of Emperor John V’s chrysobull57 concerning these lands is attested only by the bishop’s words in 1393. The metropolitan’s request concerning the two cities was probably filed after the territorial struggles of those years, Khan Tokhtamysh having given them to the Grand Prince of Russia in 1392.58 In addition, the metropolitans of Russia were required to participate in the life of the patriarchate, and to inform the latter of their metropolis’ affairs. This is exemplified by the case of Metropolitan Alexis.59 Yet, the presence of the metropolitans of Russia in the synod was rare, we only know of a few cases;60 they only attended when they were ordained or if they had to deal with some problems. The patriarchal acts and the Russian chronicles consistently show that relations between the patriarchate and the metropolitan were maintained through their respective representatives.61 It is noteworthy that patriarchs often repeated that the metropolitan of Russia was the patriarchal representative in these countries, and that all honor that was paid to him was paid to the patriarch.62 In fact, the patriarchs often supported the rights of the metropolitans.63 Therefore, the metropolitans of 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2929; Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 446, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 181–87; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 37, ed. Pavlov, pp. 235–52. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2930; Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 449, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 192–94; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 41, ed. Pavlov, pp. 277–82. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3168. PSRL, vol. 25, pp. 219–20; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2930 (comment). Acta patriarchatus 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, p. 339. Acta patriarchatus 2, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 130, 132, 133, 135; Canons, vol. 5, eds. Rhalles and Potles, p. 60; Niketas Choniates, Thesaurus orthodoxae fidei 24 in Patrologia Graeca 140, col. 152. See, for example, Acta patriarchatus 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 518–19, 591; PSRL, vol. 2, p. 350. See, for example, Acta patriarchatus 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 516–17, 521. Lay people and the clergy of all ranks must respect the metropolitan: see, for example, Acta patriarchatus 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 339, 427, 579. See, for example, Acta patriarchatus 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 320–25.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

195

Russia who had been ordained (or appointed) by the Ecumenical Patriarch, being subjected to his court, depended on the patriarch in their administration of the metropolis in general. This dependence did not deprive them of some freedom in the ecclesiastical administration of the Russian countries. It should be stressed though that the patriarch could not meddle in the affairs of this Church without reason, that is without being called by the metropolitan, especially when the metropolitan’s decisions were fair and canonical.64 Those principles were a part of the general rights of the metropolitans. This canonical dependence also protected the Russian Church from attempts by princes to abuse their power. 7

Patriarchal Actions Concerning the Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Russian Countries

The patriarchs, sometimes alone, sometimes together with the synod or even with the emperor, were involved in various cases concerning the Russian metropolis. For this reason they did not only speak to the metropolitans, but also to the other members of the metropolis to preserve canonical order. Indeed, the preserved patriarchal acts show that intervention took place at the metropolitan’s request, or when local authorities were no longer able to solve problems themselves. Accusations concerning the metropolitans made by bishops or Russian princes were also a part of the canonical framework: only the patriarch and his synod had the right to judge the metropolitan. Besides administrative matters, the patriarchate also had a significant role in the formation of the Church of Russia: of its clergy, its ecclesiastical order, its mission and teaching, and its liturgical art. In some cases, the bishops of the Russian countries were elected and ordained in Constantinople. Sometimes the patriarchs granted ecclesiastical privileges to Russian bishops: Philotheos gave the bishop of Novgorod the right to wear the polystaurion during liturgical celebrations; in 1381, Patriarch Neilos raised Bishop Dionysios of Suzdal to the dignity of archbishop and placed his diocese in the second position, after Novgorod, in the order of the dioceses of the Russian metropolis.65 64 65

On the rights of metropolitans, see Rodopoulos, An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law, pp. 144–45; Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, pp. 77–91. In the Russian sources, the hierarchs of Novgorod are called archbishops, but we don’t find this title in the Byzantine sources. One of the bishops of Novgorod was probably honored with this title, but this was not maintained thereafter. It should be emphasized that Russian archbishops were probably only ‘honorary’ archbishops, subordinate to their metropolitan, while the archbishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate were excluded from

196

Vetochnikov

The first known patriarchal intervention in the affairs of the metropolis of Russia was in the conflict about fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, which occurred in 1157 in Rostov. The inhabitants of the city removed the local bishop, Nestor, because the latter prescribed fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, even during major religious holidays, except for Christmas and Theophany. The bishop went to Kiev, where he was acquitted by Metropolitan Theodore. Knowing that Prince Andrew Bogolyubsky had sent his ambassador to Constantinople, Nestor went there too. In fact the prince wanted to create a new metropolis in his own city (Vladimir). He complained about Nestor and wanted to dethrone him. Finally, the patriarch refused to allow the creation of a new metropolis and invited the prince to submit to the bishop.66 Another important case was that concerning the ordination of slaves. The practice of buying slaves and educating them had become common in Russian countries in the 13th century. Their ordination, however, remained contrary to the canons. When Patriarch Germanos learned that this was happening, he wrote to Metropolitan Cyril I of Russia and to the bishops of Russian countries, prescribing that slaves should be ordained only after their legal emancipation. Despite this order the practice continued for a long period.67 We also find an outstanding case in the synodal responses of Patriarch John Bekkos to the bishop of Sarai, dated 12 August 1276. The bishop asked for advice on some unusual issues of liturgical and canonical order concerning the relation of his diocese among the nomadic people.68 Yet another important case that attracted the attention of the patriarch was that of the Strigolniki heresy, which spread in the 14th century in the region of Novgorod and Pskov. The Strigolniki rejected hierarchy, monasticism, and

66 67 68

the jurisdiction of the metropolitan, and directly subordinate to the patriarch. For this reason they were called ‘autocephalous’. In the autumn of 1381, an act granted the title of archbishop to the bishop of Suzdal; this document exists only in the Slavic version. See Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2731; AI, vol. 1, no. 251, pp. 471–72; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 23, ed. Pavlov, pp. 199–204. The document is often considered to be a forgery, but this is doubtful. Dionysios had the title of archbishop in a patriarchal act in the Greek language. See Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2729, pp. 46–47; Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 347, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 31–34; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 31, ed. Pavlov, no. 31, pp. 183–88. See Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1052; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 3, ed. Pavlov, pp. 63–68; PSRL vol. 9, pp. 223–29; Senyk, History, vol. 1, pp. 112, 126. Documents of Canonical Law, no. 5, ed. Pavlov, pp. 79–84. See Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1427; Canonical Orders, ed. Gedeon, vol. 1, pp. 16–20; Documents of Canonical Law, ed. Pavlov, pp. 5–12; Ecclesiastical Documents, ed. Delikanes, vol. 3, pp. 269–73; Selected Documents, ed. Oudot, pp. 90–97; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 12, ed. Pavlov, pp. 129–40. On the diocese of Saray, see Senyk, History, vol. 1, pp. 112, 445–46.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

197

the sacraments, and accused the Church of simony. The representatives of the Russian Church wrote several letters in an attempt to rebuke the heretics. For this reason, in 1381, Patriarch Neilos sent the archbishop Dionysios of Suzdal with a letter on simony.69 Dionysios partly accomplished his mission and managed to end the riot “about ordination taxes”, but the heresy continued to exist for some time.70 Another problem that faced the patriarchate of Constantinople concerned the metropolis of Halych. After the death of Metropolitan Antony (1391) there was great confusion due to the number of candidates to replace him. To restore canonical balance, the archbishop of Bethlehem was sent as patriarchal exarchos with all the rights of a local bishop except for that of accession on the synthronon;71 he had somehow assumed the functions of a locum tenens of this vacant metropolis.72 During the early period of the Russian Church, the patriarch got regularly involved in the administration of this distant metropolis. Among the rights exercised by the patriarch, we find: the appointment of metropolitans; the creation and deletion of a metropolis (with imperial participation); and the dispatch of charters relating to the affairs of this metropolis. When the patriarchal letters did not succeed in solving an issue, the Great Church was obliged to send its representatives to settle cases on the spot or make an investigation and then take the case to the synod. The metropolis of Russia was often the subject of concern for the patriarchate of Constantinople; among the 800 documents of the Synodal Register of the 14th century 40, that is 5 per cent, concern Russian countries.73 Seventeen of these 40 documents mention ten missions to Russia. The patriarchal envoys usually had the status of apocrisiarius, but twice they were exarchs;74 the term “ambassador” is used once. As we have seen, people of different ranks were among the patriarchal envoys. The deacon George Perdikes75 had different functions in both the 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

See History of Moses, p. 11; Kazakova and Lur’e, Antifeodal’nye eretičeskie dviženiâ na Rusi, pp. 39, 59; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2729, p. 47; PSRL, vol. 3, pp. 378–79. See AI, vol. 1, no. 33, pp. 63–65; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 55, ed. Pavlov, no. 55, pp. 475–82; Kazakova and Lur’e, Antifeodal’nye eretičeskie dviženiâ na Rusi, pp. 251–53; Vetochnikov, “Le Pittakion patriarcal”, pp. 43–57. This is the bishop’s throne behind the altar table where, in the Byzantine tradition, only the local bishop had the right to sit: Johnson and Cutler, “Synthronon”. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3038; Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 514, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 280–81; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 43, ed. Pavlov, pp. 291–98; Senyk, History, vol. 2, pp. 76–77. See Hinterberger, “Relations diplomatiques”, p. 123. Kazhdan and Papadakis, “Exarch”. Failler, “Déposition”, pp. 111–12; Hinterberger, “Relations diplomatiques”, pp. 125–27.

198

Vetochnikov

patriarchal and the imperial courts. Ecclesiastical and imperial archontes are often mentioned side by side, without further specification.76 We also find mention of the oikeios (the emperor’s close relative) Alexis Aaron.77 Another patriarchal envoy was John Dokeianos, a Byzantine scholar, probably a teacher at the patriarchal school, who was close to the Palaeologan family.78 The monk Cyprian was used in patriarchal missions; he later became the metropolitan of Russia, but was probably a priest-monk during his mission to Russia.79 Among the patriarch’s envoys we also find members of the Byzantine high clergy, like Metropolitan Dionysios of Keltzene (1356?–64)80 and two more anonymous metropolitans.81 On one occasion, a Russian prelate was in charge of a patriarchal mission: Archbishop Dionysios of Suzdal (†1385). A special case was that of Archbishop Michael of Bethlehem, a prelate of the patriarchate of Jerusalem, who was in charge of several missions to Russian countries;82 the choice of Michael for all these missions was justified by the fact that he knew the Slavic language, “which was his own”.83 The foremost cases referred to the patriarchal envoys were the following: the enthronement of Metropolitan Alexis by the patriarchal exarchos and the deacon George Perdikes;84 the investigation into the actions of the Metropolitan Roman;85 the mission of Dionysios of Suzdal to combat the Strigolniki’s movements in Novgorod;86 the conflicts between Metropolitan Alexis and the princes;87 the investigation into the ordination of Metropolitan Pimen, his removal and the enthronement of the new metropolitan;88 the reconciliation of the Novgorodians with the metropolitan;89 the dispute between

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2847. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2929, 2930. For the oikeioi, see Verpeaux, “Les oikeioi”, pp. 89–99; Kazdan, “Oikeios”. Talbot, “John Dokeianos”. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2847. On Cyprian, see Obolensky, “A philorhomaios anthropos”, pp. 79–98. See PLP, no. 5482. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2847; Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 404, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 116–29; Documents of Canonical Law, no. 33, ed. Pavlov, pp. 193–228. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2924, 2929–31, 2934, 2938, 3038–3040, 3112. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3038; Acta patriarchatus 2, eds. Miklosich and Müller, p. 278; see also Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2938 (comment). Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2364. Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2434–35. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2729. Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2625–26; Regestes 6, reg. 2847. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2847. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2929, 2934, 2938.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

199

the metropolitan and a bishop about the borders of the dioceses;90 and the usurpation of the metropolis of Halych by a bishop, the administration of the diocese,91 and a request for help.92 As we have seen, the patriarchal envoys sometimes had full power and could judge the metropolitan, remove him and enthrone a new one,93 judge a dispute between prelates,94 or investigate on the spot and provide Constantinople with information.95 In other cases, the patriarchal envoys simply brought information to the patriarch’s correspondents, tried to persuade them or asked for help; in those cases the missions were diplomatic.96 8

Conclusion

As we have seen, during its canonical dependence on the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the relations between the metropolis of Russia and the patriarchate were similar to those of any other metropolis. There are, however, some peculiar features. Russia was the largest metropolis in the patriarchate, it was outside the empire, on lands that depended on different sovereigns, and was inhabited exclusively by foreign people. All this required different modes of action. Diplomatic moves were often needed to manage ecclesiastical problems. This may have been one of the reasons why we find imperial officials among the bearers of ecclesiastical embassies, although, of course, the patriarchate was the imperial Church, and high ecclesiastical dignitaries were also a sort of imperial official. The metropolitans also often played the role of representatives of the empire in Russian countries; they had to inform local authorities of the empire’s affairs, ask for help, and provide the patriarch with information about his country. This explains why the Byzantine authorities always wanted metropolitans elected in Constantinople for this region. For a long time the patriarchate kept this distant metropolis in its canonical protection and this often irritated the local princes, who sometimes tried to get rid of this dependence. This, however, only proved possible following the capture of Constantinople by the Ottomans, under the pretext of the union between the Greek and the Roman Churches. 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2930, 2938. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3038–40. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3112. Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2364; Regestes 6, reg. 2847, 2930, 2938. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2930, 2938. Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2434–35. Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2929, 2934, no. 2938, 3112.

200

Vetochnikov

Bibliography Primary Sources

Acta patriarchatus 1–2, eds. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, vols. 1–2 (Vienna, 1860, 1862). AI = Akty istoričeskìe sobrannye i izdannye Arheolografičeskoû Kommissìeû … [Historical documents, collected and published by the archaeographic commission …] (Saint Petersburg, 1841–43). Canonical Orders, ed. M. Gedeon, Κανονικαὶ διατάξεις: Ἐπιστολαί, λύσεις, θεσπίσματα τῶν ἁγιωτάτων πατριαρχῶν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ἀπὸ Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου μέχρι Διονυσίου τοῦ ἀπὸ Ἀδριανουπόλεως (Constantinople, 1888–89). Canons 1–6, eds. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων, 6 vols. (Athens, 1852–59). Documents of Canonical Law, ed. A.S. Pavlov, Pamâtniki drevne-russkago kanoničeskago prava, vol. 1 (Pamâtniki XI–XV v.) [Documents of old Russian canonical law, vol. 1 (Documents of the 11th–15th century)] (Saint Petersburg, 1908). Ecclesiastical Documents, ed. K. Delikanes, Τὰ ἐν τοῖς κωδίξι τοῦ πατριαρχικοῦ ἀρχειοφυλακείου σωζόμενα ἐπίσημα ἐκκλησιαστικὰ ἔγγραφα, 3 vols. (Constantinople, 1902–04). First Chronicle of Novgorod, ed. M.N. Tihomirov, Novgorodskaâ Pervaâ Letopis’ staršego i mladšego izvodov [The first chronicle of Novgorod in its old and new version] (Moscow, 1950). History of Moses [Povest’ o Moisee], ed. G.A. Kušelev-Bezborodko, Pamâtniki starinnoj russkoj literatury [Documents of old Russian literature], vol. 4 (Saint Petersburg, 1862). History of Past Years, ed. D.S. Lihačev, Povest’ vremennyh let (Moscow, 1950). Niketas Choniates, Thesaurus orthodoxae fidei, ed. J.-P. Migne, in Patrologia Graeca 140, pp. 9–292. Notitiae episcopatuum, ed. J. Darrouzès, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae (Paris, 1981). Official Documents, eds. M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and D.G. Apostolopoulos, Επίσημα κείμενα του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Τα σωζόμενα από την περίοδο 1454–1498 (Iνστιτούτο Ιστορικών Ερευνών, Τομέας Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών, Θεσμοί και Ιδεολογία στη νεοελληνική κοινωνία 121) (Athens, 2011, repr. 2016). PSRL = Polnoe sobranie russkih letopisej [Complete collection of Russian chronicles] (Leningrad, 1926–). Register of the Patriarchate 1–3, eds. H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 1: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315–1331 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.1) (Vienna, 1981); eds. H. Hunger, O. Kresten, E. Kislinger, and C. Cupane, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 2: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

201

1337–1350 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.2) (Vienna, 1995); eds. J. Koder, M. Hinterberger, and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 3: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.3) (Vienna, 2001). Selected Documents, ed. I. Oudot, Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani acta selecta, vol. 1 (Codificazione canonica orientale, fonti 2.3.1) (Vatican City, 1941).

Secondary Literature

Apostolopoulos, D.G. and M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Επιτομή—Παράδοση—Σχολιασμός, vol. 1: 1454–1498 / Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinopole, vol. 1: Les regestes de 1454 à 1498 (Athens, 2013). Barsov, Т.V., Konstantinopol’skij patriarh i ego vlast’ nad Ruskoj Cerkov’ju [The patriarch of Constantinople and his authority over the Russian Church] (Saint Petersburg, 1878). Cypin, V., Cerkovnoe pravo: kurs lekcij [Church law, a course of lectures] (Moscow, 1994). Darrouzès, J., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 5: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376 (Paris, 1977); part 6: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410 (Paris, 1979); part 7: Les regestes de 1410 à 1453 (Paris, 1991). Failler, A., “La déposition du Patriarche Calliste Ier (1353)”, Revue des Études Byzantines 31 (1973), 5–163. Gastgeber, C., “Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek. Documents of the patriarchal chancellery of Constantinople (14th c.)”, Open Linguistics 3 (2017) 342–358. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0017 (accessed 31 December 2020). Golubinskij, E., Istorìâ russkoj cerkvi [History of the Russian Church] (Moscow, 1901–17). Gonneau, P. and A. Lavrov, Des Rhôs à la Russie: histoire de l’Europe orientale (v. 730– 1689) (Paris, 2012). Grumel, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 1: Les regestes de 381 à 715 (Paris, 1972). Grumel, V. and J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, parts 2–3: Les regestes de 715 à 1206 (Paris, 1989). Hinterberger, M., “Les relations diplomatiques entre Constantinople et la Russie au XIVe siècle: les lettres patriarcales, les envoyés et le langage diplomatique”, in Byzance et le monde extérieur: contacts, relations, échanges: actes de trois séances du XXe Congrès international des études byzantines, Paris, 19–25 août 2001, eds. M. Balard, E. Malamut, J.-M. Spieser, and P. Pagès (Paris, 2005), pp. 123–34. Johnson, M.J. and A. Cutler, “Synthronon”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1991), p. 1996.

202

Vetochnikov

Kazakova, N.A. and Â.S. Lur’e, Antifeodal’nye eretičeskie dviženiâ na Rusi: XIV–načala XVI veka [Antifeudal heretic movements in Russia: 14th–early 16th century] (Moscow, 1955). Kazhdan, A., “Oikeios”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1991), p. 1515. Kazhdan, A. and P. Magdalino, “Sakkelion”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 1828–29. Kazhdan, A. and A. Papadakis, “Exarch”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1991), p. 767. Kazhdan, A. and A.M. Talbot, “Stauropegion”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 1946–47. Laurent, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 4: Les regestes de 1208 à 1309 (Paris, 1971). Magdalino, P., “Apokrisiarios”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1991), p. 136. Meyendorff, J., “Alexis and Roman: a study in Byzantino-Russian relations (1352–1354)”, Byzantinoslavica 28 (1967), 278–88. Meyendorff, J., Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: a Study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1981). Müller, L., Des Metropoliten Ilarion Lobrede auf Vladimir den Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntnis (Slavische Studienbücher 2) (Wiesbaden, 1962). Müller, L., Die Werke des Metropoliten Ilarion (Forum Slavicum 37) (Munich, 1971). Nikodim (Milaš), Bishop of Dalmatia, Pravoslavnoe cerkovnoe pravo [Orthodox Church law] (Saint Petersburg, 1897). Obolensky, D., “A philorhomaios anthropos: Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev and All Russia”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32 (1979), 79–98. Papadakis, A., “Isidore of Kiev”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 1015–16. Perrie, M. ed., The Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 1: From Early Rus’ to 1689 (Cambridge, 2006). PLP = Trapp, E. et al. ed., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, vol. 1–12, Add. 1–2, register (Vienna, 1976–96; updated CD-ROM Vienna, 2001). Poppe, A., “La tentative de réforme ecclésiastique en Russie an milieu du Xième siècle”, Acta Poloniae historica 25 (1972), 5–31. Preiser-Kapeller, J., “Das Patriarchat von Konstantinopel und die russischen Kirchen vom 13. bis zum 15. Jahrhundert: ein Überblick zur Kirchenpolitik auf der Grundlage des Patriarchatsregisters”, Historicum: Zeitschrift für Geschichte (Spring-Summer 2007), 71–77. Rodopoulos, P., An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law (Rollinsford, 2007).

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and Russian Countries

203

Ŝapov, Â., Vostočnoslavânskie I ûžnoslavânskie rukopisnye knigi v sobraniâh Pol′skoj Narodnoj Respubliki [East Slavic and south Slavic manuscripts in the collections of the Polish People’s Republic], vol. 2 (Moscow, 1976). Senyk, S., A History of the Church in Ukraine, vol. 1: To the End of the Thirteenth Century; vol. 2: 1300 to the Union of Brest (Rome, 1993, 2011). Ševčenko, N.P., “Polystaurion”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1991), p. 1696. Talbot, A.-M., “John Dokeianos”, in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium ed. A.P. Kazhdan, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1991), p. 645. Verpeaux, J., “Les oikeioi. Notes d’histoire institutionnelle et sociale”, Revue des Études Byzantines 23 (1965), 89–99. Vetochnikov, K., “Le Pittakion patriarcal de l’automne 1381 aux habitants de Novgorod, et sa version slavonne”, in The Register of The Patriarchate of Constantinople. An Essential Source for the History and Church of Late Byzantium, eds. C. Gastgeber, E. Mitsiou, and J. Preiser-Kapeller (Veröffentlichtungen zur Byzanzforschung 32) (Vienna, 2013), pp. 43–57. Vetochnikov, K., “Le titre officiel du métropolite de Russie au Moyen Age”, in Le patriarcat Œcuménique de Constantinople et Byzance hors frontières (1204–1586): actes de la table ronde organisée dans les cadre du 22e Congrès International des Etudes Byzantines Sofia, 22–27 août 2011, eds. M.-H. Blanchet, M.-H. Congourdeau, and D.I. Mureşan (Paris, 2014), pp. 273–308. Vetochnikov, K., “Le pouvoir de l’empereur Byzantin sur l’église russe médiévale d’après les actes patriarcaux”, in Byzantium as Bridge between West and East: Proceedings of the International Conference, Vienna, 3rd–5th May, 2012, eds. C. Gastgeber and F. Daim (Vienna, 2015), pp. 131–55. Vodoff, V., Naissance de la chrétienté russe. La conversion du prince Vladimir de Kiev (988) et ses conséquences (XIe–XIIIe siècles) (Paris, 1988).

chapter 11

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power Ekaterini Mitsiou 1

The State of Research

Despite numerous studies, the interaction between imperial and patriarchal power in Byzantium remains a contested topic.1 The most controversial question is whether they were equally strong. This theme has been discussed in studies on imperial power in Byzantium by Otto Treitinger, Anton Michel and Gilbert Dagron, and Dimiter Angelov. In relation to the political ideas of the Byzantines, the most stimulating and controversial analysis has been published recently by Antony Kaldellis who proposed the idea that Byzantium was a “republican monarchy”.2 Kaldellis focused on the rejection of stereotypical ideas about political ideology in Byzantium; however, he only briefly analyzed the relationship between the politeia and the Church. His provocative ideas in relation to the emperor will be included in the following analysis, since imperial ideology influenced to a significant degree the interplay between the patriarch and the emperor. Their interaction, from the point of view of the patriarchate, was also the focus of the innovative project “Religion und Politik” in Münster, directed by Michael Grünbart. Two volumes, that resulted from a conference organized by the project, include some of the latest contributions on the topic.3 In Byzantium, both patriarch and emperor were compared to the sun; however, for the patriarch this appears more often from the 12th century.4 The image of the emperor as a sun, as well as his identification with the sun-god, had always been stronger. Herbert Hunger has noticed that almost every encomium of the emperor includes a comparison or a reference to the relationship

1 Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee, pp. 219–27; Michel, Die Kaisermacht; Dagron, Emperor and Priest, pp. 299–303; Beck, Geschichte, pp. 237–40; Fögen, “Das politische Denken”, pp. 59–67; Congourdeau, “Kirche und weltliche Macht”, pp. 610–25. On the idea of the two suns, see Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies, pp. 462–63; Dagron, “Die ˊZwei Gewaltenˊ”, pp. 210–28; Auzépy, “Imperial power and the Church”, pp. 75–83. 2 Kaldellis, Byzantine Republic, p. 22. 3 See, for example, Grünbart, “Aspekte”, pp. 283–300; Mitsiou, “Interaktion”, pp. 79–96. 4 Loukaki, “Ο ιδανικός πατριάρχης”, pp. 301–19, esp. p. 315; Loukaki, “L’image littéraire”, pp. 65–78.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_012

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

205

between the sovereign and the sun.5 The image of the sun is an integral part of imperial ideology that understood the Byzantine emperor as representative and an imitator of God on earth. One of his duties was to act as guardian of the Christian religion, but on this point the imperial sphere crossed over with the duties and objectives of the Church. Laws and canons tried to define the relationship between the two powers, but the basic elements of their interaction were, and still are, open to different interpretations. Some scholars speak of “caesaropapism”, others of “hierocracy”.6 The question of the patriarch’s precedence recently received a new impetus due to the views expressed by Dimiter Angelov about Late Byzantium. He based his conclusions mainly on the dissemination of the Donatio Constantini in Byzantium in the 13th century, on the ritual groom service (officium stratoris) of Michael VIII to Arsenios, of the texts of the Arsenite Schism, and on the works of Symeon of Thessaloniki and Makarios of Ancyra.7 According to Angelov, the ideological relationship between the two powers in that period is characterized by the strengthening of the patriarch’s position, who increasingly expressed hierocratic views. The hierocratic ideas of some patriarchs—especially Arsenios and Athanasios I—and other churchmen were concentrated on the criticism of the traditional views about the emperor as a priest, and on doubts about the control of the emperor over Church administration. Moreover, in Late Byzantium, the role of the patriarch received growing importance due to his role as the anointer of the newly elected emperor. Nevertheless, as we are about to see, this was no new phenomenon; the new element was the higher number of critical voices that spoke up against an unsuccessful imperial authority. 2

Imperial Ideology and Patriarch

According to the Weberian model, Byzantium belonged to the traditional type of rulership. In this type of government, tradition plays a significant role because one knows only this form of rulership, and thus the authorities aim at keeping it and preserving it. The Byzantine Empire possessed no constitution 5 Hunger, Prooimion, pp. 75–80; Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee, pp. 112–20. On the cult of sol invictus see Halsberghe, The Cult of Sol Invictus. 6 On state and hierocracy, see Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, pp. 779–817. 7 Angelov, Imperial Ideology, pp. 351–416; Angelov, “Donation of Constantine”, pp. 91–157; Fried, “Donation of Constantine”. For the officium stratoris, see Ostrogorsky, “Zum Stratordienst des Herrschers”, pp. 101–21; Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee, pp. 225–27; Dagron, Emperor and Priest, pp. 223–47.

206

Mitsiou

defining the basic rights and obligations of the emperor and his subjects. The political ideas about Byzantine citizens and office holders are reflected in different categories of sources: historiography, legislation, letter collections, rhetoric, and art. They are not exclusively descriptive, but normative texts also represented the idealized model of a ruler, as did ‘mirrors for princes’ texts. The analysis of Byzantine imperial ideology starts with the foundation of Constantinople and the translatio imperii from Rome to Byzantium, the “New Rome”. The connection of the new capital to Rome surmounted the state with legitimacy and the idea of the continuation of a glorious and prestigious empire. The Byzantines defined themselves as “Romans” (Ῥωμαῖοι),8 however they began their history not with the foundation of the city but from the biblical period. Constantine the Great was the main point of reference for the relations between emperor and patriarch. The first Byzantine emperor is important due to his foundation of Constantinople and due to the fact that imperial ideology was formed around his person. The main element was the idea of a god-emperor, known from the Roman period. This idea was put in another frame offered by the Christian faith and the discussions about the nature of Christ, which recognized him as equal to God. The emperor was regarded as the representative of God on earth, as chosen by God; his rule was considered an imitation of the reign of the one God (χριστομίμητος). Marie-Theres Fögen noticed that: Constantine the Great was the first emperor who defined himself as an imitation of the Christian God, as a representative of God, as the one elected by God, and similar but still subject of God; in the order of heaven and earth he occupied a rank next to God and to all men.9 In an idealized form the emperor was considered a ‘god-beloved monarch’. The theocratic understanding of imperial power was been strongly related to Eusebios of Caesarea, who argued that: So the God of the universe, the Lord of all the world has chosen Constantine himself as ruler and leader so that only in his case, no human being might boast to have raised him—the other emperors had risen to this dignity through the choice of others.10 8 9 10

Lechner, Hellenen und Barbaren, pp. 4–5. Fögen, “Das politische Denken”, p. 44 (my translation). Eusebios of Caesarea, De Vita Constantini, 1.24, ed. Schneider, p. 178, lines 1–5: “Οὕτω δὴ Κωνσταντῖνον, τοιούτου φύντα πατρός, ἄρχοντα καὶ καθηγεμόνα τῶν ὅλων θεὸς ὁ τοῦ σύμπαντος

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

207

Kaldellis, however, warns us not to consider Eusebios as the founding father of Byzantine thought because: “The military emperors of the third century developed the notion of divine election partly to insulate the imperial office from the chaos that was election by mutinous armies.”11 The idea of sacerdotal kingship may have served the aims of internal peace and legitimacy, however, as we are about to see, the connection of the Church to kingship was also problematic, since it left the Church in search of her actual role in a human, that is mortal and sinful, society. Even if “Christianity only slightly altered the source of the emperor’s sacred quality”, as has been recently argued,12 sacerdotium depended strongly on imperium. Constantine was the emperor who ended the persecution of Christians; at the same time he presided over the First Ecumenical Council, yet the Roman tradition of the pontifex maximus (greatest pontiff or priest) also continued. Based on the model of Constantine, the Byzantine emperors since Theodosius I summoned ecclesiastical councils, bestowed their decisions with the status of laws, and influenced the election of metropolitans and patriarchs. The election of a new patriarch was also highly dependent on the will of the emperor; after a proposal of three candidates by the synod, the emperor could choose one of them. He could, however, select another person with no regard for the three candidates. The Christian faith offered symbols and models that were used in imperial ideology. For the rhetorical legitimation of imperial power served the comparison to David, whose power derived from God. Since the 8th–9th century this became the popular ‘rule model’. An emperor who came to power in a nonpeaceful way could justify his usurpation on the basis of the model of David. Basil I, the first emperor of the Macedonian dynasty, and a usurper, was called ‘the David who had to replace Saul’, his precursor Michael III. Christianity offered additional arguments for the legitimacy of imperial power. As God is one, so God has chosen a single person. That means that only the autocracy or monarchy reflected the heavenly order. In addition, the Roman Empire flourished at the time when Augustus was an absolute monarch. As such, the Byzantines expressed a generally negative attitude towards democracy, which was equated to anarchy, but also against aristocracy. Theophylact of Ohrid even refused to refer to aristocratic and democratic

11 12

κόσμου πρύτανις δι’ ἑαυτοῦ προεχειρίζετο, ὡς μηδένα ἀνθρώπων μόνου τοῦδε τὴν προαγωγὴν αὐχῆσαι, τῶν ἄλλων ἐξ ἐπικρίσεως ἑτέρων τῆς τιμῆς ἠξιωμένων.” (my translation). Kaldellis, Byzantine Republic, p. 177. Kaldellis, Byzantine Republic, p. 176.

208

Mitsiou

systems.13 Kaldellis correctly points to these two parallel and contradictory ideas: On the one hand, according to the norms of the republic, emperors derived legitimacy through acclamation by the army (the Roman people at arms), while, on the other hand, according to the rhetoric that hovered over these transactions, they were also somehow appointed to rule by some deity.14 This is only one of the many ambivalent attitudes the Byzantines held, depending on the situation and the persons involved. The Byzantine emperor demonstrated his likeness to God through various virtues, which were connected to his political role. Since Synesios, and his speech to Emperor Arkadios, the ‘mirrors of princes’ genre gained in importance.15 These texts of paraenetical character presented the most important virtues of an emperor: piety, righteousness/justice,16 reverence for God, mercifulness, self-control, obedience to the law, education and wisdom, incorruptibility, and philanthropy.17 In some sources, critical voices were uttered against individual emperors without putting the entire political system into question. Orators, encomiasts, and historians were often very close to power, they were also members of the Byzantine bureaucracy, which, together with the other constituent parts of the politeia, allowed for the exercise of power. For the imperial succession of a Byzantine emperor, several factors played a role, with the consensus of the “Akzeptanzgruppen” (as Pfeilschifter has called them) being the most important.18 The election and acclamation by the Senate, the people of Constantinople (δήμος), and the army signaled the beginning of imperial rule; nevertheless, a coronation had to follow. A description of the imperial coronation has survived in the De Ceremoniis, a text of the 10th century which reflects older traditions. We can establish that the strong military traits of the early centuries subsided, but they did not disappear; the raising on a shield was, until the 7th century, the military form of the imperial coronation. The coronation ceremony also testifies to the strong attachment of 13 14 15 16 17 18

Theophylact of Ohrid, Speech to Constantine Porphyrogennetos, ch. 6, ed. Gautier, p. 195. Kaldellis, Byzantine Republic, p. 178. Paidas, Η θεματική των βυζαντινών “Κατόπτρων ηγεμόνος”. Laiou, “Law, justice, and the Byzantine historians”, pp. 151–57. Kiousopoulou, Emperor or Manager, pp. 133–40. Pfeilschifter, Der Kaiser und Konstantinopel, pp. 28–38; Christophilopoulou, Εκλογή, αναγόρευσις και στέψις.

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

209

imperium and sacerdotium, since, from the 5th century onwards, the patriarch played a prominent role in the coronation. This was a key point for usurpers who were successful, whenever they had contacts with the patriarchate prior and after their usurpation. Without the cooperation of the Church a usurper was generally doomed to fail, as the case of John Komnenos the Fat in 1201 demonstrated.19 It was not until the Lascarid period that clear evidence attests to the reappearance of the raising on a shield in combination with the coronation by the patriarch. 3

Patriarch and Emperor

The relations between the two powers were signified by mutual dependence expressed in prerogatives, privileges, but also duties and the need for mutual support. The emperor had to protect the Church and was considered megas epistemonarches. He presided over councils and confirmed the decisions of the synod. He supported the Church, not only during theological controversies such as Palamism,20 but also in the fight against magic and astrology.21 Many emperors were even theologians, such as Theodore II Laskaris. Despite the fact that the emperor should be the guardian of the faith, he did not have the right to regularly interfere in Church affairs. Therefore, as the emperor did not have unrestricted power in an “Akzeptanzsystem”,22 a certain separation between the two powers, kingship and Church, existed; the two powers were supposed to cooperate harmoniously for the good of the state. In his speech in front of the bishops and the senate, who were summoned to the imperial court after the death of Patriarch Polyeuktos, Emperor John I Tzimiskes argued that: In this life and in the earthly sphere here below there are two [authorities], priesthood and the imperial rule; to the former the Creator granted responsibility for our souls, to the latter the guidance of our bodies, so 19 20

21 22

Grünbart, “Aspekte”, p. 291. Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 132 (July 1341), eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 206–57; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2213; Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 145 (November 1344), pp. 324–39; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2251; Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 147 (February 1347), eds. Koder, Hinterberer, and Kresten, p. 352; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2270. Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 120 (November 1338–June 1339), eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 154–61; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2188. Flaig, Den Kaiser herausfordern, pp. 11–208, 550–68; Pfeilschifter, Der Kaiser und Konstantinopel, pp. 2–9; Lilie, “Legibus solutus?”, pp. 53–64; Cheynet, “Patriarches et empereurs”, pp. 1–18.

210

Mitsiou

that no part of these [i.e. body and soul] would be defective, but would be preserved whole and undamaged.23 Church and emperor were the soul and the body, the one is divine (spiritual), while the other temporary. In a letter, Photios distinguished between the banality of political regimes and the most significant role of the Church, that is the salvation of souls: … our Saviour and God had no intention to establish political regimes or any of their orders. For he knew, he knew well, that human beings would be able to provide these things for themselves from their own experience, that necessity would easily furnish them with instruction on a daily basis, and that the errors of those who came before would prevent future generations from making the same mistakes … The Saviour’s intention was only a concern for the salvation of souls.24 The preamble of Justinian’s novel 6 reflects as well the perception of Church and the emperor as soul and body: The greatest gifts of God, given to men by the philanthropy from above, are the priesthood (hierosyne) and the empire (basileia). The former is at the service of divine matters, it is for the latter to direct and take care of human affairs.25 The same preamble exhorts the harmony between the two powers: That is why nothing is more important to the emperors than the priest command respect, inasmuch as the latter pray constantly to God on their behalf. In fact, if [priesthood] is in all things without fault and enjoys the confidence of God, and if [the empire], for its part, with rectitude and propriety, makes the politeia which has been entrusted to it more beautiful, there will be an excellent harmony, which will secure for the human race everything that is necessary to it.26 23 24 25 26

Leo the Deacon, History, 6, ed. Hase, pp. 101–2; Talbot and Sullivan, The History of Leo the Deacon, p. 151. Photios, Letter 187, eds. Laourdas and Westerink, vol. 2, p. 82. Justinian, Novels, nov. 6, eds. Schöll and Kroll, p. 35, line 27–p. 36, line 21. English translation in Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 303. English translation by Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 303.

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

211

The prerogatives of the emperor were evident in Church affairs. However, in the 14th century, Byzantine emperors found themselves searching for a reaffirmation of those prerogatives.27 In 1380, the endemousa synodos and the Patriarch Neilos replied to this request with nine articles: 1. The emperor had the right to veto the election of a metropolitan who did not please him 2. He could modify as he saw fit the hierarchy of episcopal sees, make transfers of bishops and, sign of the times, grant bishoprics as benefices 3. He ratified appointments to the chief ecclesiastical offices, that is to the upper ranks of the patriarchal administration 4. He ensured that the boundaries of the dioceses, as established by him, were respected 5. He would be free from all patriarchal censure (excommunication, deposition), and if an archon and member of the senate infringed a canon, the patriarch would impose a punishment only through his intermediary, who would represent his role as defender of the Church and the canons 6. He could retain in Constantinople or send back to their diocese bishops who had come or been summoned to Constantinople on important business without the patriarch having the right to object 7. He might demand from every new bishop a promise of loyalty to his person and to the empire 8. He could require all the bishops to approve and sign the synodal acts 9. The bishops were obliged to take note of these articles and should not propose for election to an episcopal see anyone who was not a friend of the emperor.28 The elevation of a bishopric to a metropolis (and therefore a bishop to a metropolitan) was the emperor’s responsibility; a synodic decision then only confirmed the imperial decision. The phrasing of such documents proves that the selected person was often a favorite of the emperor.29 As Demetrios Chomatenos argued, this decision was also considered a sign of imperial mercy and an honor for the chosen city: “entire cities and (monastic) communities, 27 28 29

On the privileges of the emperor, see Demetrios Chomatenos, Reply to Konstantinos Kabasilas, eds. Rhalles and Potles, pp. 428–29; Matthew Blastares, On the Imperial Privileges, eds. Rhalles and Potles, pp. 275–76; Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 252. Cited here from Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 307; Laurent, “Les droits de l’empereur”, pp. 5–20; Congourdeau, “Kirche und weltliche Macht”, pp. 622–24. Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 58 (November 1318), eds. Hunger and Kresten, p. 372; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2406. Then followed the synodic praxis which confirmed the imperial decision: Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 59 (November 1318), pp. 374–77; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2090.

212

Mitsiou

even if they have exceled only moderately somehow, they receive most abundant and, as one would not expect it, get worthy gifts and they are raised (= by the emperor) and honored by him.”30 Despite the rhetorical tone, we can clearly deduce from this text that political motives, such as a strengthening of the social order and the obedience of subjects, could also cause a raising of a city to a metropolis. This prerogative of the emperor resulted, however, in structural changes in an institution that very often expressed strong opposition to any kainotomia (unseemly innovation). Even more interesting is that the representatives of the Church often faced the difficult task of explaining wrong imperial decisions and justifying them without insulting the ‘divine right of kings’ concept. The interaction of imperial and patriarchal power began solemnly with the initiation rite of the promotion of the patriarch.31 After his election, the patriarch usually went to the Imperial Palace where he read a prayer instead of taking an oath; in his enthronisation prayer, John XIII Glykys is presented as an intermediary between God and emperor.32 Such statements are to be understood within the supportive role of the Church, who served several times as a guarantor of imperial rule.33 The patriarch also played the role of intermediary between conflicting parties, even when the persons involved were the imperial couple. When Michael VIII was thinking of abandoning his wife, Theodora Palaiologina, in order to marry Anna, the widow of John III Vatatzes, the empress turned, in 1261, to Arsenios for help. Patriarchal interference brought an end to the plans of Michael VIII.34 The often problematic relationship between emperor and patriarch resulted partly from the lack of Byzantine ecclesiology determining the exact role of the patriarch.35 Late Byzantine sources, such as the patriarchal register of Constantinople, reflect the interaction between the two powers, but also 30

31

32 33 34 35

Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 62 (November 1318–February 1319), eds. Hunger and Kresten, p. 394; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2094; cf. Demetrios Chomatenos, Reply to Konstantinos Kabasilas, eds. Rhalles and Potles, Σύνταγμα, 5, p. 429; Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 252. Pseudo-Kodinos, Treatise of Offices, ed. Verpeaux, pp. 277–83; cf. Macrides, Munitiz, and Angelov, Pseudo-Kodinos, pp. 250–61; Darrouzès, Recherches, pp. 46–72. On the election and promotion of the patriarch, see Beck, Geschichte, pp. 60–62; Blanchet, “L’élection du patriarche”, pp. 63–77. Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 1 (May 1315), eds. Hunger and Kresten, pp. 102–04; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2188. Michel, Die Kaisermacht, p. 183 and n. 219. George Pachymeres, History 3.7, eds. Failler and Laurent, p. 247. Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 310; cf. Beck, Kirche, pp. 63–65. On the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, see Darrouzès, Le registre.

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

213

of the synod, whose institutional role in exploring possible hierocratic views unfortunately is often ignored. Makarios of Ancyra, for example, fell victim to imperial interference through the work of a synod; so his personal experiences certainly strongly influenced his political views.36 Dagron noted that the power, or even the weakness, of each patriarch was to maintain the balance within a structural multi-polarity between emperor, the patriarchal clergy, and metropolitans (synod).37 Each patriarch owed his election not only to the emperor, but also to the synod. His relationship to the synod often depended on the personality of the respective patriarch; some, such as Kallistos I, made their own decisions on issues that otherwise required the participation of the synod.38 Generally, however, they were careful not to violate the canons, which demanded the presence of several metropolitans for certain issues, such as the depositions of a bishop.39 Some sources emphasize that the relationship between the patriarch and the emperor was marked by dependence. Demetrios Kydones even said of the patriarch that “his whole concern is how he must behave in order to please the emperor; he knows that he owes the grace to be allowed to lead the Church, and that he falls immediately when the emperor is angry with him.”40 The depositions of many patriarchs, such as John Kalekas41 or Kallistos I,42 testify to the consistently precarious position of the patriarch. Makarios, for example, fell victim twice to domestic political upheavals. His dismissal and return to the patriarchal throne is characteristic of the negative consequences of the interaction between the two powers at the time of a political crisis: his support of and from Andronikos IV Palaiologos was his undoing, as in 1379 John V Palaiologos took the throne again. The ideal of harmony also weakened the personal agency of patriarchs, who, for various reasons, questioned the supreme position of the emperor. Especially in Late Byzantium, when political power declined, patriarchal authority was regarded as a guarantee of stability. It is no coincidence that the term ‘son of the Church’ was being used more and more frequently from the 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

On the synod, see the contribution of J. Preiser-Kapeller in this volume. On Makarios of Ancyra, see Laurent, “Le trisépiscopat”, pp. 5–166. Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 310. Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 212 (February/August 1355), eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 200–03; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2377. See the contribution of J. Preiser-Kapeller in this volume. Demetrios Kydones, Apology, ed. Mercati, p. 373; Michel, Die Kaisermacht, p. 182. Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 147 (February 1347), eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 340–83; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2270. Failler, “La déposition”, pp. 5–163.

214

Mitsiou

end of the 13th century to the early 14th century onwards. Athanasios I, a ‘hierocratic’ patriarch, repeatedly addressed the emperor as “son of the Church”.43 According to Pseudo-Kodinos, the emperor before his coronation had to write with his own hand a creed in which he promised to be a ‘son of the Church’ and her defensor and vindicator.44 However, the changes in patriarchal authority during the Palaeologan period in fact signaled the end of a long process. In 806, Theodore Stoudites addressed a letter to Emperor Nikephoros I in relation to the criteria necessary for the selection of a patriarch. In this way he created a ‘mirror for patriarchs’, the first of its kind.45 Dagron summarized the contents of the letter as follows: God has made Nikephoros’ piety reign over Christianity not only so that the secular power should be renewed, but also so that ecclesiastical affairs might benefit, if necessary, from a similar renewal and that there should come about, between the two, a new ‘mixture’. It was therefore essential that the future hierarch was invested only after an indisputable and ‘legitimate’ selection … The Church was not short of intelligent and worthy men, but what was needed for such a position was someone also able to interpret with a perfect heart the decrees of God, who had passed through all the ecclesiastical grades from the highest … and who could give others the benefit of the widest possible experience; someone who would stand out from the others like a sun from the stars.46 Theodore Stoudites argued further that “God had given Christians the priesthood and kingship, and they fashioned the earthly world in the image of the heavenly world; if either one of them declined, both would suffer.”47 More hierocratic were they recorded in the Eisagoge, a legal collection.48 This text offers a unique definition of the patriarch, challenging the ideology of imperial priesthood: “The politeia is constituted of members and limbs, in a like manner to human beings, and the greatest and most necessary parts are the emperor and the patriarch.” For Kaldellis a controversial point was to treat 43 44 45 46 47 48

Athanasios I, Letters 18, 44, 45, 49, 55, 79, ed. Talbot, pp. 46, 92, 94, 106, 122, 198; see Angelov, Imperial Ideology, pp. 403, 412. Pseudo-Kodinos, Treatise of Offices, ed. Verpeaux, pp. 253–54; cf. Macrides, Munitiz, and Angelov, Pseudo-Kodinos, p. 212 (δεφένσωρ καὶ ἐκδικητής) and pp. 213–15 with n. 611. Theodore Stoudites, Letter 16 (between February and April 806), ed. Fatouros, pp. 46–48. Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 225. Dagron, Emperor and Priest, pp. 225–26. Eisagoge, tit. 2, ch. 8, eds. Zepos and Zepos, pp. 59–60; Kaldellis, Byzantine Republic, pp. 17–18.

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

215

“the emperor as part of the polity”. Nevertheless, what is surprising is the new idea, that the patriarch is “an incarnate and living image of Christ, who, by his words and his deeds, expresses the truth.” Traditionally the emperor was the one called ‘imitator of Christ’, ‘living law’ and ‘lawful dominion’; now in the argumentation of the Eisagoge, the patriarch is the image of Christ and the ‘living truth’. According to Dagron: The idea of an emperor-priest, condemned in the person of Leo III, was replaced by a cautious but clear evocation of a patriarch-emperor, or at least of a high priest to whom all the attributes of sovereignty would fall. If he was the living image of Christ, the patriarch shared like him in the two powers. He was a New Moses and a New Melchisedek.49 The provocative ideas of the Eisagoge did not find acceptance in the 9th century; Leo VI forced Patriarch Photios to resign and then put his own brother Stephen on the throne. In novel 47, the emperor declared that in future, imperial ‘providence’ would control and govern everything.50 In the 11th century, the Patriarch Michael I Keroularios expressed strong hierocratic views.51 He wore purple sandals, an imperial prerogative, … claiming that this was a custom of the ancient priesthood and that the hierarch ought to preserve the usage in the new, too, because between the priesthood and the empire there was no difference or only a negligible difference, which gave the former more honor and certainly prestige.52 The attitude of Keroularios, or hubris in the eyes of his contemporaries, was more radical than that of the Eisagoge, and modern scholars detect a Western inspiration. The Constitutum Constantini (and especially its second part, the Donation of Constantine),53 a forgery of the second half of the 8th century, was used by Pope Leo IX in 1053 in the events prior to the Schism of 1054. Keroularios, 49 50 51 52

53

Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 231. Leo VI, Novels, nov. 47, ed. Troianos, pp. 172–74; cf. Kaldellis, Byzantine Republic, pp. 10–14 about a different approach to the novels of Leo VI in relation to the emperor and politeia. Stanković, “The path toward Michael Keroularios”, pp. 137–54. Skylitzes Continuatus, Chronicle, ch. 1, ed. Tsolakes, p. 105: “Ἐπεβάλετο δὲ καὶ κοκκοβαφῆ περιβαλέσθαι πέδιλα τῆς παλαιᾶς ἱερωσύνης φάσκων εἶναι τὸ τοιοῦτον ἔθος καὶ δεῖν τούτοις κἀν τῇ νέᾳ κεχρῆσθαι τὸν ἀρχιερέα. Ἱερωσύνης γὰρ καὶ βασιλείας τὸ διαφέρον οὐδὲν ἢ καὶ ὀλίγον ἔλεγεν εἶναι· ἐν δέ γε τοῖς τιμιωτέροις καὶ πλέον ἔχειν καὶ μᾶλλον εἶναι ἐρίτιμον.” (my translation). Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 241; Angelov, Imperial Ideology, p. 363.

216

Mitsiou

however, connected the office of the patriarch to the Constitutum, in relation to the Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople I, in 381, and Chalcedon, in 451), which granted the same position as that enjoyed by the pope to the patriarch of Constantinople. The Donatio Constantini also influenced the clearly hierocratic views and attitudes of later patriarchs. With or without the Donatio Constantini, Byzantine emperors were often in conflict with the patriarchs. Leo VI deposed two patriarchs. The same happened in the 13th century; when Patriarch Arsenios excommunicated Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos and refused to lift the excommunication, the emperor took advantage of this to depose the patriarch. However, the removal of Arsenios led to an uprising and schism, which provoked internal tension in Byzantium for about 50 years. While the “republic” (in Kaldellian understanding) could express its opposition to imperial policy violently (in the form of rebellions), the patriarchs used the spiritual weapon of excommunication. An excommunicated emperor was ideologically and politically weakened and it threatened his power. Therefore, the excommunication of Michael VIII by Arsenios, or that of Leo VI by Nicholas Mystikos, may be regarded as expressions of their oppositional role, and the restrictions patriarchal authority could put upon the imperium. Kaldellis put great emphasis on the role of the politeia for the office of the emperor. However, the case of Arsenios demonstrates that the people of Byzantium could play a significant role as well, not only in the deposition of emperors, but also in uprisings against the deposition of patriarchs. Social groups in Constantinople could be easily influenced by spiritual authorities and the patriarchate. Even when emperors like Michael VIII thought they had control over a patriarch that was favorable to their political ambitions, they were disappointed. Patriarch Joseph I, a former supporter of Michael VIII, rejected the Union of Lyons for example, contributing to a general opposition to imperial authority even from within the Palaeologan family.54 The rising importance of the patriarchate in Late Byzantium can also be detected in issues of foreign policy. The Byzantine Church had a supportive role in the conclusion of peace treaties with external powers,55 such as for example in the agreement between John V Palaiologos and Tsar Ivan III Aleksandar of Bulgaria in 1355.56 In 1364, Philotheos Kokkinos even reprimanded the Bulgarian tsar to comply with the agreement reached with John V.57 As we have 54 55 56 57

See the contribution of M.-H. Blanchet in this volume. Michel, Die Kaisermacht, pp. 183–87. Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 261 (17 August 1355), Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 542–47; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2381; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3047. Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 196, Miklosich and Müller, pp. 453–54; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2464.

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

217

mentioned, the patriarch was able to use excommunication as an effective and fearsome weapon, which the Church sometimes refused to use58 and sometimes did.59 Those cases where the patriarch excommunicated the enemies of the emperor are particularly interesting. In Late Byzantium, while the political power of the Byzantine emperor decreased, the influence of the Church abroad increased. This is illustrated most clearly in the well-known letter of Patriarch Antony IV to the grand duke of Moscow and Vladimir Vasilij Dimitrievič (1389–1425) in 1393.60 The patriarch defended both the spiritual authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well as the ecumenical sovereignty of the Byzantine emperor (Manuel II) at a time of political decline.61 As Ostrogorsky noted: The doctrine of one oecumenical emperor had never been laid down more forcibly or with more eloquence than in this letter which the patriarch of Constantinople sent to Moscow from a city blockaded by the Turks. To the very end and in spite of all trials the Byzantines held fast to their belief that their ruler was the only true emperor and as such the rightful overlord of Christendom.62 Dagron regarded the document as proof that “Church and empire were indissociable”.63 Antony IV, not the emperor, raised his voice against the absence of the imperial name in the diptychs in Moscow.64 With his words he tried to convince a foreign Orthodox ruler who had doubted the power of the Byzantine emperor. The patriarch argued that “there is a profound unity and community between the basileia and the Church, and it is not possible to 58 59

60 61 62 63 64

George Pachymeres, History 9.3, Failler and Laurent, vol. 3, p. 223; Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 308. Philotheos Kokkinos confirmed the excommunication of Grand Duke Svjatoslav of Smolensk by the metropolitan of Russia: Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 269 (June 1370), eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 524–25; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2582. Cf. Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 155 (shortly after May 1347), eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 418–23; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2274; Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 296; Angelov, Imperial Ideology, p. 398. Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 447 (1393), eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 188–92; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2931; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3241. Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, pp. 254–57; Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, pp. 264–67; Michel, Die Kaisermacht, p. 184. Ostrogorsky, History, p. 554. Dagron, Emperor and Priest, pp. 311–12. Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia, pp. 255–56; Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth, pp. 265–66.

218

Mitsiou

separate one from the other.” The Byzantine emperor is the natural emperor, “whose laws, rules and regulations have legal force throughout the world, whom alone, and no one else, Christians everywhere commemorate.”65 In relation to the emperor, Patriarch Antony argued that: The holy emperor occupies an important position in the Church and it is not possible to equate him with local rulers and sovereigns, because from the beginning the emperors have consolidated and strengthened piety throughout the whole world, convened ecumenical councils, given effect to the divine and sacred canons concerning the orthodox dogmas and the life of Christians by stipulating that they should be piously respected, and fought long and hard against heresies. They have established by their imperial decrees the hierarchy of episcopal sees, the spheres of responsibility of the provinces and the distribution into dioceses. It is for all these reasons that they are held in high regard and occupy a position within the Church. Even if God has permitted the Nations to encircle the seat of imperial authority, the emperor has nevertheless still received until now the same consecration on the part of the Church, the same rank and the same prayers; he is anointed with the prestigious myron, consecrated as basileus of the Romans, that is, of all Christians, and his name is commemorated everywhere by all the patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops, whenever people call themselves Christians, which is the privilege of no other local prince or sovereign.66 This document is sensational, but not exceptional. The entire 14th century made it clear how important the Church had become for the support of imperial power during the so-called ‘time of confusion’ (civil wars, Palamism). Internally, the patriarch and the synod did much in order to promote peace, for example, in 1354, Philotheos Kokkinos forwarded the idea that attempts at reconciliation between the Emperors John V and John VI should take place.67 A document that followed the ascension to the patriarchal throne of Kallistos I, defended John V Palaiologos as “the real and natural heir … of the Empire of

65 66 67

Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 447 (1393), eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 191–92. The contents after Dagron, Emperor and Priest, p. 312. For the importance of unction after 1204, see Dagron, Emperor and Priest, pp. 275–81; Angelov, Imperial Ideology, pp. 384–92; Tudorie, “Old and new”, pp. 547–52. Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 210 (before 22 November 1354), eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 194–96; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2362.

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

219

the Romans which originates from God”.68 Philotheos Kokkinos reaffirmed shortly after October 1364 the validity of the written oath of Matthew and John Kantakouzenos to John V and Andronikos IV Palaiologos.69 Some years later, the agreement to end the hostilities between John V and Andronikos IV, as well as John VI,70 became an acknowledgment of the power of the head of the Church in a time when the ‘divine right of kings’ had increasingly lost its importance. The patriarch and the synod first raised their hands high and prayed to God for peace between the emperors.71 Then the peace agreement was confirmed by a document of the synod in May 1381. The close relationship between the two powers is demonstrated in particular by the documents that record the proceedings and suspensions which the synod used in the fight against domestic enemies of the emperor, and the defense of the imperial power against treason.72 They testify to the prosecution of offenses by some subjects not only towards God but also towards the emperor. It is interesting that a sizeable number of these people were clerics. Christianity as a religion of confession, as Michel Foucault argued, attempts to control the mistakes of the flesh by speech; because these individuals had uttered blasphemies against the emperor, they were condemned to silence.73 The Church had of course its own reasons to bring some of these individuals under control; there was a danger that they would turn to the Latin Church through their contacts with Westerners. The monk Maximos Kalopheros declared in 1350 his obedience to Patriarch Kallistos. After he had promised not to flee to the Latins and never to leave the land of the Romans, Kalopheros made an additional promise: “I will never be guilty anymore of fighting, intriguing against or dispraising his majesty from God’s divine Majesty.”74 Two other priests promised, in May 1390 before Patriarch Antony IV, to be loyal subjects of John V Palaiologos and not to damage their homeland. Firstly, they 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 211 (February–August 1355), eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 196–98; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2376. Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 194 (1364), eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 448–50; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2462. Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 344 (May 1381), eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 25–27; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2717. Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 344 (May 1381), eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 26; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2717. Michel, Die Kaisermacht, p. 183 and n. 219; Congourdeau, “Kirche und weltliche Macht”, p. 613. Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 19 (December 1315), eds. Hunger and Kresten, pp. 214–19; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2050; Kraus, Kleriker, pp. 296–315. Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 177 (September 1350), eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 16–19; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2315.

220

Mitsiou

were forbidden to carry seditious conversations, secondly they should inform the patriarch about suspicious discussions by other people. In this case it was important that they should be both silent and talkative, specifically towards Patriarch Antony IV and not to the emperor. There is no doubt about the fact that they belonged to the party of the, by then, deposed John VII Palaiologos.75 An interesting story is that of the priest John Adeniates, a member of the imperial clergy. As a sympathizer of the party of John VII in 1390 he fled to Pera. He remained there for three years and refused, despite a triple invitation, to appear before the synod.76 Three priests distanced themselves publicly from the contents of a letter of Abramios (1371); the astrologer John Abramios was a follower of Andronikos IV,77 and, according to a document of 1371, he had applied magic against John V. So it is quite possible that the three priests belonged to the same circle as Abramios. On the other hand the document combines the activities of a magician with political danger to the emperor himself. The synod and the patriarch also acted as a guarantee of imperial rule not only against individuals but against an entire city (Ioannina), which in 1337/38 was accused of perjury; its inhabitants were subjected to various ecclesiastical penalties.78 The emperor also asked advice from the patriarchs on economic issues. In the Patriarchal Register we find an interesting document on the position of the Byzantines as to future agreements with Italian maritime powers. Patriarch Kallistos I had a discussion with members of the Senate and the Empress Anna after a horismos of the emperor about an upcoming agreement with the Genoese and the Venetians. The Romans should not, on the advice of the patriarch, transfer any other parts of state territory to other powers. The emperor should also not give any oath on the completion of the treaty because the imperial logoi and horismoi “have their power and guaranty, by the grace of God and do not require the assurance of the oath”.79

75 76 77 78 79

Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 416/1 (May 1390), eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 140–41; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2876. Acta patriarchatus 2, no. 440 (September 1393), eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 172–74; Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2927. Acta patriarchatus 1, no. 305 (May 1371), eds. Miklosich and Müller, p. 560; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2615. Register of the Patriarchate 2, no. 110 (July 1337–February 1338), eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 94–105; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2180; Kraus, Kleriker, pp. 225–27. Register of the Patriarchate 3, no. 260 (1361?), eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, pp. 538–43; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2437; Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 2863, 3079, 3081.

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

4

221

Final Remarks

In Byzantium, the idealized picture of harmony between the two powers prevailed as a theoretical framework. However, this could easily be questioned when one of the counterparts felt they were in a stronger position: an emperor could depose a patriarch and a patriarch could excommunicate an emperor. The patriarchate and the imperial office could support each other in issues of internal instability, financial difficulties, and external threats. Nevertheless, various examples from Byzantine history demonstrate that it was not only a matter of structures and ideas; much depended on the personal agency of individual actors in the patriarchate and the imperial palace. Bibliography Primary Sources

Acta patriarchatus 1–2, eds. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitani MCCCXV–MCCCCII e codicibus manu scriptis Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonesis, 2 vols (Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana 1–2) (Vienna, 1860–62). Athanasios I, Letters, ed. A.-M. Maffry Talbot, The Correspondence of Athanasius I Patriarch of Constantinople: Letters to the Emperor Andronicus II, Members of the Imperial Family, and Officials (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 7) (Washington, D.C., 1975). Canons 1–6, eds. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων, 6 vols (Athens, 1852–59). Demetrios Chomatenos, Reply to Konstantinos Kabasilas, in Canons 5, eds. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Canons, pp. 427–36. Demetrios Kydones, Apology, ed. G. Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV. Apologie della propria fede. 1. Ai Greci Ortodossi (Studi e Testi 56) (Vatican City, 1931), pp. 359–403. Eisagoge, eds. I. Zepos and P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum, vol. 2 (Athens, 1931), pp. 236–368. Eusebios of Caesarea, De Vita Constantini, ed. H. Schneider, Eusebius von Caesarea, De Vita Constantini (Über das Leben Konstantins) (Fontes Christiani 83) (Turnhout, 2007). George Pachymeres, History, eds. A. Failler and V. Laurent, Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 31.1–5), 5 vols (Paris, 1984–2000).

222

Mitsiou

Justinian, Novels, eds. R. Schöll and W. Kroll, Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. 3: Novellae (Berlin, 1928). Leo the Deacon, History, ed. K.B. Hase, Leonis diaconi Caloënsis historiae libri decem (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantina) (Bonn, 1828). Leo VI, Novels, ed. Sp. N. Troianos, Οι νεαρές του Λέοντος Στ’ του Σοφού (Athens, 2007). Matthew Blastares, On the Imperial Privileges, in Canons 6, eds. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, pp. 275–76. Photios, Letters, eds. B. Laourdas and L.G. Westerink, Photii patriarchae Constantinopolitani epistulae et Amphilochia, vols. 1–6.2 (Leipzig, 1983–88). Pseudo-Kodinos, Treatise of Offices, ed. J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des Offices (Paris, 1966). Register of the Patriarchate 1–3, eds. H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 1: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315–1331 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.1) (Vienna, 1981); eds. H. Hunger, O. Kresten, E. Kislinger, and C. Cupane, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 2: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1337–1350 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.2) (Vienna, 1995); eds. J. Koder, M. Hinterberger, and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 3: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.3) (Vienna, 2001). Skylitzes Continuatus, Chronicle, ed. E.T. Tsolakes, Ἡ συνέχεια τῆς χρονογραφίας τοῦ Ἰωάννου Σκυλίτση (Ἑταιρεία Μακεδονικῶν Σπουδῶν. Ἵδρυμα Μελετῶν Χερσονήσου τοῦ Αἵμου 105) (Thessaloniki, 1968). Theodore Stoudites, Letters, ed. G. Fatouros, Theodori Studitae Epistulae (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantina 31.1–2) (Berlin, 1992). Theophylact of Ohrid, Speech to Constantine Porphyrogennetos, ed. P. Gautier, Theophylacte d’Achrida. Discours, Traités, Poésies (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantina 16.1) (Thessaloniki, 1980), pp. 179–211.

Secondary Literature

Angelov, D., Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204–1330 (Cambridge, 2007). Angelov, D., “The Donation of Constantine and the Church in Late Byzantium”, in Church and Society in Late Byzantium, ed. D. Angelov (Kalamazoo, Mich., 2009), pp. 91–157. Auzépy, M.-F., “Imperial power and the Church in Byzantium”, in Heaven and Earth. Art of Byzantium from Greek Collections, eds. A. Drandaki, D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi, and A. Tourta (Athens, 2013), pp. 75–83. Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12.2.1) (Munich, 2nd edn. 1977).

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

223

Beck, H.-G., Geschichte der orthodoxen Kirche im byzantinischen Reich (Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte 1) (Göttingen, 1980). Blanchet, M.-H., “L’élection du patriarche à Byzance à la fin du Moyen Âge (XIVe–XVe siècles)”, in Élections et pouvoirs politiques du VIIIe au XVIIe siècle, actes du colloque réuni à Paris 12 du 30 novembre au 2 décembre 2006, ed. C. Péneau (Pompignac, 2008), pp. 63–78. Cheynet, J.-Cl., “Patriarches et empereurs: de l’opposition à la révolte ouverte”, in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn?, eds. M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, M.M. Vučetić, vol. 2 (Münster, 2013), pp. 1–18. Christophilopoulou, Aik., Εκλογή, αναγόρευσις και στέψις του Βυζαντινού Αυτοκράτορος (Πραγματείαι της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών 22) (Athens, 1956, repr. 2003). Congourdeau, M.-H., “Kirche und weltliche Macht in Byzanz-Patriarch und Kaiser”, in Die Geschichte des Christentums, Mittelalter, vol. 3: Die Zeit der Zerreißproben, eds. M. Mollat du Jourdin, A. Vauchez, and B. Schimmelpfennig (Freiburg, 2007), pp. 610–25. Dagron, G., Emperor and Priest. The Imperial Office in Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003). Dagron, G., “Die ‘Zwei Gewalten’ in Theorie und Praxis”, in Die Geschichte des Christentums, Mittelalter, vol. 1: Bischöfe, Mönche und Kaiser (642–1054), eds. M. Mollat du Jourdin, A. Vauchez, and B. Schimmelpfennig (Freiburg, 2007), pp. 210–28. Darrouzès, J., Recherches sur les ὀφφίκια de l’Église byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 11) (Paris, 1970). Darrouzès, J., Le registre synodal du patriarcat byzantin au XIVe siècle. Étude paléographique et diplomatique (Archives de l´Orient Chrétien 12) (Paris, 1971). Darrouzès, J., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 5: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376 (Paris, 1977); part 6: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410 (Paris, 1979); part 7: Les regestes de 1410 à 1453 (Paris, 1991). Dölger, F. and P. Wirth, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565– 1453, vol. 5: Regesten von 1204–1282 (Munich, 1965). Failler, A., “La déposition du patriarche Calliste Ier (1353)”, Revue des Études Byzantines 31 (1973), 5–163. Flaig, E., Den Kaiser herausfordern. Die Usurpation im Römischen Reich (Frankfurt am Main, 1992). Fögen, M.T., “Das politische Denken der Byzantiner”, in Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen 2: Mittelalter: von den Anfängen des Islams bis zur Reformation, eds. I. Fetscher and H. Münkler (Munich, 1993), pp. 41–85. Fried, J., Donation of Constantine and Constitutum Constantini (Millennium Studien 3) (Berlin, 2007). Grünbart, M., “Aspekte der politischen Verflechtung des Patriarchen in der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit”, Zbornik Radova 50 (2013), 283–300.

224

Mitsiou

Grünbart, M., L. Rickelt, and M.M. Vučetić eds., Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantinischen Mittelalter. Akten der internationalen Tagung vom 3. bis 5. November 2010, 2 vols (Byzantinistische Studien und Texte 3.1, 3.4) (Münster, 2011–13). Halsberghe, G.H., The Cult of Sol Invictus (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain 23) (Leiden, 1972). Hunger, H., Prooimion. Elemente der byzantinischen Kaiseridee in den Arengen der Unkunden (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 1) (Vienna, 1964). Hunger, H., Das byzantinische Herrscherbild (Wege der Forschung 341) (Darmstadt, 1975). Hussey, J.M., The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford, 1986). Kaldellis, A., The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome (Cambridge, Mass., 2015). Kantorowicz, E.H., The King’s Two Bodies: Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton, 1957, repr. 1997). Kiousopoulou, T., Emperor or Manager: Power and Political Ideology in Byzantium before 1453, trans. P. Magdalino (Geneva, 2011). Kraus, C.R., Kleriker im späten Byzanz. Anagnosten, Hypodiakone, Diakone und Priester 1261–1453 (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 9) (Wiesbaden, 2007). Laiou, A., “Law, justice, and the Byzantine historians: ninth to twelfth centuries”, in Law and Society in Byzantium: Ninth–Twelfth Centuries, eds. A. Laiou and D. Simon (Washington, D.C., 1994), pp. 151–57 = Laiou, A., Women, Family and Society in Byzantium (Farnham, 2011), no. VI. Laurent, V., “Les droits de l’empereur en matière ecclésiastique. L’accord de 1380/1382”, Revue des Études Byzantines 13 (1955), 5–20. Laurent, V., “Le trisépiscopat du patriarche Matthieu Ier (1397–1410). Un grand procès canonique à Byzance au début du XVe siècle”, Revue des Études Byzantines 30 (1972), 5–166. Lechner, K., Hellenen und Barbaren im Weltbild der Byzantiner. Die alten Bezeichnungen als Ausdruck eines neuen Kulturbewußtseins (Ph.D thesis, University of Munich, 1959). Lilie, R.-J., “Legibus solutus? Kaiser und Patriarch im Konfliktfall”, in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn?, eds. M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, M.M. Vučetić, vol. 1 (Münster, 2011), pp. 53–64. Loukaki, M., “Ο ιδανικός πατριάρχης μέσα από τα ρητορικά κείμενα του 12ου αιώνα”, in Το Βυζάντιο κατά τον 12ο αιώνα. Κανονικό Δίκαιο, κράτος, κοινωνία, ed. Ν. Οikonomides (Society of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies, Diptycha-Paraphylla 3) (Athens, 1991), pp. 301–19.

The Patriarchate and Imperial Power

225

Loukaki, M., “L’image littéraire du patriarche de Constantinople chez les rhéteurs byzantins”, in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn?, eds. M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, M.M. Vučetić, vol. 1 (Münster, 2011), pp. 65–78. Macrides, R.J., J.A. Munitiz, and D. Angelov, Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan Court: Offices and Ceremonies (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies 15) (Farnham, 2013). Mazal, O., Die Prooimien der byzantinischen Patriarchenurkunden (Byzantina Vindobonensia 7) (Vienna, 1974). Meyendorff, J., Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: a Study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1981, repr. New York, 2010), pp. 254–57. Michel, A., Die Kaisermacht in der Ostkirche (843–1204) (Darmstadt, 1959). Mitsiou, E., “Interaktion zwischen Kaiser und Patriarch im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel”, in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn?, eds. M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, M.M. Vučetić, vol. 1 (Münster, 2011), pp. 79–96. Obolensky, D., The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe 500–1453 (London, 1971, repr. 2000). Ostrogorsky, G., History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, 1969). Ostrogorsky, G., “Zum Stratordienst des Herrschers in der byzantinisch-slavischen Welt”, Seminarium Kondakovianum 7 (1935), 187–204 = Ostrogorsky, G., Byzanz und die Welt der Slawen (Darmstadt, 1974), pp. 101–21. Paidas, K.D.S., Η θεματική των βυζαντινών “Κατόπτρων ηγεμόνος” της πρώιμης και μέσης περιόδου (Athens, 2005). Pfeilschifter, R., Der Kaiser und Konstantinopel. Kommunikation und Konfliktaustrag in einer spätantiken Metropole (Millennium-Studien 44) (Berlin, 2013). Stanković, V., “The path toward Michael Keroularios: the power, self-presentation and propaganda of the patriarchs of Constantinople in the late 10th and early 11th century”, in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn?, eds. M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, M.M. Vučetić, vol. 2 (Münster, 2013), pp. 137–54. Talbot, A.-M. and D.F. Sullivan, The History of Leo the Deacon. Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century, Introduction, Translation and Annotations (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 41) (Washington, D.C., 2005). Treitinger, O., Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell (Darmstadt, 1956). Tudorie, I.A., “Old and new in the Byzantine imperial coronation in the 13th century”, Archaeus 15.3 (2011), 547–52. Weber, M., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Tübingen, 1922, repr. 1956).

chapter 12

Patriarchs and Education Vratislav Zervan 1

The State of Research

Byzantologists have predominantly focused on patriarchal erudition in their research of their social status before they assumed office, or the reason for their social advancement.1 Significant knowledge of their school careers was provided by the studies of Loukaki and Angelov. These studies assessed the hagiographical sources and encomia written in honor of the patriarchs.2 The contribution of the patriarchate of Constantinople to the education of the clergy is closely related to the issue of the so-called ‘patriarchal academy’. In their studies, Fuchs, Brehiér, Dvorník, Browning, and Hunger have supported the hypothesis of an institutional education managed by the patriarchate, which continuously functioned from the beginning of the Byzantine Empire until its fall.3 Beck, however, was critical of the idea of the existence of such an institution in the early Byzantine period; he pointed out that in the early periods it was not necessary to establish a specific theological institution (and therefore a patriarchal academy) because the schools that already existed in Byzantium also provided, directly or indirectly, a theological education.4 Other critical and skeptical voices have demystified the understanding of the patriarchal academy, which was also prevalent in research of the later Byzantine periods.5 1 Sokolov, “Izbranie patriarchov v Vizantii”, pp. 76–80; Bréhier, “Recrutement”, pp. 221–27; Bréhier, Le monde byzantin, vol. 2, pp. 384–88; Tinnefeld, “Faktoren des Aufstieges zur Patriarchenwürde”, pp. 96–100. 2 Loukaki, “Ο ιδανικός πατριάρχης”, pp. 301–19; Angelov, “Emperors and patriarchs” pp. 90, 117–21. 3 Fuchs, Die höheren Schulen von Konstantinopel, pp. 35–41 (with older bibliography); Bréhier, “Notes”, pp. 73–94, 13–28; Bréhier, “L’enseignement classique et l’enseignement religieux à Byzance”, pp. 34–69; Dvornik, “Photius et la réorganisation de l’Académie patriarcale”, pp. 108–25; Browning, “The patriarchal school at Constantinople”, pp. 167–78; Hunger, Reich der Neuen Mitte, pp. 353–55; Spadaro, “Sull’ insegnamento di Fozio”, pp. 286–304; Ježek, “Education as a unifying and uplifting force in Byzantium”, pp. 175–76. 4 Beck, “Bildung und Theologie im frühmittelalterlichen Byzanz”, pp. 69–81. 5 Wirth, “Die Jugendbildung des Eustathios von Thessalonike”, pp. 148–50; Lemerle, Le premier humanisme byzantin, pp. 95–96; Speck, Die kaiserliche Universität von Konstantinopel,

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_013

Patriarchs and Education

227

The system of patriarchal support and patronage over individual scholars remains an almost unexplored field. In contrast to the Roman Curia, where this kind of relationship was recently researched by Haye,6 attention has been directed only at the annual elogia to the patriarch from the 12th century.7 Research on the library of the patriarchate remains a desideratum of Byzantine studies. The essential knowledge of its history is provided by the study of Manaphes, who attempted to collect all the sources that document its existence and function. However, his work generalizes the issue in certain ways and should therefore be treated with caution.8 Other studies, aiming at the accessibility of books within the patriarchate, are, to some extent, based on his monograph.9 It is missing paleographical and codicological research which would, on the basis of possessor notes or paleographic evidence, map all the manuscripts originating from the library of the patriarchate. The studies of Wilson and Darrouzès are considered to be the pioneering works in this field, but unfortunately, almost nobody continued their work.10 2

The Patriarch: The Ideal Scholar in the Byzantine Empire?

2.1 The Educational Level of Patriarchs Higher education was not required for a candidate for the position of bishop. Rather, piety, knowledge of the Bible, and the age of the candidate were more significant factors. This is evident from the Apostolic Constitutions, which indeed considered education as an important supplement to the personal profile of the candidate, but also approved an illiterate if the candidate knew

6 7 8 9 10

pp. 67–73; Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz, pp. 53–64; Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, pp. 50–65; Mergiali, L’enseignement et les lettrés, pp. 30–33; Matschke and Tinnefeld, Die Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz, pp. 310–16; Pontani, “Scholarship in the Byzantine Empire (529–1453)”, pp. 328, 367–68, 373, 384, 405, 408. Haye, Päpste und Poeten, passim. Loukaki, “Le samedi de Lazare”, pp. 327–45. Manaphes, Αἱ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Βιβλιοθῆκαι, pp. 62–158. See also the review of W. Lackner in Südost-forschungen 33 (1974), 492–95, and the remark of H.G. Beck in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 66 (1973), 440–41. Papademetriou, “The patriarchal libraries of Constantinople”, pp. 171–89; Staikos, The History of the Library in Western Civilization vol. 3, pp. 432–33. Wilson, “The libraries of Byzantine World”, pp. 281–82; Darrouzès, Recherches sur les ὀφφίκια, pp. 434–37; Mango, “The availability of Books”, pp. 29–45; Gaul, “Libraries, Byzantine”, pp. 4060–61; see also, in preparation, I. Taxidis, “Public and Private Libraries”, in Kotzabassi, Companion.

228

Zervan

the Bible and reached a certain age.11 The Church canons later followed this line: canon 2 of the Council of Nicaea (787) only examined the candidates’ knowledge of Psalter and whether they were willing to deepen their knowledge of the Bible and Church canons before they were consecrated.12 The same applies to the candidates for the patriarchate. Although it was exceptional, the patriarchal throne could also be ascended by an illiterate person, as Zonaras notes about Niketas I (766–80) who supposedly could not read. This statement is, however, in contrast to his ecclesiastical career before he became the patriarch.13 According to the ideal of a patriarch—as presented in Byzantine law books, starting with the Eisagoge, and confirmed by elogia from the 12th century—education was not considered a precondition for future patriarchs. Candidates were required to be competent mentors as regards faith and morals, and to be constant defenders of ecclesiastical dogmas.14 In general, the way these skills were obtained by a future patriarch was irrelevant. However, it is very clear that in some cases the level of acquired education and the theological competency of the candidate might have influenced the patriarchal election. Nikephoros Gregoras wrote that John XIII Glykys belonged to the greatest scholars of that age, and, as an ardent supporter of Attic Greek, he deserved the patriarchal throne.15 The observation of the connections between the social background and level of education of the patriarchs is a very difficult and problematic issue since we do not have sources which depict the whole life of the individual in question. Nevertheless, certain connections can indeed be found, for example Nikephoros I (758–828) was descended from an important family: his father Theodore was a notary of the emperor and his son, a future patriarch, also later became an asecretis.16 The educational curricula of the patriarchs, which are preserved in various sources, mainly hagiographical and panegyrical works, are highly varied. Regarding social background, the vast majority of the 124 patriarchs who held the office from the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, came from the monasteries or from clerical ranks. Only a few were laymen 11 12 13 14 15 16

Apostolic constitutions 2.1.2, ed. Metzger, vol. 1, p. 144. For further examples, see Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, p. 179. Council of Nicaea 787, Canons, ed. Joannou, p. 249, lines 1–12. John Zonaras 15.7.13, Epitome, ed. Büttner-Wobst, p. 277, lines 3–5. For his Church career, see Lilie, Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit, p. 45. Eisagoge, titlos tritos, eds. Zepos and Zepos, vol. 2, pp. 242–43; Sokolov, “Izbranie patriarchov v Vizantii”, pp. 70–72; Loukaki, “Ο ιδανικός πατριάρχης”, pp. 301–19. Nikephoros Gregoras, History, ed. Schopen, p. 270, lines 8–13. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. Delehaye, p. 723, lines 10–13; Vita of Nikephoros, ed. de Boor, p. 144, lines 7–10.

Patriarchs and Education

229

when they were appointed; it is not surprising that those few examples were mainly the most educated candidates. Michael Psellos praises Constantine III Leichoudes (1058–63) for his high level of education in law, and he considers the patriarch an expert in rhetoric.17 Michael III (1170–78) and Theodore II (1214–16) had received the title “ὕπατος τῶν φιλοσόφων” before they were elected patriarchs.18 According to Angelov’s findings, the majority of the patriarchs had a secular education of at least secondary level standard. In school, they studied several parts or the entire enkyklios paidea.19 A good example in this regard is Patriarch John X Kamateros (1198–1206). In an encomium about him, Nikephoros Chrysoberges writes that his parents raised him in accordance with the enkyklios paideia. Later, he studied rhetoric, philosophy and mathematics. In addition, he became familiar with the works of Plato, Aristotle, the stoics, and with Christian philosophy.20 Thanks to brief biographical notes, mostly included in the works of late Byzantine historians, some knowledge of individuals without a secular education is provided.21 Even though the judgement of their intellectual capabilities is often bordering on disrespect, it is probable that these descriptions do not fully correspond with reality, something shown by Browning in his study dealing with literacy in Byzantium.22 To give an example, Nikephoros Gregoras describes Patriarch Athanasios I (1289– 93, 1303–10) as an uneducated person,23 which is in contrast to the corpus of his preserved works. It contains homilies and letters as well as other titles, and, despite a low style, it proves that he could definitely write at a professional level. The positive attitude of several patriarchs towards education is evident from the fact that they themselves participated in the educational processes. Witnesses to this are, among others: the handbook of syntax by John XIII Glykys; the Lexicon by Photios (858–67, 877–86), that contains elder Greek Attic words; the same Photios’ literature reviews in his Bibliotheke; as well as 17 18

19 20 21 22 23

Michael Psellus, Funeral Oration for the Most Holy Patriarch Constantine Leichoudes, ed. Polemis, p. 88, lines 3–13. Lemerle, “Le gouvernement des philosophes”, pp. 195–248; Michael III, Inaugural Lecture, ed. Browning; Šandrovskaja and Seibt, Byzantinische Bleisiegel der Staatlichen Eremitage mit Familiennamen, vol. 1, pp. 97–98; Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, pp. 114–15. Angelov, “Emperors and patriarchs”, pp. 117–18. Nikephoros Chrysoberges, Address to Patriarch John X Kamateros, ed. Anagnostou, p. 400, line 148; p. 401, line 156; p. 401, lines 164–67. For instance, the information on Kosmas I (1075–81) is included in the work of John Zonaras, Epitome 17.18.3, ed. Büttner-Wobst, p. 717, line 17. Browning, “Literacy in the Byzantine world”, p. 39. Nikephoros Gregoras, History, ed. Schopen, vol. 1, p. 180, lines 18–19.

230

Zervan

several progymnasmata by Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–89).24 Many patriarchs belonged to the scholarly elite, and together with emperors, aristocrats, and other intellectuals, were members of literary circles. More than a third of the patriarchs during the Palaeologan period were in some way connected with such groups.25 3

The Patriarchs’ ‘Contribution’ to Education: The So-Called ‘Patriarchal Academy’ and His Patronage of Education

The patriarch, as teacher and shepherd (διδάσκαλος καὶ ποιμήν26), was responsible for the education of priests. The correct interpretation of questions related 24 25

26

John XIII Glykys, Syntax; Photios, Lexicon; Gregory II of Cyprus, Progymnasmata. When holding the office of the metropolitan of Ephesus, Nikephoros II (1259–60) corresponded with Emperor Theodore II Laskaris: Theodore II Laskaris, Letters, nos. 103–108, ed. Festa; Nikephoros Blemmydes, Autobiography, 1.68, ed. Munitiz; George Pachymeres, History, eds. Failler and Laurent, vol. 1, p. 117, line 4; Germanos III Markutzas (1265–66) was known for his correspondence with Emperor Theodore II, as well as for his friendship with Holobolos (Theodore II Laskaris, Letters, no. 180, ed. Festa); John XI Bekkos (1275–82) was in continuous contact with his mentor George Babouskomites: George Babouskomites, Letters, no. 5, ed. Laurent; Gregory II of Cyprus, the student of George Akropolites corresponded with many leading state figures, such as the grand logothetes Theodore Mouzalon (Gregory II of Cyprus, Letters, nos. 54–56, 60–61, 109, 112, 115, 117, 119– 20, 123–25, 127–30, 135–36, 139–41, 144–45, 149–51, 153–55, 157, 159–66, 168, 170, 172–75, 177, 180–85, ed. Eustratiades; for the dossier, see also Laiou, “The correspondence of Gregorios Kyprios”, pp. 91–108), as well as with other intellectuals, for instance Theodora Raulaina (Gregory II of Cyprus, Letters to Theodora Raulaina, ed. Kotzabassi, pp. 145–67) or George Pachymeres (Gregory II of Cyprus, Letters, nos. 69, 105, ed. Eustratiades), and these letters several times proved him to be a skillful literary critic: Kotzabassi, “Gregorios Kyprios as reader and critic”, pp. 75–88; in the œuvre of Athanasios I, several letters addressed to Emperor Andronikos II, to members of the imperial family, and to imperial officers were preserved (Athanasios I., Letters). The scholar Thomas Magistros was in contact with patriarch Niphon I (1310–14). In his honor, he composed a prosphonetikon describing the theatron attended by the emperor and the patriarch (Thomas Magistros, Oration for Patriarch Niphon I, in Patrologia Graeca 145, cols. 392A–B; see also Gaul, Thomas Magistros, p. 25). His circle was attended by the future Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (1353–54, 1364–76) too, witnessed in the apology of Prochoros Kydones (Prochoros Kydones, Apology, ed. Mercati, p. 302, line 4; p. 303, line 30). During his studies under Gregory II of Cyprus (Gregory II of Cyprus, Letters, no. 143, ed. Eustratiades), John XIII Glykys was acquainted with Maximos Planoudes (Maximos Planoudes, Letters, no. 23, ed. Leone) and Nikephoros Choumnos (Nikephoros Choumnos, Letters, no. 127, ed. Boissonade), but he was also in contact with Theodore Hyrtakenos and Michael Gabras (Michael Gabras, Letters, nos. 4, 11, 36, 86, 144, 177, ed. Fatouros). Euthymios II was a close friend of Emperor Manuel II, and a full member of a circle supported by the emperor: Manuel Palaiologos, Letters, ed. Dennis, pp. xl–xli; Leonte, “Between Constantinople and Italy”, pp. 162, 171–72, 176–77. Register of the Patriarchate 1, no. 56, eds. Hunger and Kresten, p. 360, line 3.

Patriarchs and Education

231

to the doctrine of the faith required skillful exegetes. The necessity for even elementary education to allow for the interpretation of questions related to the doctrine of faith is proved by Patriarch Joseph I’s Apology (1266–75, 1282– 83) who insisted that grammarians, philosophers, and orators provide him with a correct interpretation of the use of the prepositions ἐκ and διὰ as necessary for the correct interpretation of the filioque.27 The question of whether the Byzantine Church institutionalized education under its patronage is still considered problematic. Based on recent research, it seems that exegesis, or rather theology, was not taught at particular theological faculties or universities. Besides self-study, the most common way of studying at all levels was by means of informal lectures at the houses of scholars.28 It is not quite clear to what extent this system was supported and controlled by the patriarchs. The collection of letters by the so-called Anonymous Professor, that reveal some parts of such an educational network, are from the 10th century. Here, the patriarch functions as a patron. The lecturer is dependent on this financial support and if it is not provided, he complains in a letter to the patriarch himself.29 In case of a conflict between the lay lecturer and the clerical lecturer, the cleric complains not only to the patriarch, but also to the emperor and eparch.30 By the end of the 11th century and at the beginning of the 12th century, the responsibility of the highest Church officials for the education of the clergy was paid attention to due to the influence of a decree of Alexios I Komnenos, who intended to implement a pastoral reform, emphasizing the improvement of guidance to believers.31 This change is also evident from the proem of the synodal act related to the mistakes of Constantine Chrysomallos from 1140, where a comparison with medicine, as something that cannot be accomplished by just anybody, was used in order to condemn dubious teachings and self-study.32 Even though sources from the 11th–12th centuries refer to several schools close to the churches of Constantinople,33 the evidence of their connection to the patriarchate is rather vague. Browning speaks of the patronage of John X Kamateros over one of these schools situated in the Church of

27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Joseph I, Apology, p. 161, lines 10–15. Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, p. 329. Anonymous Professor, Letters, no. 54, ed. Markopoulos, p. 50, lines 5–10. Anonymous Professor, Letters, no. 68, ed. Markopoulos, pp. 61–62, lines 11–14. Alexios Komnenos, The reform Edict of 1107; Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz, pp. 54–55; Magdalino, “The reform edict of 1107”, pp. 199–218. Condemnation of the Writings of Chrysommalos, ed. Gouillard, p. 56, line 9–p. 58, line 22; Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1007. Browning, “The patriarchal school at Constantinople”, pp. 167–202 and pp. 11–40.

232

Zervan

the Holy Apostles.34 In the description of this church—including individual elementary classes ranging from grammar to mathematics, as well as representing the school corresponding to the quadrivium—Nicholas Mesarites reports only the patriarch’s intellectual capabilities and does not mention his function within the management of this school.35 The patriarch may have had great influence on a school situated on the premises of the old orphanage (orphanotropheion) at the Church of St Paul, which was originally funded by the emperor. In a monody on the metropolitan Stephen Skylitzes, Theodore Prodromos states that Stephen was appointed the head of this school by the patriarch, who blessed him during a special ceremony.36 According to Leo of Rhodes, the patriarch was considered an authority in this school.37 However, based on this evidence, it cannot be said whether patriarchal control was of an administrative nature or only spiritual care, as Criscuolo assumes.38 Obvious proof that demonstrates patriarchal intervention in school affairs comes from 1265. Patriarch Germanos III Markoutzas, who was looking for a successor to George Akropolites for the post of the school headmaster, obtained Michael VIII’s pardon for Manuel Holobolos, who lived in the Prodromos monastery after he was mutilated in 1261 by the emperor for expressing regret over the punishment of the legitimate heir to the throne, John Laskaris. Shortly after, Germanos III appointed him lecturer of rhetoric in order to mentor all students, not only the clergy.39 It is not clear where this school was located, but was certainly not situated in the orphanotropheion; Mergiali successfully refuted this in her study.40 In an anonymous pamphlet referring to the victory of the student of Holobolos, Constantine Panagiotes, over the cardinal in a particular dispute, is it stated that the school was attended by 336 students.41 Thus, it can be no doubt that it was an educational establishment aimed at providing a higher level of education. This is evident from Holobolos’ reference

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Browning, “The patriarchal school at Constantinople”, p. 177. Nicholas Mesarites, Description, chs. 7–11. 42–43, ed. Downey. Theodore Prodromos, Monody in Honor of Stephen Skylitzes, ed. Petit, p. 8, line 76; p. 9, line 80; Sideras, Die byzantinischen Grabreden, pp. 160–63; Miller, The Orphans of Byzantium, p. 233. Leo of Rhodes, Poem, ed. Miller, p. 12; Leo of Rhodes, Schedos, ed. Miller, p. 14. Criscuolo, “Chiesa ed insegnamento a Bisanzio nell XII secolo”, pp. 378–79 and p. 385, note 37. George Pachymeres, History, eds. Failler and Laurent, vol. 2, p. 371, lines 3–5; Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1380. Mergiali-Falangas, “L’école saint-Paul de l’orphelinat à Constantinople”, pp. 244–46. The Dispute between Panagiotes and the Azymites, ed. Vasiliev, p. 180.

Patriarchs and Education

233

to his teaching42 as well as from the students’ memories of their teacher.43 Whether this school continuously provided education to the students until the fall of the Byzantine Empire, is a highly complicated question. Nikephoros Gregoras stresses the interest of the educated Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus in ordaining educated clerics as bishops. This fact might prove the continuity of schooling.44 The last reference to patriarchal interventions in the educational system still remains the handwritten notice in the Codex Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Mut. gr. 142, fol. 113r, by John Chortasmenos, who points out that Patriarch Matthew I (1397–1410) named Michael Balsamon “διδάσκαλος καθολικός” of Hellenic sciences and ecclesiastical dogmas and the only mentor and leader of his fosterlings. This note indirectly implies that Balsamon was responsible for both the secular and theological education of clergy.45 To prove the connection between individual scholars and the patriarchate, Browning mentions the presence of scholars at the Lazarus Saturday ceremony, connected with the presentation of the annual eulogy to the patriarch.46 However, this connection seems not to be a rooted function at the institutional level of the patriarchal academy. It was rather targeted ideological propaganda which stems from a patronage system. On the basis of personal and not yet completely reconstructed connections to the patriarch, a scholar was chosen by a patron.47 The patron did not necessarily have to be the patriarch; the demands might have been made by the patriarchal clergy or the emperor himself.48 4

The Patriarchal Library

The Information on manuscripts available in the patriarchate is equally as small as on the patriarchs’ contribution to education. Despite this, we can partially 42 43

44 45 46 47 48

Manuel Holobolos, Sermon 3, ed. Treu, p. 95, line 34; p. 97, line 7. Epigram 1 of Thomas Gorianites is transmitted with the title “Τοῦ λογιωτάτου Γοριανίτου κῦρ Θωμᾶ στίχοι γεγονότες ἐν τῇ Ἀπόκρεω, ὅτε παρὰ τοῦ Ὁλοβώλου κῦρ Μανουὴλ τὸ Ὄργανον ἐμυεῖτο”: Thomas Gorianites, Epigramm 1, ed. Lampros, p. 435; Constantine Akropolites, Letters, no. 121, ed. Romano. Nikephoros Gregoras, History, ed. Schopen, vol. 1, p. 181, lines 12–20. Hunger, Johannes Chortasmenos, p. 15, note 20. Browning, “The patriarchal school at Constantinople”, p. 179; Loukaki, “Le samedi de Lazare”, pp. 331–35; Loukaki, Discours annuels, pp. 57–67. See, for example, Gregory Antiochos, Letter to the Patriarch Basil Kamateros, ed. Sideras, pp. 99–106. Čičurov, “Novye rukopisnye svedenija o vizantijskom obrazovanii”, p. 241; Kazhdan and Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture, pp. 128–29.

234

Zervan

reconstruct the history of the patriarchal library and the people who participated in its administration. Due to a lack of detailed studies, we will focus only on the most significant sources. The first piece of evidence that proves the existence of the library can be found in the works of George of Pisidia. He dedicated one of his epigrams to Patriarch Sergios where he speaks about the foundation49 of a library by Sergios; but it is obvious from the text that he rather means a kind of transformation of the library and, probably, the expansion of the library collection.50 Therefore, it can be assumed that a patriarchal library must have already existed earlier. In the early period the library was situated in the patriarchal residence, the Thomaites, which was built either by Patriarch Thomas I (607–10) or by Thomas II (667–69).51 A short description of it has been preserved in the Ecclesiastical History by Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos.52 However, the patriarch also had at his disposal books that were stored in other locations besides the Thomaites.53 That the library core though was kept at the Thomaites is indicated by the historical records that describe the fire of 791. One of these records, by John Zonaras, informs us that the fire engulfed the triclinium and destroyed the whole building. John Chrysostom’s commentaries on the Bible, which were also kept there, were consumed by the flames.54 This library was then reestablished, evident from the account of the dispute between Emperor Theophilos and St Theophanes Graptos about a passage of Isaiah’s prophecies. The emperor rejected Theophanes’ interpretation because of a different wording in his Holy Scripture. Theophanes opposed the emperor’s (in his view wrong) version, and thus the emperor ordered the bringing of the book kept in the patriarchal library in the Thomaites to verify

49 50 51

52 53 54

However, the meaning of the verb “κατασκευάζω” allows for various interpretations. George of Pisidia, Unedited Poems, no. 46, ed. Sternbach, p. 55 (cf. George of Pisidia, Poems, no. 106, ed. Tartaglia, p. 500). Guilland, “Études sur Constantinople byzantine. Le Thomaïtès et le Patriarcat”, pp. 27–40; Janin, “Le palais patriarcal de Constantinople”, pp. 144–49; Pallas, “Episkopion”, pp. 342– 44; Stichel, “Sechs kolossale Säulen”, pp. 23–24, identified the residence of the Thomaites as the senate building. Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos, Ecclesiastical History, in Patrologia Graeca 147, col. 417C. Council of Nicaea 787, Acts, actio quinta, ed. Lamberz, p. 580, line 1. John Zonaras, Epitome 15.12.1–2, ed. Büttner-Wobst, p. 292, line 16–293, line 2. Wilson “The libraries of the Byzantine world”, p. 282, believes that the reason the chronicler only mentions the work of John Chrysostom, a very popular writer in Byzantium, is because he is referring to his autograph works.

Patriarchs and Education

235

the wording of this passage.55 At least 11 synodal councils were held in the premises of the Thomaites between 1089–1177.56 In 1203, another fire broke out in Constantinople, which devastated the buildings neighboring the Thomaites.57 Although the sources do not provide information as to whether the fire damaged the library, a debate was held there between Latins and representatives of Emperor Theodore Laskaris, which supports the hypothesis that the library was not damaged to any great extent.58 We can only assume that the patriarch and his clergy, in moving to Nicaea, took with them the (whole?) stock of the library in Constantinople to the local metropolitan library after the conquest of 1204, as there is no mention of the details of the transfer in the sources. It is also not quite clear whether the library in Constantinople was still in the Thomaites or was moved to Hagia Sophia after Constantinople was reconquered in 1261.59 The patriarchate moved to the Church of the Holy Apostles after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and, in 1456, to the former the nunnery of Pammakaristos.60 It seems that the library was administrated by a patriarchal officer, the chartophylax.61 In relation to the patriarchate, he is mentioned for the first time in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 536.62 The chartophylax performed a wide range of tasks, among which was that of librarian.63 During the Sixth Council of Constantinople (680) the chartophylax George64 was ordered to bring the acts of the previous councils from the patriarchal library.65 Besides these acts, he provided a wide range of other books, which were used to verify the wording in works of the Church Fathers. George retrieved 55 56 57 58 59

60 61 62 63 64 65

Theophanes Continuatus, Chronicle, eds. Featherstone and Signes Codoñer, p. 150, lines 13–20. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 952, 963, 965, 966, 1011–13, 1125, 1126, 1134. Niketas Choniates, Annals, ed. van Dieten, p. 554, lines 34–37. Nicholas Mesarites, Sermon on the Events of 1214, ed. Heisenberg, p. 21, lines 8–14. Manaphes, Αἱ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Βιβλιοθῆκαι, p. 135, supports the traditional hypothesis that the library continuously resided in the Thomaites (with the exception of fires and in the period of the Latin occupation between 1204 and 1261). According to the statements of Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos, Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, p. 135, n. 9 assumes that the library was relocated to Hagia Sophia. Volk, Die byzantinischen Klosterbibliotheken, p. 51; Martin Crusius, Turcograeciae libri octo, p. 189. Beurlier, “Le Chartophylax de la grande église de Constantinople”, pp. 252–66; Darrouzès, Recherches sur les ὀφφίκια, pp. 19–28 etc.; Wehmeyer, “The chartophylax”, pp. 108–12. Collectio Sabbaitica contra Acephalos et Origeniastas destinata, ed. Schwartz, p. 59, line 25. Compare also the commentary of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Council of Constantinople 869, ed. Mansi, col. 38D) on the term chartophylax. Lilie et al., Prosopographie, Abt. 1, no. 1969. Council of Constantinople 680/681, actio prima, ed. Riedinger, p. 24, lines 1–3.

236

Zervan

the catalogue/registry of the patriarchal library on many occasions and read passages.66 Another of George’s tasks was to identify the books according to an inventory, which was probably at his disposal. Furthermore, George signed under oath that there were no other documents belonging to the patriarchs Thomas II, John V and Constantine I, which indicates that he was able to search within the library on his own or with the help of other officials.67 Besides the office of the chartophylax, a bibliophylax of the patriarch is mentioned in the sources. We have certain knowledge of a Stephen,68 who executed this function at the Council of Nicaea (787); he brought 11 books. An additional 15 books related to icons were put aside, but Patriarch Tarasios decided not to read them since the participants made up their minds from the books that were already brought.69 Despite the fact that the Vita of Constantine, the Slavic Apostle, states that St Constantine was designated as librarian of Hagia Sophia,70 other sources, somehow related to Italian territory, very rarely mention this function, and never in connection with the patriarch. Thus, it can be assumed that the author of the Vita of Constantine was influenced by a Latin cultural environment when he mentioned the librarian.71 Very little is known about the extent and content of the patriarchal library. Based on quoted sources in the works of the patriarchs (Nikephoros I), or scholar-clerics who worked in the patriarchate of Constantinople (Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos), Manaphes tried to reconstruct the patriarchal library collection.72 Though Xanthopoulos himself, in the preface to his church history, states that he obtained most of his books from the stock at Hagia Sophia,73 the hypothetical statement of Manaphes about the patriarchal library, as the only place where he could study appropriate books, still requires a critical analysis of the sources used by this very productive scholar. Despite the fragmentary image of the library’s stock and content, there is evidence that it also included a collection of heretical and probably pagan books, which were described as thorns (ἀκάνθαι) in the poem of George of Pisidia. This section was of great importance to the patriarchate because from 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Council of Constantinople 680/681, actio tertiadecima, ed. Riedinger, p. 612, lines 20–21. Council of Constantinople 680/681, actio tertiadecima, ed. Riedinger, p. 618, lines 4–9. Lilie et al., Prosopographie, Abt. 1, no. 7031. Council of Nicaea 787, Acts, actio prima, ed. Lamberz, p. 72, line 14; p. 80, line 21; p. 90, line 25; p. 98, line 5; actio quarta, p. 376, line 2; p. 380, line 10; p. 426, lines 7–8; actio quinta, p. 544, line 24; p. 560, line 9; p. 562, line 23; p. 580, line 16; p. 584, line 11; p. 590, lines 10–12. Vita of Constantine, the Slavic Apostle, ch. 4, eds. Grivec and Tomšić, p. 100, line 15. Ševčenko, “Constantine-Cyril, apostle of the Slavs, as bibliothecary”, pp. 214–21. Manaphes, Αἱ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Βιβλιοθῆκαι, pp. 105–11, 133–41. Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulus, Ecclesiastical History, in Patrologia Graeca 145, col. 609C.

Patriarchs and Education

237

there scholars were able to take a relatively prompt stand against controversial theological issues. However, it seems that their existence also raised problems. In the 8th century, Patriarch Germanos I was unsure where he should place the books of Eusebios; he writes that the librarians also placed his books in a repository adjacent to heretical books.74 The same patriarch expressed doubts about the faith of Gregory of Nyssa, or rather the authenticity of his texts, in which the patriarch marked interpolations of the Origenist heretics with an obelus. Paradoxically, they were replaced by excerpts from Plato’s Phaidon.75 A similar ambiguity can be seen in the 9th canon of the Council of Nicaea (787), that amended the location in which the books of iconoclasts should be stored, and defined the punishment for those who read such works in secret or borrowed them for others.76 Some patriarchs attempted to expand the library collection. If we consider the information contained in the encomium of Theodore Podromos on Patriarch John IX Agapetos (1111–34) to be reliable, then it can be said that the patriarch liked to collect books, and to a great extent financed the activities of scribes who reproduced ecclesiastical as well as classical texts, such as Empedocles.77 As Prodromos emphasizes, he was expanding the collection for the sake of the public, what might imply that these newly obtained manuscripts were really kept in the patriarchal library. The Testament of John Bekkos can help us get an impression of what the individual book collections of patriarchs might have contained. Besides liturgical manuscripts and the letters of St John Chrysostom, Bekkos’ featured mainly secular books, including works by Aristotle, Thucydides, Herodotus, Libanius, Lucian, Homer, and Hermogenes.78 Bibliography Primary Sources

Alexios Komnenos, The Reform Edict of 1107, ed. P. Gautier, “L’édit d’Alexis Ier Comnène sur la réforme du clergé”, Revue des Études Byzantines 31 (1973), 165–201. Anonymous Professor, Letters, ed. A. Markopoulos, Anonymi professoris epistulae (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 37) (Berlin, 2000). 74 75 76 77 78

Germanos I, De haeresibus et synodis, in Patrologia Graeca 98, col. 53A. Carlini, “Platone e le interpolazioni dottrinali”, pp. 465–73. Council of Nicaea 787, Canons, canon 9, ed. Joannou, p. 263, lines 9–19. Theodore Prodromos, Address to Patriarch John IX Agapetos, ed. Manaphes, p. 241, lines 330–36. For the paraphrase of this passage, see Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, p. 323. John Bekkos, Testament, ed. Kotzabassi, p. 34, lines 52–72.

238

Zervan

Apostolic constitutions, ed. B.M. Metzger, Les constitutions apostoliques, vols. 1–3 (Sources Chrétiennes 320, 329, 336) (Paris, 1985–87). Athanasios I., Letters, ed. A.-M. Maffry Talbot, The Correspondence of Athanasius I Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters to the Emperor Andronicus II., Members of the Imperial Family and Officials (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 7) (Washington, D.C., 1975). Collectio sabbaitica contra Acephalos et Origeniastas destinata, ed. E. Schwartz, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, vol. 3 (Berlin, 1940), pp. 1–214. Condemnation of the Writings of Chrysommalos, ed. J. Gouillard, “Quatre procès de mystiques à Byzance (vers 960–1143). Inspiration et autorité”, Revue des Études Byzantines 36 (1978), 56–67. Constantine Akropolites, Letters, ed. R. Romano, Constantino Acropolita. Epistole (Naples, 1991). Council of Constantinople 680/681, ed. R. Riedinger, Conciliorum universale Constantinopolitanum tertium. Concilii Actiones I–XI (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Series Secunda 2.1) (Berlin, 1990); Concilii Actiones XII–XVIII. Epistulae. Indices (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Series Secunda 2.2) (Berlin, 1992). Council of Constantinople 869, Acts, ed. J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collection, vol. 16 (Paris, 1902; repr. Graz, 1960). Council of Nicaea 787, Acts, ed. E. Lamberz, Concilium Universale Nicaenum secundum. Concilii Actiones I–III (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Series Secunda 3.1) (Berlin, 2008); Concilii Actiones IV–V (Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Series Secunda 3.2) (Berlin, 2012). Council of Nicaea 787, Canons, ed. P.-P. Joannou, Discipline Generale Antique, vol. 1.1: Les canons des conciles œcuméniques (IIe–IXe) (Fonti, Fascicolo 9) (Grottaferrata, 1962), pp. 242–85. Eisagoge, eds. J. Zepos and P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum, vol. 2 (Athens, 1931), pp. 240–368. George Babouskomites, Letters, ed. V. Laurent, “La correspondance inédite de Georges Babouscomites”, in Εἰς μνήμην Σ. Λάμπρου, ed. G.P. Charitakis (Athens, 1935), pp. 83–100. George of Pisidia, Poems, ed. L. Tartaglia, Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia (Turin, 1998). George of Pisidia, Unedited poems, ed. L. Sternbach, “Georgii Pisidae carmina inedita II”, Wiener Studien 14 (1892), 51–68. George Pachymeres, History, eds. A. Failler and V. Laurent, Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, vols. 1–4 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 24.1–4) (Paris, 1984–2000). Germanos I, De haeresibus et synodis, ed. J.-P. Migne, in Patrologia Graeca 98, cols. 40–88. Gregory Antiochos, Letter to the Patriarch Basil Kamateros, ed. A. Sideras, “Der unedierte Brief des Gregorios Antiochos an den Patriarchen Basileios Kamateros”, Rivista di studi bizantini e neollenici 48 (2011), 93–122.

Patriarchs and Education

239

Gregory II of Cyprus, Letters to Theodora Raulaina, ed. S. Kotzabassi, “Scholarly friendship in the thirteenth century. Patriarch Gregorios II Kyprios and Theodora Raoulaina”, Παρεκβολαί 1 (2011), 115–70. Gregory II of Cyprus, Letters, ed. S. Eustratiades, Γρηγορίου τοῦ Κυπρίου ἐπιστολαὶ καὶ μῦθοι (Alexandria, 1910). Gregory II of Cyprus, Progymnasmata, ed. S. Kotzabassi, “Die Progymnasmata des Gregor von Zypern”, ῾Ελληνικά 43 (1993), 45–63. John Bekkos, Testament, ed. S. Kotzabassi, “The Testament of Patriarch John Bekkos”, Byzantina 32 (2012), 25–36. John XIII Glykys, Syntax, ed. A. Jahn, Joannis Glycae οpus de vera syntaxeos ratione (Bern, 1849). John Zonaras, Epitome, ed. T. Büttner-Wobst, Ioannis Zonarae epitome historiarum (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae 50) (Bonn, 1897). Joseph I, Apology, eds. V. Laurent and J. Darrouzès, Dossier grec de l’union de Lyon (1273– 1277) (Archive de l’Orient chrétien 16) (Paris, 1976), pp. 134–301. Leo of Rhodes, Poem, ed. T.S. Miller, “Two teaching texts from the twelfth-century Orphanotropheion”, in Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations. Texts and Translations Dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides, ed. J.W. Nesbitt (Leiden, 2003), p. 12. Leo of Rhodes, Schedos, ed. T.S. Miller, “Two teaching texts from the twelfth-century Orphanotropheion”, in Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations. Texts and Translations Dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides, ed. J.W. Nesbitt (Leiden, 2003), pp. 14–16. Manuel Holobolus, Sermon 3, ed. M. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli orationes, vol. 2 (Programm des Königlichen Victoria-Gymnasiums zu Potsdam, Ostern 1907) (Potsdam, 1907), pp. 78–98. Manuel Palaelogos, Letters, ed. G.T. Dennis, The Letters of Manuel II Palaeologus (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 8) (Washington, D.C., 1977). Martin Crusius, Turcograeciae libri octo (Basel, 1584). Maximos Planoudes, Letters, ed. P.A.M. Leone, Maximi monachi Planudis epistulae (Classical and Byzantine Monographs 18) (Amsterdam, 1991). Michael Gabras, Letters, ed. G. Fatouros, Die Briefe des Michael Gabras (ca. 1290–nach 1350), vol. 2: Text (Wiener Byzantinische Studien 10) (Vienna, 1973). Michael III, Inaugural Lecture, ed. R. Browning, “A new source on Byzantine-Hungarian relations in the twelfth century. The inaugural lecture of Michael ὁ τοῦ ᾿Αγχιάλου as ὕπατος τῶν φιλοσόφων”, Balkan Studies 2 (1961), 173–214. Michael Psellos, Funeral Oration for the Most Holy Patriarch Constantine Leichoudes, ed. I. Polemis, Michael Psellus. Orationes funebres, vol. 1 (Berlin, 2014), pp. 82–114. Nicholas Mesarites, Description, ed. G. Downey, “Nikolaos Mesarites: description of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society N.S. 47 (1957), 855–925.

240

Zervan

Nicholas Mesarites, Sermon on the Events of 1214, ed. A. Heisenberg, Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums, vol. 3 (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse Jahrgang 1923, 3. Abhandlung) (Munich, 1923). Nikephoros Blemmydes, Autobiography, ed. J. Munitiz, Nicephori Blemmydae autobiographia (Corpus Christianorum, Series Graeca 13) (Turnhout, 1984). Nikephoros Choumnos, Letters, ed. J.F. Boissonade, Anecdota Nova (Paris, 1844), pp. 1–190. Nikephoros Chrysoberges, Address to Patriarch John X Kamateros, ed. M.S. Anagnostou, Νικηφόρος Χρυσοβέργης–Βίος καὶ Ἔργο (Μέσα 12ου–Ἀρχὲς 13ου αἰ.) (Athens, 2013), pp. 395–449. Nikephoros Gregoras, History, ed. L. Schopen, Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina Historia (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae 38–40), 3 vols. (Bonn, 1829–55). Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulus, Ecclesiastical History, in ed. J.-P. Migne, in Patrologia Graeca 145–47. Niketas Choniates, Annals, ed. I.A. van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae historia (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 11.1–2) (Berlin, 1975). Photios, Lexicon, ed. C. Theodoridis, Photii patriarchae lexicon, 3 vols.: 1: A–Δ; 2: E–M; 3: Ν–Φ (Berlin, 1982, 1998, 2013). Prochoros Kydones, Apology, ed. G. Mercati, Notizie di Procoro e Demetrio Cidone, Manuele Caleca e Teodoro Meliteniota ed altri appunti per la storia della teologia e della letteratura bizantina del secolo XIV (Studi e Testi 56) (Vatican City, 1931), pp. 296–313. Register of the Patriarchate 1, eds. H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 1: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315–1331 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.1) (Vienna, 1981). Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. H. Delehaye, Synaxarium ecclesiae Constinopolitanae (Brussels, 1902). The Dispute between Panagiotes and the Azymites, ed. A. Vasiliev, Anecdota GraecoByzantina, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1893), pp. 179–88. Theodore II Laskaris, Letters, ed. N. Festa, Theodori Ducae Lascaris epistolae CCXVII (Florence, 1898). Theodore Prodromos, Address to Patriarch John IX Agapetos, ed. K.A. Manaphes, “Θεοδώρου τοῦ Προδρόμου λόγος εἰς τὸν πατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Ἰωάννην Θ´ τὸν Ἀγαπητόν”, Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 41 (1974), 223–42. Theodore Prodromos, Monody in Honor of Stephanos Skylitzes, ed. L. Petit, “Monodie de Théodore Prodrome sur Etienne Skylitzèz métropolitain de Trébizonde”, Izvestija Russkago Archeologi`ceskago Instituta v Konstantinopol’e 8 (1903), 1–14. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronicle, eds. M. Featherstone and J. Signes Codoñer, Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur Libri I–IV (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 53) (Berlin, 2015).

Patriarchs and Education

241

Thomas Gorianites, Epigramm 1, ed. S.P. Lampros, “Ἐπιγράμματα Θωμᾶ Γοριανίτου”, Νέος Ἐλληνομνήμων 12 (1915), 435–38. Thomas Magistros, Oration for Patriarch Niphon I, ed. J.-P. Migne, in Patrologia Graeca 145, cols. 389–96. Vita of Constantine, the Slavic Apostle, eds. F. Grivec and F. Tomšić, Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses, Fontes (Radovi staroslovenskog instituta 4) (Zagreb, 1960), pp. 15–143. Vita of Nikephoros, ed. C. de Boor, “Ignatii diaconi vita Nicephori”, in Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opuscula historica (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 139–217.

Secondary Literature

Angelov, D., “Emperors and patriarchs as ideal children and adolescents: literary conventions and cultural expectations” in Becoming Byzantine. Children and Childhood in Byzantium, eds. A. Papaconstantinou and A.-M. Talbot (Washington, D.C., 2009), pp. 85–125. Beck, H.-G., “Bildung und Theologie im frühmittelalterlichen Byzanz”, in Polychronion. Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. P. Wirth (Heidelberg, 1966), pp. 69–81. Beurlier, E., “Le Chartophylax de la grande église de Constantinople”, in Compte rendu du troisième congrès scientifique international des catholiques tenu a Bruxelles du 2 au 8 septembre 1894 (Cinquième section. Sciences Historiques) (Brussels, 1895), pp. 252–66. Bréhier, L., “Notes sur l’histoire de l’enseignement supérieur à Constantinople”, Byzantion 3 (1926), 73–94. Bréhier, L., “Notes sur l’histoire de l’enseignement supérieur à Constantinople”, Byzantion 4 (1927–28), 13–28. Bréhier, L., “L’enseignement classique et l’enseignement religieux à Byzance”, Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 21 (1941), 34–69. Bréhier, L., “Le recrutement des patriarches de Constantinople pendant la période byzantine”, in Actes du VIe Congrès International d’Études byzantines, Paris, 27 juillet–2 août 1948, vol. 1 (Paris, 1950), pp. 221–27. Bréhier, L., Le monde byzantin, vol. 2: Les institutions de l’empire byzantin (Paris, 1970). Browning, R., “The patriarchal school at Constantinople in the twelfth century”, Byzantion 32 (1962), 167–202. Browning, R., “The patriarchal school at Constantinople in the twelfth century”, Byzantion 33 (1963), 11–40. Browning, R., “Literacy in the Byzantine world”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 4 (1978), 39–54. Carlini, A., “Platone e le interpolazioni dottrinali in Gregorio di Nissa”, in Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a Francesco della Corte, ed. P. Wirth (Urbino, 1987), pp. 465–73.

242

Zervan

Čičurov, I.S., “Novye rukopisnye svedenija o vizantijskom obrazovanii”, Vizantijskij vremennik 31 (1971), 238–42. Constantinides, C.N., Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (1204–ca. 1310) (Cyprus Research Centre. Texts and Studies of the History of Cypru 11) (Nicosia, 1982). Criscuolo, U., “Chiesa ed insegnamento a Bisanzio nell XII secolo: sul problema della cosiddeta « academia patriarcale »”, Siculorum Gymnasium N.S. 28 (1975), 373–90. Darrouzès, J., Recherches sur les ὀφφίκια de l’Église byzantine (Paris, 1970). Dvornik, F., “Photius et la réorganisation de l’Académie patriarcale”, Analecta Bollandiana 68.2 (1950), 108–25. Fuchs, F., Die höheren Schulen von Konstantinopel in Mittelalter (Byzantinisches Archiv 8) (Stuttgart, 1926; repr. Amsterdam, 1964). Gaul, N., Thomas Magistros und die spätbyzantinische Sophistik. Studien zum Humanismus urbaner Eliten in der frühen Palaiologenzeit (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 10) (Wiesbaden, 2011). Gaul, N., “Libraries, Byzantine”, in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, eds. R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, G.B. Champion, and A. Erskine, vol. 7 (Malden, Mass., 2013), pp. 4060–61. Grumel, V. and J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, vols. 2–3: Les regestes de 715 à 1206 (Paris, 1989). Guilland, R., “Etudes sur Constantinople byzantine. Le Thomaïtès et le Patriarcat”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 5 (1956), 27–40. Haye, T., Päpste und Poeten. Die mittelalterliche Kurie als Objekt und Förderer panegyrischer Dichtung (Berlin, 2009). Hunger, H., Reich der Neuen Mitte (Graz, 1965). Hunger, H., Johannes Chortasmenos (ca. 1370–ca. 1436/37). Briefe, Gedichte und kleine Schriften. Einleitung, Regesten, Prosopographie, Text (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 7) (Vienna, 1969). Janin, R., “Le palais patriarcal de Constantinople byzantine”, Revue des Études Byzantines 19 (1961), 130–55. Ježek, V., “Education as a unifying and uplifting force in Byzantium”, Byzantinoslavica 65 (2007), 167–200. Kazhdan, A. and A. Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley, 1985). Kotzabassi, S., “Gregorios Kyprios as reader and critic”, in Realia byzantine, eds. S. Kotzabassi and G. Mavromatis (Byzantinisches Archiv 22) (Berlin, 2009), pp. 75–88. Kotzabassi, S. ed., A Companion to Intellectual Life in the Palaelogan Period (forthcoming). Laiou, A.E., “The correspondence of Gregorios Kyprios as a source for the history of social and political behavior in Byzantium or, on government by rhetoric”, in

Patriarchs and Education

243

Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit, ed. W. Seibt (Veröffentlichungen der Kommision für Byzantinistik 8) (Vienna, 1996), pp. 91–108. Laurent, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, vol. 4: Les regestes de 1208 à 1309 (Paris, 1971). Lemerle, P., Le premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle (Bibliothéque Byzantine, Études 6) (Paris, 1971). Lemerle, P., “Le gouvernement des philosophes: notes et remarques sur l’enseignement, les écoles, la culture”, in Cinq études sur le XIe siècle byzantin, P. Lemerle (Paris, 1977), pp. 195–248. Leonte, F., “Between Constantinople and Italy: scholarly circles, agency, and imperial patronage in Byzantium before the fall (c.1350–1453)”, New Europe College Ştefan Odobleja Program Yearbook (2011–12), 157–96. Lilie, R.-J. ed., Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit: Germanos I.–Methodios I (715– 847) (Frankfurt, 1999). Lilie, R.-J. et al., Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641–867), vols. 1–6 (Berlin, 1999–2002). Lilie, R.-J., Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Zweite Abteilung (867–1025), vols. 1–8 (Berlin, 2013). Loukaki, M., “Ο ιδανικός πατριάρχης μέσα από τα ρητορικά κείμενα του 12ου αιώνα”, in Byzantium in the 12th Century. Canon Law, State and Society, ed. N. Oikonomidès (Athens, 1991), pp. 301–19. Loukaki, M., Discours annuels en l’honneur du patriarche Georges Xiphilin (Paris, 2005). Loukaki, M., “Le samedi de Lazare et les éloges annuels du patriarche de Constantinople”, in Κλητόριον εἰς μνήμην Νίκου Οἰκονομίδη, eds. Fl. Evangelatou Notara and T. Maniati Kokkini (Athens, 2005), pp. 327–45. Magdalino, P., The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge, 1993). Magdalino, P., “The reform edict of 1107”, in Alexios I Komnenos, eds. Μ. Mullet and D. Smythe (Belfast Byzantine Texts and Traslations 4.1) (Belfast, 1996), pp. 199–218. Manaphes, K.A., Αἱ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει βιβλιοθῆκαι (Athens, 1972). Mango, C., “The availability of books in the Byzantine Empire, A.D. 750–850”, in Byzantine Books and Bookmen (Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium 1971) (Washington, D.C., 1975), pp. 29–45. Matschke, K.-P. and F. Tinnefeld, Die Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz. Gruppen, Strukturen und Lebensformen (Cologne, 2001). Mergiali, S., L’enseignement et les lettrés pendant l’époque des Paléologues (Athens, 1996). Mergiali-Falangas, S., “L’école saint-Paul de l’orphelinat à Constantinople: bref aperçu sur son statut et son histoire”, Revue des Études Byzantines 49 (1991), 237–46. Miller, T.S., The Orphans of Byzantium: Child Welfare in the Christian Empire (Washington, D.C., 2003).

244

Zervan

Pallas, D.I., “Episkopion”, Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1971), pp. 335–71. Papademetriou, G.C., “The patriarchal libraries of Constantinople”, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 45 (2000), 171–89. Podskalsky, G., Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz. Der Streit um die theologische Methodik in der spätbyzantinischen Geistesgeschichte (14./15. Jh.), seine systematischen Grundlagen und seine historische Entwicklung (Byzantinisches Archiv 15) (Munich, 1977). Pontani, F., “Scholarship in the Byzantine Empire (529–1453)”, in Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek Scholarship, vol. 1: History. Disciplinary Profiles, eds. F. Montanari, S. Matthaios, and A. Rengakos (Leiden, 2015), pp. 297–455. Rapp, C., Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: the Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkeley, 2005). Šandrovskaja, V.S. and W. Seibt, Byzantinische Bleisiegel der Staatlichen Eremitage mit Familiennamen, vol. 1: Sammlung Lichačev, Namen von A bis I (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 10.1) (Vienna, 2005). Ševčenko, I., “Constantine-Cyril, apostle of the Slavs, as ‘bibliothecary’, or how Byzantine was the author of Constantine’s vita”, in … The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered Full Many Ways … Festschrift in Honor of János M. Bak, eds. B. Nagy and M. Sebők (Budapest, 1999), pp. 214–21. Sideras, A., Die byzantinischen Grabreden. Prosopographie, Datierung, Überlieferung 142 Epitaphien und Monodien aus dem byzantinischen Jahrtausend (Wiener Byzantinische Studien 19) (Vienna, 1994). Sokolov, I.I., “Izbranie patriarchov v Vizantii s serediny IX do nachala XV veka (843– 1453 gg.)”, in I.I. Sokolov. O vizantinizme v cerkovno-istoricheskom otnoshenii. Izbranie patriarchov v Vizantii s serediny IX do nachala XV veka (843–1453 gg.). Vselenskie suďi v Vizantii, ed. G.E. Lebedava (Biblioteka christianskoj mysli. Issledovanija) (Saint Petersburg, 1907, repr. 2003), pp. 55–221. Spadaro, M.D., “Sull’ insegnamento di Fozio e sull’Accademia Patriarcale”, Siculorum Gymnasium N.S. 24 (1973), 286–304. Speck, P.S., Die kaiserliche Universität von Konstantinopel. Präzisierung zur Frage des höheren Schulwesens in Byzanz im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert (Byzantinisches Archiv 14) (Munich, 1974). Staikos, K.Sp., The History of the Library in Western Civilization vol. 3: From Constantine the Great to Cardinal Bessarion (New Castle, Delaware, 2007). Stichel, R., “Sechs kolossale Säulen nahe Hagia Sophia und die Curia Justinians am Augusteion in Konstantinopel”, Architectura 30 (2000), 1–25. Tinnefeld, F., “Faktoren des Aufstieges zur Patriarchenwürde im späten Byzanz”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 36 (1986), 89–115.

Patriarchs and Education

245

Volk, O., Die byzantinischen Klosterbibliotheken von Konstantinopel, Thessalonike und Kleinasien (Ph.D thesis, University of Munich, 1954). Wehmeyer, J.M., “The chartophylax: archivist and librarian to the patriarch in Constantinople”, Libraries and Culture 32.1 (1997), 107–12. Wilson, N.G., “The libraries of Byzantine World”, in Griechische Kodikologie und Textüberlieferung, ed. D. Harlfinger (Darmstadt, 1980), pp. 276–309 (= Wilson, N.G., “The libraries of Byzantine World”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 8.1 (1967), 53–80 with addenda and corrections). Wirth, P., “Die Jugendbildung des Eustathios von Thessalonike. Zur Entmythologisierung der Patriarchalakademie von Konstantinopel”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 34.1 (1968), 148–50.

chapter 13

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: The State of Research on Byzantine Documents of the Patriarchs of Constantinople Christian Gastgeber Although the patriarchal chancery1 could survive under the Ottomans and continue its agency (in contrast to the imperial chancery), this condition did by no means contribute to a complete documentation and preservation of documents from the preceding Byzantine era. It is rather the opposite: our knowledge of documents of the patriarchal chancery is due to secondary transmission outside the capital. The sources are: 1) archives2 of (still existing) monasteries, like Mount Athos,3 Patmos Saint John the Forerunner4 (originals and copies), or in Thessaly5 the Meteora monasteries; 2) cartularies; 3) two exceptional register books of the synod sessions of the patriarchate of Constantinople (1315–1402, see below);6 4) documents connected with synods or transmitted (in copies) together with synodal acts; 5) copied letters that served as examples for learning good rhetoric style and that were transmitted in literary corpora of scholars; and 6) documents that haphazardly survived (as appendices in manuscripts to political or religious topics, or also without any obvious reason; among them there are also ‘outdated’ documents that found a 1 This contribution focuses on the written products alone of the patriarchal chancery; the seals of documents and sigillographic aspects are not included due to limits of space and because such an overview is better presented in a an own companion of Byzantine sigillography. 2 See the study on existing documents from Byzantine archives and the socio-political conclusion, in Oikonomides, “Byzantine archives”. 3 A critical edition with introduction and commentary is in the series Archives de l’Athos, published by the Monde Byzantin research team of the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris: http://www.orient-mediterranee.com/spip.php?article1005&lang=fr%20 (accessed 31 December 2020). 4 The patriarchal documents were recently published as volume 3 of the documents series of the archive of St John the Forerunner by Maria Gerolymatou (Patmos 3), published by the National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens; see also Vranussi, “Πατριαρχικὰ ἔγγραφα”; and Gerolymatou, “Bυζαντινά πατριαρχικά έγγραφα”. 5 Documents Meteora, ed. Bees. 6 Register of the Patriarchate 1, eds. Hunger and Kresten; Register of the Patriarchate 2, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane; Register of the Patriarchate 3, eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten; Acta patriarchatus 1–2, eds. Miklosich and Müller.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004424470_014

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

247

secondary use as endpapers of manuscripts). Only these types of sources mentioned here contain originals,7 which provide the only stable basis for paleographical and codicological analysis. Besides the two register manuscripts with more than 850 documents, including many letters of the patriarch, the cartularies primarily enrich our stock of documents; in this case, respective documents from a monastery’s archive were copied into a comprehensive codex, arranged according to particular criteria, either degree of importance or local area. From the entire Byzantine period only a handful of such collections are extant: the cartulary of the monasteries of Makrinitissa and Nea Petra on Mount Pelion near Bolos in Thessaly, that ends in the 1270s;8 a fragment of the cartulary of the Hiera-Xerochoraphion monastery on Mount Mycale near Priene in Asia Minor (13th century);9 the cartulary of the monastery of St Paul on Mount Latros near Miletus (13th century);10 the cartulary of the Eleousa monastery near Stroumitza in Macedonia (13th century);11 the cartulary of the Lembiotissa monastery near Smyrna (end of 13th century);12 two cartularies, ‘A’ and ‘B’, of the monastery of St John the Forerunner on Mount Menoikeion near Serres (mid-14th century);13 and the cartulary of the monastery of St John the Forerunner on Mount Vazelon in Trebizond14 (cartulary not preserved, the documents are included in two manuscripts of post-Byzantine period continued until 1704 and 1818). From this introductory overview, it is evident that the majority of patriarchal documents are preserved by secondary transmission and that, with few exceptions, originals are limited to monastery archives. Therefore, genuine diplomatic studies are based on a very small group of documents, and research is confronted with many gaps in the diplomatic development of some document types and their phenotypes. This applies, for example, to the letters of 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14

See Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 391–99. Diplomata monasteriorum 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 330–430. Cartulary Hiera, eds. Wilson and Darrouzès. Cartulary Mount Latros, eds. Gastgeber and Kresten. Documents Theotokos Eleousa, ed. Petit; Laurent, “Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Pitié”; Kaplan, “Monastère de la Théotokos Éleousa”; the codex was recently discovered by the research group (directed by Kriton Chrysochoides) looking at Mount Athos documents at the National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens. Murata, “Cartulary and archive”; Diplomata monasteriorum 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, pp. 1–289. New edition prepared by Paris Gounaridis (†) and Zisis Melissakis (Athens). Guillou, Archives de Saint-Jean-Prodrome; Laurent, “Remarques sur le cartulaire du couvent de Saint-Jean Prodrome”; Dujčev, Cartulary; Codex B Serres, ed. Bénou; Kresten and Schaller, “Beobachtungen”. Documents Vazelon, eds. Uspenskij and Beneševič; Mavromatis and Alexakis, “Τα Acta της μονής Βαζελώνος”.

248

Gastgeber

the patriarch. From the end of the 14th century, a handbook for higher officials of the patriarchal chancery is preserved in some manuscripts;15 a chapter is dedicated to the form and position of the address on the verso of letters with subtle differences depending on the hierarchical rank of the addressee. In reality, only a handful of letters have survived from the Palaeologan period; the first preserved original document of the patriarch dates only from the end of the 12th century (see below). Interest in documents on the patriarchate of Constantinople is significantly less than for imperial material. Consequently, no complete overview of the patriarchal chancery and its activity has been published which might have completed Franz Dölger’s (and John Karayannopoulos’) first volume on Byzantine diplomatics within imperial documents, published in Munich 1968. Franz Dölger himself provided a kind of short introduction to the topic in his thematic overview of Mount Athos’ documents, with the edition of selected documents.16 A particular focus on patriarchal documents was begun by the Assumptionists in Bucharest and Paris. All the basics for such research stem from their fundamental works, including the regests of all patriarchal documents as a supplement to those of Franz Dölger’s imperial documents. Admittedly, some corrections are now necessary due to new research findings; new editions or even new first editions have appeared and secondary literature has increased, but this does not lower the high quality of the seven volumes of the Regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople.17 The huge amount of detailed study by the Assumptionists has enriched our knowledge of the chancery, in particular that by Jean Darrouzès.18 As the titles of his relevant monographs make clear, it was primarily the 13th century and the two register manuscripts that interested him. Darrouzès deepened our understanding of particular aspects of the documents in terms of the titles of officials or the nomenclature of these documents that required further study of their historical development. Proems of patriarchal documents were studied by Otto Mazal from an ideological point of view,19 and recently, studies have focused on two categories of documents on the patriarchal chancery: the so called semeioma (summaries of synod sessions, usually issued and signed by the (megas/grand) 15 16 17 18 19

Darrouzès, “Ekthésis néa”. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, pp. 212–18, supplemented by 21 examples from the 12th to the 18th century. His approach of paralleling the documents with those of the imperial chancery is interesting. Grumel, Regestes 1; Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3; Laurent, Regestes 4–7. For research on the chancery, his two monographs Ὀφφίκια and Registre synodal provide the basic information. Mazal, Prooimien.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

249

chartophylax;20 and the pittakion / gramma (the letters of the patriarchs).21 Also, the Vienna team of the new edition of the register manuscripts from the 14th century, have focused on the (socio)linguistic and pragmatic textual aspects of the patriarchal documents.22 1

Categories of Documents

The patriarch of Constantinople fulfilled three different functions: 1) he was head of the eastern Greek Church, theoretically acting alone, without the synodos endemousa (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα),23 practically counselled by his internal circle of high officials (and metropolitans who took part at the synods in the capital),24 in his letters and personal orders; 2) he was a member of the synodos endemousa and its head, debating issues which demanded the counsel and agreement of metropolitans as well as a common solution; and 3) he was also archbishop of his parish in, and outside, Constantinople. In practice, these theoretical differentiations are not always as evident as one would expect. For example, the patriarch could send letters as ecumenical patriarch or as member of the synodos endemousa, together with the respective participants. It is difficult to filter out ‘a method’ why the one or the other way was chosen; it seems to depend more on the situation, and if the patriarch wanted to position himself as the exclusive addressor or if he preferred to ‘hide’ behind a group, the synod member, and declare the content as the common decision. His role as archbishop is rarely witnessed and, nearly exclusively, is found in documents in the two register books of the patriarchate of the 14th century (see below). The majority of the existing documents refer to his first two functions. The following table of terms tries to categorize the variety of patriarchal documents, based on Jean Darrouzès’ magisterial works,25 outlining a rough overview of their general development (with a particular focus on the 14th century due to transmission of sources). Some introducing words are necessary. 20 21 22 23 24 25

Pieralli, “Protocolli”. Pieralli, “Πιττάκιον”. Gastgeber, “Rhetorik in der Patriarchatskanzlei”; Gastgeber, “Aspects of variations”; Gastgeber, “Formular der Patriarchatskanzlei”; Gastgeber, “Kontinuität oder Bruch”. See also Hunger, “Nonchalance”. Functioning as stable institutions from the 10th/11th century: Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 334–35; for earlier times, see Hajjar, Synode permanent. Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, p. 335 with note 1. Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 389–525; Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 168–280 (on the basis of the 14th century register manuscripts); Mazal, Prooimien, pp. 19–63.

250

Gastgeber

All these documents differ in particular features: the signature, either personal with name and title or, more bureaucratically, impersonal only with the month and indiction (menologem); the seal; the datation, the world year only in solemn documents; the language style, in particular concerning the proem and narrative part; and also in their detail, where there are still some research gaps that require further studies. Moreover, exceptions to this general categorization occur without any evident ‘external’ reason for deviation. It is not sufficiently convincing to explain such changes due to a new, inexperienced official, for example: the patriarch and/or the synod would hardly have approved such an unusual form. It is rather to suppose that a particular deviation was deliberately chosen and that these concrete categories represent the form and shape the addressor wanted to adapt to a particular content despite classical categorization,26 rather than a stable form for specific content. The terms are listed in diachronic order although the exact development from one term to another new one, while the former was still in use, is not that clear and certain (this issue is not looked at more deeply here). Two external features characterize the higher or lower value of a document: the material of the seal (lead or wax27), and the signature. The latter is either by name or by so-called menologem,28 that is date of month and indiction;29 the menologem itself being an exclusive imperial prerogative and granted only to the patriarch, but differentiated by color: red for the emperor,30 black for the patriarch.31 All the terms have in common that the patriarchal chancery was used to avoid (or not allowed to adopt) the terms used in imperial documents. Even where imperial and patriarchal documents display common exclusivity (intitulatio line, menologem32), the patriarch had no right to employ them in the 26 27 28 29 30

31 32

See Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, p. 214. The difference is treated in a chancery handbook of about 1386, the so called Ekthesis nea: Darrouzès, “Ekthésis néa”, pp. 113–16. Except for letters to the emperor, to his wife, and to a Greek (“Rhomaios”) despotes, sebastokrator or kaisar, which were not signed: “Ekthésis néa”, p. 63. For the signature, see Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, p. 213 n. 1. For the menologem, see the remarks in Kresten, “Μηνολόγημα”, pp. 38–42. As an imperial signature, written in red ink, the menologem seems to have started before the second half of the 11th century: Kresten, “Μηνολόγημα”, pp. 16–17; even highranking imperial despotes were prohibited to sign with a menologem: Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, p. 78. Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, pp. 216–17; for the exceptional use of red ink by Patriarch John XIV Kalekas (as tutor of the young emperor John V Palaiologos), see Kresten, “Μηνολόγημα”, pp. 39–40. The earliest original witness dates from September 1252 (Patriarch Manuel II, Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1387, a. 1252); the privileged use goes back as far as the 11th century: Kresten, “Μηνολόγημα”, pp. 40–41; corrected date in Patmos 3, ed. Gerolymatou, pp. 154–156.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

251

same way as the emperor. The menologemata of the two chancelleries started to strikingly differ at the end of the 12th century. From the imperial documents of the Angeloi dynasty onwards (1185–1204), the letters μ and η of μηνὶ (“in the month”) overlapped and the upper part of η crossed μ in the middle; it is also placed a bit under the baseline. The second syllable νι is suspended; imperial μηνί was exclusively written in this abbreviation (see some examples below, p. 266–68).33 The patriarch never used this abbreviation, but always signed with the letters μην(ὶ). However, only μ is on the ground line, the other letters are added a little above (ι is indicated by a trema over the second part of ν or included in the final stroke of ν). Furthermore, μ ends with a descender, a very typical curved prolongation of the final stroke, dropping below the baseline. Table 1

Categories of documents by the patriarch and the synodos endemousa (mainly 14th c.)

Main category

Patriarch

Patriarch and synoda

confession of faith as designated (ὑποψήφιος) patriarch (ὁμολογία);d prayer for the emperor after enthronement (εὐχή); homiletic instruction (διδασκαλία); testament (διαθήκη); excommunication (ἀφορισμός); absolution (συγχώρησις);

σημείωμαb summary from the daily synod notes (ἡμερήσιαι παρασημείωσεις); the issued document refers to a discussed item; responsible for the text (confirming by signature and seal): the (megas) chartophylax synodal decision, referring a. o. to church property (ὑποτύποσις; but this term is also used for documents of the patriarch like letters, instructions or particular monastic rules); sanction of a dogma or reform of Church administration, which had to be confirmed by the emperor (τόμος)

summary of a synod session

particular documentc

a For the rare cases where the synod took a decision without a participating or existing patriarch, see (referring to the 14th century) Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 164–67. The way of confirming the documents of the listed categories may also deviate from the general praxis due to content or unknown criteria. b Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 482–508; Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 205–14 (referring to the 14th century); Pieralli, “Protocolli”. c For the patriarch (in the 14th century), see Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 168–72. d Cf. Blanchet and Gabriel, Professions de foi. 33

See Kresten, “Nachträgliches”, pp. 506–08.

252 Table 1

Gastgeber Categories of documents by the patriarch and the synodos endemousa (cont.)

Main category letter

Patriarch

answer to an inquiry (λύσις)e γράμμα (alternatively, less official: ἐπιστολή); from the 14th century onwards usual: πιττάκιον;f for the end of 14th century the Ekthesis nea explains a very subtly differentiated use and forms of (vocative) inscriptio and salutatio (at the beginning and the end) according to the rank of an addressee; in the same way, the arrangement of the address on the verso of the folded letter, epigraphe, and the use of a lead / wax seal were strictly differentiated); if and how a letter was signed, depended on the rank of the addressee (according to the Ekthesis nea) solemn (sealed) ὑπόμνημαg document this term was being replaced from 13th century onwards by: σιγίλλιον; σιγιλλιῶδες γράμμα; the most solemn form of the patriarch’s documents, therefore it can (but need not) contain a separate line at the beginning with the intitulatio (the patriarch’s titles) and a rhetorical preface;

Patriarch and synod γράμμα

γράμμα συνοδικόνh administrative decision (συνοδικὴ πρᾶξις) for the enthronement of a metropolitan, furthermore subdivided into ἐπίδοσις (administrative enlargement by a further parish received as proedros without being enthroned there or as locumtenens without any right on the parish) and μετάθεσις (transfer of a metropolitan or archbishop to another parish);

e For this category, see Nystazopoulou-Pélékidou, “Les déiseis et les lyseis”, pp. 114–15; for the official responsible for handling the preceding incoming request, the ἐπὶ τῶν δεήσεων, see Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 378–79. f Darrouz ès, Registre synodal, pp. 172–81; Gastgeber, “Formular der Patriarchatskanzlei”. g Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 399–426; Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 181–86 (for the 14th century). h See Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 244–80 (for the 14th century).

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Table 1

Categories of documents by the patriarch and the synodos endemousa (cont.)

Main category

Patriarch

Patriarch and synod

it is usually signed by name

the most solemn form of the synodal documents; it could contain an intitulatio, preface and name signature of the patriarch (or only menologem) and in some cases of the metropolitans too γράμμα συνοδικόνj judicial decision (διάγνωσις καὶ ἀπόφασις), or more concretely ἀθῴωσις (rehabilitation declaring the innocence of a charged person), ἀπόφασις, or in early Byzantine period ψῆφος (sentence), ἀφορισμός (deposition and excommunication), δικαίωσις (confirmation of rights and privileges), καθαίρεσις (deposition), κρίσις, διάκρισις, ἐπίκρισις (more generally the judicial decision), συγχώρησις (amnesty); it is signed by the menologem of the patriarch (alone)

order / decision γράμμα (ἐνταλτήριον, προτρεπτήριον); ἔνταλμα; προτροπή;i it is signed by the patriarch’s menologem

i j

253

See Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 186–203 (for the 14th century); under Patriarch Matthew I the number of grammata (as juridical decisions), partly replacing the synodal decisions (διάγνωσις καὶ ἀπόφασις συνοδική), considerably rose, as documented in the register for the period 1399–1402. See Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 215–44 (for the 14th century); according to Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 196–203, under Patriarch Matthew I, the term ‘synodal’ of the δίαγνωσις καὶ ἀπόφασις συνοδική does not refer to the synod of the metropolitans, but of the archontes of the patriarchate, and that such documents express the decisions of the patriarch alone. This development seems to be due to the absence of the emperor (in the West) and the increased importance of the patriarchal tribunal; Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 141–47, refers to the patriarch’s hypotyposis of 1397/98 (Darrouzès, Regestes 6, no. 3066, edition: Matthew I, Hypotyposis, eds. Konidares and Manaphes) regulating the patriarchal court.

2

Language and Rhetoric: Sociolinguistic Aspects

The documents of the chancery display a wide range of language registers from ‘common’ (koine) to high rhetorical, including many stylistic nuances between these. As a general rule of thumb, the use of a particular style or even

254

Gastgeber

of different linguistic registers depends on the value of a document and on its addressee. Therefore, the high rhetorical (up to artificial) literary products of the chancery tend either to honor the addressee or to respond to the language level of the addressor. A (very) low register might be chosen as well (including even ‘spoken language elements’) in order to meet the language use (and ability of understanding) of the addressee. A simple categorization into Attic, or rather seemingly Attic (high register product) and koine Greek (alleged low register product), does not work with the stylistic nuances of the documents, as even high register products can rely on koine Greek. The quality of a chancery product is (not only) defined by its use of Attic or koine vocabulary and grammar, since these differences are not as excluding as one would expect from ‘registers’, let alone a natural development of word meaning and neologism,34 but even in a general dichotomous categorization into high and low registers, a variety of linguistic shades is possible, and indeed exists. The same goes for the so-called vernacular elements which did intrude into literary texts, but no written text of the chancery, even based on a very low register, reproduces spoken Greek. Pragmatic reasons did, more or less, allow such elements in a chancery product which we classify as low register, but it still remains an adapted literary product. Studies on low-register products issued by the patriarchal chancery35 at the same time as high register documents make clear that, on the one hand, its use is not reflecting a ‘worse’ education of an official and that, on the other, the linguistic variety does not allow us to define the canonized low-register language. Without any doubt, some forms can generally be attributed to low register Greek, but low register Greek does not consist of only one particular form. Furthermore, for Byzantines texts, other aspects also have to be taken into consideration, that are elaborated by Ihor Sevčenko who classifies not registers

34

35

Cf. in this regard, Horrocks, “High-register medieval Greek”, p. 50: “Byzantine writers … rarely, if ever, attempted virtuoso composition in the Attic Greek of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, but rather maintained a weaker form of linguistic continuity with the past involving the re-characterization of contemporary linguistic form reference not only to strict Attic practice but to the whole tradition of classical/classicizing prose composition up to their own period … high-register Byzantine Greek … is not so much a version of Ancient Greek as a variety of Medieval Greek ‘antiqued’ according to conventions that imposed a consistently ancient appearance while simultaneously introducing less immediately visible organizational principles from the contemporary vernacular.” A general characterization of Byzantine Greek and its development is in Horrocks, Greek, pp. 191–369. Hinterberger, “Relations diplomatiques”; Gastgeber, “Aspects of variations”.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

255

but stylistic levels by the following features:36 sentence structure in long periods with main and subordinated hypotactic sentences, whose complexity in some cases could hardly be followed if read to a common audience, against more or less paratactic structures; a broad vocabulary and the tendency to use very elaborate words, against a very limited vocabulary and the tendency to paraphrase verbs by the auxiliary verbs make and do + substantives; abundant (indirect) literary quotations against a general lack of quotations, if ever, in direct speech; a very melodic language respecting the rhythmic clauses opposed to a lack of melodic elaboration, which, however, does not exclude a general neglect of rhythmic clauses: some ‘happen’ due to the word order, therefore the author’s respective intention must be assessed by its quantity. The register/level of the language is decisively conditioned by the target audience as well: the chancery may lower the linguistic register of a document according to the linguistic register of its addressee. However, this feature is generally not respected in formulaic (synod) decisions, as such texts kept a midlevel of koine Greek and avoided exuberant rhetorization. But in letters, such as those to foreign potentates, the chancery could (and did) lower the linguistic register far below the usual level.37 Nevertheless, respect for the addressee’s linguistic level is one side of the coin; the other is a typical Byzantine attitude towards non-Greeks: barbarians according to the Byzantine interpretation. In letters that indicate a kind of dialogue with a non-Greek addressee, they have to ‘deserve’ the honor of being addressed in a higher linguistic level, like a reward.38 Letters thus can, but need not, be stylized as high register (rhetorical) products. An external criterion might be their inclusion into an edition of Byzantine collected letters, which served as a collection of prime rhetorical examples as well. Among the patriarchal documents, candidates for rhetorical embellishment (including all the features mentioned above) are ones with a very solemn context, such as privileges and others introduced by an elaborate preface. The usual orders or synodal decisions are official statements that primarily inform their addressee and address a respective broader target audience; they are not intended to honor the addressee by using a distinguished language, therefore time and linguistic skill are not invested for embellishment. Although decisions might not need such ornaments, they do need a dialectical elaboration in 36 37 38

Sevčenko, “Levels of style”; Toufexis, “Diglossia”; Rollo, “Greco medievale” (with detailed bibliography). See e.g., the examples given by Hinterberger, “Relations diplomatiques”; and Gastgeber, “Aspects of variations”. See Gastgeber, “Aspects of variations”.

256

Gastgeber

order to convince the addressee/reader of a taken decision. If necessary, such psychagogic elements contribute to let a text excel against other more formulaic products. With the register and its styles of language, the question arises as to whether a particular chancery language or style exists. As regards the vocabulary, there is no doubt that the judicial and legislative content requires a particular vocabulary and there is at least a technical standard vocabulary, including some formulaic dispositive phrases, expressions of conditions, threats of punishment, etc. However, these words or phrases are not restricted to the patriarchal chancery, but are used in other chanceries (like the imperial one) as well, and could even be employed in other literary products, such as metaphors illustrating a comparable context. Thus, such words and phrases are centered around chancery products, but by no means exclusively. There is, however, another element that characterizes a chancery style of decisions and orders: the repetition of the decisive part. For example, in a decision by the synod about the election of a new spiritual administrator or metropolitan, the introduction contains general ideas of taking care of all entrusted souls and stresses the particular moral qualification of the chosen cleric. This qualification is repeated in the dispositive first part, where the duties and rights of the new administrator are outlined; then, in the second part, the patriarch addressees the parish and reminds it of their duties towards the new administrator, the patriarch’s direct mediator to the parish. The reason for this repetition appears to be to make things as clear as possible, and in view of such clearness, a rhetorical, artificial language cannot fulfil the goal. The repetition underlines the essential parts. From the evidence from original documents and secondary witnesses, it is known that the patriarchal chancery used Latin for documents sent to western addressees. However, the availability of good translators and scribes of Latin texts was a major problem the patriarch was confronted with. The other large chancery, of the emperor, had its department of Latin translators who, in general, managed to satisfactorily translate texts from Greek into Latin or vice versa. Information about this topic is scarce,39 but from the glimpses some sources provide we can be sure that in the very tense situation shortly before the Fourth Crusade the emperor controlled the correspondence to the West, that is to the pope.40 Thus, the translator of a letter of Patriarch John X 39 40

See the overview in Gastgeber, “Lateinische Texte”. It goes without saying that the emperor ‘controlled’ the chancery, especially the important synod sessions; for direct contact with the emperor, the office of referendarios was created: Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 373–74.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

257

Kamateros to Pope Innocent III was an official of the emperor’s logothetes tu dromou.41 One original patriarchal document is indeed transmitted only in Latin:42 an encyclical letter of the unionist and ‘Latinizing’ patriarch John Bekkos,43 excommunicating, on 16 July 1276, as heretics all who do not accept the Church union between Constantinople and Rome.44 Some phrases are evidently influenced by Latin wording and do not reflect an originally Greek draft, like the intitulatio “Johannes miseratione divina Constantinopolitanus patriarcha”, the inscriptio “universis, ad quos presentes litere prevenerint”, or the salutatio “rei geste memoriam cum salute”. The beginning of the letter, with “caritati vestre notum fieri volumus per presentes quod”, follows Latin (not Byzantine) documentary tradition. Just the two Greek terms in the document (despotes, sebastokrator) are corrupt (despotus, syntocrator, if correctly copied at the end of the 15th century, as this part of the original is destroyed). From this analysis it suggests that Bekkos’ letter was not drafted in the patriarchal chancery, but ordered by the pope with a prescribed wording that the patriarch had to sign and circulate. Judging from the involvement of the imperial scribe of Latin documents, it seems that the emperor surely supervised the formulation of the letters of the patriarch directed to the West, and in particular those to the pope. From 1363, under Patriarch Kallistos I, a remarkable document45 is preserved, according to which the Latin doctor Petrus de Pistagallis was allowed to buy more than 50 holy relics in Constantinople and export them to the West; the document is issued and signed by an official of the patriarchal chancery. Among the witnesses a convert is mentioned (a former bishop, frater Nicholas) who assisted the doctor in receiving a permission of free export from the patriarch. This convert enclosed a Latin translation with the Greek text in the lower section of the original parchment document, but he did not translate the entire text, only the list of relics. By accident, this (by no means meticulous) translator was at the patriarchal chancery’s disposition. The impression of a lack of Latin and Latin translators in the patriarchal chancery is also indirectly reflected in the famous conflict between Patriarch Michael Keroularius and 41 42 43 44 45

Gastgeber, “Sprachliche und übersetzungstechnische Beobachtungen 1”; Gastgeber, “Sprachliche und übersetzungstechnische Beobachtungen 2”. Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1435 (16 July 1277); its scribe, Ogerio Boccanegra, was identified by Luca Pieralli as the imperial scribe of Michael VIII Palaiologos, responsible for the emperor’s Latin documents: Pieralli, Corrispondenza diplomatica, pp. 94–95. Hofmann, “Patriarch Johann Bekkos”, proved that Bekkos was not acquainted with Latin. Edition in Hofmann, “Patriarch Johann Bekkos”, pp. 144–45; new edition and analysis of the letter in Mercati, “Note archivistiche”. Gastgeber, “Reliquienhandel”.

258

Gastgeber

Cardinal Humbert in 1054. When the anathema bull, written in Latin, was laid on the altar of Hagia Sophia, its content could not be understood, only the symbolic act; some time was needed before the patriarch was informed about the exact content.46 However, in the late period of the Palaiologoi, two original documents are preserved which seemed to have been translated in the chancery of the patriarchate, and contain both the Greek and the Latin texts in two parallel columns. The first is a document of Patriarch Gregory III from November 1445 certifying the authenticity of relics of the Holy Cross,47 the second is a letter of the synaxis of Constantinople from January 1452 (when Patriarch Gregory III had left Constantinople for Rome) to the Hussites in Prague envisaging a union with the Greek Church.48 Both Greek texts were written by Gennadios Scholarios;49 the Latin scribes and translators are not identified. At least in the second letter Scholarios might have been involved in the translation. A particular case is the correspondence with Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Basel in the 1430s. Emperor John VIII Palaiologos and Patriarch Joseph II sent separate documents of same content and wording (each one signed and sealed by the emperor and patriarch, respectively). The majority of these texts is preserved only in Western collections of Council documents, created by notaries who were interested in inserting only the Latin versions. However, one original document, signed and sealed by Patriarch Joseph II on 26 November 1435, could recently be found in a collection that was in possession of Antipope Felix V (now in the Library of Geneva, ms. lat. 27, portefeuille 1, n° 17).50 This σιγίλλιον is written in two parallel columns, containing the Greek text on the left and the Latin translation on the right. The wording is almost identical to the emperor’s parallel χρυσόβουλλον. Therefore, the text was most probably drafted in the imperial chancery and does not reflect the usage of Latin in the patriarchal chancery. 3

Linguistic and Speech Act Aspects of Document Presentation

Linguistic phenomena are elements that are chosen with regard to the target audience and are therefore to be interpreted against the sociolinguistic and 46 47 48 49 50

Documents 11th century, ed. Will, p. 123, lines 5–20; see Gastgeber, “The so-called Schism of 1054”, pp. 218–19. Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3400; a new edition with commentary is in preparation by the author. Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3408; edition in Salać, Constantinople et Prague. See Cacouros, “Un patriarche”, and Ganchou, “Géôrges Scholarios” (with new dating). See Gastgeber, “Byzanz und das Konzil zu Basel und Ferrara”.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

259

text pragmatic background. The use of a particular style level or even linguistic register reveals additional information to the listener / reader about the relationship between addressor and addressee, if the latter was familiar with such linguistic variations. For example, a member of the permanent synod in the patriarchate of Constantinople, such as metropolitans or archbishops who could have received a higher education, recognized how the addressee was treated as regards the stylistic level. If a metropolitan was addressed in a low register Greek, he was somehow stigmatized by the community of clerical scholars of the synod and the participating higher officials; or vice versa, a cleric addressing the patriarch (and the synod) is ‘characterized’ by the style of his request too. A high, rhetorical style is generally an outstanding feature that should impress through language and dialectic, sometimes even more than by its content; it should, too, give pleasure to the audience through its wellcomposed, rhythmic, nicely sounding language. The motivation might be that the addresser wants to honor the addressee through the language as outlined above (e.g., in very rhetorical prefaces of privileges) or that he wants to challenge his addressee (e.g. in controversies among educated clerics). The opposite may occur when the addressor is absolutely unwilling to raise his linguistic level or even deliberately lowers his level to underline his disapproval or disrespect. This aspect is important, in so far as documents of the patriarch (and the synod) were generally addressed not only to the primary addressee, but to other involved or indirectly addressed persons as well. This might include the parish of a metropolitan or archbishop, other metropolitans, including the head of a diocese (exarchos)—who had to support the synod in delivering and executing the order or become informed about a decision in the capital—as well as further involved parties, and so on. We can exemplify the issue with one of the most common decisions of the synod, the enthronement letter for a new metropolitan or administrator of a metropolis. A pragmatic view of the directly and indirectly addressed audience seems to have contributed to a language level that aimed at clarity: the duties to and from the parish should be understood by all when read to the audience. Long periods with combined and interwoven subordinate clauses would prevent this goal. On the other hand, a feature of the chancery can be explained by this performative act as well as its importance. The register manuscripts sometimes indicate the text drafters, responsible for composing some documents with embellished phrasing and rhetorical proems, in marginal notes. This was an internal note that was only intended to inform the readers of these entered copies in the manuscript. In this way, the ‘keeper of this register’, the (megas) chartophylax, his officials and other members of the permanent synod, as well as the patriarch (during the sessions), were informed about the rhetorically trained officials of the chartophylak(e)ion or of other departments

260

Gastgeber

of the patriarchal chancery.51 The name notes in the register manuscripts seem to have aimed at informing the synod members about the drafters of elaborate texts. Obviously, such embellishment was appreciated and should be honored at least by a name note. As a conclusion, in assessing the audience of each document one has to take into consideration a broader audience than the named addressee alone: the permanent synod, to whom the draft or final version was read, as well as the addressee and persons who are co-concerned in any way. 4

Formulaic Parts

Although the chancery did not have a particular language register at its disposal, there are phrases and expressions that are common and fixed elements in the wording of decisions and orders of the patriarch and his synod. In general, they did not appear alone, but in semantic combination: attributes, verb, and further substantives, in order to encompass all possible shades of a term. Therefore, a notary in the patriarchal chancery needed an appropriate training in phrasing such texts. The best way was studying former texts of the same or similar context in order to become acquainted with the vocabulary. The register books of the patriarchal chancery (see below), among others, seem to have fulfilled this goal as well. In the department of the chartophylax where the register was kept, his notaries could learn from the texts while drafting a document. Following this principle, a patriarchal notary (and later metropolitan of Selybria) copied 16 documents from the beginning of the first preserved register book and the beginning of a chartulary to become acquainted with this style.52 Thus, other smaller collections of documents might have also served as tools for stylistic training as well. What a notary had to respect with precision, was the very sophisticated system of address in letters. Insight into this system is provided by a handbook of 1386.53 Collecting respective data from documents of the chancery, an official composed this handbook that included the appropriate attributes and introductory phrases of letters to clerics (from the pope down to metropolitans) as well as to the imperial court and potentates abroad. This collection is not to be interpreted as an official handbook for chanceries—a section of the 51 52 53

See Gastgeber, “Rhetorik in der Patriarchatskanzlei”, pp. 192–94. See Register 1, eds. Hunger and Kresten, pp. 40–41; Cartulary Mount Latros, eds. Gastgeber and Kresten, pp. 13–30. Both are today preserved in his autograph manuscript: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Urb. gr. 80, fols. 200v–215v and 250r–260v. Darrouzès, “Ekthésis néa”.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

261

text concerns metropolitans and how they had to address their addressees in their letters—but as a private compendium that was created in the patriarchal chancery54 and copied by other chancery collaborators too outside the patriarchal chancery. On the whole, it reflects practice at the end of the 14th century, and the comments of its author explain differences of that time. However, the collection was compiled by a Byzantine notary who had basic knowledge and, obviously, did not need complete forms of the terms; striking are some of the abbreviated titles of the addressees. What was evident, or irrelevant, was therefore omitted at the expense of a clear system for each user. Nevertheless, the handbook instructs us about the parts of an address and the exclusive attributes as well as titles according to the (social, political) rank of an addressee. Roughly speaking, the elements are: official title (fixed); title of power (used relatively); the relationship expressed by a metaphorical family model (father, brother, son, child; relatively used); and name. Furthermore, for high-ranking clerics, their spiritual fraternity to the patriarch, and for subordinated secular officials, their relationship to the emperor are also elements that appear. All these parts differ by attributes, with respect of the rank of the addressee and addressor. Finally, letters also vary in the way they were folded and inscribed with an address (containing the name and title of addressor and addressee) on the verso.55 A formulaic element of documents also concerns the signature of the patriarch and his abstract self-designation. The signature developed step by step from “ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως” over “ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως νέας Ῥώμης” (starting from the time of the Council of Ephesus in 43156) to “ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως νέας Ῥώμης καὶ οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης”. Vitalien Laurent who studied its development,57 distinguished between the largely unofficial address of a patriarch and the official new title “οἰκουμενικὸς πατρίαρχης” included into his own signature. An important witness for the inclusion into the signature of the patriarch is the remark, dating from 1222,58 of Metropolitan John Apokaukos of Naupaktos, a former ὑπομνηματογράφος of 54 55 56 57 58

Cf. also the note of the author about his access to the register of the chancery: Darrouzès, “Ekthésis néa”, p. 82: “ὡς ἔστιν εὑρεῖν πολλὰ τοιαῦτα (i.e., rhetorical embellishment of the grammata) ἐν τοῖς κώδιξι τοῖς ἐν τῷ πατριαρχείῳ καὶ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς.” See Darrouzès, “Ekthesis néa”; and the detailed study in Gastgeber, “Formular der Patriarchatskanzlei”. A way to level the title was the addition of “ταπεινὸς μοναχός”, see Pieralli, “L’epiteto οἰκουμενικός”, pp. 219, 222. Laurent, “Le titre de patriarche œcuménique”. See, in addition, with some corrections and a colour photo, the documentation of Pieralli, “L’epiteto οἰκουμενικός”. See also the interpretation in Pieralli, “L’epiteto οἰκουμενικός”, pp. 225–27.

262

Gastgeber

the patriarchal chancery. According to him, the patriarch of Constantinople himself did not add “καὶ οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης” to his signature, but rather it was used by subordinate others addressing the patriarch, or in the intitulatio of documents being not part of the signature. The latter is witnessed from the time of Photios (867), and in seals for the first time under Patriarch Michael Keroularius (1043–59), who evidently reacted to the conflict with Rome in 1054 by underlining his eminent position. However, Apokaukos has mistakenly stated that before 1222 the full signature with “οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης” was not in official use by any patriarch, nor on seals either. In fact, this addition to the signature is already witnessed in a lysis of Patriarch Chariton from 1177/78,59 the first preserved original document of the patriarchal chancery. But Apokaukos’ assertion is justified in so far as the supplement “καὶ οἰκουμενικὸς πατριάρχης” did not become the standard form in the chancery, and started only with Patriarch Manuel I Sarantenos in Nicaean exile. The other formulaic phrase which the chancery rigorously complied with, was the official term of the patriarch when he abstractly spoke about himself: “our modesty” (“ἡ μετριότης ἡμῶν”)60 This was a term that replaced or supplemented a former usually first person singular or plural in order to stress 59 60

Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1151; Documents Protaton, ed. Papachryssanthou, pp. 238–42 and pl. 26–27; see also Pieralli, “L’epiteto οἰκουμενικός”, pp. 216–17 and tab. 1. This is the standard phrase that was used in the middle and late Byzantine period. Its history, and that of the respective phrases of the other hierarchical ranks (as well as their socio-political implications), is still a research desideratum. A cursory check of the documents reveals that it obviously took some time until the patriarch (like the emperor) made use of an abstract phrase concerning himself, unless the random transmission of documents is somehow misleading. It is noteworthy that Patriarch Photios seemed to be one of the first users (in his letters we see it nearly 20 times). One remembers Photios’ attempt to emphasize (and raise) the position of the patriarch versus the emperor in chapter 3 of the Eisagoge (eds. Zepos and Zepos, pp. 242–43); this might have been a starting point to imitate ‘imperial use’ of abstract phrases in official letters. So it is then that we often find this phrase in the letters of the Photian Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos (901–07, 912–25). However, as for example the typikon of the monk Athanasios of Mount Athos for the Megiste Lavra (973–75) uses the phrase (Documents Mount Athos, ed. Meyer, pp. 103, line 22; 105, line 9; 106, line 29; 108, line 11; 110, line 10), it was not exclusively reserved for the patriarch, but became a ‘popular’ expression of humility at the disposition of a cleric. The development towards an exclusive patriarchal phrase still remains unscrutinized. For the Paleologan period its exclusivity for the patriarch alone can certainly be taken as a fact; thus, in the Ekthesis nea A 33 it is stressed that the metropolitan of Thessaloniki (unjustifiably) uses the phrase speaking about himself, albeit only in letters to subordinate clerics and “in recent time” (νεωστί) under Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos: Darrouzès, “Ekthésis Néa”, pp. 52–53. Another rare exception is its use by Metropolitan Dositheos of Monembasia on 24 October 1436: Stefec, “Zwei fragmentarische Urkunden”, pp. 698–99.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

263

distance to the addressee.61 This abstract form complies with a general trend that in letters and documents, clerics of a higher position were accustomed to use a particular term according to their rank in the clerical hierarchy; however, this term had to express humility and never exaltation. Furthermore, a cleric of another (lower) rank was not allowed to use a rank-defined term either, nor was it acceptable for anybody to address the cleric with this phrase of selfhumiliation; this was a term that the addressee used when he exclusively spoke about himself. On the contrary, by addressing a cleric one had to respect his clerical rank by using attributes of esteem, in general praising or exalting the addressee. The phrasing options, according to how much the addressor wanted to be involved, had far reaching text pragmatic implications. To take the example of the patriarch, in documents signed by him he could choose between the first person singular, the first person plural (pluralis genuinus, pluralis societatis, pluralis modestiae, pluralis maiestatis, pluralis ethnicus62) or the abstract humiliation phrase. With such a repertoire, a patriarch was able to differentiate the relationship to his addressee in fine shades on a scale from close familiarity to far distance. It depended on what the patriarch wanted to emphasize with his document: either his statement as a spiritual father or brother, a human being (in high position), or the decision of the highest clerical authority, stressing the institution rather than his personal agency. A particular feature of the chancery is the deliberate mixture of these options in one document to vary between closeness and distance. For example, some letters referring to critical matters display such a policy of ‘carrot and stick’ in order to express indignation about an incident on the one hand (distance form) and personal involvement as well as a kind of respect on the other (close form). If the patriarch wanted to stress his thorough distance even to a member of his liturgical fraternity, he spoke of himself only in the third person with the abstract noun.

61

62

Among the sporadic witnesses of the phrase “ἡ μετριότης ἡμῶν” are the Lateran Council of 649: letter of Patriarch Kyros of Alexandria to Patriarch Sergios (Lateran Council 649, ed. Riedinger, pp. 172, line 35; 190, line 9); and in the letter collection of Ignatios the Deacon the phrase is used three times: Ignatios the Deacon, Letters 16, 20, 49, eds. Mango and Efthymiadis, p. 54, line 5; p. 66, line 27; p. 128, line 24. According to the editors, letter 16 was written during his time as metropolitan of Nicaea (814–43), letter 20 was written from Constantinople (unclear in which function), and letter 49 was written between 843–46 (as a monk): Ignatios the Deacon, Letters, eds. Mango and Efthymiadis, p. 19. See Gastgeber, “Byzantine emperor addressing”.

264 5

Gastgeber

Script

Research on the paleography of the patriarchal documents suffers from a considerable lack of original material. The first preserved original document up to the end of the 12th century of the patriarchal chancery, dates from June 1087: a fragmentary hypomnema, from the archive of Patmos,63 issued by Patriarch Nicholas III Grammatikos. There is also a document from August 1133: a hypomnema, that is fragmentary at the beginning, also from the archive of Patmos,64 issued by Patriarch John IX Agapetos. Another is from October 1158, issued by Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges (hypomnema, archive of Patmos),65 and there is also a document from 1178/79: a lysis, from the archive of the Protaton Monastery on Mount Athos, issued by Patriarch Chariton.66 The earliest preserved document of 1087 evidently differs from contemporary documents of the imperial chancery, but it displays some particular combined letters (rho, delta with inscribed vowel) that are not used in the imperial chancery nor in book script. The script of the second document of 1133, however, resembles a style that was used in the imperial chancery, as seen in July 1104,67 at a time when the imperial chancery adopted a new, more current script, departing from the former very baroque and upright script. Since there exists no documents that were written at the same time in both chancelleries, considerations about a mutual influence remain hypothetical. Compared to original Greek documents of other chancelleries, the current script, combined with some dominating letters intruding the space between the lines, does not appear to be particularly Constantinopolitan, and rather represents a general trend in contemporary documentary script. The document of 1178/79 is a very exclusive one as it is one of the rare samples of a request (hypomnesis, in this case of a monk of Mount Athos) which was responded to on the same document (patriarchal lysis) on the verso for the request, the front page for the decision with the patriarch’s signature and seal. This means that the request was copied from the monks’ original text on the reverse in the patriarchal chancery. 63 64 65 66 67

Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 942; see Pieralli, “L’epiteto οἰκουμενικός”, pp. 217– 19 with tab. 2 (last lines and signature); Patmos 3, no. 1, ed. Gerolymatou, pin. 1–2. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1005; see Pieralli, “L’epiteto οἰκουμενικός”, pp. 219–21 with tab. 3 (last lines and signature); Patmos 3, no. 2, ed. Gerolymatou, pin. 3–5. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1049; see Pieralli, “L’epiteto οἰκουμενικός”, pp. 221–22 with tab. 4 (last lines and signature); Patmos 3, no. 3, ed. Gerolymatou, pin. 8–10. Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1151; Documents Protaton, ed. Papachryssanthou, pp. 238–41 with pl. 26–27. Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1220f (original and one contemporary copy, issued in the same chancery).

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

265

The document itself, as well as the hypomnema of 1158, do not display any typical features of an exclusive script from the patriarchal chancery, but the script resembles a type of contemporary book script, the so called Gitterschrift68 of the end of the 12th century. This was a script that itself originates from documentary script: the Protaton document, however, more calligraphic than the hypomnema of 1158. The same applies to the following development of the chancery script. We find the canon-bursting Fettaugenmode69 that started to be used for manuscripts at about that time and was no longer an exclusively documentary script. With the return to a more sober script in the 14th century, and the general tendency of avoiding degenerated and protruding letters, the patriarchal notaries became accustomed to write their documents in a ductus more or less resembling contemporary book script, as in the imperial chancery. The former differences between documentary and book scripts finally disappear. Thus, we find notaries, working at the same time in the patriarchal chancery and as (paid) scribes for ordered books, using the same script; for the 14th/15th century there are the well-known figures of George Galesiotes,70 John Holobolos,71 and John Chortasmenos.72 An extraordinary case is the scribe George Boullotes, a well-known as scribe of imperial documents.73 However, recent research identifies him as a scribe of patriarchal documents as well, in a period when he was obviously not employed by the emperor.74 A particular feature of generally solemn documents of the patriarch, is a separate line at the beginning of a document with the intitulatio of the patriarch.75 This was a privilege which the patriarch shared with the emperor; the intitulatio started to be written with artificial, partly interwoven majuscule letters (the so called epigraphic Auszeichnungsschrift or emphatic style). In the Palaeologan period minuscule letters were used for both the intitulatio and the main text without any differentiation; the only concession to emphasis are slightly squiggled combined letters. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

Hunger, “Elemente der byzantinischen Urkundenschrift”. Cf. the authentic copy, dating from 1273, of the semeioma of 4 May 1250 (Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1312): colour illustration in Pieralli, “Protocolli”, p. 155. Register 1, eds. Hunger and Kresten, pp. 65–71; Register 2, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 75–80; Gastgeber, “Aus der Bibliothek”, pp. 99–107. A study on him is being prepared by Giuseppe De Gregorio. See also Estangüi “Pour une étude” and Gastgeber, “Aus der Bibliothek”, pp. 101–103, 107–109. John Chortasmenos, Miscellanea, ed. Hunger; Canart and Prato, “Les recueils”; Cacouros, “Jean Chortasménos”; Gastgeber, “Aus der Bibliothek” (with further literature). Lamberz, “Georgios Bullotes”. Gastgeber, “Mount Athos”. See Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, p. 216.

266

Gastgeber

The way the privileged menologem (see above, p. 251) was written displays the exclusivity of patriarchal documents as well; in the Palaeologan period this type of signature became more and more artificial, like an ornament in the document. The first autograph witness for the use of the menologem by the patriarch dates from September 1252 with Patriarch Manuel II. The following list presents an overview of the development with some examples.76 Table 2

Shapes of the patriarchal menologem

menologem of Patriarch Manuel II (1252) Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1387 (a. 1267, mistakenly) (Patmos 3, ed. Gerolymatou, pin. 11, no. 4) menologem of Patriarch John XII Kosmas (1298) or Niphon I (1313) copy of a chrysobullos logos of Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (June 1298), confirmed on its verso by the patriarch Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2016 (Documents Lavra 2, eds. Lemerle, Guillou, Svoronos, and Papachryssanthou, pl. 103, no. 89 B; see also their comment on p. 72)

menologem of Patriarch Isaias (1325) Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2129 (Documents Iviron 3, eds. Lefort, Oikonomidès, Papachryssanthou, Kravari, and Métrévéli, pl. 66, no. 83)

76

See also, Kresten, “Nachträgliches”, pp. 517–24 (including the post-Byzantine development).

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Table 2

267

Shapes of the patriarchal menologem (cont.)

menologem of Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (1369) Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2548 (Documents Pantrocrator, ed. Kravari, pl. 8, no. 8)

menologem of Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (1370)? Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2587 (Documents Docheiariou, ed. Oikonomidès, pl. 44, no. 39; see also his comment about the dating on p. 222)

menologem of Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos (1375) Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2662 (Documents Docheiariou, ed. Oikonomidès, pl. 50, no. 43)

menologem of Patriarch Antony IV (1392) Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2903 (Documents Lavra 3, eds. Lemerle, Guillou, Svoronos, and Papachryssanthou, pl. 197, no. 152)

268 Table 2

Gastgeber Shapes of the patriarchal menologem (cont.)

menologem of Patriarch Antony IV (1395) Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2990 (Documents Vatopedi 3, eds. Lefort (†), Smyrlis, Giros, Kravari, and Estangüi, pl. 24, no. 172) menologem of Patriarch Antony IV (1395) Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3002 (Documents Kutlumus, ed. Lemerle, pl. 61, no. 41)

menologem of Patriarch Antony IV (1396) Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3024 (Documents Pantokrator, ed. Kravari, pin. 32, no. 23) menologem of Patriarch Matthew I (1403) Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3266 (Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, no. 97)

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Table 3

269

(Contrasting) Examples of imperial menologemata

(first preserved authentic) menologem of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1092) at the end of the document (right part), followed by the recognition note legimus of the epi tu kanikleiou (in red ink, too) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1168d (Documents Lavra 1, eds. Lemerle, Guillou, Svoronos, and Papachryssanthou, pl. 52, no. 51) menologem of Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (1146) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1348 (Dölger, Facsimiles, tab. III, no. 5)

menologem of Emperor Isaac II Angelos (1192) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1610 (Dölger, Facsimiles, tab. IV, no. 7) menologem of Emperor Alexios III Angelos (1199) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1649 (Dölger, Facsimiles, tab. V, no. 8) menologem of Emperor Theodore I Laskaris (1214) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1687 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 47, no. 23)

270 Table 3

Gastgeber (Contrasting) Examples of imperial menologemata (cont.)

menologem of Emperor John III Doukas Vatatzes (1244) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1783 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 47, no. 24) menologem of Emperor John IV Doukas Laskaris (1258) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1854 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 48, no. 25) menologem of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (1262) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1910 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 51, no. 29)

menologem of Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1283) Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2094 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 59, no. 41)

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Table 3

271

(Contrasting) Examples of imperial menologemata (cont.)

menologem of Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1290) Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2142a (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 60, no. 42)

menologem of Emperor Andronikos III Palaiologos (1340) Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2845 (Patmos 1, ed. Vranussi, pin. 61, no. 44)

menologem of Emperor John V Palaiologos (1375) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3145 (Documents Docheiariou, ed. Oikonomidès, pl. 51, no. 44)

272 Table 3

Gastgeber (Contrasting) Examples of imperial menologemata (cont.)

menologem of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos (1414) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3344 (Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammer, no. 23)

menologem of Emperor John VIII Palaiologos (1445) Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3509 (Dölger, Aus den Schatzkammern, no. 26)

6

The Official(s) Responsible for Documents in the Chancery

All documents were issued and archived in the chartophylak(e)ion of the patriarchate;77 its head had the title chartophylax, and from 1328 onwards megas chartophylax (the grand “keeper of the written documents”).78 The first megas chartophylax was Gregory Koutales. Besides some information from documents or historians about the engagement and work of the chartophylax, insight into his department is provided by some Byzantine lists of the offices in the patriarchate and its officials, partially supplemented by descriptions of their duties.79 From all these lists since the middle of the 12th century 77 78 79

Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 333–53. See PLP 6, no. 13,616; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2134 (between March and September 1327), promotion of Gregory Koutales to chartophylax under Patriarch Isaias; Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, p. 111, and, for the development of this official, see pp. 334–53, 508–25. Published in Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 529–75.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

273

it appears that the chartophylax was one of the highest ranking officials (archontes) in the patriarchate. The office of the chartophylax itself is of course not an exclusive institution of the capital alone; each metropolitan had such an official at his disposition. But, as Jean Darrouzès underlined, there is a striking difference between the patriarchal chartophylax and those of the metropolitans outside the capital. In the capital his agency was generally connected with the (permanent) synod, an institution metropolitans could not establish. Anastasius Bibliothecarius describes the duties and rights of the chartophylax in a note to his translation of the synod of 869 as follows: … the chartophylax has the same agency as the librarian in Rome, and as ecclesiasticus minister he performs all ecclesiastical duties except for the episcopal ones. When a prelate or cleric comes to the capital, he introduces him to the patriarch; he opens the letters addressed to the patriarch except for the other patriarchs’ ones. Nobody is promoted to any higher hierarchical rank (including prelates) or to abbot without his approval or recommendation and presentation to the patriarch.80 The question remains how work and competence were divided81 between the chartophylax and the protonotarius—according to one list of the patriarchal officials, the latter one was responsible for the letters, pittakia, of the patriarch82—as well as the hypomnematographos—responsible for the hypomnema which, however, developed from a synod report to a solemn document of the patriarch83—and the hieromnemon, who was mainly responsible for ordinations.84 It is remarkable that Anastasius did not mention the main duty of the chartophylax in the chancery: drafting documents and preparing them for issue. Having become the head of their own office with subordinate officials, the influence of the chartophylax as direct mediator between clergy and patriarch was appropriately rising. It was in this atmosphere of increasing power that the canonist Theodore Balsamon (c.130/40–after 1195) described

80 81 82

83 84

Sacra concilia 16, ed. Mansi, col. 38 C–D (my translation). Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 355–59. Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 357–58, 561 (hinting at a kind of issue with his own signature after the ekdoseis and apophaseis had been composed by the higher ranking chartophylax), 566 (with an exclusive duty of adding the ἐπιγραφή on the letters), 568 (ranking on the second level). Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 362–68, 548 (directly following the chartophylax in this office). Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 368–73.

274

Gastgeber

the post’s duties and rights,85 or rather how he, having been promoted to chartophylax, interprets the power of his office.86 It goes without saying that a charismatic chartophylax, like the right hand of the patriarch, could (mis)use his position to gain more power than the synod as he was able to influence the patriarch or members of it. Yet, officially, he still remained simply a prominent assistant to the patriarch and not the mediator between synod and patriarch as a kind of general secretary, so he himself exercised no judicial power. Some names of the keepers of this office are known—as well as their occasional mention in legal or literary works—from a category of documents that was almost exclusively issued by the chartophylax alone. These were summaries of the decisions of the synod, issued for the concerned party (semeioma).87 An exclusive duty of the office is also confirmed by the existing original register books of the 14th century (see below): it had permanent control and overview of the entered documents. 7

The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

Research on the chancery of the patriarchate in the Palaeologan period mainly profits from the preservation of two original document collections in the manuscripts Vienna, Austrian National Library, cod. hist. gr. 47 and 48, the so-called register of the patriarchate,88 a modern title according to similar official copy books in the chancery of the pope. The register’s self-definition reads: “codex of the synod minutes”89 and “registration of synodal act and written reports (semeiomata) of ecclesiastical content”.90

85 86 87 88

89 90

Theodore Balsamon, About the Chartophylax and the Protekdikos, eds. Rhalles and Potles. Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 338–44. Pieralli, “Protocolli”. Particular studies on the register are in Hunger, Studien zum Patriarchatsregister 1; Kresten, “Absetzungsvermerk”; Hunger, “Exarchenlisten”; Kresten, “Fünf nachgezeichnete Metropolitenunterschriften”; Hunger and Kresten, Studien zum Patriarchatsregister 2; Kresten, Beziehungen; Kresten, “Affäre des Metropoliten Symeon von Alania”; Kresten, “Pyrgion”; Gastgeber, Mitsiou, and Preiser-Kapeller, Register; Gastgeber, Mitsiou, Preiser-Kapeller, and Zervan, Patriarchate. Register 1, no. 65 (1327), eds. Hunger and Kresten, p. 400, see also Darrouzès, Registre synodal, p. 398 (pl. 2). Register 2, no. 153 (1347), eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, p. 416; Register 3, no. 176 (1350), eds. Koder, Hinterberger, and Kresten, p. 16, Acta patriarchatus 1, eds. Miklosich and Müller, p. 448 (1364); Acta patriarchatus 2, eds. Miklosich and Müller,

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

275

In the documents the register itself is called hieron kodikion (ἱερὸν κωδίκιον) or hieros codex (ἱερὸς κῶδιξ). The attribute “holy” raises the document collection into the sphere of the Holy Bible (hagia/hiera grafe) and reflects the importance and high value of the patriarchal register, roughly speaking a selection of the most important decisions of the permanent synod (synodos endemousa) of Constantinople. The two manuscripts contain about 800 Greek documents of the chancery of the patriarchate of Constantinople from 1315 until 1402, and represent the only known continuously kept original register of a Byzantine chancery. Its texts were entered more or less simultaneously with the synod sessions, generally as copies with copied signatures, but some originally signed texts seem to be transmitted exclusively in the register without a separately issued charter. To this group belong, among others, confessions of faith of converts and promises of moral improvement.91 Although one expects in the register a collection of all written results of each synod session that were of any importance, in fact, the register contains only a small selection, and its choice is by no means clear and ‘logical’;92 there were no ‘guidelines’ according to which documents were entered into the register books. That the two manuscripts transmit only an (intentional) selection, becomes clear if one calculates the average number of synod sessions each week for about 85 years.93 Daily business demanded many more sessions and decisions, and in the 85 years covered by the register books undoubtedly more metropolitans were enthroned (with a respective document) than is witnessed preserved in the register. Furthermore, the religious conflicts in this very turbulent century—the conflict between monkish and scholastic Christianity stemming from a new wave of spiritualism by Gregory Palamas and an increasing anti-Latinism—entailed more documents than are registered.94 The same applies to privileges for monasteries, such as on Mount Athos, in whose

91 92 93 94

pp. 112 (1389), 142 (1390), 292 (1397); see also Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 407 (pl. 12), 422 (pl. 28), 442 (pl. 48), 445 (pl. 52), 449 (pl. 56). Mitsiou and Preiser-Kapeller, “Übertritte”; Gastgeber, “Confessiones fidei”. Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 451–52. Darrouzès, Registre synodal, pp. 299–303. To give some examples, from the Palamas related synods of 1341, 1347, and 1351 only the synodal decisions of July 1341 (Register 2, no. 132, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 206–56; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2213; this version preceded the official non-registered tomos version of August 1341; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2214) and February 1347 (no. 147, pp. 340–82; Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2270) are registered; see Kresten, “Studien zum Tomos”. The same applies to the tomos against Prochoros Kydones of April 1368 (Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2541): Rigo, “Monte Athos”.

276

Gastgeber

archives original documents of the patriarchate are preserved but which were not entered in the register.95 As far as is known from the process of keeping the register, one of the key officials of the patriarchal chancery alone was responsible for the selection of inserted documents: the above mentioned (megas) chartophylax. It was his decision what was regarded worth registering in the holy codex as an ‘ever lasting’ document. This importance is defined by the relevance of documents registered by the respective (megas) chartophylax, for future chartophylakes who had to overview its content. The importance of a document was thus not defined by the document category or topic, but according to the relevance attributed to a particular document by the (megas) chartophylax or, in turn, by the patriarch and the synod members who could inspect the register during the sessions if necessary. A further question arises as to how this official collection, that only by chance survived, should be assessed:96 either as part of a continuing practice in the chancery of Constantinople or as the start of a new way of registering important documents. From time to time, document collections seem to have existed in the patriarchal chancery, at least of the letters, and it is most likely that tax exemptions were registered somehow, but the documents themselves do not hint at any registration, neither in a particular phrase of the text itself or, on the originals, by notes of the respective chancery department as known from the imperial chancery.97 The only sure indication of former registration stems from the register itself and leads to the time of Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos. In September 1324, Patriarch Isaias confirmed the rights of Metropolitan Dionysios of Mitylene on some monasteries and churches98 according to former documents of Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos of 1256 and 1261. They are copied together, and another document of 1180 or 1195 (again confirmed in 1192 or 1207), all belonging to this Mitylene dossier, are put into the register99 after Esaias’ documents. In his document of September 1324, Patriarch Esaias mentions that the document of Patriarch Arsenios from 31 March 1256 was already copied into the former registers of the holy chartophylak(e)ion (ἐν τοῖς κωδικίοις 95 96 97 98 99

Gastgeber, “Mount Athos”. See Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 450–64; the term ῥέγεστρον is used in the acts of the 6th Ecumenical Council in Constantinople for letter collections of former patriarchs (pp. 452–453). Darrouzès, Ὀφφίκια, pp. 452–58. Register 1, no. 79, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 456–67; no. 80, pp. 468–77. Register 1, no. 81, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, pp. 476–85; no. 83, pp. 488– 93; no. 84, pp. 494–97; no. 86, pp. 498–501.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

277

τοῦ ἱεροῦ χαρτοφυλακείου100). The bureau of the chartophylax under Patriarch Isaias (1324) also notes to the first document of Patriarch Arsenios (Register 1, no. 81) that this synodal act had been copied into the “old codices” (“ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς κωδικίοις”) of the holy chartophylak(e)ion of the Megale Ekklesia of Constantinople, but due to material damages it was no longer legible (“σαθρωθεῖσα τῷ χρόνῳ”; Register 1, no. 82); the document was therefore recopied into the (new) register (“μετεγγραφεῖσα ἐνταῦθα”101). A similar note (Register 1, no. 85) is added to the copies of the following two documents (Register 1, no. 83, 84, issued by Patriarch Arsenios).102 From this we can say that at least in the late Nicene period, the chartophylak(e)ion of the patriarchate kept register codices, probably composed of oriental paper quires, like the two surviving register manuscripts, although these were of occidental paper. This might explain the mentioned damage by daily use. Bibliography Primary Sources

Acta patriarchatus 1–2, eds. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Acta patriarchatus Constantinopolitani MCCCXV–MCCCII, 2 vols. = Acta et Diplomata Graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, vol. 1–2 (Vienna, 1860, 1862; repr. Aalen, 1968). Cartulary Hiera, eds. N. Wilson and J. Darrouzès, “Restes du cartulaire de Hiéra-Xérochoraphion”, Revue des Études Byzantines 26 (1968), 5–47. Cartulary Mount Latros, eds. C. Gastgeber and O. Kresten, Das Chartular des Paulos Klosters am Berge Latros: Kritische Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar und Indices (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 30) (Vienna, 2015). Codex B Serres, ed. L. Bénou, Le codex B du monastère Saint-Jean-Prodrome (Serrès), vol. 1: XIIIe−XVe siècles (Textes, documents, études sur le monde byzantine néohellénique et balkanique 2) (Paris, 1998). Diplomata monasteriorum 1, eds. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, Diplomata monasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis, vol. 1 = Acta et Diplomata Graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, vol. 4 (Vienna, 1871; repr. Aalen, 1968). Documents 11th Century, ed. C. Will, Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae graecae et latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant (Leipzig and Marburg, 1861). Documents Docheiariou, ed. N. Oikonomidès, Actes de Docheiariou (Archives de l’Athos 13) (Paris, 1984). 100 101 102

Register 1, no. 79, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, p. 462, lines 40–41. Register 1, no. 82, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, p. 486. Register 1, no. 85, eds. Hunger, Kresten, Kislinger, and Cupane, p. 496; no. 87, p. 302.

278

Gastgeber

Documents Iviron 3, eds. J. Lefort, N. Oikonomidès, D. Papachryssanthou, V. Kravari, and H. Métrévéli, Actes d’Iviron III. De 1204 à 1328 (Archives de l’Athos 18) (Paris, 1994). Documents Kutlumus, ed. P. Lemerle, Actes de Kutlumus (Archives de l’Athos 22) (Paris, 2nd edn. 1988). Documents Lavra 1, eds. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, and D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Lavra I. Des origins à 1204 (Archives de l’Athos 5) (Paris, 1970). Documents Lavra 2, eds. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, and D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Lavra II. De 1204 à 1328 (Archives de l’Athos 8) (Paris, 1977). Documents Lavra 3, eds. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, and D. Papachryssanthou, Actes de Lavra III. De 1329 à 1500 (Archives de l’Athos 10) (Paris, 1979). Documents Meteora, ed. N. Bees, “Σερβικὰ καὶ Βυζαντιακὰ γράμματα Μετεώρου”, Byzantis 2 (1911–12), 1–100. Documents Mount Athos, ed. P. Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster (Leipzig, 1894; repr. Amsterdam, 1965). Documents Pantocrator, ed. V. Kravari, Actes du Pantocrator (Archives de l’Athos 17) (Paris, 1991). Documents Protaton, ed. D. Papachryssanthou, Actes du Prôtaton (Archives de l’Athos 7) (Paris, 1975). Documents Theotokos Eleousa, ed. L. Petit, “Le monastère de Notre-Dame de Pitié en Macédoine”, Izvestia Russkago Archeologicheskago Instituta v Konstantinople 6 (1901), 1–153. Documents Vatopedi 3, eds. J. Lefort (†), K. Smyrlis, C. Giros, V. Kravari, and R. Estangüi, Actes de Vatopédi III. (Archives de l’Athos 22) (Paris, 2019). Documents Vazelon, eds. F.I. Uspenskij and V.N. Beneševič, Τα Acta της μονής Βαζελώνος: Στοιχεία για ιστορία της αγροτικής και μοναστηριακής εγγείας ιδιοκτησίας στο Βυζάντιο κατά το 13ο–15ο αι, revised K.K. Papoulides, trans. E.K. Petropoulos (Thessaloniki, 2007; 1st Russian edn. 1927). Documents Vazelon, eds. G. Mavromatis and A. Alexakis, “Eleven documents from the Acta of the Monastery of St. John the Forerunner of Vazelon in Trebizond”, in Myriobiblos: Essays on Byzantine Literature and Culture, eds. T. Antonopoulou, S. Kotzabassi, and M. Loukaki (Boston, 2015), pp. 1–23. Eisagoge, eds. I. Zepos and P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum, vol. 2 (Athens, 1931; repr. Aalen, 1962), pp. 229–368. Ignatios the Deacon, Letters, eds. C. Mango and S. Efthymiadis, The Correspondance of Ignatios the Deacon, Text, Translation, and Commentary (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 39) (Washington, D.C., 1997). John Chortasmenos, Miscellanea, ed. H. Hunger, Johannes Chortasmenos (ca. 1370– ca. 1436/37). Briefe, Gedichte und kleine Schriften. Einleitung, Regesten, Prosopographie, Text (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 7) (Vienna, 1969).

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

279

Lateran Council 649, ed. R. Riedinger, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. Series secunda, volumen primum: Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum (Berlin, 1984). Matthew I, Hypotyposis, eds. I. Konidares and C. Manaphes, “Ἐπιτελεύτιος βούλησις καὶ διδασκαλία του οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου Ματθαίου (1397–1410)”, Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 45 (1981–82), 472–510. Patmos 2, ed. E. Vranussi, Βυζαντινὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς Μονῆς Πάτμου, Α΄: Αὐτοκρατορικά (Athens, 1980). Patmos 3, ed. M. Gerolymatou, Βυζαντινὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς μονῆς Πάτμου, Γ΄: Πατριαρχικά (Athens, 2017). Register 1–3, eds. H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 1: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315–1331 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.1) (Vienna, 1981); eds. H. Hunger, O. Kresten, E. Kislinger, and C. Cupane, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 2: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1337–1350 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.2) (Vienna, 1995); eds. J. Koder, M. Hinterberger, and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 3: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.3) (Vienna, 2001). Sacra concilia 16, ed. J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 16 (Venice 1771, repr. Paris, 1902; Graz, 1960). Theodore Balsamon, About the Chartophylax and the Protekdikos, eds. G.A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων τῶν τε ἁγίων καὶ πανευφήμων ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν συνοδῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁγίων πατέρων, vol. 4 (Athens, 1854), pp. 530–41.

Secondary Literature

Blanchet, M.-H. and F. Gabriel eds., L’union à l’épreuve du formulaire. Professions de foi entre Églises d’orient et d’occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Monographies du Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Collège de France 51) (Leuven, 2016). Cacouros, M., “Jean Chortasménos katholikos didaskalos”, in Synodia. Studia humanitatis Antonio Garzya septuagenario ab amicis atque discipulis dicata, eds. U. Criscuolo and R. Maisano (Naples, 1997), pp. 83–108. Cacouros, M., “Un patriarche à Rome, un katholikos didaskalos au patriarcat et deux donations trop tardives de reliques du Seigneur: Grégoire III Mamas et Georges Scholarios, le synode et la synaxis”, in Βυζάντιο. Κράτος και Κοινωνία. Μνήμη Νίκου Οικονομίδη, eds. A. Avramea, A. Laiou, and E. Chrysos (Athens, 2003), pp. 71–124. Canart, P. and G. Prato, “Les recueils organisés par Jean Chortasménos et le problème de ses autographes”, in Studien zum Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel, ed. H. Hunger, vol. 1 (Vienna, 1981), pp. 115–78.

280

Gastgeber

Darrouzès, J., “Ekthésis néa. Manuel des pittakia du XIVe s.”, Revue des Études Byzantines 27 (1969), 5–127. Darrouzès, J., Recherches sur les ὀ de l’Église byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 11) (Paris, 1970). Darrouzès, J., Le registre synodal du patriarcat byzantin au 14e siècle: Étude paléographique et diplomatique (Paris, 1971). Darrouzès, J., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 5: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376 (Paris, 1977); part 6: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410 (Paris, 1979); part 7: Les regestes de 1410 à 1453 (Paris, 1991). Dölger, F., Aus den Schatzkammern des Heiligen Berges. 115 Urkunden und 50 Urkundensiegel aus 10 Jahrhunderten (Munich, 1948). Dölger, F., Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453, vol. 4: Regesten von 1282–1341 (Munich, 1960). Dölger, F. and P. Wirth, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453, vol. 2: Regesten von 1025–1204 (Munich, 2nd edn. 1995); vol. 3: Regesten von 1204–1282 (Munich, 2nd edn. 1977); vol. 5: Regesten von 1204–1282 (Munich, 1965). Dujčev, I., Cartulary A of St. John Prodromos Monastery (London, 1972). Estangüi Gómez, R., “Pour une étude prosopographique des fonctionnaires de la chancellerie patriacale: la carrière du secrétaire Iôannès Chrysoképhalos Holobôlos (fl. 1369–†1403)”, Travaux et Mémoires 23/2 (2019 = Lire les Archives de l’Athos. Actes du colloque réuni à Athènes du 18 au 20 novembre 2015 à l’occasion des 70 ans de la collection refondée par Paul Lemerle, eds. O. Delouis and R. Estangüi Gómez), 111–184. Ganchou, T., “Géôrges Scholarios « secrétaire » du patriarche unioniste Grègorios Mammas ? Le mystère résolu”, in Le Patriarcat oecuménique de Constantinople aux XIV e–XVIe siècles: rupture et continuité. Actes du colloque international, Rome 5–6–7 décembre 2005, ed. P. Odorico (Dossiers byzantins 7) (Paris, 2007), pp. 117–94. Gastgeber, C., “Sprachliche und übersetzungstechnische Beobachtungen zu den in den Kanzleiregistern Innocenz III. überlieferten Schreiben des Patriarchen Ioannes X. Kamateros von Konstantinopel I: Einführung, Besonderheiten der Übersetzung, Bibelzitate, Edition”, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 38 (1996), 85–127; “II: Wortuntersuchungen mit sieben Appendices”, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 39 (1997), 83–161. Gastgeber, C., “Aus der Bibliothek des Ioannes Chortasmenos. Ailios Aristeides, Cod. ÖNB, Phil. gr. 96”, in Alethes Philia. Studi in onore di Giancarlo Prato, vol. 2, eds. P. Degni and M. D’Agostino (Collectanea 23) (Spoleto, 2010), pp. 409–34. Gastgeber, C., “Das Formular der Patriarchatskanzlei (14. Jahrhundert)”, in The Patriarchate of Constantinople, eds. Gastgeber, Mitsiou, Preiser-Kapeller, and Zervan (Vienna, 2013), pp. 197–302. Gastgeber, C., “The Byzantine emperor addressing his addressee. Variants of closeness and distance in diplomatic communication: letter to the abbot of Monte Cassino and its authenticity”, Initial 2 (2014), 79–103.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

281

Gastgeber, C., “Confessiones fidei im Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel (14. Jahrhundert)”, in L’union à l’épreuve du formulaire, eds. Blanchet and Gabriel (Leuven, 2016), pp. 245–89. Gastgeber, C., “Reliquienhandel im Umfeld des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, 1363. Ein verschollen geglaubtes Originaldokument aus dem ehemaligen Archiv von St. Stephan”, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Geistes-, sozial- und kulturwissenschaftlicher Anzeiger 151.1 (2016), 55–132. Available at doi: 10.1553/anzeiger1511s55 (accessed 31 December 2020). Gastgeber, C., “The so-called Schism of 1054 and its impact on Byzantine society”, in A Book of Psalms from Eleventh-Century Byzantium: The Complex of Texts and Images in Vat. gr. 752, eds. B. Crostini and G. Peers (Studi e Testi 504) (Vatican City, 2016), pp. 193–228. Gastgeber, C., “Aspects of variations in Byzantine Greek documents of the patriarchal chancery of Constantinople (14th c.)”, Open Linguistics 3 (2017) 342–58. Available at doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0017 (accessed 31 December 2020). Gastgeber, C., “Rhetorik in der Patriarchatskanzlei von Konstantinopel. Methodischinnovative Zugänge zu den Dokumenten des Patriarchatsregisters”, in Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, eds. Gastgeber, Mitsiou, and Preiser-Kapeller (Vienna, 2017), pp. 175–98. Gastgeber, C., “Mount Athos and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Athonite Documentation and the Register of the Patriarchate (14th c.)”, Travaux et Mémoires 23/2 (2019 = Lire les Archives de l’Athos. Actes du colloque réuni à Athènes du 18 au 20 novembre 2015 à l’occasion des 70 ans de la collection refondée par Paul Lemerle, eds. O. Delouis and R. Estangüi Gómez), 85–110. Gastgeber, C., “Byzanz und das Konzil zu Basel und Ferrara. Neue Dokumente der Kaiser- sowie Patriarchatskanzlei und die Übersetzungsfrage”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 70 (2020), 89–196. Gastgeber, C., “Kontinuität oder Bruch im Exilreich von Nikaia? Das Spiegelbild der Bildung aus der Kaiser- und Patriarchatskanzlei”, in The Scholar and his Library. Byzantium—13th/14th c., eds. A. Berger and C. Gastgeber (Turnhout, 2021) (forthcoming). Gastgeber, C., “Lateinische Texte und Übersetzer der Paläologenzeit in Konstantinopel. Der Beitrag der Kanzleien des Kaisers und des Patriarchen”, in Translation Activity in Late Byzantine Worlds. Contexts, Authors, and Texts, ed. P. Athanasopoulos (Byzantinisches Archiv, Series Philosophica 4) (Berlin, 2021) (forthcoming). Gastgeber, C., E. Mitsiou, and J. Preiser-Kapeller eds., The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An Essential Source for the History and Church of Late Byzantium (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 32) (Vienna, 2013). Gastgeber, C., E. Mitsiou, J. Preiser-Kapeller, and V. Zervan eds., The Patriarchate of Constantinople in Context and Comparison. Proceedings of the International Conference, Vienna, September 12th–15th 2012. In memoriam Konstantinos Pitsakis (1944–2012)

282

Gastgeber

and Andreas Schminck (1947–2015) (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 41) (Vienna, 2017). Gerolymatou, M., “Σχετικά με τα βυζαντινά πατριαρχικά έγγραφα της Πάτμου”, Bolletino della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata 3.1 (2004), 79–91. Grumel, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 1: Les regestes de 381 à 715 (Paris, 1972). Grumel, V. and J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, parts 2–3: Les regestes de 715 à 1206 (Paris, 1989). Guillou, A., Les archives de Saint-Jean-Prodrome sur le mont Ménécée (Paris, 1955). Hajjar, J., Le synode permanent (Σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα) dans l’église byzantine des origins au XIe siècle (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 164) (Rome, 1962). Hinterberger, M., “Les relations diplomatiques entre Constantinople et la Russie au XIVe siècle. Les lettres patriarcales, les envoyés et la langage diplomatique”, in Byzance et le monde extérieur. Contacts, relations, échanges, eds. M. Balard, É. Malamut, and J.-M. Spieser (Paris, 2005), pp. 123–34. Available at https://doi. org/10.4000/books.psorbonne.1855 (accessed 31 December 2020). Hofmann, G., “Patriarch Johann Bekkos und die lateinische Kultur”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 11 (1945), 141–64. Horrocks, G., Greek. A History of the Language and its Speaker (Malden, 2nd edn. 2010). Horrocks, G., “High-register medieval Greek. ‘Diglossia’ and what lay behind it”, in Storia e storie della lingua greca, eds. C. Carpinato and O. Tribulato (Antichistica, Filologia e letterature 5.1) (Venice, 2014), pp. 49–72. Available at http://doi.org/10.14277/97888-97735-88-5 (accessed 31 December 2020). Hunger, H. ed., Studien zum Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel, vol. 1 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 383) (Vienna, 1981). Hunger, H., “Die Exarchenlisten des Patriarchen Kallistos I. im Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel”, in Καθηγήτρια. Essays Presented to Joan Hussey for Her 80th Birthday, ed. J. Chrysostomides (Camberley, 1988), pp. 431–80. Hunger, H., “Elemente der byzantinischen Urkundenschrift in literarischen Handschriften des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts”, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 37 (1995), 29–40. Hunger, H., “Zur scheinbaren Nonchalanche der Kanzleisprache des Patriarchatsregisters. Verschleierung, Absicherung und Ironie in Urkunden des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel”, in Studien zum Patriarchatsregister, vol. 2, eds. Hunger and Kresten (Vienna, 1997), pp. 11–43. Hunger, H. and O. Kresten eds., Studien zum Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel, vol. 2 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 647) (Vienna, 1997).

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

283

Kaplan, M., “Retour sur le dossier du monastère de la Théotokos Éleousa à Stroumitza”, Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta 50 (2013), 479–92. Kresten, O., “Der sogenannte ‘Absetzungsvermerk’ des Patriarchen Ioannes XIV. Kalekas im Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel (Cod. Vind. Hist. gr. 47, f. 116v)”, in Byzantios. Festschrift für Herbert Hunger zum 70. Geburtstag, eds. W. Hörandner, J. Koder, O. Kresten, and E. Trapp (Vienna, 1984), pp. 213–19. Kresten, O., “Fünf nachgezeichnete Metropolitenunterschriften aus der ersten Amtsperiode des Patriarchen Philotheos Kokkinos im Patriarchatsregister von Konstantinopel”, in Franz Miklosich (Miklošic). Neue Studien und Materialien anläßlich seines 100. Todestages, ed. W. Lukan (Österreichische Osthefte, Sonderheft 33) (Vienna, 1991), pp. 167–99. Kresten, O., “Μηνολόγημα. Anmerkungen zu einem byzantinischen Unterfertigungstyp”, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 102 (1994), 3–52. Kresten, O., “Studien zum Tomos des Jahres 1341”, in Studien zum Patriarchatsregister, vol. 2, eds. Hunger and Kresten (Vienna, 1997), pp. 45–191. Kresten, O., Die Beziehungen zwischen den Patriarchaten von Konstantinopel und Antiocheia unter Kallistos I. und Philotheos Kokkinos im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel (Stuttgart, 2000). Kresten, O., “Die Affäre des Metropoliten Symeon von Alania im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel”, Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 138.1 (2002), 5–40. Kresten, O., “Pyrgion: Peripetien in der kirchlichen Rangordnung einer kleinasiatischen Metropolis”, Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 138.1–2 (2003), 5–81. Kresten, O., “Nachträgliches zum kaiserlichen Menologem-Reservat im byzantinischen Urkundenwesen”, in Incorrupta monumenta ecclesiam defendunt. Studi offerti a mons. Sergio Pagano, prefetto dell’Archivio Segreto Vaticano, vol. 2, Archivi, Archivista, Diplomatica, Paleografia, eds. A. Gottsmann, P. Piatti, and A.E. Rehberg (Vatican City, 2018), pp. 503–25. Kresten, O. and M. Schaller, “Diplomatische, chronologische und textkritische Beobachtungen zu Urkunden des Chartulars B des Ioannes Prodromos-Klosters bei Serrhai”, in Sylloge Diplomatico-Palaeographica, vol. 1, eds. C. Gastgeber and O. Kresten (Vienna, 2010), pp. 179–232. Lamberz, E., “Georgios Bullotes, Michael Klostomalles und die byzantinische Kaiserkanzlei unter Andronikos II. und Andronikos III. in den Jahren 1298–1329”, in Lire et écrire à Byzance, ed. B. Mondrain (Collège de France, CNRS, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 19) (Paris, 2006), pp. 33–48. Laurent, V., “Recherches sur l’histoire et le cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Pitié à Stroumitsa”, Échos d’Orient 33 (1934), 5–27.

284

Gastgeber

Laurent, V., “Le titre de patriarche œcuménique et la signature patriarcale. Recherches de diplomatique et de sigillographie byzantines”, Revue des Études Byzantines 6 (1948), 5–26. Laurent, V., “Remarques sur le cartulaire du couvent de Saint-Jean Prodrome sur le mont Ménécée”, Revue des Études Byzantines 18 (1960), 293–99. Laurent, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 4: Les regestes de 1208 à 1309 (Paris, 1971). Mavromatis, G. and A. Alexakis, “Τα Acta της μονής Βαζελώνος στα κατάλοιπα του Ν.Μ. Παναγιωτάκη και οι προοπτικές για μια νέα έκδοτή τους”, in Realia Byzantina, eds. S. Kotzabassi and G. Mavromatis (Berlin, 2009), pp. 151–66. Mazal, O., Die Prooimien der byzantinischen Patriarchenurkunden (Byzantina Vindobonensia 7) (Vienna, 1974). Mercati, G., “Note archivistiche, bibliografiche, paleografiche, storiche su un documento dell’anno 1277 di Giovanni Bekkos patriarca di Costantinopoli”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 21 (1955), 256–64. Mitsiou, E. and J. Preiser-Kapeller, “Übertritte zur byzantinisch-orthodoxen Kirche in den Urkunden des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel” in Sylloge Diplomatico-Palaeographica, vol. 1: Studien zur byzantinischen Diplomatik und zur Urkundenpaläographie, eds. C. Gastgeber and O. Kresten (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 19) (Vienna, 2010), pp. 233–88. Murata, K., “Cartulary and archive of the Lembiotissa Monastery near Smyrna. Some preliminary remarks”, Journal of Western Medieval History 38 (2016), 37–67. Nystazopoulou-Pélékidou, M., “Les déiseis et les lyseis. Une forme de pétitions à Byzance du Xe siècle au début du XIV e”, in La pétition à Byzance, eds. D. Feissel and J. Gascou (Centre de Recherches d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 14) (Paris, 2004), pp. 105–24. Oikonomides, N., “Byzantine archives of the Palaiologan period, 1258–1453”, in Pragmatic Literacy, East and West, 1200–1330, ed. R.H. Britnell (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 189–97. Pieralli, L., La corrispondenza diplomatica dell’imperatore bizantino con le potenze estere nel tredecimo secolo (1204–1282). Studo storico-diplomatistico ed edizione critica (Vatican City, 2006). Pieralli, L., “L’epiteto οἰκουμενικός nelle firme nominali di ratifica dei patriarchi di Costantintinopoli”, Scrineum 9 (2012), 213–30. Pieralli, L., “I ‘protocolli’ delle riunioni sinodali (Regestes, N° 1549, 1567, 3424 [= 2352a])”, in Le patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople et Byzance hors frontière (1204–1586). Actes de la table ronde dans le cadre du 22e Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Sofia, 22–27 août 2011, eds. M.-H. Blanchet, M.-H. Congourdeau, and D.I. Mureşan (Dossiers Byzantins 15) (Paris, 2014), pp. 133–57.

Diplomatics of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

285

Pieralli, L., “Il πιττάκιον/γράμμα nella cancelleria patriarcale costantinopolitana”, in Incorrupta monumenta ecclesiam defendunt. Studi offerti a mons. Sergio Pagano, prefetto dell’Archivio Segreto Vaticano, vol. 2, Archivi, Archivista, Diplomatica, Paleografia, eds. A. Gottsmann, P. Piatti, and A.E. Rehberg (Vatican City, 2018), pp. 673–90. PLP = E. Trapp, H.-V. Beyer, R. Walther, and C. Gastgeber eds., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, vols. 1–12 and addenda 1–2, updated CD version (Vienna, 2001). Rigo, A., “Il Monte Athos e la controversia palamitica dal concilio del 1351 al tomo sinodale del 1368”, in Gregorio Palamas e oltre. Studi e documenti sulle controversie teologiche del XIV secolo bizantino, ed. A. Rigo (Orientalia Venetiana 16) (Florence, 2004), pp. 1–177. Rollo, A., “‘Greco medievale’ e ‘greco bizantino’”, ION. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico. Sezione linguistica 30 (2008), 429–73. Salać, A., Constantinople et Prague en 1452 (Prague, 1958). Sevčenko, I., “Levels of style in Byzantine prose”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31.1 (1981), 289–312. Stefec, R.S. “Zwei fragmentarische Ukrunden aus vatikanischen Handschriften”, Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 20 (2014), 695–705. Toufexis, N., “Diglossia and register variation in Medieval Greek”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32 (2008), 203–17. Vranussi, E.A., “Πατριαρχικὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς Πάτμου ἀχρονολόγητα, ἀταύτιστα ἢ λανθάνοντα. Γύρω ἀπὸ τὴν αὐτονομία τῆς μονῆς”, Byzantina Symmeikta 5 (1983), 29–47. Available at doi: https://doi.org/10.12681/byzsym.678 (accessed 31 December 2020).

General Bibliography Primary Sources Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, eds. F. Miklosich and J. Müller, 6 vols. (Vienna, 1860–90). Acta patriarchatus 1–2, eds. F. Miklosich and I. Müller, Acta Patriarchatus Constantinopolitani MCCCXV–MCCCII, 2 vols. (Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi Sacra et Profana 1–2) (Vienna, 1860, 1862; repr. Aalen, 1968). Akty istoričeskìe sobrannye i izdannye Arheolografičeskoû Kommissìeû … [Historical documents, collected and published by the Archaeological Commission …] (Saint Petersburg, 1841–43). Canons 1–6, eds. A. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν κανόνων, 6 vols. (Athens, 1852–59; repr. Athens, 1992). Canons, ed. P.-P. Joannou, Les canons des conciles oecuméniques, vols. 1.1–2 (Grottaferrata, 1962). Circular of 1477, eds. M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou and D.G. Apostolopoulos, Μετά την Κατάκτηση. Στοχαστικές προσαρμογές του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως σε ανέκδοτη εγκύκλιο του 1477 (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 91) (Athens, 2006). COGD 1 = Alberigo, G. ed., Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, vol. 1: The Oecumenical Councils from Nicaea I to Nicaea II (325–787) (Turnhout, 2007). COGD 2.1–2 = Alberigo, G. and A. Melloni eds., Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliuque Decreta, vols. 2.1–2: The General Councils of Latin Christendom (Turnhout, 2013). COGD 4.1–2 = Melloni, A. ed., Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta, vols. 4.1–2: Concilia. The Great Councils of the Orthodox Churches from Constantinople 861 to Moscow 2000 (Turnhout, 2016). Ius Graecoromanum, eds. I. Zepos and P. Zepos, 6 vols. (Athens, 1931; repr. Aalen, 1962). Nomimon of the Great Church, ed. D.G. Apostolopoulos, Το Νόμιμον της Μεγάλης Εκκλησίας, 2 vols. (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Ινστιτούτο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών) (Athens, 2008; repr. 2010). Notitiae episcopatuum Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, ed. J. Darrouzès, Critique de texte, introduction et notes (Paris, 1981). Official Documents, eds. Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M. and D.G. Apostolopoulos, Επίσημα κείμενα του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Τα σωζόμενα από την περίοδο 1454–1498 (Iνστιτούτο Ιστορικών Ερευνών, Τομέας Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών, Θεσμοί και Ιδεολογία στη νεοελληνική κοινωνία 121) (Athens, 2011; repr. 2016). Patmos 3, ed. M. Gerolymatou, Βυζαντινὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς μονῆς Πάτμου. Γ΄: Πατριαρχικά (Athens, 2017).

288

General Bibliography

Polnoe sobranie russkih letopisej [Complete collection of Russian chronicles] (Leningrad, 1926). Register 1–3, eds. H. Hunger and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 1: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1315–1331 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.1) (Vienna, 1981); eds. H. Hunger, O. Kresten, E. Kislinger, and C. Cupane, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 2: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1337–1350 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 19.2) (Vienna, 1995); eds. J. Koder, M. Hinterberger, and O. Kresten, Das Register des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, vol. 3: Edition und Übersetzung der Urkunden aus den Jahren 1350–1363 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 19.3) (Vienna, 2001). Sacred Codex, ed. D.G. Apostolopoulos, Ο “Ιερός Κώδιξ” του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως στο β΄ μισό του ΙΕ΄ αιώνα. Τα μόνα γνωστά σπαράγματα (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών, Θεσμοί και ιδεολογία στη νεοελληνική κοινωνία 43) (Athens, 1992). Ten Turkish Documents, ed. E. Zachariadou, Δέκα τουρκικά έγγραφα για την Μεγάλη Εκκλησία (1483–1567) (Athens, 1996).

Secondary Literature Alberigo, G. ed., Christian Unity. The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/39–1989 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 97) (Louvain, 1991). Angold, M., Church and Society under the Comneni 1081–1261 (Cambridge, 1995). Angold, M., ed., The Cambridge History of Christianity vol. 5: Eastern Christianity (Cambridge, 2008). Apostolopoulos, D.G., “Les mécanismes d’une conquête: adaptations politiques et statut économique des conquis dans le cadre de l’Empire ottoman”, in Centre de Recherches Néohelléniques. Fondation nationale de la Recherche Scientifique. Actes du IIe Colloque International d’Histoire (Athènes, 18–25 septembre 1983), Économies méditerranéennes, équilibres et intercommunications, XIIIe–XIXe siècles, vol. 3 (Athens, 1986), pp. 191–204. Apostolopoulos, D.G. and M. Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Επιτομή—Παράδοση—Σχολιασμός, vol. 1: 1454–1498 / Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinopole, vol. 1: Les regestes de 1454 à 1498 (Athens, 2013). Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 12.2.1) (Munich, 1959). Blanchet, M.-H., Georges Gennadios Scholarios (vers 1400–vers 1472): un intellectuel orthodoxe face à la disparition de l’Empire byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 20) (Paris, 2008).

General Bibliography

289

Blanchet, M.-H., Théodore Agallianos—dialogue avec un moine contre les Latins (1442): édition critique, traduction française et commentaire (Byzantina Sorbonensia 27) (Paris, 2013). Blanchet, M.-H., M.-H. Congourdeau, and D.-I. Mureşan eds., Le Patriarcat Oecuménique de Constantinople et Byzance “hors frontières” (1204–1586) (Dossiers Byzantins 15) (Paris, 2015). Blanchet, M.-H. and F. Gabriel eds., Réduire le schisme ? Ecclésiologies et politiques de l’union entre Orient et Occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècles) (Monographies du Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Collège de France 39) (Paris, 2013). Blanchet, M.-H. and F. Gabriel, L’union à l’épreuve du formulaire. Professions de foi entre églises d’orient et d’occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Monographies du Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Collège de France 51) (Leuven, 2016). Boojamra, J., “The Byzantine notion of the ‘ecumenical council’ in the 14th century”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 80 (1987), 59–76. Bréhier, L., “Avant la séparation du XIe siècle. Les relations normales entre Rome et les Églises d’Orient”, Istina 3 (1959), 352–72. Codoñer, J.S., “Melkites and icon worship during the iconoclast period”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 67 (2013), 135–87. Dagron, G., Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le « césaropapisme » byzantine (Paris, 1996), trans. J. Birrell, Emperor and Priest. The Imperial Office in Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003). Dagron, G., P. Riché, and A. Vauchez eds., Die Geschichte des Christentums, vol. 4: Bischöfe, Mönche und Kaiser (642–1054) (Freiburg, 1994; repr. Freiburg, 2004). Darrouzès, J., Documents inedits de l’ecclesiologie byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 10) (Paris, 1966). Darrouzès, J., “Ekthésis néa. Manuel des pittakia du XIVe s.”, Revue des Études Byzantines 27 (1969), 5–127. Darrouzès, J., Recherches sur les ὀφφίκια de l’Église byzantine (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 11) (Paris, 1970). Darrouzès, J., Le registre synodal du patriarcat byzantin au XIV e siècle. Étude paléographique et diplomatique (Archives de l’Orient chrétien 12) (Paris, 1971). Darrouzès, J., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 5: Les regestes de 1310 à 1376 (Paris, 1977); part 6: Les regestes de 1377 à 1410 (Paris, 1979); part 7: Les regestes de 1410 à 1453 (Paris, 1991). Delikari, A., Der hl. Klemens und die Frage des Bistums von Velitza. Identifizierung, Bischofsliste (bis 1767) und Titularbischöfe (SS Cyril and Methodius Center for Cultural Studies) (Thessaloniki, 1997). Dieten, J.L. van, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (610–715) (Amsterdam, 1972). Dvornik, F., The Photian Schism. History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948).

290

General Bibliography

Dvornik, F., Byzance et la primauté romaine (Paris, 1964), trans. E.A. Quain, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York, 1966). Eleuteri, P. and A. Rigo eds., Eretici, dissidenti, musulmani ed ebrei a Bisanzio, una raccolta eresiologia del xii secolo (Venice, 1993). Evangelou, G., “Ένας νέος λόγος καθαίρεσης θεσμοθετείται το 1593”, O Eρανιστής 28 (2011), 95–119. Gastgeber, C., “Reliquienhandel im Umfeld des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel, 1363. Ein verschollen geglaubtes Originaldokument aus dem ehemaligen Archiv von St. Stephan”, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Geistes-, sozial- und kulturwissenschaftlicher Anzeiger 151.1 (2016), 55–132. Available at doi: 10.1553/anzeiger1511s55 (accessed 31 December 2020). Gastgeber, C., “Das Formular der Patriarchatskanzlei (14. Jahrhundert)”, in Gastgeber, Mitsiou, Preiser-Kapeller, and Zervan, The Patriarchate of Constantinople (Vienna, 2017), pp. 197–302. Gastgeber, C., E. Mitsiou, and J. Preiser-Kapeller, eds., The Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An Essential Source for the History and Church of Late Byzantium (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 32) (Vienna, 2013). Gastgeber, C., E. Mitsiou, J. Preiser-Kapeller, and V. Zervan, eds., The Patriarchate of Constantinople in Context and Comparison. Proceedings of the International Conference, Vienna, September 12th–15th 2012. In memoriam Konstantinos Pitsakis (1944–2012) and Andreas Schminck (1947–2015) (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 41) (Vienna, 2017). Geanakoplos, D.J., “Church and state in the Byzantine Empire. A reconsideration of the problem of caesaropapism”, Church History 34 (1965), 381–403 (= Geanakoplos, D.J., Byzantine East and Latin West (Oxford, 1966), pp. 55–83). Gill, J., The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959). Gonneau, P. and A. Lavrov, Des Rhôs à la Russie : histoire de l’Europe orientale (v. 730– 1689) (Paris, 2012). Gouillard, J., “Le synodikon de l’Orthodoxie”, Travaux et Memoires 2 (1967), 1–316. Grumel, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 1: Les regestes de 381 à 715 (Paris, 1972). Grumel, V. and J. Darrouzès, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, parts 2–3: Les regestes de 715 à 1206 (Paris, 1989). Hage, W., Das orientalische Christentum (Die Religionen der Menschheit 29.2) (Stuttgart, 2007). Hajjar, P.J., Le synode permanent (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα) dans l’église byzantine des origines au XIe siècle (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 164) (Rome, 1962). Huber, M. and M. Mollat eds., 1274. Année charnière. Mutations et continuités (Colloques internationaux du CNRS 558) (Paris, 1977).

General Bibliography

291

Hussey, J.M., The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford History of the Christian Church) (New York, 1986). Janković, M., Episkopije i mitropolije srpske crkve u srednjem veku [The dioceses and metropolises of the Serbian Church in the Middle Ages] (Belgrade, 1985). Koder, J., “Die räumlichen Vorstellungen der Byzantiner von der Ökumene (4. bis 12. Jahrhundert)”, Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 137.2 (2002), 15–34. Kraus, C.R., Kleriker im späten Byanz. Anagnosten, Hypodiakone, Diakone und Priester 1261–1453 (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 9) (Wiesbaden, 2007). Kresten, O., Die Beziehungen zwischen den Patriarchaten von Konstantinopel und Antiocheia unter Kallistos I. und Philotheos Kokkinos im Spiegel des Patriarchatsregisters von Konstantinopel (Stuttgart, 2000). Laurent, V., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: Les actes des patriarches, part 4: Les regestes de 1208 à 1309 (Paris, 1971). Lilie, R.-J. ed., Die Patriarchen der ikonoklastischen Zeit: Germanos I–Methodios I (715– 847) (Frankfurt am Main, 1999). Lilie, R.-J. et al., Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641–867), 6 vols. (Berlin, 1999–2002); Zweite Abteilung (867–1025), 8 vols. (Berlin, 2013). Ludwig, C., “Die Position des Patriarchen in der Politik: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen”, in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantinischen Mittelalter. Akten der internationalen Tagung vom 3. bis 5. November 2010, vol. 2, eds. M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, and M.M. Vučetić (Byzantinistische Studien und Texte 4) (Münster, 2013), pp. 55–66. Macrides, R., “Nomos and Kanon on paper and in court”, in Church and People in Byzantium, ed. R. Morris (Birmingham, 1990), pp. 61–85. Mayeur, J.-M. et al. eds., Histoire du christianisme, vol. 4: Éveques, moines et empereurs (610–1054) (Paris, 1993); vol. 5: Apogée de la papauté et expansion de la chrétienté (1054–1274) (Paris, 1993); vol. 6: Un temps d’épreuves (1274–1449) (Paris, 1990). Mazal, O., Die Prooimien der byzantinischen Patriarchenurkunden (Byzantina Vindobonensia 7) (Vienna, 1974). Meyendorff, J., Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: a Study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century (Cambridge, 1981). Mitsiou, E., “Aspekte der Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte des späten Byzanz in den Akten des Patriarchatsregisters”, Historicum 96 (2008) 32–42. Morini, E., La chiesa ortodossa: storia, disciplina, culto (Bologna, 1996). Müller, A.E., Berg Athos. Geschichte einer Mönchsrepublik (Beck’sche Reihe 2351) (Munich, 2005). Noble, T.F.X. and J.M.H. Smith eds., The Cambridge History of Christianity, vol. 3: Early Medieval Christianities c.600–c.1100 (Cambridge, 2010). Obolensky, D., Six Byzantine Portraits (Oxford, 1999).

292

General Bibliography

Pahlitzsch, J., Graeci und Suriani im Palästina der Kreuzfahrerzeit. Beiträge und Quellen zur Geschichte des griechisch-orthodoxen Patriarchats von Jerusalem (Berliner Historische Studien 33; Ordensstudien 15) (Berlin, 2001). Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M., Aνεπίσημα από το Πατριαρχείο Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Παρασχέδια και μαρτυρίες του 1476 (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 36) (Athens, 1988). Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M., Ο θεσμός της πατριαρχικής εξαρχίας 14ος–19ος αιώνας (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών, 54) (Athens, 1995). Païzi-Apostolopoulou, M. and D.G. Apostolopoulos, Μετά την Κατάκτηση. Στοχαστικές προσαρμογές του Πατριαρχείου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως σε ανέκδοτη εγκύκλιο του 1477 (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, Κέντρο Νεοελληνικών Ερευνών 136) (Athens, 2006). Papademetriou, T., “The Turkish conquests and decline of the Church reconsidered”, in Church and Society in Late Byzantium, ed. D.S. Angelov (Studies in Medieval Culture 49) (Kalamazoo, 2009), pp. 183–200. Papademetriou, T., Render unto the Sultan. Power, Authority, and the Greek Orthodox Church in the Early Ottoman Centuries (Oxford, 2015). Papadopoulos, C., Ἱστορία τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων (Jerusalem, 1910). Papadopoulos, C., Ἱστορία τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ἀλεξανδρείας (62–1934) (Alexandria, 1935). Papadopoulos, C., Ἱστορία τῆς ἐκκλησίας Ἀντιοχείας (Alexandria, 1951). Pavlov, A. ed., Pamâtniki drevne-russkago kanoničeskago prava. Čast’ pervaâ, Pamâtniki XI–XV v. (Saint Petersburg, 1908). Perrie, M. ed., The Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 1: From Early Rus’ to 1689 (Cambridge, 2006). Piétri, C. and L. Piétri eds., Die Geschichte des Christentums, vol. 2: Das Entstehen der einen Christenheit (250–430) (Freiburg, 1996; repr. Freiburg, 2005). Piétri, L. ed., Die Geschichte des Christentums, vol. 1: Die Zeit des Anfangs (bis 250) (Freiburg, 2003; repr. Freiburg, 2005). Piétri, L. ed., Die Geschichte des Christentums, vol. 3: Der lateinische Westen und der byzantinische Osten (431–642) (Freiburg, 2001; repr. Freiburg, 2005). PLP = Trapp, E., H.-V. Beyer, R. Walther, and C. Gastgeber eds., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, 12 vols. and 2 addenda (updated CD version) (Vienna, 2001). Podskalsky, G., Theologische Literatur des Mittelalters in Bulgarien und Serbien 865–1459 (Munich, 2000). Popović, M.S., “Kliment von Ohrid”, in Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmitteleuropa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff, eds. J. Bahlcke, S. Rohdewald, and T. Wünsch (Berlin, 2013), pp. 494–500. Potz, R., Patriarch und Synode in Konstantinopel. Das Verfassungsrecht des ökumenischen Patriarchates (Kirche und Recht 10) (Vienna, 1971).

General Bibliography

293

Preiser-Kapeller, J., Der Episkopat im späten Byzanz. Ein Verzeichnis der Metropoliten und Bischöfe des Patriarchats von Konstantinopel in der Zeit von 1204 bis 1453 (Saarbrücken, 2008). Preiser-Kapeller, J. and E. Mitsiou, “Hierarchies and fractals: ecclesiastical revenues as indicator for the distribution of relative demographic and economic potential within the cities and regions of the late Byzantine Empire in the early 14th century”, Byzantina Symmeikta 20 (2010), 245–308. Prinzing, G., “Entstehung und Rezeption der Justiniana-Prima-Theorie im Mittelalter”, Byzantino-Bulgarica 5 (1978), 269–87. Prinzing, G., “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. P. Armstrong (Farnham, 2013), pp. 137–52. Rapp, C., Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: the Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkeley, 2005). Riebe, A., Rom in Gemeinschaft mit Konstantinopel. Patriarch Johannes XI. Bekkos als Verteidiger der Kirchenunion von Lyon (1274) (Wiesbaden, 2005). Roberg, B., Das zweite Konzil von Lyon (1274) (Paderborn, 1990). Rösch, G., Ὄνομα βασιλείας. Studien zur offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in spätantiker und frühbyzantinischer Zeit (Byzantina Vondobonensia 10) (Vienna, 1978). Schreiner, P., “Das Christentum in Bulgarien vor 864”, in Das Christentum in Bulgarien und auf der Balkanhalbinsel in der Spätantike und im frühen Mittelalter, eds. V. Gjuzelev and R. Pillinger (Vienna, 1987), pp. 51–61. Senyk, S., A History of the Church in Ukraine, vol. 1: To the End of the Thirteenth Century (Rome, 1993); vol. 2: 1300 to the Union of Brest (Rome, 2011). Shepard, J. ed., The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c.500–1492 (Cambridge, 2009). Siecienski, A.E., The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) (Oxford, 2010). Skreslet, S., The Greeks in Medieval Islamic Egypt: a Melkite Dhimmī Community Under the Patriarch of Alexandria (640–1095) (Ann Arbor, 1988). Tinnefeld, F., “Faktoren des Aufstiegs zur Patriarchenwürde im späten Byzanz”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 36 (1986), 89–115. Todt, K.-P., “Griechisch-orthodoxe (melkitische) Christen im zentralen und südlichen Syrien. Die Periode von der arabischen Eroberung bis zur Verlegung der Patriarchenresidenz nach Damaskus (635–1365)”, Le Muséon 119 (2006), 33–88. Todt, K.-P., “Zwischen Kaiser und ökumenischem Patriarchen: die Rolle der griechischorthodoxen Patriarchen von Antiocheia in den politischen und kirchlichen Auseinandersetzungen des 11.–13. Jh. in Byzanz”, in Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantinischen Mittelalter, vol. 1, eds.

294

General Bibliography

M. Grünbart, L. Rickelt, and M.M. Vučetić (Byzantinistische Studien und Texte 3) (Berlin, 2011), pp. 137–76. Troianos, S., “Kirche und Staat. Die Berührungspunkte der beiden Rechtsordnungen in Byzanz”, Ostkirchlichen Studien 37 (1988), 291–96. Vodoff, V., Naissance de la chrétienté russe: la conversion du prince Vladimir de Kiev (988) et ses conséquences (XIe–XIIIe siècles) (Paris, 1988). Vodoff, V., Autour du moyen âge russe: trente années de recherche (Paris, 2003). Vodoff, V., A. Berelovitch, M. Cazacu, and P. Gonneau, eds., Histoire des Slaves orientaux des origines à 1689. Bibliographie des sources traduites en langues occidentales (Paris, 1998). Vryonis, S., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (Berkeley, 1971). Woodfin, The Embodied Icon. Liturgical Vestments and Sacramental Power in Byzantium (Oxford Studies in Byzantium) (Oxford, 2012). Zachariadou, Ε., “Constantinople se repeuple”, in 1453: H Άλωση της Kωνσταντινούπολης και η μετάβαση από τους Mεσαιωνικούς στους Nεώτερους Xρόνους, ed. T. Kiousopoulou (Συμβολές στις Επιστήμες του Ανθρώπου, Ιστορία) (Heraklion, 2005). Živković, T., “On the baptism of the Serbs and the Croats in the time of Basil I (867– 889)”, Studia Slavica et et Balcanica Petropolitana 1.13 (2013), 35–38.

map 1

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and neighbouring churches in the Middle Ages map designed by Johannes Preiser Kapeller

Maps

map 2

The Patriarchate of Constantinople and neighbouring churches in the Middle Ages, detail map designed by Johannes Preiser Kapeller

296 Maps

Index of Persons Aaron, see Alexis Aaron Abraham, archbishop of Ohrid 159 Abramios, see John Abramios Adeniates, see John Adeniates Aelia Eudoxia, empress 20 Aetios, archdeacon 14 Agallianos, see Theodore Agallianos Agapetos, see John IX Agapetos Agapios II, patriarch of Antioch 134 Akindynos, see Gregory Akindynos Akropolites, see George Akropolites Albert I of Habsburg 167 Alexander III, pope 86 Alexander IV, pope 87 Alexander, prince of Kiev 89 Alexios I Komnenos, emperor 52, 54, 86, 136, 231, 269 Alexios III, emperor 55 Alexis, metropolitan of Russia 69, 188–92, 194, 198 Alexis, bishop of Novgorod 193 Alexis Aaron, imperial envoy 193, 198 Alexios Stoudites, patriarch of Constantinople 28, 38, 42n Algirdas, see Olgerd al-Ḥākim, Fāṭimid Caliph 135 al-Malik an-Nāṣir ad-Dīn al-Ḥasan, Mamlūk sultan 140 Ananias, abbot of Hodegon monastery 141 Anastasios, emperor 20 Anastasius Bibliothecarius 235n63, 273 Anatolios, patriarch of Constantinople 4, 12, 14, 19 Andrew, bishop of Tver 190 Andrew Bogolyubsky, prince of Vladimir, Rostov and Suzdal 196 Andronikos II Palaiologos, emperor 76, 230n25, 266, 270–71 Andronikos III Palaiologos, emperor 68, 140, 271 Andronikos IV Palaiologos, emperor 74, 213, 219–20 Angelarij, disciple of Clement of Ohrid 155 Angelos, see Isaak II Angelos Anna (Constanze Hohestaufen) 218

Anna (of Savoy), empress 67, 220 Antony IV, patriarch of Constantinople 88, 142, 194, 217–20, 267–68 Antony, metropolitan of Halych 197 Antony, metropolitan of Herakleia 142 Antony, protos of Athos 168 Apokaukos, see Demetrios Apokaukos Kyritzes, John Apokaukos Argyros, see Romanos III Argyros Argyros, military commander 50 Aristotle, philosopher 229, 237 Arkadios, emperor 208 Arsenije II, Serbian patriarch 171 Arsenios, patriarch of Antioch 139 Arsenios, metropolitan of Tyre 140–41 Arsenios Autoreianos, patriarch of Constantinople 87, 96, 205, 212, 216, 276–77 Artinisius, Franciscan 166 Asen, founder of the second Bulgarian Empire 160 Athanasios I, patriarch of Constantinople  76–77, 143, 205, 214, 229, 230n25 Athanasios II, patriarch of Alexandria  139n50, 143 Athanasios I Manasses, patriarch of Antioch  137 Athanasios II, patriarch of Jerusalem 139 Athanasios of Mount Athos, monk 262n60 Autoreianos, see Arsenios Autoreianos aẓ-Ẓāhir, Fatimid caliph 135 Babouskomites, see George Babouskomites Baldwin II of Courtenay, Latin emperor of Constantinople 166 Balsamon, see Michael Balsamon and Theodore IV Balsamon Bardas, uncle of Emperor Michael III 45 Barlaam of Calabria 88, 142 Basil I, emperor 48, 133, 163, 207 Basil II, emperor 42n1, 134, 152n2, 156–58, 162 Basil, metropolitan elect of Reggio 53–54 Bayezid II, Ottoman sultan 120 Bekkos, see John XI Bekkos Benedict XI, pope 166

298 Blemmydes, see Nikephoros Blemmydes Branković, see Djuradj Branković Bogolyubsky, see Andrew Bogolyubsky Bohemund I, prince of Antioch 136 Bohemund III, prince of Antioch 137 Bohemund IV, prince of Antioch 138 Boullotes, George 265 Boris I, khan of the Bulgars 47–48, 154 Branas, see Theodoros Branas Catherine I of Courtenay, granddaughter of Baldwin II 166–67 Celestine III, pope 86 Charles, count of Valois 166–67 Chariton, patriarch 262, 264 Chomatenos, see Demetrios Chomatenos Choirosphaktes, see Leo Choirosphaktes Chortasmenos, see John Chortasmenos Choumnos, see Nikephoros Choumnos Christodoulos, patriarch of Alexandria 133 Christodoulos, Melkite patriarch of Jerusalem 133 Christodoulos, deacon in Antiochia 135 Chrysoberges, see Luke Chrysoberges, Nicholas II Chrysoberges, Nikephoros Chrysoberges Chrysomallos, see Constantine Chrysomallos Clement IV, pope 90 Clement V, pope 166 Clement (Smoliatych), metropolitan of Russia 186, 188 Clement of Ohrid, saint 154–56 Clement of Rome, saint 155 Constantine Chrysomallos 231 Constantine I (the Great), emperor 1, 3, 7, 10, 19, 43, 84, 206–07, 215 Constantine IV, emperor 44 Constantine IX Monomachos, emperor 50, 135 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, emperor  49, 163 Constantine I, patriarch of Constantinople  236 Constantine III Leichoudes, patriarch of Constantinople 38, 229 Constantine, metropolitan of Kiev 187, 190 Constantine-Cyril, saint 154, 155, 163, 236 Constantine Panagiotes, student of Holobolos 232

Index of Persons Cyprian, metropolitan of Russia 69, 70, 88, 188–89, 191–94, 198n79 Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria 14 Cyril II, patriarch of Antioch 139, 143 Cyril I, metropolitan of Russia 187, 196 Cyril II, metropolitan of Russia 139, 186, 188 Cyril III, metropolitan of Russia 188 Cyril, saint see Constantine-Cyril Daniel, prince of Galicia 188 Danilo II, archbishop of Serbia 165 David, king 207 Demetrios Apokaukos Kyritzes, archon  107n16, 113n33 Demetrios Chomatenos, archbishop of Ohrid  154, 162, 211 Demetrios Kydones, scholar 213 Demetrios Tornikes, official 86 Dimitry, grand prince of Moscow 69 Dionysios I, patriarch of Constantinople  113, 189 Dionysios II, patriarch of Constantinople  113 Dionysios III, patriarch of Constantinople  103 Dionysios, metropolitan of Keltzene 191, 198 Dionysios, metropolitan of Mitylene 276 Dionysios I, metropolitan of Russia 188, 192, 194–95, 196n65, 197–98 Djuradj Branković, despotes 170 John Dokeianos, see John Dokeianos Dorotheos I, patriarch of Antioch 142 Dositheos, metropolitan of Monembasia  142, 262n60 Dorotheos, bishop of Tyre 7 Dorotheos, protos of Athos 168 Doukas, see John III Doukas Vatatzes, John IV Doukas Laskaris Egidius of Grado, patriarch 166 Eirenikos, see Theodore II Eirenikos Elias II, patriarch of Antioch 134 Elias III ibn Manṣūr, patriarch of Jerusalem  133 Ephrem, metropolitan of Russia 186 Eudoxios, bishop of Antioch 16 Eugene IV, pope 88, 89, 258 Euphemios, patriarch of Constantinople 20

Index of Persons Euphrosynos, bishop of Suzdal 194 Eusebios, metropolitan of Sugdaia 71 Eusebios, bishop of Nicomedia 16 Eusebios of Caesarea, church historian  19n53, 206–07, 237 Eustathios Rhomaios, judge 32 Eustathios, patriarch of Constantinople 38 Euthymios II, patriarch of Constantinople  88, 230n25 Euthymios I, patriarch of Antioch 139 Euthymios I, patriarch of Jerusalem 136 Eutychios, patriarch of Constantinople 16 Eutychios, Melkite patriarch of Alexandria  133 Evtimij, Bulgarian patriarch 162 Felix V, antipope 258 Ferdinand II of Habsburg, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire 159 Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople 14 Gabras, see Michael Gabras Galesiotes, see George Gennadios II Scholarios 103n4, 113n34, 118, 121n11, 123, 126, 189, 258 George Babouskomites 230n25 George II Xiphilinos, patriarch of Constantinople 86, 93, 138 George of Pisidia 234, 236 George Boullotes 265 George Galesiotes 265 George Pachymeres, historian 76, 230n25 George Perdikes, deacon and sakellarios  191, 197–98 George, chartophylax 235–36 George, saint 111 George Akropolites 230n25, 232 Gerasimos, patriarch of Jerusalem 140 Germanos I, patriarch of Constantinople  17, 237 Germanos II, patriarch of Constantinople  86, 91, 161, 196 Germanos III Markoutzas, patriarch of Constantinople 230n25, 232 Glykys, see John XIII Glykys Gorianites, see Thomas Gorianites Grammatikos, see Nicholas III Grammatikos Gregory Akindynos 140, 142

299 Gregory I the Great, pope 5 Gregory IX, pope 87 Gregory X, pope 90 Gregory II of Cyprus, patriarch of Constantinople 77, 88, 230n25, 233 Gregory III Melissenos, Mammas, patriarch of Constantinople 78, 89, 97, 98n28, 99, 142 (protosynkellos), 189, 258 Gregory, metropolitan of Kiev 189 Gregory of Kotor, Franciscan 166 Gregory of Nazianzus, Church Father 10, 16–17, 228 Gregory of Nyssa, Church Father 237 Gregory Koutales, megas chartophylax 272 Gregory Palamas, metropolitan of Thessaloniki 66, 140, 275 Guiscard, see Robert Guiscard Hadrian II, pope 48 Hagiokomites, see Nicholas Hagiokomites Haploucheir, see John V Haploucheir Henry Menger, ambassador of the Council of Basel 89 Henry of Rimini, Dominican 166 Herakleios, emperor 2, 11–12, 18, 132, 163 Hermogenes 237 Herodotus 237 Hierokles 153 Hilarion, metropolitan of Russia 186, 187n22 Hišām, Umayyad caliph 132 Holobolos, see John Holobolos, Manuel Holobolos Homer 237 Hrebeljanović, see Lazar Hrebeljanović Humbert of Silva Candida, cardinal and papal legate 49, 164, 258 Hyrtakenos, see Theodore Hyrtakenos Iasites, see Job Iasites Ignatios I, patriarch of Constantinople 36, 45–46, 48, 57 Ignatios II, patriarch of Antioch 140–41 Ignatios the Deacon, author 263n61 Innocent III, pope 55, 56n42, 86, 90, 94, 160, 257 Innocent IV, pope 87, 91 Innocent VI, pope 88

300 Ioakeim, patriarch of Jerusalem 142 Isaac II Angelos, emperor 160, 269 Isaias, patriarch 266, 276–77 Isidore, metropolitan of Russia 142, 189 Italos, see John Italos Ivan Asen II, Bulgarian tsar 161 Ivan III Aleksandar, Bulgarian tsar 216 Iziaslav II Mstislavich, grand prince of Kiev  187 Jacob, metropolitan of Chalcedon 71 Jelena, wife of Uroš IV Dušan  168 Jeremias II, patriarch of Constantinople  112n30 Joanikije II, Serbian archbishop 168 Joasaph, monk, see John VI Kantakouzenos Job Iasites, author 87 John I Tzimiskes, emperor 134, 156, 209 John II Komnenos, emperor 55, 137 John III Doukas Vatatzes, emperor 91, 212, 270 John IV Doukas Laskaris, emperor 232, 270 John V Palaiologos, emperor 67, 90, 91, 136, 194, 213, 216, 218–20, 250n31, 271 John VI Kantakouzenos, emperor 67, 140–41, 144, 162, 218, 219, 262n60 John VIII Palaiologos, emperor 84n, 92, 95–96, 189, 258, 272 John IV, emperor of Trebizond 89 John VIII, pope 163 John XXI, pope 87 John XXII, pope 88 John IV the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople 7, 16 John V, patriarch of Constantinople 236 John VIII Xiphilinos, patriarch of Constantinople 24, 38 John IX Agapetos, patriarch of Constantinople 237, 264 John X Kamateros, patriarch of Constantinople 86, 93, 229, 231 John XI Bekkos, patriarch of Constantinople 85, 87n7, 88, 90, 93, 99, 97n27, 98, 196, 230n25, 237, 257n43 John XII Kosmas, patriarch of Constantinople 77, 140, 266 John XIII Glykys, patriarch of Constantinople  66, 212, 228–229, 230n25

Index of Persons John XIV Kalekas, patriarch of Constantinople 67, 68n24, 78, 88, 140, 213 John I, patriarch of Antioch 14 John III Polites, patriarch of Antioch 134, 135 John V Haploucheir, patriarch of Antioch  136 John IV the Oxite, patriarch of Antioch 136 John VIII, patriarch of Jerusalem 136 John VIII bar Abdoun, Syro-Jacobite patriarch 33 John, monk 132 John Abramios, astrologer 220 John Adeniates, priest 220 John Chortasmenos 233, 265 John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople 6, 9, 10, 15, 17, 20, 234n54, 237 John Dokeianos, patriarchal envoy 198 John Apokaukos, metropolitan of Naupaktos  261–62 John Holobolos 265 John Italos 33, 34n41, 35, 38, 136 John Kastamonites, metropolitan of Chalcedon 138 John Komnenos the Fat 209 John Komnenos, archbishop of Ohrid 158 John Zonaras, historian 69n29, 185, 228, 234 Joseph I, patriarch of Constantinople 12, 84, 87n6, 88, 91, 93–94, 96n24, 97, 216, 231 Joseph II, patriarch of Constantinople 84, 88, 91, 93, 95–96, 258 Joseph, metropolitan of Russia 188 Jovan Uglješa, despotes 169–70 Justinian I, emperor 2, 5–9, 11–12, 14, 17–18, 20–21, 119, 131, 153, 161, 210 Justinian II, emperor 18 Kabasilas, see Neilos Kabasilas Kalekas, see John XIV Kalekas Kallinikos I patriarch of Constantinople 18 Kallistos I, patriarch of Constantinople 71, 75, 88, 90, 96, 141, 168, 191–92, 213, 218–20, 257 Kalopheros, see Maximos Kalopheros Kaloyan, Bulgarian tsar 160–61

Index of Persons Kamateros, see John X Kamateros Kantakouzenos, see John VI Kantakouzenos, Matthew Kantakouzenos Kastamonites, see John Kastamonites Katabolenos, see Thomas Katabolenos Kerameus, see Neilos Kerameus Keroularios, see Michael I Keroularios Kodinos, see Pseudo-Kodinos Kokkinos, see Philotheos Komnenos, see Alexios I Komnenos, John Komnenos Manuel Komnenos Kosmas I, patriarch of Constantinople 38, 229n21 Kosmas, see John XII Kosmas Kosmas, deacon and notary 14 Koutales, see Gregory Koutales Kydones, see Demetrios Kydones, Prochoros Kydones Kyritzes, see Demetrios Apokaukos Kyritzes Kyros, patriarch of Alexandria 263n61 Lapo, Dominican 166 Laskaris, see Theodore I Laskaris, Theodore II Laskaris, John IV Laskaris Lazar Hrebeljanović, Serbian prince 170 Lazarević, see Stefan Lazarević Lazaros, patriarch of Jerusalem 140–41 Lazaros metropolitan of Philippopolis 31 Lazarus 233 Leichoudes, see Constantine III Leichoudes Leo Choirosphaktes, magistros 133 Leo I, emperor 5, 19 Leo III, emperor 5, 215 Leo V, emperor 132 Leo VI, emperor 49, 133, 215n50, 216 Leo I, pope 14 Leo IX, pope 50, 215 Leo, archbishop of Ohrid 157 Leo, papal legate and cardinal 160 Leo of Rhodes, author 232 Libanius, author 237 Lucian, rhetorician 237 Lukarić, see Marko Lukarić Luke Chrysoberges, patriarch of Constantinople 137, 264 Luke, patriarch of Antioch 137

301 Magistros, see Thomas Magistros Makarios, metropolitan of Ancyra 77, 205, 213n36 Makarios, metropolitan of Sebasteia 73–74 Makedonios Ι, patriarch of Constantinople  13 Makedonios, patriarch of Antioch 132n9 Mammas, see Gregory III Mammas Manasses, see Athanasios I Manasses Manuel Holobolos 230n25, 232, 265 Manuel I Komnenos, emperor 55, 96, 137, 164, 269 Manuel II Palaiologos, emperor 77, 217, 230n25, 158–59, 272 Manuel I Sarantenos, patriarch of Constantinople 138, 164, 262, 266 Manuel II, patriarch of Constantinople 87, 91, 188, 262 Marathonios, deacon 13 Mark, Apostle 5 Mark III, patriarch of Alexandria 138 Mark, metropolitan of Ephesus 96 Markianos, general 20 Marko Lukarić, emissary 166 Markoutzas, see Germanos III Markoutzas Martin V, pope 88–89 Marwān II, Umayyad caliph 132 Mary of Antioch, empress 137 Matthew I, patriarch of Constantinople 72, 77, 233, 253i-j, 268 Matthew, archbishop of Ohrid 159 Matthew, metropolitan of Medeia 77 Matthew Kantakouzenos 219 Matthew Phakrases, metropolitan of Serres  73–74 Maximos III, patriarch of Constantinople  103, 111n24, 127 Maximos, metropolitan of Russia 188 Maximos Kalopheros, monk 219 Maximos Planoudes, scholar 230n25 Mehmed II, Ottoman sultan 106–08, 109n19, 111n24, 113n33, 118 Mehmed Paša Sokolović, see Sokollu Mehmed Pasha Melchisedek 215 Melissenos, see Gregory III Melissenos

302 Menas, patriarch of Constantinople 16 Mesarites, see Nicholas Mesarites Methodios I, patriarch of Constantinople  27, 36 Methodius, apostle of the Slavs 154, 163 Metrophanes I, patriarch of Constantinople  3 Metrophanes II, patriarch of Constantinople  85, 89, 97, 99 Michael Balsamon, didaskalos katholikos  233 Michael Gabras, scholar 230n25 Michael III, emperor 45–46, 48, 154, 207 Michael IV, emperor 135 Michael VIII Palaiologos, emperor 56, 84, 87, 90–91, 139, 158, 159, 162, 205, 212, 216, 232, 270 Michael I Keroularios, patriarch of Constantinople 24, 38, 42n, 49, 135, 164, 215, 257–58 Michael III of Anchialos, patriarch of Constantinople 86, 96, 229 Michael I, patriarch of Antioch 141 Michael II, patriarch of Antioch 142 Michael II, metropolitan in Kiev 187 Michael/Mitjaj, metropolitan of Russia 188 Michael, archbishop of Bethlehem 193, 198 Michael of Tver, Olgerd’s brother-in-law 192 Michael Psellos, historian 229 Michael, see Boris I-Michael Monomachos, see Constantine IX Monomachos Moses 215 Moses, bishop 193 Mstislavich, see Iziaslav II Mstislavich Murad I, Ottoman sultan 170 Mustafa III, Ottoman sultan 159 Mouzalon, see Nicholas Mouzalon, Theodore Mouzalon Mystikos, see Nicholas I Mystikos Naum of Ohrid, saint 154 Neilos Kabasilas, metropolitan of Thessaloniki 71 Neilos Kerameus, patriarch of Constantinople 66, 69, 73–74, 78, 88, 194–95, 197, 211 Nektarios, patriarch of Constantinople 17, 19 Neophytos, metropolitan of Bizye 75

Index of Persons Neophytos, priest-monk 76 Nestor, bishop of Rostov 196 Nestorios, patriarch of Constantinople 14, 18 Nikephoros I, patriarch of Constantinople  236 Nikephoros II, metropolitan of Ephesus 230 Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos 234, 235n59, 236 Nicholas I, pope 45–48, 57, 133 Nicholas II, pope 53–54 Nicholas III, pope 98 Nicholas I Mystikos, patriarch of Constantinople 24, 27, 29, 37, 49, 133, 216, 262n60 Nicholas II Chrysoberges, patriarch of Constantinople 37, 52 Nicholas III Grammatikos, patriarch of Constantinople 86, 98, 136, 264 Nicholas IV Mouzalon, patriarch of Constantinople 190 Nicholas I, patriarch of Alexandria 138 Nicholas II, patriarch of Antioch 134 Nicholas, patriarch of Jerusalem 137 Nicholas Hagiokomites 38 Nicholas Mesarites 232 Nikephoros I, emperor 214 Nikephoros I, patriarch of Constantinople  228 Nikephoros I, patriarch of Jerusalem 135 Nikephoros II, patriarch of Jerusalem 137 Nikephoros Blemmydes 86, 98 Nikephoros Choumnos 230n25 Nikephoros Chrysoberges, metropolitan of Sardes 229 Nikephoros Gregoras, historian 140, 228–29, 233 Niketas I, patriarch of Constantinople 228 Niketas of Amaseia 26, 31, 32 Niketas of Maroneia 98 Niketas Stethatos 51 Nikodim, archbishop of Serbia 165 Niphon I, patriarch of Constantinople 77, 230n25, 266 Niphon, patriarch of Alexandria 141 Niphon, metropolitan of Apameia 141 Olgerd, prince of Lithuania 68, 191–92 Olympias, noblewoman 10 Orestes, patriarch of Jerusalem 135

Index of Persons Pachomios I, patriarch of Antioch 141 Pachymeres, see George Pachymeres Palaiologos, see Andronikos II Palaiologos, Andronikos III Palaiologos, Andronikos IV Palaiologos, John V Palaiologos, John VIII Palaiologos, Manuel II Palaiologos, Michael VIII Palaiologos Palaiologina, see Theodora Palaiologina Palamas, see Gregory Palamas Panagiotes, see Constantine Panagiotes Paschal II, pope 54n36 Paul, apostle 92, 156 Paul I, patriarch of Constantinople 17 Paul of Smyrna, papal legate 88, 162 Perdikes, see George Perdikes Peter, apostle 5, 48, 57 Peter (Theodore), founder of the second Bulgarian tsar 160 Peter, Bulgarian tsar 156, 163 Peter I, king of Cyprus 141 Peter III, patriarch of Antioch 135 Peter, metropolitan of Kiev Peter, metropolitan of Russia 188, 190 Peter Thomas, papal legate 88 Petrus de Pistagallis, Latin doctor 257 Phakrases, see Matthew Phakrases Philippe IV le Bel, French king 166 Philotheos I Kokkinos, patriarch of Constantinople 66, 69–70, 73–75, 88, 141, 169, 191–92, 195, 216, 217n58, 218–19, 230n25, 267 Philotheos, patriarch of Alexandria 142 Photios, patriarch of Constantinople 7, 24, 29, 33, 36–37, 42, 45–49, 57, 93, 133, 143, 210, 229, 262n60 Photios, metropolitan of Russia 188–189 Pimen, metropolitan of Russia 188–89 Planoudes, see Maximos Planoudes Plato 229, 237 Polites, see John III Polites Polyeuktos, patriarch of Constantinople  209 Prochoros Kydones 230n25, 275n94 Prokopios, priest 7 Pseudo-Kodinos 9, 214 Pulcheria, regent 20 Raulaina, see Theodora Raulaina Raymond Bertrand de Got, see Clement v, pope

303 Robert Guiscard 53 Roman, metropolitan of Lithuania 190–91, 198 Romanos III Argyros, emperor 134 Rostislav I, grand prince of Kiev 187–88 Saladin, sultan 137 Sarantenos, see Manuel I Sarantenos Sava IV, Serbian patriarch 170 Sava, disciple of Clement 155 Sava/Rastko, saint 164n59, 165 Scholarios, see Gennadios Sergios I, patriarch of Constantinople 2, 16, 18, 234, 263n61 Sergios II, patriarch of Constantinople 37 Simeon I ibn Zarnāq, patriarch of Antioch  133 Simeon, monk, 164, see also Stefan Nemanja of Ras Sisinnios II, patriarch of Constantinople  29, 37 Sitt al-Mulk, regent 135 Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, Ottoman grand vizier 171 Sophronios, patriarch of Alexandria 137 Stachys, first bishop of Constantinople 5 Stefan the First-Crowned, Serbian king  164–65 Stefan Lazarević, despotes 170 Stefan Nemanja of Ras, Serbian grand prince  164–65 Stefan Uroš II Milutin, Serbian king 166–67 Stefan Uroš IV Dušan, Serbian King 167–69 Stefan Vladislav, Serbian king 165 Stephanos Ureses, see Stefan Uroš IV Dušan Stephen Skylitzes, metropolitan 232 Stephen, bibliophylax 236 Stephen, patriarch of Constantinople 215 Stephen, patriarch of Antioch 132 Stethatos, see Niketas Stethatos Svjatoslav of Smolensk, grand duke 217n59 Symeon, Bulgarian tsar 154, 156 Symeon I, patriarch of Constantinople 111– 12, 120–21, 124 Symeon II, patriarch of Antioch 138, 143 Symeon, metropolitan of Thessaloniki 69, 72 Symeon Metaphrastes 17 Symeon the New Theologian 28n15 Synesios, author 208

304 Theodora Palaiologina, empress 212 Theodora Raulaina, scholar 230n25 Theodora, empress (527–48) 20–21 Theodora, empress (c.815–after 867) 45 Theodore I Laskaris, emperor 235, 269 Theodore II Laskaris, emperor 209, 230n25 Theodore II Eirenikos, patriarch of Constantinople 86, 229 Theodore II patriarch of Antioch 134 Theodore IV Balsamon, patriarch of Antioch  138n42 Theodore, metropolitan of Russia 187 Theodore, father of Emperor Nikephoros I  228 Theodore Agallianos 107–08, 119n6, 123, 126n23 Theodore Hyrtakenos, author 230n25 Theodore Mouzalon, grand logothetes  230n25 Theodore Prodromos, poet 232, 237 Theodore of Stoudios/Stoudites, abbot of Stoudios monastery 8, 132, 214 Theodoros Branas, correspondent of Gennadios Scholarios 113n34 Theodosios II, patriarch of Antioch 133 Theodosios Iv Prinkips, patriarch of Antioch 139 Theodosius I, emperor 19, 207 Theodosius II, emperor 20 Theognostos, metropolitan of Russia 73 Theoktistos, eunuch 45 Theoleptos I, patriarch of Constantinople  111 Theophanes Graptos, saint 234 Theophanes, metropolitan of Nicaea 70 Theophilos, emperor 234 Theophylact, archbishop of Ohrid 154–56, 207 Theophylact Lakapenos, patriarch of Constantinople 133

Index of Persons Thomas Gorianites, poet 233n43 Thomas I, patriarch of Constantinople 234 Thomas II, patriarch of Constantinople  234, 236 Thomas, monk 132 Thomas Katabolenos, archon 107n16 Thomas Magistros 230n25 Thucydides, ancient author 237 Tokhtamysh, khan 194 Trifun Mihailović, emissary 166 Tryphon, patriarch of Constantinople 25– 26, 37 Tzimiskes, see John I Tzimiskes Urban II, pope 52–54, 86 Urban IV, pope 90 Urban V, pope 88, 141 Urban VI, pope 88 Vatatzes, see John III Vatatzes Vladimir Vasilij Dimitrievič, grand duke of Moscow 217 Vladimir, prince of Kiev 183–84 Vladimir, prince of Lithuania 192 Vukašin, king of Serbia 170 Xanthopoulos, see Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos Xiphilinos, see George II Xiphilinos, John VIII Xiphilinos Yaḥyā, chronicler 134 Yaroslav, prince of Kiev 186 Yōḥannān VIII ʿAḇdūn, west Syrian patriarch  134 Yuri Dolgorukiy, grand prince of Kiev 187 Zonaras, see John Zonaras

Index of Place Names Adrianople 111–12, 122, 140, 160 Albania 155, 159 Alexandria 4–5, 7, 14, 16, 130–33, 137–39, 141–44, 161 Amaseia 26, 31–32 Anchialos 65, 96 Ancyra (Ankara) 77, 205, 213 Antioch, in Syria 5, 7, 14, 16, 34, 51, 69, 126, 130–44, 161 Antivari 163 Apameia, in Asia Minor 123 Apameia in Syria 141 Apulia 53 Asia, region in Western Asia Minor 2–3, 9, 131, 185 Asia Minor 64, 164 Athens 76 Athos, Mount 31, 124, 161, 164, 168 Avignon 166–67 Balkans 47, 152–53, 156–57, 162, 165, 169–70 Basel 88–89, 189, 258 Belarus 184 Belgrade 166, 170–71 Berroia 167 Bethlehem 193, 197–98 Bizye, in Thrace 75 Blachernae palace, in Constantinople 88 Bosphorus 5 Braničevo 166, 171 Budimlja 165, 171 Bulgaria 47–48, 133, 139, 151–62, 164, 216 Caesarea (Kaisareia), in Cappadocia 2, 70 Caesarea, in Palestine 206 Calabria 53–54, 88 Cappadocia 16, 70 Černomen 170 Chalcedon 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 14, 24, 30, 64, 71–72, 77, 131, 138, 142–43, 185, 192 Chernihiv 184 Cherson, on the Crimea 184 Christupolis 167, 169 Churches Hagia Eirene, in Constantinople 7, 10, 12 Hagia Sophia, in Constantinople 7–12, 18, 20, 33, 76, 135, 236

Hagia Sophia, in Ohrid 157 Holy Apostles, in Constantinople 7, 19, 231–32, 235 St. Alexios, in Constantinople 33 St. Paul, in Constantinople 232 St. Theodore, in Constantinople 10, 12 Sveta Sofija, in Ohrid 156 Sveti Panteleimon (also known as Star Sveti Kliment, in Ohrid) 155 Theotokos, in Constantinople 10, 12 Cilicia 132, 138, 139 Constance 88 Constantinople passim Crete 89 Crimea 154–55, 184 Cyprus 4, 6, 88, 139, 141, 230, 233 Debar 165, 167 Damascus 141 Danube 65, 152, 160, 170–71 Deabolis (Devol) 136, 155 Debar 166 Derkos, in Thrace 75 Dioclea 163 Drama 169 Dremvitza 155 Drivasto 163 Dyrrhachion (Durazzo, Durres) 54, 163 Egypt 131 Ephesus (Ephesos) 2, 96, 131, 230 Epirus 167 Euripos (Negroponte) 76 Ferrara 78, 89, 91, 95, 142, 144, 170 Florence 78, 84–85, 89, 90–93, 95–96, 99, 142, 144, 170, 183, 189 France 166–67 Francia 155 Galata, see Pera Gaza 20 Germany 167 Glavinitza (now Ballsh in Albania) 155 Gorodets 194

306 Gradac 163, 171 Grado 166 Great palace, in Constantinople 21, 33, 212 Halych 184, 197, 199 Hebdomon, suburb of Constantinople 19 Herakleia, in Thrace 2–3, 9, 142 Hiereia 132 Hippodrome, in Constantinople 20 Holy Land 165 Hvosno 165, 171 Hum 165 Ikonion (Konya) 78 Illyricum 5 Ioannina 167, 220 Isauria 132 Italy 50–51, 53 Iustiniana Prima (Caričin Grad) 153, 158 Jerusalem 4, 5, 64, 130–33, 135–44, 161, 198 Keltzene 191, 198 Kiev 69, 73, 88–89, 142, 183–85, 187–91, 193, 196 Koloneia 134 Končula 166, 171 Kosovo Polje 170 Kotor 166 Kyzikos 77 Larissa, in Thessaly 167 Lim 166, 171 Lipljan 165, 171 Lithuania 69, 184, 189–92 Lyon 49, 84–85, 87, 90–91, 93, 95–98, 216 Macedonia 73, 152, 154–55, 157, 165, 167, 170 Mačva 166 Marica, river 170 Markianupolis 153 Medeia, in Thrace 77 Melenikos 167 Melfi 53–54 Methoni, on the Peloponnese 89 Mileševo 171 Mitylene, on Lesbos 77

Index of Place Names Moesia 153 Monasteries Bačkovo, in Bulgaria 162 St. Diomedes, in Constantinople 136 Eleousa, near Stroumitza 247 Hiera-Xerochoraphion on Mount Mycale, near Priene 257 Hilandar, on Mt. Athos 124, 164–65 Hodegon, in Constantinople 136, 141 Iviron, on Mt. Athos 124 Lembiotissa, near Smyrna 247 Makrinitissa, on Mount Pelion, near Bolos 247 Mileševa 165 Nea Petra, on Mount Pelion, near Bolos 247 Notre-Dame du Lys, in Dammarie-les-Lys 166 Pammakaristos, in Constantinople 235 Peć 165 St John the Forerunner on Mount Menoikeion, near Serres 247 St John the Forerunner on Mount Vazelon, in Trebizond 247 St Paul on Mount Latros 247 Stoudios, in Constantinople 57 Studenica 164 Žiča 165 Monembasia 142 Morava, river 163 Moravia, Great 154–55 Moravica 165, 171 Moscow 69–70, 184, 189–92, 194, 217 Moudania (Mudanya), in Asia Minor 123 Muscovy 191 Near East 132, 139, 143 Nicaea 1, 8, 15, 24, 32, 64, 70, 94, 132, 138, 143, 161–62, 164, 188, 228, 235–37 Nicomedia 16 Niš 153 Nizhny Novgorod 194 Nobatia, kingdom 6 Novgorod 192–93, 195–96, 198 Novogrudok 191 Nubia 6, 21

307

Index of Place Names Ohrid 51, 88, 151–52, 154–59, 162, 164–65, 168, 171, 207 Ovče Pole 167 Palestine 6, 20, 137, 140 Paris 166 Peć 165, 169, 171 Pera (Galata) 220 Pereyaslavl 184, 190 Philippoi 167 Philippoupolis (Plovdiv) 31, 111, 153, 162 Poitiers 166 Poland 88 Polotsk 191 Pontus (Pontos) 2–3, 131, 185 Prague 78, 258 Preslav 154, 156 Prilep 167 Prizren 165, 168, 171 Prosek 167 Prousa (Bursa) 123 Pskov 196 Pulati 163 Ragusa (Dubrovnik) 164 Raška 171 Ratiaria 153 Ras 163–65, 168 Reggio, in Calabria 53, 54 Rhodes 232 Rimini 166 Rome 1–8, 28, 44–46, 48, 50, 52–57, 78, 84, 86, 89–91, 93, 97, 99, 131–32, 153, 155, 160, 163, 166, 189, 206 Rostov 196 Rus, land of the 184–85 Russia 65, 69, 70, 73, 142, 152, 154, 183–84, 186, 187–99 Sarai 196 Sasima, in Cappadocia 16 Scutari 163

Scythia 153 Sebasteia 73–74 Serbia 151–52, 158–59, 162–67, 169–71 Serdica (Sofia) 153, 158, 159 Serres 73–74, 167, 169 Sicily 53 Skopje 166, 168 Smederevo 171 Smyrna 88 South-eastern Europe 151 Srebrenica 171 Štip 167 Sugdaïa, on the Crimea 71 Suzdal 192, 194–95, 197–98 Syria 131–32, 137 Tarsus, in Cilicia 139 Thessaloniki 5, 7, 16, 69, 71–72, 154, 161, 205 Thessaly 167 Thomaites, patriarchal residence in Constantinople 234–35 Thrace 2–3, 9, 75, 131, 153, 170, 185 Tomi 153 Toplica 165, 171 Trebizond 89 Turov 191 Tver 189–90, 192 Tyre, in Lebanon 140–41 Ukraine 184 Vardar, river 163 Veliko Tărnovo, in Bulgaria 160–62, 165 Velitza (today Veles?) 155 Venice 51, 167 Vidin 158–59 Vladimir on Klyazma 184, 196, 217 Zeta, in Montenegro 164–65, 168 Žiča 165, 171 Zichnai 167, 169

Index of Greek, Latin and Turkish Terms anathema (ἀνάθημα) 33–35, 67 aphorismos (ἀφορισμός), exclusion, deposition and excommunication 67, 251, 253 apocrisiarius (ἀποκρισιάριος) 15, 191–92, 194, 197 apophasis (ἀπόφασις) 253 Apostolic Constitution (Constitutio apostolica) 227–28 archbishop (ἀρχιεπίσκοπος) 7, 261 archon (ἄρχων), leading citizen 8, 113 athoosis (ἀθῴωσις), rehabilitation 253 azymes (ἄζυμα), unleavened bread 50–51, 57, 93, 142 berat, appointment document 120–21, 124–25 bibliophylax (βιβλιοφύλαξ) 236 bishop (ἐπίσκοπος) 3–4, 19 cancellarius (καγκελλάριος) 12 canon (κανών) Canon 3 of the first Council of Constantinople 131 Canon 4 of the first Council of Nicaea 8 Canon 5 of the first Council of Nicaea 24 Canon 6 of the first Council of Nicaea  32n34, 68–69 Canon 9 of the Council of Chalcedon 4, 30, 131, 143 Canon 17 of the Council of Chalcedon 4n5, 30, 131, 143 Canon 19 of the Council of Chalcedon 24 Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon  6n12, 24, 30, 131, 185 Canon 4 of the Lateran Council 94 Canon 37 of the Trullanum 138 Canon 11 of the Synod of Antioch 126 Canon 19 of the Synod of Antioch 69n28 charistikion (χαριστίκιον) 122 chartophylax (χαρτοφύλαξ) 14, 72, 123–24, 235–36, 248–49, 251, 258–59, 272–274, 276–77

chartularius (χαρτουλάριος) 13 commemoration (μνημόσυνον and synonyms) in diptychs 44, 52, 86, 95, 133 Constitutum Constantini 215–216 coronation of the emperor 19–20 De Administrando Imperio 163 De Ceremoniis 208 deposition (καθαίρεσις) 67 devshirme (recruitment of Christian children for service in the Ottoman military) 126 diagnosis (διάγνωσις) 253 diakrisis (διάκρισις) 253 didaskalia (διδασκαλία), patriarchal document 251 didaskalos katholikos (διδάσκαλος καθολικός)  233 dikaiosis (δικαίωσις), synodal document 253 diptych (δίπτυχον), see commemoration Donatio Constantini 205, 215–16 Eisagoge (Εἰσαγωγή) 214–215, 228, 262n60 ekdikos (ἔκδικος) 12, 14 ἐκκλησία, see Great Church Ekthesis nea (Ἔκθεσις νέα) 252, 260–61, 262n60 elogium, annual 227–28 enkyklios paideia (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία)  229 entalma (ἔνταλμα), patriarchal document  253 epidosis (ἐπίδοσις), patriarchal document  66, 252 epigraphe (ἐπιγραφή) 252, 273n82 epikrisis (ἐπίκρισς) 253 epistole (ἐπιστολή), see letter ἔρευνα, see investigation exarchos (ἔξαρχος) 77, 123, 190–191, 197–198, 259 filioque 47, 52, 57–58, 93–99, 142, 231 gerokomos (γηροκόμος) 15 ghazi 107 γνώμη, see opinion

Index of Greek, Latin and Turkish Terms

309

gramma (γράμμα) 252; (γράμμα συνοδικόν) 252, 253; (σιγιλλιῶδες γράμμα) 252; (γράμμα ἐνταλτήριον, γράμμα προτρεπτήριον) 253 Great Church (μεγάλη ἐκκλησία) 12

notarius (νοτάριος) 12 Notitiae episcopatuum 66, 163 Novel (νεαρά), Justinian I 5, 9n17, 9n19, 10n20–21, 17–18, 161n43, 210; Leo VI 215

hieromnemon (ἱερομνήμων) 123–124, 273 ἱερὸς κῶδιξ, see Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople homologia (ὁμολογία) 251 Horos of Union (Ὅρος τῆς Ἑνώσεως), Council of Florence 142 hypomnema (ὑπόμνημα) 122, 252, 264–65 hypomnematographos (ὑπομνηματογράφος)  273 hypomnesis (ὑπόμνησις), patriarchal document 264 hypatos ton philosophon (ὕπατος τῶν φιλοσόφων) 229 hypotyposis (ὑποτύποσις) 251

official (ὀφφικιάλιος) 120, 123–24 oikonomia (οἰκονομία) 67, 126–27, 133 oikonomos (οἰκονόμος) 13, 124 oikοumenikos patriarches (οἰκουμενικὸς πατρίαρχης) 7, 25, 121, 141, 152, 157–59, 161–62, 164, 167–70, 183–88, 195, 199, 217, 249, 261–62 omophorion (ὠμοφόριον) 9 opinion (γνώμη) 70–71 orphanotropheion (ὀρφανοτροφεῖον) 232 orphanotrophos (ὀρφανοτρόφος) 15

inscription 252, 257 intitulatio 250, 253, 265 investigation (ἔρευνα) 33 kainotomia (καινοτομία), innovation 212 katastichon (κατάστιχον), dossier 71; financial register 111, 125 kathairesis (καθαίρεσις) 253, see also deposition katholikoi kritai (καθολικοὶ κρίται), general judges 68 krisis (κρίσις) 253 κῶδιξ, ἱερός, see Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople letter (πιττάκιον) 111, 113, 249, 273; (ἐπιστολή) 252 lysis (λύσις), patriarchal document 264 menologem (μηνολόγημα) 250–251, 253, 266–272 metathesis (μετάθεσις), transfer to another metropolis or archbishopric 252 metriotes hemon (ἡ μετριότης ἡμῶν) 29, 262–63 νεαρά, see novel nosokomos (νοσοκόμος) 15

paidomazoma, see devshirme πατριάρχης, see oikumenikos patriarches peskesi, sum of money to be paid to the Ottoman authority 113 pittakion (πιττάκιον), see letter polystaurion (πολυσταύριον), liturgical cape decorated with crosses 193, 195 praxis (πρᾶξις), synodal act, see synodike praxis primus inter pares (pope) 93 pronomia (προνόμια), prerogatives of the emperor in ecclesiastical affairs 211 protekdikos (πρωτέκδικος) 14 protonotarius (πτωτονοτάριος) 15, 273 protos (πρῶτος), head of Mount Athos 168 protothronos (πρωτόθρονος) 25 protrope (προτροπή), patriarchal document  253 psephos (ψῆφος) 253, see also vote ptochotrophos (πτωχοτρόφος) 15, 16 purgatory (πουργατόριον) 93 question (ζήτησις) 33 rank (τόπος) 66 referendarius (ῥαιφερενδάριος) 12, 256n40 Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (ἱερὸς κῶδιξ) 64, 68–69, 72–74, 111–113, 122, 152–53, 157, 161–62, 169–70, 197, 274–77

310

Index of Greek, Latin and Turkish Terms

sacellarius (σακελλάριος) 14 salutatio 252, 257 semeiographos (σημειογράφος) 13 semeioma (σημείωμα), document by the (megas) chartophylax 248–249, 251, 274 sigillion (σιγίλλιον), patriarchal document  252, 258 σιγιλλιῶδες γράμμα, see gramma skeuophylax (σκευοφύλαξ) 12, 15, 124 scriniarius (σκρινιάριος) 14 sphragis paranomos (σφραγὶς παράνομος)  135 stauropegion (σταυροπήγιον) 186 synaxis (σύναξις) 78, 258 synchoresis (συγχώρησις), absolution, amnesty 251, 253 Synekdemos (Συνέκδημος), by Hierocles 153

synodike praxis (συνοδικὴ πρᾶξις), synodal act 122, 252 Synodikon of Orthodoxy (συνοδικόν) 26–27, 34–35 synodos endemousa (σύνοδος ἐνδεμοῦσα) 8, 12–13, 24, 27–38, 63–78, 211, 249, 275 synkellos (σύγκελλος) 12, 14 synthronon (σύνθρονον) 197 Tomos Unionis (Tόμος Ἑνώσεως) 26 τόπος, see rank translatio imperii 206 vote (ψῆφος) 31–33, 68–69, 71 xenodochos (ξενοδόχος) 15, 16

Index of Regest Numbers (Patriachal and Imperial Chancery) Patriarchs of Constantinople Methodios Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 416 (843) 36 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 425 (844) 36 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 430 (845–846) 36 Photios (first patriarchate) Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 471 (861) 36 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 497 (867) 133n16 Ignatios (second patriarchate) Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 530 (867–868) 133n17 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 531 (869) 36 Photios (second patriarchate) Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 542 (877–878) 133n17 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 543 (877–878) 133n17 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 548 (879–880) 133n17 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 549 (879–880) 133n17 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 551 (879–880) 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 552 (879–880) 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 587 37 Nicholas Mystikos (first patriarchate) Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 598 (901–905) 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 603 (906) 37

Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 604 (907) 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 605 (907) 37 Nicholas Mystikos (second patriarchate) Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 715 (920) 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 716 (920) 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 781 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 783 37 Tryphon Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 786 (931) 37 Theophylact Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 787 (937–938) 134n19 Polyeuktos Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 795 (970) 134n20 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 796 (970) 134n20 Nicholas II Chrysoberges Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 801 (987) 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 802 (989) 37 Sisinnios II Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 804 (997) 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 806 (997–998) 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 807 37 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 808 37

312

Index of Regest Numbers ( Patriachal and Imperial Chancery )

Sergios II Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 821 (1016) 37 Eustathios Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 826 (1019) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 826a (1023) 38 Alexios Stoudites Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 830 (1026) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 833 (1028) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 835 (1028) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 838 (1029) 134n23 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 839 (1030) 38, 135n24 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 840 (1032) 38, 135n24 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 844 (1038) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 845 (1038) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 846 (1039) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 848 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 849 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 850 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 860 (1052) 135n26 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 861 (1052) 135n26

John VIII Xiphilinos Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 896 (1066) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 897 (1067) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 900 (1071) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 900a (1072) 38 Kosmas I Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 907 (1076–1077) 38 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 914a (1079) 38 Eustratios Garidas Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 927 (1082) 136n30

Michael Keroularios Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 869 (1054) 38

Nicholas III Grammatikos Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 942 (1087) 264 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 944 (1087) 86 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 945 (1087) 86 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 946 (1087) 86 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 950 (1088) 86 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 951 (1089) 86 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 952 (1089) 235n56 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 963 (1092) 235n56 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 965 (1092) 136n30, 235n56 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 966 (1092) 235n56 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 981 (1106–1107) 136n34

Constantine III Leichoudes Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 887 (1060) 38

John IX Agapetos Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1005 (1133) 264

Index of Regest Numbers ( Patriachal and Imperial Chancery ) Leo Styppeiotes Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1007 (1140) 231n32 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1011 (1143) 235n56 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1012 (1143) 235n56 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1013 (1143) 235n56 Constantine IV Chliarenos Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1038 (1156) 137n38 Luke Chrysoberges Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1049 (1158) 264 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1052 (1161) 196n66 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1058a (1166) 137n40 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1059 (1166) 137n40 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1060 (1166) 137n40 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1061 (1166) 137n40 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1062 (1166) 137n40 Michael III Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1125 (1172) 86 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1125a (1173) 86 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1126 (1173) 235n6 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1134 (1177) 235n6 Chariton Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1151 (1178–79) 264 George II Xiphilinos Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1183 (1193) 86 Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1184 (1195) 138n43

313

John X Kamateros Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes 2–3, reg. 1194 (1199) 86 Theodore II Eirenikos Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1219 (1214–1215) 86 Manuel I Sarantenos Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1220 (1217–1218) 138n45 Germanos II Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1256 (1232) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1257 (1232) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1267 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1268 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1269 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1270 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1271 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1272 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1273 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1274 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1275 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1276 (1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1277 (after 1234) 86 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1282 (1235) 139n46  Manuel II Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1311 (1248) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1313 (1250) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1387 („1267“ = 1252) 250n32, 266 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1319 (1253) 87 Arsenios Autoreianos (first patriarchate) Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1331 (1256) 77n66 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1332 (1256) 87 Germanos III Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1380 (1265–1266) 232n39 Joseph I (first patriarchate) Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1384 (1267) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1385 (1267) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1399 (1273) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1400 (1273) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1401 (1273) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1404 (1273) 87

314

Index of Regest Numbers ( Patriachal and Imperial Chancery )

Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1408 (1274) 87, 91n14 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1409 (1274) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1410 (1274) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1413 (1274) 87 John XI Bekkos Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1425 (1275) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1427 (1276) 196n68 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1428 (1276) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1429 (1276–1277)  87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1430 (1276–1278)  87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1431 (1277) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1432 (1277) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1433 (1277) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1434 (1277) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1435 (1277) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1436 (1277–1279)  87, 139n49 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1444 (1279) 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1449 87 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1450 87 Joseph I (second patriarchate) Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1453 (1283) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1454 (1283) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1455 (1283) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1456 (1283) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1457 (1283) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1458 (1283) 88 Gregory II of Cyprus Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1463 (1283) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1484 (1285) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1485 (1285) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1486 (1285) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1487 (1285) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1488 (1285) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1489 (1285) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1490 (1285) 88 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1498 (1286–1287)  139n51 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1511 (1288) 140n52 John XII Kosmas Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1568 (1296) 140n52

John XII Kosmas (a. 1298) / Niphon I (1313)  266 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2016 266 Athanasios I (second patriarchate) Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1636 (1305–1306)  76n63 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1660 (1307) 76n63 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1661 (1307) 76n63 Laurent, Regestes 4, reg. 1662 (1307) 76n63 John XIII Glykys Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2032 (1315)  78n67 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2039 (1315)  67n23 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2050 (1315)  219n73 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2058 (1316)  67n18 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2059 (1316)  67n18 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2069 (1316)  67n19 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2090 (1318)  211n29 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2094 (1318–1319)  212n30 Isaias Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2117 (1324)  77n66 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2118 (1324)  77n66 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2129 (1325) 266 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2134 (1327)  272n78 John XIV Kalekas Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2170 (1334–1335)  88 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2180 (1337–1338)  220n78 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2183 (1338)  68n24 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2188 (1339)  209n20, 212n32

Index of Regest Numbers ( Patriachal and Imperial Chancery ) Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2213 (1341)  209n20 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2220 (1341–1342)  140n53 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2251 (1344)  209n20 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. *2262 (1346)  140n54 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2270 (1347)  67n20, 209n20, 213n41 Isidore I Boucheiras Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2274 (1347)  217n59 Kallistos I (first patriarchate) Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2315 (1350)  219n74 Philotheos Kokkinos (first patriarchate) Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2362 (1354)  218n67 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2363 (1354)  189n38 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2364 (1354)  198n84, 199n93 Kallistos I (second patriarchate) Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2376 (1355)  219n68 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2377 (1355)  76n58, 213n41 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2391 (1356)  141n58 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2397 (1356)  141n58 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2406 (1358–1360)  211n29 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2432 (1361)  68n26, 71n37 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2434 (1361)  191n47, 198n85, 199n95 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2435 (1361)  198n85, 199n95 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2437 (1361) 88, 220n79 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2443 (1361–1362)  88

315

Philotheos Kokkinos (second patriarchate) Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2462 (1364)  219n69 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2464 (1364)  216n57 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2483 (1365)  141n59 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2523 (1367) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2524 (1367) 88, 157n24, 162n46 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2525 (1367) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2526 (1367) 88, 141n62 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2548 (1369) 267 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2587 (1370)? 267 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2582 (1370)  217n59 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2583 (1370)  193n54 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2615 (1371)  220n77 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2625 (1371)  192n49, 198n87 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2626 (1371)  192n50, 198n87 Darrouzès, Regestes 5, reg. 2662 (1375) 267 Neilos Kerameus Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2705 (1380)  70n35 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2717 (1381)  219n70.71 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2729 (1381)  196n65, 197n69, 198n86 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2731 (1381)  196n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2773 (1384) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2819 (1387)  74n49.50 Antony IV (first patriarchate) Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2847 (1389) 198n79.81.87.88, 199n93 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2876 (1390) 220n75 Antony IV (second patriarchate) Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2903 (1392) 267

316

Index of Regest Numbers ( Patriachal and Imperial Chancery )

Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2924 (1393)  198n82 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2927 (1393)  220n76 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2929 (1393) 194n55.58, 198n82.89, 199n96 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2930 (1393) 194n56, 198n82, 199n90.93.94 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2931 (1393)  198n82, 217n60 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2934 (1393)  198n82.89, 199n96 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2937 (1393)  199n93 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2938 (1393) 198n82.83.89, 199n90.94.96 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2975 (1397)  157n25 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 2990 (1395) 268 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3001 (1395)  142n63 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3002 (1395) 268 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3038 (1397) 197n72, 198n82.83, 199n91 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3039 (1397) 88, 198n82, 199n91 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3040 (1397) 88, 198n82, 199n91 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3042 (1396) 268 Matthew I Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3105 (1400)  72n45 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3112 (1400)  198n82, 199n92.96 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3168 (1400)  194n57 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3260 (1402)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3261 (1402)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3262 (1403)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3266 (1403) 268 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3267 (1403)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3270 (1405)  77n65

Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3271 (1405)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3272 (1405)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3273 (1405)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3274 (1405)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3275 (1405)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3276 (1405)  77n65 Darrouzès, Regestes 6, reg. 3284 (1409)  77n65 Euthymios II Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3294 (1415–1416)  88 Joseph II Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3305 (1419) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3306 (1419) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3309 (1421) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3312 (1422) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3313 (1422) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3314 (1422) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3316 (1425–1426)  88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3334 (1429–1430)  88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3337 (1431) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3338 (1431) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3339 (1431) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3341 (1432–1433)  88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3342 (1433) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3343 (1433–1434)  88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3344 (1434) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3346 (1435) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3347 (1435) 88 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3348 (1435) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3349 (1435) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3350 (1436) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3351 (1436) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3352 (1436) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3353 (1436) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3354 (1436) 89

Index of Regest Numbers ( Patriachal and Imperial Chancery )

317

Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3355 (1436) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3356 (1436–1437)  89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3357 (1436) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3358 (1436) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3359 (1436–1437)  89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3360 (1437) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3362 (1437) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3363 (1437) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3364 (1437) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3365 (1437) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3367 (1437) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3368 (1437) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3369 (1438) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3370 (1438) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3371 (1438) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3373 (1438) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3374 (1438) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3375 (1438) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3376 (1438) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3377 (1439) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3378 (1439) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3380 (1439)  78n69, 142n64

Gennadios II Scholarios (first patriarchate) Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 1 (1454) 121n10 Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 2 (1454) 127n24 Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 3 (1454) 127n24 Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 9 (1455) 127n24 Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 10 (1455) 127n24 Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 11 (1455) 127n24

Metrophanes II Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3381 (1440)  78n69 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3384 (1440–1441)  78n69 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3387 (1440) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3388 (1440) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3391 (1443)  78n69, 89

Gennadios II Scholarios (third patriarchate) Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 32 (1464–1465) 122n12

Gregory III Mammas Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3396 (1445)  78n69 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3398 (1447) 89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3404 (1445–1450)  89 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3407 (1451–1452)  78n69 Darrouzès, Regestes 7, reg. 3408 (1452)  78n69

Isidore II Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 14 (1456) 127n24 Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 15 (1456–1458) 127n24 Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 18 (1456–1462) 119n5 Sophronios Syropoulos Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 23 (1462–1463) 127n24

Dionysios I (first patriarchate) Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 45 (1467) 190n42 Symeon I of Trebizond (second patriarchate) Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 52 (1474) 109n20.22, 111n24 Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 53 (1474) 109n20.22 Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 54 (1474) 112n32 Raphael I Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 59 (1475) 123n15

318

Index of Regest Numbers ( Patriachal and Imperial Chancery )

Symeon I of Trebizond (third patriarchate) Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 80 (1483–1484) 111n27

Alexios III Angelos Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1649 (1199)  269

vacant see Apostolopoulos and Païzi-Apostolopoulou, Οι Πράξεις, reg. 90 (1488) 124n17

Theodore I Laskaris Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1687 (1214)  269

Byzantine Emperors Herakleios Dölger, Müller, Preiser-Kapeller and Riehle, Regesten 1.1, reg. 165 (612) 12n31 Basil I Dölger, Müller and Beihammer, Regesten 1.2, reg. 473 (867) 133n17 Dölger, Müller and Beihammer, Regesten 1.2, reg. 485 (870) 133n17 Basil II Dölger, Müller and Beihammer, Regesten 1.2, reg. 784a (994) 134n21 Dölger, Müller and Beihammer, Regesten 1.2, reg. 816c (1023) 135n28 Michael IV Paphlagon Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 843 (1036) 136n29 Alexios I Komnenos Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1168d (1092)  269 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1243 (1108)  137n35 Manuel I Komnenos Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1348 (1146)  269 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1430 (1159)  137n36 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1466a (1166)  137n40 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1469 (1166)  137n40 Isaak II Angelos Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 2, reg. 1610 (1192)  269

John III Doukas Vatatzes Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1744 (1234)  139n46 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1746 (1235)  139n46 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1783 (1244)  270 John IV Doukas Laskaris Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1854 (1258)  270 Michael VIII Palaiologos Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 1910 (1262)  270 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 3, reg. 2023c (1276–1278) 139n50 Andronikos II Palaiologos Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2094 (1283) 270 Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2142a (1290) 271 Andronikos III Palaiologos Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2839 (1339) 140n53 Dölger, Regesten 4, reg. 2845 (1340) 271 John V Palaiologos Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 2863 (1341)  220n79 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3047 (1355)  216n56 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3079 (1361)  220n79 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3081 (1362)  220n79 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3145 (1375)  271 John V Palaiologos/John VI Kantakouzenos Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 2950 (1349)  140n55

Index of Regest Numbers ( Patriachal and Imperial Chancery )

319

John VIII Palaiologos Manuel II Palaiologos Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3241 (1393)  Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3486 (1439)  142n64 217n60 Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3344 (1414)  Dölger and Wirth, Regesten 5, reg. 3509 (1445)  271 271

Index of Manuscripts Modena, Biblioteca Estense, ms. gr. 142 233 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana ms. gr. 840 73 ms. slav. 3 (Codex Assemanianus) 154 ms. Urb. gr. 80 260n52

Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek cod. hist. gr. 47 274 cod. hist. gr. 48 274