BYZANTINISCH!

ÌR^rR!

3 y z;

■M
 BYZANTINISCHE
FORSCHUNGEN

Internationale Zeitschrift für

Byzantinistik

herausgegeben
von
ADOLF M. HAKKERT und WALTER E. KAEGI, Jr.

BAND VIII

VERLAG ADOLF M. HAKKERT - AMSTERDAM

1982
 I.S.B.N. 90-256-0619-9
I.S.B Ν. 90-256-0830-2.

All rights reserved. Copyright 1982 Α. Μ. Hakkert

Set by Fotron S.A. - Athens
 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS

W.E. KAEGI, Jr.: Foreword

D. DE F. ABRAHAMSE: Magic and Sorcery in the
Hagiography of the Middle Byzantine Period
Β. BALDWIN: A Talent to Abuse: Some Aspects of
Byzantine Satire
V. A. CAIRES: Evagrius Scholasticus: A Literary Analysis ...
G.T.DENNIS: Byzantine Battle Flags
P. GRAY: Neo-Chalcedonianism and the Tradition: From
Patristic to Byzantine Theology
J. IRMSCHER: L'Ideologia Ellenica della Polis e i Bizantini
W. E. KAEGI, Jr.: Two Studies in the Continuity of Late
Roman and Byzantine Military Institutions
A. KAZHDAN: Two Notes on Byzantine Demography of
the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries
P. MAGDALINO & R. NELSON: The Emperor in
Byzantine Art of the Twelfth Century
S. T. PARKER & J. LANDER: Legio IV Martia and the
Legionary Camp at el-LejjOn
K. SHELTON: Usurpers' Coins: The Case of Magnentius
W. T. TREADGOLD: The Unpublished Saint's Life of the
Empress Irene (BHG 2205)
J. WORTLEY: Iconoclasmi and-Leipsanoclasm: Leo III
Constantine V, and the Relics
 FOREWORD
This is the first volume of Byzantinische Forschungen to appear
under my editorship. It includes a broad collection of subjects and
subdisciplines within the scope of Byzantine Studies. Although the
majority of contributors to this volume happen to be North
Americans, one wishes to emphasize that manuscripts in all major
modern scholarly languages will be considered for inclusion in future
volumes. Correspondence should be sent to Professor Walter Emil
Kaegi, Jr., Department of History, the University of Chicago, 1126
East 59th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637 U.S.A., or to Adolf M.
Hakkert, Calle Alfambra 26, Las Palmas, G.C., Spain.

Walter Emil Kaegi, Jr.

 M A G I C A N D S O R C E R Y IN T H E H A G I O G R A P H Y
OF THE MIDDLE BYZANTINE PERIOD

DOROTHY DE F. ABRAHAMSE / LONG BEACH, CAL.

In the last few years magicians and sorcerers, along with perenially
popular witches, have come into their own as a subject for serious
historical study. Enriched by the findings of social anthropologists,
ancient and medieval historians have ceased to regard magic solely
as esoterica or as a secret intellectual tradition. Rather, they have
turned our attention to the functions of magic beliefs in a given
society on both a 'learned' and a 'popular' level. In two recent
examples of such an approach, Edward Peters and Peter Brown have
described some aspects of the transformation of the ancient magos
— an imposing possessor of knowledge and power, and rival to the
Christian holy man — into the medieval servant of Satan, able to call
on demons to effect his deeds, and, eventually, into the witch — the
inherently evil figure who received her (or his) powers as a result of a

This paper was originally presented at the Sixth Annual Byzantine Studies
Conference at Oberlin, Ohio, in October, 1980.
4
compact with the devil. 1 In the process, both would argue, human
agents of evil lost their preeminance to the figure of Satan and his
demons, who furnished an ever-preserit explanation for misfortune
and took their place in theological writings-and. popular· religious,
texts as the opponents of saints and Christian heroes. Belief in
magicians and sorcerers'survived in the early medieval west, but in a
limited sphere, often as an· adjunct to. supernatural forces. In
Byzantium, conservative and superstitious by reputation, it is
believed that ancienMraditions of 'learned magic'-m ay have survived
somewhat longer,, and.<t$he legend, öfrtbe, compact· with the devil
through the .agency of ajewish^iaagosfook shape in the middle ages
in the narratio o f T h e o p h i l o s ? v ; < -.,■< ■■■■-.>■■>.■
These and other recent studies have elaborated¡ important
conceptual distinctions which must be born in mind in any analysis of
the nature and function of magic beliefs in European society. First,
a n ď m o s t obvious, is the difference between learned magic and folk
religion. Accusations of occult learning and practice, often

1
The most extensive acknowledgement of historians' debts to social anthropology
in the study of magic is to be found in the collection of essays offered to E.E.
Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations, ed. Mary Douglas (ASA
Monographs, 9), London, 1970, with essays by Keith Thomas, Alan MacFarlane.
Norman Cohn and Peter Brown. For late ancient magic beliefs, see also Ramsay
MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 95-162, and
A.A. Bard, "The Survival of the Magic Arts" in Paganism and Christianity in the
Fourth Century.ed. Arnold Momigliano (London, 1963) pp. 100-125. The contrast
between 'learned' and 'popular' magic is stressed by Edward Peters, The Magician,
The Witch and the Law (Philadelphia. 1978). and R.A. Horsley, "Further
Reflections on Witchcraft and European Folk Religion", History of ReligionsXIX,
1. (1979) pp. 71-95.
Transformation of the magos: Peters, t-20; Peter Brown, "Sorcery, Demons and
the Rise of Christianity" in Witchcraft Confessions and Accusations, 17-45
(Religion and Society in the Age of Augustine (New York, 1972), pp. ! 19- !46).
See also Pierre Riche. "La magie carolingienne", Acad, des Inscr. et de
Belles-Lettres: Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'année 1973. Jan.-Mars, pp.
127-138, and Raoul Manselii, "Simbolismo e magia nell'alto Medioevo". Simbolie
simbologia nell'alto Medioevo, (Spoleto, 1976), pp. 293-348.
2
Brown, p. 35; Theophilus legend: L. Radermacher, Griechische Quellen zur
Faustsage (Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wien, 206 (4),
1927.) pp. 53-117.
 s
associated with excessive reading of pagan works, have been shown
in several instances to arise in contexts quite separate From the
opposition to such folk religious practices as spells; charms, or
potions by village specialists.' Currefit theoryjalšo emphasizes the
significance of the distinction between witcheratt ariti.sordery; that is·,
between the implicitly evil power of the witch and the impersonal use
of learned techniques of power- manipulated by the sorcerer.4
Finally, .hese· studies have shown, the importance oř- foctìSsittg
attention on' the causes and con-text of accusations of rftagib, rather
than on the content of >magical pracíieeenpeF'se. S'wotrarò'emphasis
recognizes the fact that it is the accusers,· not the praotjtiörters,'äböüt
whom historians can make meaningful observations';^!!1 also Sees
periods of intense accusation of magic or witch*hutïlinlg as moments
of crisis in a continuum of belief and practiced'Iftithe light of the
perspective described above, this study will examine some aspects of
the tradition of the magician and the sorcerer' in'¡ntnth and tenth
century Byzantium *as they appear in the most'extensive genre of
popular religious literature, the saints lives of the period.
Hagiographical texts form an especially important source for such an
investigation, not only because surviving works for this period are
relatively plentiful, but also because the saint figured, in the
medieval view, as the natural heroic opponent of the magos, the
sorcerer, and their supernatural masters. This study will not attempt
to establish the «absolute existence or non-existence of magic (or its
efficacy), nor will it consider whether any Byzantine religious

1
Horsley, "Further Reflections", pp. 71-77, commenting on recent literature. This
distinction is strongly argued in Richard Kieckhefer's study, European Witch Trials:
Their Foundation in Popular and Learned Culture (Berkeley and Los Angeles,
1976).
4
Max Marwiek,1 Witchcraft and Sorcery (Harmondsworth. 1970), pp. 11-18, offers
a succinct definition· of anthropological «ses of the terms.
* Brown, "Sorcery", pp. 19-22; this perspective is especially strongly argued by
Norman Cohn in Europe's Inner Demons. (New York, 1975). hut it is also adopted
in most recent studies of late medieval and early modern witchcraft and magic. For
reviews of recent literature, see Peters. Magician, Appettdix 3 (pp. 203-21 2). and E.
William Monier, "The Historiography of European Witchcraft", Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 11 (1972). pp. 435-452.
 6
practices should be characterized by modern·scholars as magical.
Rather, it will be limited to the use ol" terms for magic and sorcery —
μαγεία, γοητεία, φ α ρ μ α κ ε ί α — t h e situations iti which they were
employed, and t h e toles allotted by hagtogr'aphers to the magician
a n d s o r c e t e r . In-particular, it wilfc attempt- tó establish, the extent to
which conflicts between saints a n d sorcerers figured in hagiographie
texts, and whether-the Sphere of thd μ ά γ ο ς or γ ό η ς in such episodes
may be located -?n f- particular politicali or«: social contexts.
Hagiographieal'writers'of ι this era», it· will.be* argued, drew clear
distinctions b e t w e e n · j e a r m d ' a n d popular traditions of magic, and
associated power« of.»magic with i h r e e o t h e r specific situations.
if the fear of sorcery is t o b e measured by frequency of accusations
of magic practice*-the'sowrces examined h e r e demonstrate, at the
outset, that«<accusations " of magic were relatively rate in
mid-Byzantine sain4s> -rives. Of the 48 texts examined, canflicts
between saints and various kinds of magicians were found in just six
texts, and suspicion of-magic m two others/' Peripheral references to
ft
This study has been based on lives of saints, mostly contemporary, whose
composition can be assigned with some degree of assurance to the period between
800 and ca. 1000. Texts examined include the lives of: David. Symeon and George
(BHG 494), Eustratios of Augaros (BHG 645), George of Amasiris (BHG 668).
Gregory the Decapolite (BHG 711), Joannes Psichaites (BHG Í06), Joannikios
(BHG 935 and 936), Makarios Peleketes {BHG 10003). Patriarch Methodio*
(BHG 1278), Michael Synkellos{BHG 1296). Patriarch Nicephorus (BHG 1335).
Nicetas of Medikion (BHG 1341), Nicetas Monomachos the patrician (BHG
1342b). Plato of Saccoudion (BHG 1553), Patriarch Tarasioš (BHG 1698),
Theodore of Studion (BHG 1754, 1755, 1755d), Theophanes the Chronographer
(BHG I787z), Euthymios of Sardis {summary, BZ 53 (1960) 36-46). George or
Mytilene (BHG 2163), Nicephorus of Medikion <BHG 2297), Peter of At roa
(BHG 2364. 2365), Theoctista. mother of Theodore of Studion <BHG 2422),
Andreas Salos (BHG 115z), Antonius the Younger (BHG 142), Athanasia of
Aegina (BHG 180), Constantine the Jew ( 8 H G 370). Demetnanos of Kythera
(BHG 495), Euthymius the Younger (BHG 945), Nicholas of Studion (BHG
1365), Theodora of Thessalonica (BHG 1737, 1738, 1739), Euaristos of Studion
(BHG 2153). Patriarch Euthymios (BHG 651). Basil the Younger (BHG 263),
Blasius of Amorion (BHG 278). Irene of Chrysobaianto (BHG 952). Maria the
Younger of Bizye (BUG I 164). Peter of Argos (BHG 1504), Thomais of Lesbos
(BHG 2454), Empress Theophano (BHG 1794), Luke the Younger (BHG 994),
Luke the Stylitě (BHG 2239). Michael Maleinos (BHG 1295). Paul of Latinos
(BHG 1474), Nicephorus of Miletos (BHG 1338). References to magic will be
discussed below.
 -ι

the existence of magic are more frequent, especially repetitions of

popular appellations for prominent figures. In the light of the
confrontations with-the devil and the cures of demonized sufferers
that continue to fill the pages of these biographies; the qcèd îo
identify human episodes are not, as a tecent stud y.mi. popu lar
demonology characterized them, a simple projection.of «diabolic
work, and a constant source of opposition to saints in all, phases of
their activities.7 They may be characterizedin the following mannen.
First, the traditori of the learned magician. This ffguret, ; thè
inveterate seeker after dangerous knowledge in ancientuseeuliir
wisdom, is the most familiar medieval magos,.and the· best known
Byzantine example cones from this period in John the Grammarian.
Legends of John's occult learning were widespread and, as has
frequertly been demonstrated, intrinsically connected to the
religious and politica! opposition to his iconoclasm." In assessing the
hagiographical use of the stories, it is essential to note that references
to John as a magos are derivative, play no essential role in the story,
and are included as a part of a well-known indentity of the character
in some of the most partisan biographies of the ninth century
patriarchs and confessors. Thus, the Vita of Joannes Psichaita
describes the Patriarch as "ό πρόδρομος τοΰ αντίχριστου, ό την
Ίαννοΰ υπερβάς πλανήν ταϊς μαγικαίς έπινοίαις" and as ό γόης."
In very similar language, the biography of Makarios Peleketes
identifies John as lannes "ό των κακών πρόδρομος ... Ίαννής ... τις
ών άλλος ταίς μαγγάναις και γοητικαίς άπάταις την τοΰ
κρατούντος ύποκλέπων ... in the course of a capsule history of
iconoclasm.10 The concept of forerunner of Antichrist is repeated in

' P. Joannou, Demonologie populaire, demonologie critique au xK siècle: la vie

inédite de S. Auxènce, par M. Psellos (Wiesbaden, 1971). p. 20-21.
s
Earlier literature is summarized by Pau! Lcmerle in Le premier Humanisme
byzantin (Paris, 1971), pp. 135-147. Discussion of John's occult learning in J.B.
Bury. History of the Eastern Roman Emp/re (Repr. New York. 1965). pp. 443-445.
" Vita Joannes Psichaita. (ed. van den Ven. Le Muséon N.S.3. ( 1902). 103-125). p.
117.
'" Vita Macarii Pelecetes (éd. Van de:i Gheyn. Analecta Bollandiana 16 (IS97).
142-163), 11.
s
the vita of the Patriarch Nikephoros, and i¡s to be found also in the
Pseudo-Symeon Magister." John is called μ.ί^γφμάντης in the life of
Eufhymios of Sardis, the biographer of the^Çir-aptai identifies him as
an Egyptian magos dwelling wi φ lambros,,and ,the,lives of Theodore
of Studien as a λεχανομ^γ-ζης-.'τίΑΊΙ,οΓ,,φε^ο epithets derive from the
ancient Jannes-Iarrtbros-legcnd,.,anďrefJect, the variety of invective
freely associated with the patriarch,, byt,l,iagiographers added no new
details to chronicle ve#si£Has. of, ( the Je,gend.'¡The,association of the
Patriarch s magic prac^igejSywij:!! pagan, ,}esari)irig is made explicit by
the y/raof T h e o d o r e of £ft^fi,Qnýth^se,two Hvesand the biography of
Joanries-Psichaita alsoiçorttjajfl.anusjojftstp th«,story of the Patriarch's
underground laboraiqry. 14 , But vt,i§ noteworthy tha' these are brief
references,, never spejjed o u t , in /the,,detail of the version of
Theophanes Continu^tus; dearly,, they were intended for readers
who knew the charges· against John The most explicit episode of
magic practice attached ,tq the Patriarch, the story of the
three-headed statue, is not referred to in any hagiographical text. |S
In light of the fact that all .these .references occur in the course of a
repetition of the evils of iconoclasmi, and in the works most bitter in

I
' Vita Nicephori Patriarchi a. Ignatio(PG 100, 41-160), 36: δχ<τω της Ίαννοΰ και
Ίαμβροϋ μεγαλορρημοσύνης ... υπό των του σκότους εύρέτων και του
'Αντίχριστου προστατών και προδρόμων ήΐΐέτητο...
Ps. Symeon Magister, Bonn, 4 (p. 606): Συμμύστας επιζητήσας ευρίσκει
Ίωάννην τον λεγόμενον γραμματικον, άλλον Ίαννήν μάλλον ή Σίμωνα, ός και
Ύλζιλας ώνομάζετο, όπερ Έβραίστι ερμηνεύεται πρόδρομος και συνεργός του
διάβολοι». Here the phrase is applied to the Jannes legend.
12
Vita Euthymii Sardis 231 (Summarized J. Gouillard, BZ 53, (1960), 36-46). p.
43; Vita Theodoři Grapti(PG 116,653-684), 18; Vita Theodoři Studi A (PG 99,
233-328), 32: Β (PG 99. 1 13-232), 61.
II
Jannes-Iambros legend; PW Bd. IX. 1. Col. 693-695. For artistic reflections of
the 'Jannes* legend applied to John the Grammarian, see J. Gouillard. "Art et
littérature théologique à Byzance au lendemain de la querelle des images', Cahiers
de Civilization Médiévale 12 (1969), 1-13.
14
V. Theod. Stud. A, 32 B. 61. V. Joannes Psich. . p. 117.
s
' Theophanes Continuatus, Bonn, p. 155-156. Discussion of the stoieheiosis: L.
Biehicr, "Un patriarche sorcier à Constantinople,"., Revue de l'Orient Chrétien 9
(1904), p. 261-268; J.B. Bury. Eastern Roman Empire, p. 443. n. 3
 9

their invective against the heresy, they can only underscore the
essentially ihetorieai use of a political legend. '
A similar reputation for magic practice isr attached t o ô ' n e ' o t h e r
figure in strongly partisan texts of the eat lytéirth century. Theodore
Santabarenos, the one-time abbot of Stud"an' and alleged-Confidant
of Photios, is identified in the Vita Ignátií'WÍih invective 'and
innuendo as possessor of: μαντικής 5¿ s μάλλον δ-έ μαγικής^'φάοι,
και όνειροκριτικής, ήτοι οαιμονίοους σοψίαζ!άή&Ί\Λ& 'aWé^atìOn is
repeated in t h e E m p e r o r Basils last speech 'fVv'ihh'VJta'Euth^inii:^6
"άι, αι, ό έπο-Οοδίαις καί, μα^νανείαις TëçM.TCm,oi-èç Σ α ν -
ταβαρηνος..." Bui Nicetas P'aph.lago qualified hìfe'acéòufit in the life
of Ignatius with an important ψάσι that refer¥éťl"rtie listener to
reports heard elsewhere, and two other hagiogMph'rcal references to
Santabarenos are bitierly hostile in tone, but dö'riöt accuse the abbot
of magic. 7 Once again, the epithets are political in context, and they
have been shown to be derived from written non-hagiographical
sources. In these reports, Santabarenos's own learning is not made
clear; his reputation is used, instead, to implicate by association the
learning of Photius.' 8 Mid-Byzantine hagiography, thus, may be seen
to have reflected, on occasion, suspicion of the learned magician. But
it did not create such accusations, nor did this figure appear as a
central concern of the genre.
Much more intrinsic, and dangerous, to the authority of a saint,
was the second kind of magician — the pseudo-saint. In classic
hagiographical tradition, demons in disguise could be distinguished
from authentic visions by their smell, and charlatans easily gave

16
Vita Ignatii Patriarchi (PG 105, 488-574), col. 568; Vita Euthymii (ed. P.
Karlm-Hayter, Brussels, 1970). p. 5.
17
Vita Theophanis (ed. Kurtz, Mémoires de l'Académie Imp. de St. Petersbourg,
Vlil ser., Ill, 2. (1898), 1-24) 12: καί τούτου την καρδίαν προςφόνονάνάπτει και
την γλώτταν προς λοιδορίας ότρύνας, δόλους καί συκοφαντίας συρράπτειν...
Vita Nicolai Studii (PG 105, 863-925), p. 908, merely comments that Santabarenos
held the abbacy of Studion while Nicholas was in enforced exile.
Is
P. Karlm-Hayter, Vita Euihyir.ii, pp. 37-53, shovvs the dependence of V. Ignatii
and Ps. Syrneon on a common written source and demonstrates the legend's
implication of Photius. ' ' '
 IO

themselves away ' But ninth and tenth centuiy texts contain a tew
indications of uneasiness ovei the line between the authentic
muacle-woikei and the spell-bindei Tne besi known and most
authentic incident is found in the eonfiontation between Peter of
Atroa and T h e o d o r e of Stuciion, which is recorded both m the
b i o g n p h y of Petci written by his contemporaiy Sabas <\ηύ in the
thiee lives of T h e o d o r e of Studion T h e o d o i e , a v o i d i n g to both
souices. was suspicious of Peter's extreme ascetic practices and
reputation as a miracle worker, his suspicions focused on the teai
that r e t e r might be a s o r c e / t r — γόης — rather than a s a i n t : " Only
after a meeting anc doctrinal examination was Petei 'cleared' and
pronounced orthodox in a general letter -' Peter himself reflected
the very same fear m his account of the encountei of his great
contemporary JoanniKios with a magos named Gourias In Petei's
account (also to be found, somewhat shortened, in Sabas's version of
the biography), the magos Gourias insinuated himself into the
discipleship of the saint under false pretenses, attempted to call
down a demonic host against the samt, then fed him a poisoned milk
and honey mixture - What is particularly interesting in Peter's story
is not the eventual unmasking of the Gourias or the saint's recoveiy
from the poisoning attempt, but the identity of the magos Gourias is
described as a 'misleader of people' (λαοπλάνος) who lived 'falsely
and feignedly' an eremitic life, and was 'piaised by all". His attack

'*' Vita Gregoru Decapohtis (ed Dvornik. Travaux publia par ¡'Institute d'Etudes
Slaves. V, Pans, 1926. 45-75). 8, includes an assurance that a vision of the young
saint is not demonic because of its light and odor και τη της ίύιοοιας ασυγκριτω
παρατασει την θανατηψόρον όομήν της των έναντκον σηπεοόνος έξαφανιίονσα
Other examples of demons appearing in angelic form are cited by Joannou,
Demonologie populaire, pp 11 - Π . 1 S
20
Víra Petri A troa (ed V Laurent, Subsidia Hagiographica 29. Biussels 1956)^7
Vita retractata (ed Laurent, Subsidia Hagiographica 31. Brussels, 1958) ibid V
Theod Stud A 59 και γοητα υποκαλονντίον οία τας γινομενας υπ' αύτον
ίΚ(ΐ·ματουργίας The accusation is recounted more generally in Vira β 1 17
1
V Pet Atroa 38 repiodutes the letter In his commentary on the ehaptei
Laurent aiguës for its authenticity
" Vita loamcii a Petro A troa (A ASS Nov II 1 (1894), "Í84-43Š) 21 22 Vita a
Saba mon (AASS Nov II 1 (1894) 3^2-383) 18-19
 Il
:
stemmed from jealousy of the saint's popular reputation. ' In other
words, this was a riyal (but false) holy man.
A similar fear may be found in one of the episodes of the life of
Andreas Salos, in which a pious woman became possessed by a devil
after an unwitting recourse to a magician. The woman, we are told,
wished to win back her husband from prostitute^,,and had sought
help from a man named Bigrinos on the advjee of a friend. The
author describes the mind-reading ability, of B.igrïnos, his popularity
with crowds, and the woman's acknowledgement of his reputation
for 'virtue in the Lord'. 24 The magos's .cure, was indeed effective —
using oil, candles, and a belt, Jie made the, husband develop a
revulsion for his old habits, and accepted pay only as a donation to
the poor for the salvation of the woman's soul. 2 ' As a part of the
theme of the Vita, the real explanation of these acts was given by
Andrew as attempts to counteract the protection of baptism, but the
woman's confusion was not surprising. Bigrinos possessed the holy
man's cardinal virtue of seeing into men's souls, and the objects and
methods used in his spell all have parallels in the deeds of
contemporary saints. 26 Like Gourias, Bigrinos was presented as a

2
' V. Joannic a. Petro 20: λαοπλάνος τε και μαγομάντις ύπαρχων, καί ... τω
οιαβόλω κατηρτισμένος καί χρηματίζων έρημικον τε βίον ούκ αληθώς καί
επιπλάστως έπανηρημένος καί μόρφωσιν ευσέβειας συσχηματιζόμενος εχειν, την
οέ ούναμιν αυτής πάνττ] ήρνημενος, ούτος 6 παμμίαρος αοομενην ύπο πάντων καί
κατ' άξίαν εύφημουμένην την τού αγίου ονόματος ανάρρησιν του θειοτάτου
πατρός ημών μη φέρων ένηχεΐστ)αι. φίτονερώ πάθει...
24
Vita Andreae sali a. Nicephoro(PG 111. 625-888), 129-1 39. See esp. I 29: Νυν
oi'v ήκουσταί μοι τα κατά σέ. οτι είς ει τών έναρέτιον τώ κυρίω, καθότι πολλούς
κινδύνων έξήρπασας...
:
' V. Andr. sal. 130.
2(
' The power of clairvoyence (το οιορατικον) was a standard attribute of the ninth
and tenth century saint. A good description of its use and importance may be found
in the vita of Irene, abbess of Chrysobalantos(AASS Jul. IV. ( 1 729). 602-634). 30;
a parchment spell and belt was used by Anthony the Younger to cure infertility
(Vita Antonii junioris, ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus. (Συλλογή παλαιστινής καί
συρ. αγιολογίας Ι) Pravoslavnyz Palestinskij Svorník XIX. 3. St. Petersburg.
(1907). 186-216) 13). Holy oil and candles formed the standard medium for
exorcisms. Some examples are collected by Joannou, Demonologie populaire, pp.
ponular public figure with a reputation as a seer rather than a
sorceror. The inclusion of the story in a text like the Andreas Salos
vita means that it should probably be taken as an edifying tale rather
than an authentic experience, but the hagiographer's fear was that of
Peter of Atroa and Theodore of Studion. Bigrinos and Gourias were
seen as powerful figures, able to call down phalanxes of demons, to
induce terrible nightmares, and, if not to poison Saint Joannikios, at
least to give him a very bad stomachache. 2 7 Peter of Atroa was, in the
eyes of his contemporaries, either the most spectacular ascetic of his
day or a fearful sorcerer. The same doubt might also be applied to
any holy figure who strayed too far from accepted conventions of
ascetism, as it was to Irene of Chrysobalanto, an ascetic abbess
whose biographer twice felt compelled to raise and rebut the
accusation that the saint was a magician rather than a holy woman. 2S
Given the number and variety of mid-Byzantine ascetic texts, it is
only surprising that the fear of charlatans is not more frequently
expressed.
The incidents discussed so far have involved public figures
suspected of practicing magic in the guise of religion or learning. But
on a more ordinary plane, folk magic was an accepted part of
Byzantine life, and saints lives of this period reflect the use of spells,
charms and potions. Some texts indicate how common some of these
practices were; thus, T h e o d o r e of Studion includes among the proofs
of his mother's saintliness in lay life the fact that she did not make use
of omens, amulets or spells in childbirth 'like other women', and one
of the clients of the relics of Thomais of Lesbos was a man who had
been enchanted by 'sorcerers and spell-binders' and had lost the use
of his hand.2** Hagiographers treated such instances as lesser sorcery,
requiring no exceptional demonstration of the power of the relics of
the saint; instead, the theme was presented in essentially the same
manner as the commonplace topos narrating the inability of doctors

27
V. Joannic a. Petro 22: a. Saba 19.
2S
V. Ircnis 5. 74.
29
Theodore of Studion, Oratio Funebris (PG 99, 884-902) 2: Vita Thomais
Lesbiae (AASS Nov. IV. 1925. 234-242). 19.
 13
to cure disease. The power of holy relics was presented as superior to
magic, as it was to medicine, out hagiographers die! not feel the need
to expose the practitioners themselves as figures of evil.
Rather, magic of this sort was accepted in these texts, as in recent
times in rural Greece, as possessing its rightful sphere. 111 Conflict with
saints appeared when a magician invaded the territory of the ascetic.
For example, among the cures at the tomb of Maria of Bizye was that
of a man who went away from her shrinë half-cured and fell into the
hands of a ' φ ά ρ μ α κ α γ υ ν α ί κ α ' who'treated him''with'tricks, spells
and drugs, necessitating a return tö thë'félics of Maria fòrt;omplete
healing. 11 The most elaborate encouriter'with sorcery of this kind was
an act of aggression on the part of a magos: The vita of Irene of
Chrysobalanto includes a long narrative describing the demonic
possession of one of the nuns in the saint's convent through a spell
cast, at long distance, by a Cappadocian magos employed by a
disgruntled suitor. 12 The account is almost certainly the most colorful
version of magic in the hagiography of this period; it describes
Irene's vision of the Virgin appearing at Blachernai to dispatch the
appropriate saints — Basil of Cappadocia and Anastasia
Pharmakoloutria — to Cappadocia to retrieve the magician's
images. O n the following day, the biographer relates, the startled
nuns saw two figures fly over their convent and drop a package from
the sky, proving to contain the parchment spells and two lead images
of the nun and her suitor. The demonized nun recovered as the idols
were melted in a holy lamp, releasing the sound of squealing pigs. 11
The story is to be found in a biography that is undeniably
imaginative, but before it is dismissed as legend, some instructive
features in the hagiographer's vision should be noted. It is strikingly
similar to an eigth century miracle account of the relics of Saint

"' Sec the narratives collected by Richard and Eva Blum in The Dangerous Hour
(London, 1970) especially pp. 27-37 and 143-160.
11
Vita Marine junioris Bizyae (AASS Nov. IV. (1925), 692-705) 28; ibid. ed.
Kourilas (Thrakika 26, (1957). 1 1 1-147) 53-54.
12
V. Ircnis 41-43.
11
V. Ircnis 44-50.
14
Anastasius in Rome which also features the possession of a nun
through a speli cast by a distant magos at the request of an unhappy
suitor. In both instances, the magician was remote from the event
(Cappadocia and Sicily) and, in the Irene story, even the images need
not be present to effect the enchantment.1'4 But where the Anastasios
story quickly shifted its focus to the possessing demon and its
politicai affiliations, Irene's biographer concentrated his attention
on the mechanisms of sorcery and their destruction. Although both
writers found it easier to see a magos of such calibre practicing in a
remote and perhaps symbolic spoi, they cast him in the mold of the
ancient sorcerer, the skilled manipulator of knowledge, rather than
as an intrinsically evil figure.1"5 Indeed, neither magos nor suitor is
mentioned subsequently in either story; they figure solely as
initiators of the conflict, and are never explicitly punished or
condemned. Irene's action in the story was consistently defensive;
through prayers summoning her supernatural host, her function was
to destroy the images rather than to confront the magos. In this, she
expelled the magic pollution invading her community; as in her other
miracles and ascetic acts, Irene's powers were exercised to protect
the sanctity of her convent and family. Here, as in the episode at the
tomb of Thomais of Lesbos, it was not the existence of a magician,
but his aggression against the authority of the saint that established
their confrontation.
All of these episodes also represent, in some way, a concept of
magic related to domestic spheres of life. Recourse to sorcerers is
associated here with dangerous passages of life like childbirth, or in
crises of love, as it continues to be in rural Greece. ?h The Byzantine
'wise woman' responsible for the client of Maria of Bizye may

14
Miracula romana Anastasii(ed. Usener. Acta M. Anastasii Persae.Bonn, 1894),
1.4-20.
35
Sicilian saints" lives more frequently include encounters with magic; in addition to
the life of Gregory of Agrigentum, discussed below, the eighth century v/řaof Leo of
Catania (ed. Latyšev, Mémoires de l'Académie Imp. de St. Péfersbounr, Vlil ser.,
12, 2. (1914), 12-28). is entirely given over to the story of the magos Heliodorus.
with the saint appearing only at the end of the story.
Blum, The Dangerous Hour, pp. 270-275.
 15
indicate that practice of such sorcery was frequently associated with
women. The sources for these narratives may be significant as well,
for all are found in the lives of women saints — two of them married
lay women whose biographers felt compelled to defend the
authenticity of miracle-working relics stemming from such an
unlikely source."
One more encounter with magic remains to be considered in this
study. The transition from magic, to witchcraft in European belief
involves the development of the concept of an implicitly evil power,
often as a result of an explicit compact with the devil. Where sorcery
is thought to be the acquisition of techniques, witchcraft is frequently
inherited. Included in the life of Basil the Younger, an episodic work
with some similarities to the vita of Andreas Salos, is an account of
the enchantment of the author himself where, for the first time in
these sources, a witch-like figure is encountered. According to the
author, the wife of an employee on his estate seduced all in the
vicinity by 'magic arts'; such was her power that anyone who
attempted to resist her advances was struck with a serious disease or
died. When the woman's attentions were focused on the author, he
was visited with visions revealing her league with the devil and
serious illness. The girl in this story is presented not as the possessor
of spells, but as intrinsically evil, harmful, and irresistible to all on
whom her eye fell. Her power came from her mother — an even
more frightening woman 'able to stop the flight of birds or turn the
courses of rivers, and possessor of other powers too terriWe to
name'.' 8 This story, too, has precedents in earlier hagiography. The
prostitute is a common figure, most often as an exemplum for
conversion. In the vita of Gregory of Agrigentum a prostitute was
used as the tool of magic schemers to convict the saint unjustly, but
she did so reluctantly, and the story ended happily with her
conversion and tonsure as a nun. Elsewhere prostitutes are seen as
seductive or evil, but not, in this age, as possessors of supernatural
evil. South Italian saints' lives, in particular featured seduction

V. Maríae jun. 25; V. Irenis 70, 73.

Vita Basilii junioris (AASS Mar. Ill, 24*-38*) 44-48
16
attempts on saints by married women."' But in none of these
biographies was there a suggestion of witchcraft. The Basil the
Younger narrative presents a figure of supernatural evil, in league
with the devil, if not specifically the maker of a pact with Satan, who
inherits her powers from a mother who is described as a
nature-magician, and whose gaze is a sort of evil eye. It is significant,
however, that no trace of western literary traditions associated with
witchcraft appears here. The author used traditional terminology for
sorceresses in describing his enchantment; the powers of the mother,
in particular, are closer to Virgil's description of the magic of a
Carthaginian priestess than to western medieval witch descriptions.
Virgil's lines, quoted by Augustine, spoke of a magic that could
"Turn rivers backward to their source/And make the stars forget
their course/And call up ghosts from the night". Absent from this is
any sign of the western literary tradition of the strix, the night-flying
and shape-changing witch.40
What conclusions can be drawn from these episodes? Belief in
magic and sorcery certainly was accepted by the writer of the
mid-Byzantine saints' life; it is found in 'eyewitness' as well as distant
and legendary lives. Traditional terminology for magic is employed,
and no real distinction between magic and sorcery is used by these
authors. The terms μάγος and γόης are generally used together, and
if the magos seems to imply a somewhat more imposing figure, their
arts — μαγεία and γοητεία — appear interchangeably. The use of
spells and potions — φαρμακεία — is associated with magicians in
these texts, but it is also applied to the lesser sorcery of the
folk-magician. By and large, magic is to be found where one would
expect to find it: in bitter religious conflict, at the margin between
holiness and eccentricity, and in areas of life traditionally thought to
be magic — birth, love and sex. And although hagiographical
examples are too few in number to be really convincing, they may
represent some development in the way Byzantine writers conceived

™ Vita Gregorii Agrigentini (PG 98, 549-716) 53-55. 74: Vita Elia Siculi (cd. G.
Rossi-Taibbi, Vita di Sant'Elia il Giovane, Palermo, (1962), 2-122). 12-14: Vita
Elia Speliotis (AASS Sept. Ill, 848-887), 22-25.
Augustine, De Civitate Dei XXI, 6 (Tr. Dods, New York. 1950).
 17
of magicians and sorcerers. The legend of the pact with the devil, if
not explicitly repeated, is alluded to in several oí these episodes, the
Andreas Salos story explains the magician's acts as an undoing of the
baptismal rite, and Basil the Younger's temptress exhibits some of
the qualities of the witch.
But when these narratives are put into the context of the
hagiography of the ninth and tenth centuries as a whole, the fear of
magic cannot be seen as a major concern for Byzantine writers. What
appears, instead, is a continuum of traditional sorcery and magic,
partly accepted as a constant fact of life, which provided a real threat
to Christianity and the power of the saint only in a few specific
circumstances. O n those occasions — when magic masqueraded as
holiness, when it directly challenged the authority of a saint, or in
particular cases involving sexual temptation — a major
confrontation between saint and magos was inevitable. But, unlike
demons, the varieties of magic do not appear as serious rivals to the
saint; Byzantine hagiographers appear to have been willing to
ascribe most evils directly to Satan and his demons. If witch-hunts
and accusations of magic, as opposed to ascriptions of evil to
supernatural causes, are to be seen as a measure of a society's need
for human scapegoats, we can only conclude that ninth and tenth
century Byzantium had no such crisis. 41 The texts examined here
exhibit a large degree of confidence in the power and authenticity of
the saints, against which the fear of imposters and charlatans is not
significant, and the belief in learned magic appears to be largely
political in nature. On the basis of these sources, it is impossible to
tell how much Byzantium deserves its image of a society especially
steeped in magic; if we are to accept such a characterization, it must
be on the basis of other sources or through our own definition of
what constitutes magic rather than theirs, for the hagiography of the
period, as a record of religious attitudes, clearly will not sustain any
such interpretation.

41
For the development of these legends, see J.B. Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle
Ages (Ithaca, 1972) pp. 45-100, (the fullest exposition of materials); Cohn,
Europe's Inner Demons, esp. pp. 1 10-120, 206-210, and Peters, Magician, Ch. 1
and 2. Cohn and Peters emphasize the literary and rhetorical nature of the evidence
for nightwitches in the early middle ages, and criticize Russell's reliance on the
materials.
 A TALENT TO ABUSE: SOME ASPECTS OF
BYZANTINE SATIRE*

BARRY BALDWIN / CALGARY, ALBERTA

I begin in the best Byzantine manner with a quotation from a

distinguished predecessor. Romilly Jenkins 1 once said: "The
Byzantine Empire remains almost the unique example of a highly
civilised state, lasting for more than a millennium, which produced
hardly any educated writing which can be read with pleasure for its
literary merit alone". A grim verdict, one endorsed by other
experts,2 and widely disseminated by those who hold it as an article
of faith that great Greek literature could not by definition be
produced in a period in which apo governs the accusative case.
To some extent, this attitude springs from a failure to realise that
Byzantine literature does not begin and end with the 161 volumes of
Migne's Patrologia Graeca. The blinkered view was perhaps
excusable before Krumbacher. 1 That it should have persisted in
tandem with the opening up of the riches of Byzantine secular
literature is a situation both sad for those who know better and
misleading (to say the least) for those who do not. Also an oddly
regressive one. When H. F. Tozer brought out his now somewhat
antiquated, but in his day pioneering, article on Byzantine Satire in
JHS 2 (1881), he expounded good historical and human reasons for

* This paper was first delivered to the Sixth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference
at Oberlin. Ohio, October 24-6, 1980.
1
R. J. H. Jenkins, Dionysius Solomos (Cambridge, 1940), 57.
2
For notable instance, C. Mango, "Byzantine Literature as a distorting mirror".
Past & Present 80 (1975), 3-18.
J
K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Litteratur2 (Munich, 1897).
20
assuming the existence of a satirical tradition. 4 And he knew from
H a s e s Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits'' of a dozen or so examples.
But the student who turns to Baynes & Mossfl will find only the
Philopatris, Timarion, and Mazaris ackowledged, whilst the reader
of Runciman's Byzantine Civilisation7 is given the same three titles
and ihe flat statement "even satire was r a r e " .
The briefest of surveys will disabuse the student of that notion. Of
the unholy trinity of Philopatris, Timarion, and Mazaris, I leave the
first out of account. Not for reasons of time, but because as I show in
the forthcoming volume of Yale Classical Studies — self-
advertisement being another Byzantine feature of the present paper
— there is no warrant for the usual· ascription of this dialogue to the
reign of Nicephorus Phocas. It could be even later;" or as early as the
fourth century.
The Timarion (is its anonymity suggestive or just an accident of
circumstance?) and Mazaris are usually classified together as
Lucianic. A predictable description, and misleading. Paradoxically,
these two pieces are both more and less Lucianic than their editors
suggest. A comic catabasis to Hades inevitably reminds one of
Lucian (equally, or so it should, of the Frogsof Aristophanes), but at
least in the case of the Mazaris, given its fifteenth century date, may
also comport parody of such romantic and serious literary descents
as the Apokopos of Bergadis and the Rima threnetike eis ton pikron

4
Art. cit., 233-4: "Repression, whether in the character of political despotism or of
literary mannerism, - and both of these existed in the Byzantine Empire - has the
effect of forcing genius into side channels, and criticism, when it cannot be exercised
openly, finds for itself indirect methods of expression, which are usually
characterised by a tone of bitterness".
5
Vol. 9 (Paris, 1813), 2, 129 f.
6
Byzantium: An introduction to East Roman Civilisation (Oxford, 1949), 239.
7
S. Runciman, Byzantine Civilisation (London, 1933). 247.
s
The most recent editor, R. Anastasi (Messina, 1968). assigns it to the
mid-eleventh century, a notion accepted by C. Robinson. Lucian (London, 1979).
73.
¡cai akoreston Haiden of Johannes Pikatoros." Incidentally, those
who seek to find both wit and universality in Byzantine literature
should savour the fact that the plot of the Timarion, a man dying
before his time and being restored to life, anticipates in large
measure the recent hit movie Heaven Can Waitl
As R o m a n o ' s admirable commentary 1 0 shows, the Timarion is at
times a veritable cento of Lucianic phrases. The Mazaris, by contrast,
is not: the only formal debt is a punning use of the Lucius or the Ass
title. Needless to say, the author will have been familiar with Lucían.
If Treu and Barker are right," the satire was in fact written to the
order of the e m p e r o r Manuel 2, whose correspondence vouchsafes
his own enthusiasm for Lucian. 12 Whatever be the truth of this, 11 the
Mazaris proper is postluded by three attachments: the narrator's
resurrection dream and two letters. The form and purpose of these
puzzle the most recent editors, leading them to speculation about
sequels produced in response to the success of the main dialogue. In
truth, it need be nothing more than imitation of Lucian's Saturnalia,
where the main piece is followed by a group of mock letters.
De gustibus non est disputandum. So I shall simply disagree with
Krumbacher's 1 4 low opinion of the Mazaris ("Die Hadesfahrt des

g
On these, see (for example) L. Politis, A History of Modern Greek Literature
(Oxford, 1973), 41-2.
10
R. Romano, Timarione (Naples, 1974).
" M . Treu. "Mazaris und Holobolos", BZ 1 ( 1892), 86-97; J. W. Barker, ManuelII
Paleologus (Rutgers, 1969), 407, n. 19. The argument is based on a epistolary
epilogue to the Mazaris, not found in the manuscripts employed for the older
editions of J. F. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca3 (Paris, 1831), 112-86; A.EIlissen,
Analekten der mittel-und neugrichischen Litteratur 4 (Leipzig, I860), 187-250
(The Timarion is also edited here).
12
The emperor quotes Zeuxis 2 in a letter to Manuel Chrysoloras; cf. Barker, op.
cit., 179.
'-1 The most recent editors. J. N. Barry, M. J. Share. A. Smithies, and L. G.
Westerink (Buffalo, 1975), regard this as impossible (Intro;, xiv), preferring
Manuel's son Theodore 2, Despot of the Morea, as the addressee.
14
Op. cit.. 494.
->">
Mazaris ist zweifellos die schlechteste der bis jetzt bekannt
gewordenen Imitationen des Lukian"), my own enthusiasm for its
crude vigour being helped by sharing the author's fondness for
paronomasia. In its largely contemporary content, it differs
markedly from the safe, classicising universality of Lucian's targets.
One feature may be singled out, as having wider and important
application. A favourite theme of the Mazaris is the iniquity of the
medical profession. So also of the Timarion, a detail stressed in Nigel
Wilson's introduction to the extract offered in his Anthology of
5
Byzantine Prose.* This is not a Lucianic feature, Lucian himself
generally showing marked respect for the profession. 16 But it is a
traditional theme of G r e e k literature: witness the many epigrams in
the Greek Anthology, or A t h e n a è u s ' caustic remark (15. 666a)
" W e r e it not for the doctors, there would be nothing more stupid
than the professors". Hence one of R o m a n o ' s arguments 1 7 for
Nicholas Callicles as the author of the Timarion, turning on his
medical expertise, is invalid.
"Lucianic" is also the epithet bestowed upon the prose satires of
Theodore Pródromos, notably by G . Podesta who edited three of
them in Aevum.iH Here, again, we must discriminate. Self-evidently
so is the Bion Prasis,[9 though even here notice the difference of
sale-objects between the two: philosophers in Lucian, men of letters
and of public life in Pródromos. Not at all Lucianic is the Demios or
Iatros, along with the movie Marathon Man one of the two most
wincingly gripping comments on dentistry I have ever come across.
In selecting this target, T h e o d o r e demonstrates some originality.

15
N. G. Wilson. An Anthology of Byzantine Prose (Berlin, 1971), 111.
16
H. Crosby, " Lucian and the Art of Medicine", TAPA 54 (1923), 15-6; J. D.
Rollestone. "Lucian and Medicine", Janus 20 (1915), 86-H)8.
17
Op. cit.. 28; cf. his "Sulla possibile attribuzione del Timarione pseudo-lucianeo a
Nicola Callide", Giorn. It. Fil. 25 (1973), 309-15.
18
Aevum 19 (1945). 239-52; 21 (1947), 3-25.
'" Analysed in some detail by Robinson, op. cit.. 69-72. The Philoplaton is discussed
by M. J. Kyriakis, "Satire and Slapstick in Seventh and Twelfth century
Byzantium", Byzantina 5 (1973), 291-306.
 23
Dentistry does not rate much space in ancient manuals; indeed, it
does not even make the indexes either to Phillips' Greek Medicine or
Scarborough's Roman Medicine.2" In opting for a medical theme,
Theodore Pródromos is conditioned by two things: literary tradition
and the fear and hatred of doctors manifested, most strikingly, in the
Lives of the early Byzantine saints.21
Fusion is an operative word in considering Byzantine satire. The
third PtochoProdromic poem22 inveighs against abbots who feast in
the midst of their starving monks, a theme transplanted from
classical literature, above all Juvenal's Fifth Satire. Theodore
Pródromos' tragic parody Catomyomachia2* certainly owes
something to Lucian's Tragodopodagra (both merit comparison with
Housman's Fragment of a Greek Tragedy). But as Mercati24 pointed
out, there is direct verbal borrowing in the prologue from Gregory
Nazianzen, thence perhaps forging a link with that more solemn
cento, the Christus Patiens, attached to Gregory's poems in the
manuscript tradition, but possibly close to Theodore's own time. The
mock inscriptional decree is another Lucianic device,25 one
employed in a satiric text published by Hunger26 with the enchanting
title Gegen eine Byzantinische Mafia. A character in this is
Nyktibios, a name similar to Nyktion, one of the two demons who
spirited Timarion down to Hades, whose name has caused some
puzzled debate. Parody of official language is the style of the

20
E. D. Phillips. Greek Medicine (London, 1973); J. Scarborough. Roman
Medicine (London, 1969).
21
Cf. H. J. Magoulias, "The Lives of the Saints as sources of data for the history of
Byzantine Medicine in the sixth and seventh centuries". BZ 57 (1964), 127-50.
22
Cf. Kyriakis, art. cit.. also his "Poor Poets and Starving Literati in Twelfth
Century Byzantium", Byzantion 44 (1974), 290-309.
23
Edited by H. Hunger (Vienna, 1968).
24
S. G. Mercati, "Il prologo della Catamyomachia". BZ 24 (1923/4). 28,
establishing a debt to Greg. Naz. Ep. 4 (PG 36. 25b).
25
See F.W. Householder. "Mock Decrees in Lucían". TAPA 71 (1940), 199-216.
26
Revue des Etudes Sud-est européennes 7 (1969), 95-107 (reprinted in the
author's Byzantinische Grundlagenforschung, London, 1973).
24
Porikilogos and its imitation, the Opsarologos. These, along with
various animal fables,27 may be placed within a loose tradition
extending from the fourth-century Latin Will of a Pig to Orwell's
Animal Farm. Obscenity is another satirical technique, evidenced in
a mild way by the comic catechism Eis Pornas,2* and very much more
powerfully by the blasphemous Mass or Office of a Beardless Man.
And this is only a portion of what we have. A little guesswork may
be permitted on some of what we know we do not have. Nicephorus
Basilakes, one representative of the twelfth century Patriarchal
School so ably disentangled by Robert Browing,2** wrote amongst
many other things four satirical poems: Onothriambos, Stupax or
Paradeisoplastia, Stephanitai, and Talantouchos Hermes. The first
conjures up the term onokoites, applied by pagans to Christ,50 also
the ceremonial pre-execution parading of a rebel against the crown.
Sfupax(Rope-seller) is the nickname given to Eucrates in a fragment
of Aristophanes. 31 Stephanitai can connote a victorious athlete, the
wearer of a martyr's crown, or a married man; also notice
Stephanopolides, the title of a play by Eubulus. Talantouchos
describes Ares holding the balance of war in Aeschlus, Ag. 439.
The abusive impulse was not, of course, unique to the Byzantines.
It was part of their classical tradition, a point made very clear by
Anna Comnena's employment of the Latinism phamousa to describe
the libellous pamphlets flung into her imperial father's tent.32

27
For remarks on all of these, see Politis, op. cit.. 37.
2S
Text in Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca 4 (Paris, 1832), 464-6.
2g
"The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century", Byzantion
32 (1962), 167-201; 33 (1963), 11-40 (reprinted in the author's Studies on
Byzantine History, Literature, and Education (London, 1977).
-w Tertutlian, Apol. 16; compare the term onobatis, applied to an adulteress
punished at Cumae: Plutarch, Mor. 291e.
31
Frag. 696. The subtitle reminds one of the epithet paradeisogenesbestowed upon
Christ by Anastasius Sinaita, S. hex. 12 (PG 89. 1064a). Or there may be erotic
possibilities; cf. A. Littlewood, "Romantic Paradises: The role of the garden in
Byzantine Romance", BMGS 5 (1979), 95-114.
« Alexiad 13. I.
 25
1
Michael Jeffreys' classic study of the political verse' correctly
reaches back to the soldiers1 songs and popular graffiti of imperial
Rome recorded by Suetonius. A popular title or subtitle to
Byzantine verse onslaughts is skoptikoi iamboi, denoting a tradition
going back to Archilochus, albeit I know of no classical precedent for
the unorthodox avenue of publication once chosen by the iconoclast
emperor Theophilus: branding metrically irregular (deliberately so,
to aggravate the shame!) verses on to the foreheads of the monks
Theodore and Theophanes. 34
In his Anatomy of Satire (which largely ignores the Byzantine
contribution), Gilbert Highet drew the following distinction: "Satire
wounds and destroys individuals and groups in order to benefit
society as a whole. Lampoon is the poisoner or the gunman. Satire is
the physician or the policeman. "3-s A just discrimination.
Nevertheless, its real-life basis is certainly one reason why satire,
unlike some other genres, was successfully pursued by the
Byzantines. The acclamations of the circus factions'6 furnish one
obvious example. It was pointed out long ago37 that the scene in
Procopius, Anecd. 15. 25-35, in which Theodora has a group of
eunuchs mock the hernia of a venerable patrician in a parody of
church responsions, contains an early example of the political verse.
Theophanes 38 records a scene in which the mob obscenely ridiculed
the emperor Maurice by so insulting a kidnapped victim who looked
like him. Less noxious is the refrain chanted in comic honour of what

33
M. J. Jeffreys. "The Nature and Origins of the Political Verse', DOP28 (1974),
143-95.
34
On this notorious (it is recorded in several Byzantine chronicles and histories)
episode, see Krumbacher, op. cit., TOI.
^ Anatomy of Satire (Princeton, 1962), 26; there is a passing reference (257) to
Michael Psellus' diatribe against a monk (see below, n. 49), and to the Office of a
Beardless Man.
36
Cf. P. Maas, "Metrische Akklamationen der Byzantiner", BZ 2 I ( 1912), 28-51.
37
By D. S. Robertson, "Procopius, Hist. Arc. XV. 25-35", CR 57 (1943), 8-9.
38
Α. Μ., 6093, p. 282, 16.
26
the young Alexius did in Cheese Week, where Anna Comnena™
finds it necessary to present a prose paraphrase of the meaning,
implying a real or affected incomprehension on the part of her
educated audience towards popular ditties. More virulent is the song
against the empress Theophano, assuming that Morgan40 was right to
transform what used to be thought a Cretan prophetic text into this
lampoon. Undoubtedly nasty were the songs made up and spread
through the countryside by the Alexandrian populace about the
alleged sexual liaison between Dioscorus and the nicely-named lady
Pansophia Oreine, reported by the deacon Ischyrion to the Council
of Chalcedon.41 Equally unpleasant must have been the "filthy
language" used even during the Eucharist by an enemy of that
anonymous Byzantine scholar whose correspondence was published
by Robert Browning.42
The salient generalities may be drawn together in the person of
Constantine the Rhodian. 41 He is best known to students of literature
for his Ecphrasis14 of the Church of the Holy Apostles, and for three
frigid epigrams in the Anthology.45 But tucked away in the relative
obscurity of Matranga's Anecdota Graeca4* is a very different
manifestation of his art. Constantine was playing that most popular
of contemporary sports, denunciation of the hapless Leo
Choerosphactes. His effort, well characterised by Robert

■M A lex ¡ad 2. 4.
4(1
G. Morgan "A Byzantine Satirical Song?" BZ 47 (1954). 292-7.
41
For these, and similar effusions, cf. T. E. Gregory, Vox Populi (Ohio, 1979), 71,
η. 38; 177, η. 9 1 .
42
"The Correspondence of a Tenth-Century Byzantine Scholar", Byzantion 24
(1954), 397-452 (reprinted in Studies...).
43
His career is admirably delineated by G. Downey, "Constantine the Rhodian: His
Life and Writings", Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend Jr. (Princeton,
1955), 212-21.
44
Edited by E. Legrand & T. Reinach, REG9 ( 1896), 32-103. and by G. P. Begleri
(Odessa, 1896).
45
AP 15. 15-7.
46
P. Matranga, Anecdota Graeca 2 (Rome, 1850), 624-5.
 27
47
Browning as "un poème bizarre", consists of 34 lines, most
comprising a single sesquipedalian compound in the manner of
Aristophanes, accusing Leo of every conceivable and inconceivable
vice. 4S The same technique 4 " is used in this iambic exchanges over
some ill-defined literary or philosophical matter with the (to us)
mysterious eunuch, T h e o d o r e the Paphlagonian. 5 " Constantine of
Rhodes was no idle scribbler. Rather did he anticipate the modern
"Dirty Tricks" brigades, making his name by producing scurrillous
pamphlets at the behest of that sinister character, the A r a b eunuch
and secret police chief Samonas, himself no stranger to accusations
of unnatural vice. 51
The name of Lucian has kept cropping up, regarding whom a
mistake may have been made by those unfamiliar with Byzantine
habits. Thanks to the vitriolic notice in the Suda, and the 39 abusive
epithets flung at him by scholiasts, 52 Lucian acquired the reputation
of being the Anti-Christ. The main villain in the story is Arethas. 5 -'
But Lucian was no unique victim of his abuse. Many of the epithets
assembled by Rabe are flung by Arethas at (for predictable example)

47
"Ignace le diacre et la tragédie classique", REG 80 ( 1968), 402 (reprinted in the
author's Studies...).
48
A typical example is μοιχοπαιδοδουλοσκανδαλεργάτα (24).
4y
Manifest on occasion in Psellus' iambic onslaught on the monk Jacob: text and
commentary in L. Sternbach. "Ein Schmähgedicht des Michael Psellos", Wiener
Studien 25 (1903), 10-39.
50
Text in Matranga, op. cit.. 625-32. It is not clear whether Paphlagonian refers to
geographical provenance or the blustering nature of Theodore: cf. Alan Cameron,
Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius(Oxibrd, 1970), 3,245.
51
See R. H. J. Jenkins, "The Flight of Samonas", Speculum 23 (1948), 217-35
(reprinted in the author's Studies on Byzantine History of the 9th and 10th
Centuries,. (London, 1970).
52
See the index conviciorum compiled by H. Rabe, Scholia in Lucianum (Leipzig,
1906). 336. They cover a wide range from atheist to pederast, with bomolochos
prevailing as the most popular insult.
53
A number of the manuscripts of Lucian contain his offensive marginalia,
including the celebrated Harleianus 5694 in the British Museum by his own hand.
2<S
the emperor Julian, not to mention poor LeoChoerosphaetes. 54 Nor
was Arethas the only person to crack nuts with sledgehammers.
Photius on John Philoponus, for instance, or Lucius Charinus is just
as brutal.55 Or Tzetzes on practically anyone, calling as he does one
victim "Bull-father, moonstruck son of a goat."5" Scurrillity was but
a tool of the Byzantine trade.
From title to Conclusion, I have endeavoured to point up both the
particular and the universal nature and appeal of Byzantine Satire,
again in disagreement with Romilly Jenkins who, in this paper57 on
the Hellenistic origins of Byzantine literature, concluded that
"Satire, indeed, was to some extent revived in later centuries; but it is
satire that has lost all urbanity and charm." A touch of american
content may provide an appropriate finale. Browsing through the
new Penguin Book of Insults — a very Byzantine compilation, it
might be thought — I discovered that when Theodore Roosevelt
wished to abuse Woodrow Wilson, the best (or worst) thing he could
come up with was "Byzantine logothete".

54
For these onslaughts, see L. G. Westerink's Teubner edition Arethae Scripta
Minora (Leipzig, 1968), 200-12, 221-5. Collation of Westerink's index verborum
(incomplete, but a valuable foundation for study) with Rabe's register of convicia
discloses that Arethas employs a good third of the latter.
55
BibL. codd. 55, 75, 114.
56
Hist. 9. 958, 60-8: Schol. Ar. Plut. 43. 21-44. 2 (ed. W. J. Koster, Groningen.
1960). For a detailed analysis of the abusive language of Tzetzes, cf. Jeffreys, art. cit.
'The Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Literature", DOP 17 (1963). 39-52.
E V A G R I U S SCHOLASTICUS: A L I T E R A R Y ANALYSIS

VALERIE A. CAIRES / COLUMBUS, OHIO

The historiography of the Byzantine Empire is often approached

as literature, and indeed literary histories of Byzantium would be
smaller and much less interesting if historiography were to be left
out. In the sixth century A.D., Evagrius Scholasticus (ca. 537-594)
wrote his Ecclesiastical History,1 which covers both secular and
religious history from 431 to 593. Evagrius was a well-educated
lawyer of high social position who was employed by Patriarch
Gregory of Antioch, an important leader of the church, and his
History is an important example of sixth-century Byzantine attitudes
and literary style. Due to the high educational standards prevalent in
the Eastern Roman Empire, Evagrius remains a self-conscious
disciple of a conventional tradition which looks back to Homer and
Thucydides as exemplars of elegant style, despite the fact that he is
writing in a non-classical genre. His Ecclesiastical History also
necessarily contains post-classical influences from other church
histories, the Bible, and hagiography. Evagrius' stated purpose is to
continue the history of the Church where others (Sozomen,
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Socrates) left off. While his History
cannot be called a scintillating work of art, it does occasionally
surprise the reader with its literary merit, and it is thus interesting for
more than the historical facts which it alone preserves.

1
Evagrius, The Ecclesiastical History, with the scholia, ed. with introduction,
critical notes, and indices by J. Bidez and L. Parmentier, Byzantine Texts (London:
Methuen & Co., 1898, rpt. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert —Publisher, 1964), for
the Greek text. The English translation is my own with some reference to the
following: Theodoret and Evagrius, Λ History of the Church, trans, from the Greek,
with memoirs of the authors, Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library (London: Henry G.
Bohn, 1854); Evagrius, A History of the Church in Six Books, trans.. The Greek
Ecclesiastical Historians of the First Six Centuries of the Christian Era., vol. 6
(London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1846).
30
Evagrius, of course, uses his literary devices in order to express his
own point of view, and his background as a provincial aristocrat
affects his ideas and focus as well as his writing style. In general he is
more interested in local affairs in Antioch than in events which occur
far away from home.2 Descriptions of theological controversies and
civil wars, along with the author's moral judgments, permeate the
work which is written using the reigns of various emperors as its
framework.1 In terms of thematic division and focus, Evagrius'
criteria for dividing his work into books are not clear. Sometimes the
material covered in a given book has structural unity; however, the
divisions often appear to be arbitrary, made for the sake of
chronological order. Throughout the History he presents the details
of the continuing and shifting doctrinal differences between those
who supported the doctrines of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at
Chalcedon (451 ) and their opponents the Monophysites, and he uses
his report on the Council as occasion for the longest and most
detailed ecphrasis in the work. A primary concern is the unity of the
faith, but nevertheless the History emphasizes the importance of
ethical behavior (a classical tenet) more than it does any emperor's
personal beliefs or the manner of his participation in Christian cult,
which Evagrius appears to have taken for granted. (Indeed his
mildness toward the heresy of Monophysitism, although he himself
was a Chalcedonian, must reflect the mood of compromise prevalent
in his time after the many concessions which had been made
throughout the years since 451 in order to keep peace within the
empire's population. He is much harder on Nestorianism, which had
long been a dead issue for the empire).
Evagrius quotes several sources which express standard classical
and Christian views on kingship. Heresy is viewed as a threat to the
stability of the state, and emperors are supposed to keep the empire

2
He devotes 31 chapters to Antioch and 22 to Alexandria, which receive more
attention than Constantinople, which has only 19 chapters devoted to it despite its
prominence as the capital of the empire.
3
Book I: Theodosius II (408-450); Book II: Marcian (450-457) and Leo 1
(457-474): Book III: Zeno (474-491) and AnastasiusI (491-518);Book IV: Justin
I (518-527) and Justinian 1 (527-565); Book V: Justin II (565-578) and Tiberius
(578-582); Book VI: Maurice (582-602, but the History stops at 593).
 31
prosperous by ensuring that correct doctrine prevails and by being
ethical persons themselves. In the standard Byzantine view,
therefore, there is no division between an emperor's spiritual and
secular duties. Evagrius, however, demonstrably reserves his praise
for emperors who embody moral virtues such as generosity (without
regard to the economic needs of the empire) and self control (by not
being slaves to pleasure), and he particularly appreciates Marcian
(45(f-457), Tiberius (578-582), and Maurice (582-602) for
possessing these virtues, while not dwelling on their religious stances
in respect to Chalcedon. He even devotes a larger number of pages to
them than to other emperors when the length of their reigns is taken
into consideration. While he does not always praise or criticize an
emperor directly, his great enthusiasm and praise for an emperor in
the form of an encomium, juxtaposed with almost complete silence
about the virtues of another or open disapproval of a debauched
Chalcedonian, make his preferences clear.
Optimism about the empire and its future prevents Evagrius from
being absolutely objective and from presenting a complete picture of
it. His tendency is to stress not defeats but miracles, and he
frequently omits negative information entirely. For example, he
leaves out all mention of the loss of most of Italy in 568 although he
happily reports its acquisition during the reign of Justinian. The
History ends on an optimistic note, during a period of prosperity
under Maurice for both Evagrius and the empire, just before this
comfortable world is about to end. Evagrius does not see, or at least
he does not relate and/or respond with any alarm to the major signs
of trouble to come: the separate Monophysite Church, the increasing
power and strength of the Persians and the Avars (perhaps because
of the recent peace with the Persians in 591), and the tendency of the
army to mutiny (Maurice will lose his throne and his life in 602
because of another mutiny).
In his presentation of his world view, Evagrius demonstrates that
he is a product of his education, a conservative education which
sought to preserve an ancient Classical tradition. Eloquence and fine
writing cater to an established and cultivated audience, and literary
works written according to tradition contain their own special
brilliance and are attractive, at least to their particular public.
Evagrius tries very hard to be part of this rhetorical tradition, but
M
does not always succeed.
Evagrius' diction is not poetic, for he makes very few allusions to
poetry (only three references to Homer), and when he quotes
classical prose authors, it appears to be for literary display and is not
necessarily evidence of great learning nor of significant stylistic
influence. Interestingly enough he shows no hesitation in using
phrases derived from classical works in religious contexts. He may
not have been familiar with all such authors, and his knowledge
about the texts he mentions is probably due to their presence in
school anthologies. There is, however, ample evidence in his History
of his familiarity with the three basic divisions of rhetoric: forensic
(judicial oratory), epideictic (ecphrasis and encomium), and
deliberative (political oratory).
According to the rules of ancient rhetoric, a speech (in particular a
forensic one) had four to six parts: exordium (the opening), narratio
(statement of facts), divisto (forecast of main point to be made),
confirmatio (affirmative proof), confutano (rebuttal), and peroratio
(conclusion). Some systems combine narratio and divisio, and also
treated confirmatio and confutano together. With these speech
divisions in mind, an examination of the treatment of Nestorius by
Evagrius is quite instructive. Evagrius thoroughly condemns
Nestorius and declaims as if to an imaginary audience. His diatribe is
not a normal forensic speech, so the discussion will bridge judicial
and epideictic rhetoric. The passage, however, has a certain flavor
that calls the courtroom to mind; Evagrius, after all, was a lawyer.
Portions of Evagrius" condemnation of Nestorius (I, 7) fit the
rhetorical pattern of speech-making. Although it lacks an exordium
in the sense of an appeal to judges, it begins with a combined narratio
and divisio which includes, according to Evagrius, some facts not yet
recorded by an historian before he himself found the information in a
book written by Nestorius. He states that he will discuss the
following points: όπως δέ ό Νεστόριος έξηλάθη, ... τι μετά ταΰτα
γέγονεν έπ' αύτω,... όπως τον τηδε κατέστρεψε βίον, και ών ετυχεν
αμοιβών της βλασφημίας ένεκα (how Nestorius was banished, ..
what happened to him after this, ... in what way he died, and what
retribution he received because of his blasphemy; 1,7). In this way he
makes clear the main themes he will pursue in his discussion of the
patriarch.
 33
Evagrius then proceeds to present Nestonus" own statements
about his exile (confirmatio), only to rebut them one by one
(confutatio) over several pages. After inserting a Biblical allusion
referring to the foolish man who built his house on sand, 4 he goes on
to relate Nestorius' version of his banishment in very long, periodic
sentences, with a great deal of subordination and use of participial
phrases. He usually maintains normal Late Classical rhythmic
clausulae containing two or four syllables between the last two
accents of the periods. He also makes frequent use of the dual and
occasionally uses homoeoptoton (similar case endings in parallel
constructions). A telling point — Nestorius' suppression of the fact
that he renewed his blasphemy — is placed in a sentence consisting of
only five words: T o δε γε κ α ί ρ ι ο ν ά π ε κ ρ ύ ψ α τ ο (But he concealed
the main point). Evagrius thus underlines the importance of this
allegation through his unusual terseness. It is at this point that he
begins to refute Nestorius' arguments and relates the details of the
deposed patriarch's ordeals and sufferings due to his banishment as
proof that Nestorius deserved to be punished. After being captured,
then released, by Nomads, he died a deservedly miserable death.
This argument is not based upon logic and to the twentieth-century
mind is not persuasive. Evagrius' second " p r o o f is his use of Arius
as an example, thus drawing a close parallel between the two men,
their heresies, and their unpleasant deaths. In his third reasoned
argument, Evagrius recalls a line from Pericles" Funeral Oration: ώς
τινι των τΐύραθε σ ο φ ώ ν ειρηται, "το μη έ μ π ο δ ώ ν ά ν α ν τ α γ ω ν ί σ τ ω
εύνοια τετίμηται" (as has been stated by one of the heathen sages.
" W h e n one is out of the way, he is honored by unopposed good
will"). 5 In other words, after death when there is no longer cause for
jealousy, a person's true merits are clear. Since Nestorius has
continued to have a bad reputation, as compared to Cyril of
Alexandria whose memory is still lauded, this proves, according to
Evagrius, that the former patriarch of Constantinople has no defense
against Cyril of Alexandria and the decisions of the Council of
Ephesus (431).

4
Matthew 7. 26.
5
Thucydides II. 45.
34
Continuing his case against Nestorius, Evagrius quotes several
passages from the patriarch's letters which he believes settle the
argument once and for all. He pretends to address Nestorius directly
(apostrophe) and asks him to read his letter to the Theban governor
for all to hear. This adds immediacy to the passage and makes it
resemble a courtroom scene all the more. Evagrius quotes Nestorius'
own descriptions of his ordeals where he asks for humane treatment
from the Byzantine authorities. It is a pitiful account, but Evagrius
shows no pity. In his opinion Nestorius deserved to suffer, and so his
exhaustion and pain were not deserving of commiseration, but were
to be considered proof that he had sinned. The perorado or
conclusion of his argument is in the same vein and is not very
forceful. As a final degradation, Nestorius' tongue was eaten
through with worms before his death and passing to greater
punishment.
Evagrius' argument as itunfolds is not very logical, but in rhetoric
the end often justified the means, especially if one had a moral
purpose. No doubt he was completely convinced of Nestorius'
perfidy, and sought to prove with all his literary resources and
expedient arguments that the patriarch was guilty as charged of
blasphemy and had received his just retribution. Never the less,
Evagrius' choice of material for his proof undercuts his position.
Nestorius' complaint to the governor is so vivid and moving that it
creates pity, at least in a modern reader, where Evagrius sought to
eliminate it. Thus, despite his rhetorical skill, his ability to marshall
evidence and cast it in fine language, Evagrius misses the mark and
does not entirely convince. His own audience no doubt was more
sympathetic to his position.
Another important kind of rhetoric was epideictic oratory which
included ecphrasis and encomium. There are two major ecphrases in
Evagrius' History, his description of St. Sophia (IV, 31) and of
Chalcedon (II, 3). An important contrast between Evagrius'
treatment of St. Sophia and Procopius' in his Buildings is that
Evagrius concentrates on describing the actual structure while
Procopius is more interested in panegyric and it is difficult to
visualize the edifice that is the subject of his attention.
Evagrius is very restrained when describing the events at
Chalcedon where the Council condemned both Nestorius and
 35
Eutyches (who started the Monophysite heresy). H e does not
criticize, praise, or interpret these actions; he merely reports. H e
does, however, devote a large portion of Book II to the proceedings
at Chalcedon (II, 4, 18), held in a beautiful area, the precinct of St.
Euphemia, which he takes the trouble to describe in great detail (II,
3). This ecphrasis is a virtuoso set piece designed to show off his
talents. It begins by specifying the geographical setting for the
Council:

Άλίζονται τοίνυν άνα το ιερόν τέμενος Ευφημίας της μάρτυρος,

δπερ ϊδρυται μεν επί της Καλχηδοναίων του Βιθυνών έθνους,
άπφκισται δε του Βοσπόρου σταδίοις ου πλείοσι δύο, εν τινι των
ευφυών χωρίων ήρεμα προσάντει·

They met together therefore at the sacred precinct of the martyr

Euphemia, which is situated in the city of Chalcedon in Bithynia, and
is distant from the Bosporus no more than two stadia, in one of those
well-situated spots which has a slight incline;

Then he proceeds to take us along the walk-ways into the temple, and
describes in detail the vista of land, sea, and the capital from that vantage
point.

ώστε τους περιπάτους ανεπαίσθητους είναι τοίς ες τον νεών

άπιοϋσι της μάρτυρος, έξαπίνης τε μετεώρους είναι εϊσω τών
ανακτόρων γενομένους· ώστε τάς όψεις έκχέοντας εκ περιωπής
άπαντα θεωρεϊν, ύπεστρωμένα πεδία ομαλή και ΰπτια, τή πόα
χλοάζοντα ληΐοις τε κυμαινόμενα και παντοδαπών δένδρων τή θέα
ώραϊζόμενα, όρη τε λάσια ές ΰψος εύπρεπώς μετεωριζόμενά τε και
κυρτούμενα, άταρ και πελάγη διάφορα, τα μεν τή γαλήνη
πορφυρούμενα και ταϊς άκταΐς προσπαίζοντα ηδύ τι και ήμερον
ένθα νήνεμα τα χωρία καθεστασι, τα δε παφλάζοντά τε και τοις
κύμασιν άγριαίνοντα, κάχληκάς τε και φυκία και τών οσ­
τρακόδερμων τα κουφότερα μετά τής αντανακλάσεως τών κυμάτων
αυτής άνασειράζοντα. Αντικρύ δέ τής Κωνσταντίνου το τέμενος,
ώστε και τή θέα τής τοσαύτης πόλεως τον νεών ώραΐζεσθαι.

The result is that those going to the martyr's precinct do not perceive
the approach, and suddenly they are on high ground within the
temple; so that extending their gaze from a vantage place they see
36
everything: spread out, level, flat plains, green with grass, waving
with corn fields, and adorned by the sight of every kind of tree; and
wooded mountains rising gloriously to their heights and swelling
rotundly; and various aspects of the sea, here gently heaving and
playing with the shores in a pleasant and quiet way where there are
calm areas, there boiling and wild with waves, drawing back the
pebbles, seaweed, and lighter molluscs with the recoil of its waves.
The precinct lies opposite Constantinople, so that the church is
beautified also by the sight of such a city.

Here the effect is one of sudden awe due to the surpise of unexpected
arrival at the church and to the beauty of nature in all its forms:
productive, beautiful, calm, and excited. Civilization in the form of
Constantinople is also viewed as beautiful. Returning to the church
itself, its separate components (buildings, columns, domes, and so
forth) are mentioned in detail, as is the reliquary of the martyr
herself:

Τρεις δ' υπερμεγέθεις οίκοι το τέμενος · εις μεν υπαίθριος, έπιμήκει

τη αυλή και κίοσι πάντοθεν κοσμούμενος, ετερός τ' αύ μετά τούτον
τό τε εύρος τό τε μήκος τους τε κίονας μικρού παραπλήσιος, μόνω
δέ τω έπικειμένω ορόφω διαλλάττων ■ ου κατά την βόρειον
πλευράν προς ήλιον άνίσχοντα, οίχος περιφερής ες θόλον, ευ μάλα
τεχνικώς έξησκημένοις κίοσιν, ΐσοις τήν ΰλην, ΐσοις τα μεγέθη
καθεστώσιν ενδοθεν κυκλούμενος. Ύ π ο τούτοις ύπερώόν τι
μετεωρίζεται υπό τήν αυτήν οροφήν, ώς αν κάντενηεν εξή τοις
βουλομένοις ίκετεύειν τε τήν μάρτυρα και τοις τελουμένοις
παρεϊναι. Εισω δέ του θόλου προς τα έωα ευπρεπής έστι σηκός,
ένθα τα πανάγια της μάρτυρος απόκειται λείψανα εν τινι σορώ των
επιμηκών — μακράν ενιοι καλούσιν — έξ αργύρου εύ μάλα σοφώς
ήσκημένη.

The holy site consists of three immense buildings: one, open to the
sky, is embellished with an oblong courtyard and columns on all sides,
and after it is another which is very nearly alike in respect to its width,
length, and columns, differing only in having a roof laid on. O n its
north side, extending east, is a building rounded into a dome,
surrounded within by very skillfully elaborated columns which are
made of the same material and are equal in size. An upper story is
supported by them under the same roof so that it is possible from
there, for those who wish, both to supplicate the martyr and to be
 37
present at the sacraments. Within the dome toward the east is a
splendid enclosure where the sacred remains of the martyr are stored
in a coffin of oblong dimensions — some call it long — very skillfully
worked in silver. (II, 3)

Evagrius successfully depicts Chalcedon and its surroundings, but to

what purpose? T h e first few lines would have served to delineate its
geographical position. T h e long description seems abruptly
introduced and it digresses from the main subject, the Council of
Chalcedon which has just been called. Elaborate ecphrasis was,
however, greatly appreciated in late antiquity and would not have
seemed at all unusual to a sixth-century audience. The long periods,
the varied and expressive vocabulary, the ordered progression of the
description as one moves toward and through the precinct, the vistas
spread out below of land and sea, are all elegantly and clearly
presented. A n o t h e r digression about the miracles which occur due to
St. Euphemia's relics follows immediately and forms a unit with the
ecphrasis before the narrative returns to the subject of the council.
A n o t h e r form of epideictic rhetoric, the encomium, is epideictic in
its embellishment, but often deliberative in intent because it was
written to serve as "a noble example for others to follow in their own
efforts to achieve virtue and nobility in their own lives". 6 Its purpose
was not to present history, but to offer a perfect picture; faults and
weaknesses were therefore omitted. A typical royal encomium
included information about ancestry and birth, nurture and
education (including portents), public life in the form of deeds in
peace and war, and private life (family, death, and so forth). 7
Evagrius' portrait of the E m p e r o r Marcian (450-457) is limited,
but quite conventional. It presents in some detail Marcian's race,

6
Donald Lernen Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1957), p. 136.
7
Cf. this incident to the one described in the childhood of Basil 1 (867-886) in
Theophanes Continuatus, book V, de Basilio Macedone, ed. Immanuel Bekker,
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, vol. 32 (Bonn: Weber, 1838), §5. Also cf.
discussion in Romilly Jenkins, "The Classical Background of the Scriptores post
Theophanem. "Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 8 (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press. 1954), p. 25, for other examples. A similar incident (with doves in place of
eagles) is to be found in Horace, Odes III, 4, 9. The motif is probably even older.
3S
parentage, and fortune before becoming emperor. The historian
defines his subject precisely: ίστορήσιυμεν τις τε ην και όθεν, και
ό π ω ς την βασιλείαν 'Ρίομαίων ανεδήσατο · ούτω τε τα υ π ' α ύ τ φ
γεγενημένα κ α τ ά τους ιδίους άποθιόμε\^α καιρούς (I will give an
account of who he was and from where, and how he become
emperor. And then I will set forth what occured during his reign in
chronological order; II, 1).
T h e tale of M a r c i a n a fortunes as a young man unfolds in short
narrative sentences. His piety toward a dead man's body is praised;
later when Marcian is accused of murdering the man, Divine
Providence intervenes. Having been reprieved through his good
fortune, the future e m p e r o r finds n o difficulty in enrolling in the
army, in a rank higher than customary; he takes the place of a dead
soldier named Augustus. Since Marcian also assumes the name of
Augustus (meaning e m p e r o r ) , Evagrius has a chance to play with
words and laud Marcian at the same time:

ως φθάσαι τοΰνομα την προσηγορίαν των ημετέρων βασιλέων, το

καλεϊσθαι Αύγουστοι μετά της άλουργίδος περιβαλλόμενων·
ώσπερ ουκ άνασχομένου του ονόματος έπ' αύτω χωρίς της αξίας
μείναι, μηδ' αΰ πάλιν της άξιας έτερον όνομα ζητησάσης εις
σεμνολόγημα, ώστε κύριον και προσηγορικον το αυτό καθεστάναι,
δια μιας κλήσεως της τε αξιώσεως της τε προσηγορίας
σημαινόμενων.

Thus did his name anticipate the appellation of our emperors who call
themselves Augusti along with putting on the purple. It was as if the
name was not content to remain with him without the rank, nor again
did the rank seek another name for the sake of pride, so that his
personal name and his cognomen were the same, and his rank and
appellation indicated by the same name. (II, 1)

A further portent of Mercian's accession to the imperial power is

related; when a captive of the Vandal king Genserie, Marcian was
shielded from the hot sun by a flying eagle. 7 The discussion then
turns to Mercian's virtue as an e m p e r o r :

'Hv ó Μαρκιανος τα προς θεον ευσεβής, τα προς πολιτευόμενους

δίκαιος· πλοΰτον ηγούμενος ου τον άπόθετον, ουδέ μην τον άπο
 M
οασμολογιών συμφορούμενον, ενα Οέ μόνον τον τοις δεομενοις
έπαρκείν δυνάμενον και τοις πολλά κεκτημένοις ασφαλή παρέχειν
τον πλοϋτον· φοβερός ουκ εν τω τιμωρείσθαι, αλλ' εν τω
τιμο>ρήσεσνΚχι · δι' α κ(χί την αρχήν άθλον αρετής, ου κληρονομίαν
έ'σχε.

Marcian was pious toward God and just toward his citizens. He
regarded wealth not that which was stored up, nor that which was
gathered from collections, but, one thing alone, being able to assist
those in need and make wealth secure for those who possessed a great
deal. He was regarded with fear, not in punishing but in the threat of
punishing in the future. On this account he possessed the sovereignty
as a prize for his virtue, not as an inheritance. (It, 1).

These are commonplaces; a ruler was supposed to care for his

subjects. Evagrius, in defining Marcian's piety and virtue as a lack of
avarice (along with avoidance of cruelty toward his subjects) is
speaking from an aristocratic point of view. H e makes these
statements about Marcian before any mention of Chalcedon, and the
above virtues could belong to a moral pagan as well as to a Christian
emperor. Evagrius says little else about Marcian's deeds save that he
convened Chalcedon and upheld its provisions (II, 1, 5).
The passage in question is not a complete royal encomium
(βασιλικός λόγος), for, while it covers (in part) the e m p e r o r ' s
background and youth up to the point of receiving the empire, it
offers only sketchy information about his deeds in time of peace and
war, hardly mentions his private life (except for his political marriage
to Theodosius II's sister), and does not dwell upon his death or
funeral. 8 Such portraits, even when complete, were more moral
exempla than historical analyses," and do not describe complete
individuals. T h e attribution to Divine Providence of Marcian's
escape from execution and the pun on his name are conventions
which are to be found in both Christian encomia and hagiography. 1 "

8
Cf. Jenkins, p. 21.
9
Cf. Jenkins, p. 20.
10
Paul J. Alexander, "Secular Biography at Byzantium", Speculum, 15 (1940), p.
200.
40
Marcian's justice (one of the four cardinal virtues) and piety arc
stressed over all else, but we cannot know him as a man complete
with defects through an encomium which by definition seeks only to
praise.
Evagrius' artistic ability in writting an encomium comes into focus
more clearly when he expresses his admiration of the E m p e r o r
Maurice (582-602) whom he knew personally. In fact he is so
enthusiastic about him that he inserts his portrait prematurely in the
midst of his discussion of Tiberius' reign (578-582).
Evagrius relates the emperor's descent along with the four
cardinal virtues he possesses: prudence (V, 19), temperance (V, 19),
manliness (V, 19, 20), and justice (VI, 2). Prodigies foretold his
accession to the throne (V, 21), and he was both a successful soldier
(V, 19, 20) and statesman in foreign affairs (VI, 17-19). The details
of his wedding to the E m p e r o r Tiberius' daugher Augusta are also
given (V, 2 2 ; VI, I). All five major parts of an encomium are thus
present: descent, life leading up to becoming emperor, deeds of war
and of peace, and private life. The picture remains flat, however, for
Maurice is described only in conventional ways and we miss the man.
In Evagrius' History Maurice makes no errors, but we know from
other sources that his reign was not unremittingly successful.
Evagrius is more interested in rhetorical display than in a clear
exposition of Maurice's character. For example, in his discussion of
Maurice's prudence, after inserting a reference to H o m e r to make an
erudite contrast to the emperor's behavior, Evagrius inserts a
paradox and the imagery of the hippodrome:

'ΑμαΐΚαν δέ του θράσους την μητέρα και δειλίαν την άπωκισμένην

και σύνθυρον αύτη οΰτως άπώσατο, ώς το μέν κινδύνευμα
εύβουλίαν είναι, τον δε οκνον άσφάλειαν, ανδρείας τε και
φρονήσεως τοίς καιροϊς οχουμένων και τάς ήνίας πρυτανευόντων
προς δ αν ή χρεία επιτάττοι, και την ΰφεσιν και επίτασιν αύτω των
όρμων μέτρω τινί και ρυθμω γίγνεσθαι.

So much did he thrust away ignorance, the mother of audacity, and

cowardice which is both a foreigner and a neighbor to ignorance, that
making dangerous ventures was soundness of judgment for him and
hesitation represented safety; and both bravery and practical widsom
were charioteers of opportunity and directed the reins wherever
 41

necessity might require, so that both the moderation and

intensification of his efforts took place with due measure and
proportion. (V, 19)

The language is difficult because it is ornate, and these

commonplaces could be applied to anyone. Maurice as an individual
is missing.
Evagrius is also intent on fine phrases in his description of
Maurice's wedding:

Παρήσαν δέ τώ γάμω θεοσέβεια τε και βασιλεία δορυφοροϋσαί τε

έκπρεπέστατα και δωροφοροΰσαι τα τιμιώτατα. Ή μεν γαρ πατέρα
τε και μητέρα παρείχετο, σεμνή πολιά αίδεσίμψ τε ρυτίδι τον γάμον
άγιάσοντας, ούχ ίστορηθέν ες βασιλέας πώποτε. άδελφοί'ς τε
καλούς και ωραίους την γαμήλιον πομπήν σεμνύνοντας. Ή δέ γε
άμπεχόνην χρυσόπαστον, άλουργίδι και λίθοις 'Ινδών κεκοσ-
μημένην, στεφάνους τε χρυσώ πολλώ και ταϊς εκ λίθων ποικιλίαις
τε και διαυγείαις τιμαλφεστάτους, απαντάς τε τους εν άξιώσεσι
περί την αύλήν καί στρατείαις έναριθμίους, κηρούς τε γαμήλιους
έξάπτοντας μεγαλοπρεπώς τε έσταλμένους καί εξ ών γνωρίζοιντο,
καί την νυμφαγωγον πανήγυριν άνυμνοϋντας· ώστε της πομπής
εκείνης μηδέν τών έν άνθρώποις σεμνοπρεπέστερον ή
εύδαιμονέστερον γενέσθαι πώποτε.

Both Reverence and Royalty were present at the marriage, acting as

escorts in a very distinguished manner and bearing very valuable gifts.
For the one supplied a father and a mother to sanctify the marriage
with honorable grey hair and venerable wrinkles — not ever yet
recorded in the history of sovereigns — and noble brothers in the
bloom of life to give dignity to the wedding procession. The other
provided clothing shot with gold, decorated with purple and gems
from India, and very costly crowns with abundant gold and variety
and splendor of gems, as well as all those who were esteemed in court
offices and in the military, who kindled the wedding tapers, arrayed in
magnificent and distinguishing costumes, and who hymned the bridal
festivities. The result was that never was there anything more
majestic or happy among men than this procession. (VI, 1)

Through the ornate language and rhetorical exaggeration of this

ecphrasis, Evagrius evokes the imperial marriage with all the
42
resources at his command, reflecting the Byzantine love of pageantry
and wealth. H e even introduces allegory (Reverence and Royalty)
into his description, and his balanced phrases and complicated
imagery belong to the mannered writing so dear to his time.
Although it does not contribute anything but superficial praise to his
portrait of Maurice, Evagrius' elaborate ecphrasis of Maurice's
wedding is a fine example of his writing ability at its best, understood
within the Byzantine tradition.
Despite his tendency to adhere to the formal rules of rhetoric in a
rather dry manner, Evagrius occasionally shows a talent for
depicting minor incidents in a vivid manner as when he relates the
attempt of the bishops of Epiphania (Evagrius' birthplace) and
Arethusa to depose Severus, the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch,
by sending a deacon to him with a writ:

Βιβλίον καθαιρέσεως αύτφ διαπέμπονται έσέτι την Άντιόχου

πόλιν έπισκοποΰντι. Έγχειρίζουσι δε το βιβλίον Αύρηλιανω, τω
των διακόνων πρώτω της Έ π ι φ α ν έ ω ν δς επειδή τον Σευήρον
έδεδοίκει και τον τήςτοσαύτης επισκοπής δγκον, δτε την Άντιόχου
κατειλήφει, έσθήτα γυναικείαν έαυτω περιθείς προσήει τω
Σευήρω, άκκιζόμενός τε και θρυπτόμενος και δια πάντων το είναι
γυνή σχηματιζόμενος, και το κατά της κεφαλής φάρος μέχρι των
στέρνων καθείς, όλοφυρόμενός τε και μύχιον ποτνιώμενος,
ίκετηρίας τινός προσχήματι προϊόντι τφ Σευήρω τήν καθαίρεσιν
έπιδίδωσι · και πάντας διαλαθών του επομένου εξεισιν ομίλου και
δρασμω τήν σωτηρίαν ώνεϊται, πριν τον Σευήρον τα έν τω βιβλίω
κείμενα γνώναι.

They sent a document of deposition to him while he was still bishop of

Antioch. They entrusted the document to Aurelian, chief of the
deacons of Epiphania. Since he was afraid of Severus and the majesty
of so great a bishopric, when he reached Antioch, after donning
female garb, he approached Severus affecting modesty and coyness
and in every way posturing like a woman. And letting the mantle over
his head fall down to his chest, while wailing and imploring loudly he
gave the deposition to the approaching Severus, pretending to submit
some petition. And, escaping everyone's notice, he went out from
among the attendant crowd and purchased safety by flight before
Severus had learned what was in the document. (111,34)
 43

l i l i s vignette is written in a narrative style which is somewhat

paratactic and more relaxed than Evagrius' usual style of writing. He
evokes the scene pictorially and dramatically, with a rare touch of
humor. It is no doubt a story which was locally known in his native
district and he tells it well.
Deliberative or political oratory is the third division of rhetoric,
and the one true speech in Evagrius' History (VI, 12) is a model of
deliberative rhetoric, designed to paint his patron, Patriarch
Gregory, in the finest possible light. He is portrayed as the only
person able to persuade the Byzantine troops, which had mutinied
over pay cuts and other issues during Maurice's reign (ca. 588), to
yield to higher authority.
The patriarch's oration to the troops begins with an exordium well
designed to placate the soldiers. In a deliberative speech, it was very
important to establish ethos (the character and good will of the
speaker), develop pathos (response on the part of the audience), and
convince through logos (persuasive arguments). The patriarch
makes an immediate appeal to the soldiers by reminding then how he
had helped them in the past in time of need. Throught the exordium
he avoids all mention of the word "mutiny", using instead
circumlocutions such as τά π α ρ ό ν τ α (the present circumstances) and
the fact that they were άστρατήγητοι (without a general). It is not
until the end of the exordium that a sentence (which really represents
the narratio) is somewhat more explicit: ει και π ρ ο ς τους
στρατηγήσαντας υμών την λύπην εκληρώσασθε (even though you
were grieved by your former generals). Patriarch Gregory thus
maintains a conciliatory tone. The exordium avoids labeling the
soldiers' actions as a mutiny, and even goes so far as to qualify their
guilt by stressing the point that they had managed to defeat the
Persians in battle without a leader. H e conjectures that perhaps
Divine Providence had had a hand in the affair, demonstrating the
valor of the R o m a n s to the Persians on the one hand, and giving the
men an opportunity to prove their loyalty to the Roman State on the
other; thus they received forgiveness for mutinying against their
leaders.
In the main part of the oration, the proof (or confirmado).
Gregory discusses what is possible, necessary, and expedient, in
44
order to persuade the troops to yield to authority. H e begins with the
possibility of amnesty which had been offered by the emperor,
inserting a Biblical allusion in reference to the e m p e r o r s heart being
in the hand of God, a standard topos of Byzantine imperial
rhetoric." He emphasizes the emperor's belief that God had given
the soldiers victory because they were loyal Romans. Patriarch
Gregory then goes on to insist that it is necessary to accept the offer
of amnesty before the critical moment slips by. At this point in the
argument, Gregory uses the first personal plural and unites himself,
in a way, with the soldiers: και μη κ α τ α π ρ ο δ ώ μ ε ν τον π α ρ ό ν τ α
καιρόν (and let us not betray utterly the present opportunity). H e
thus introduces a maxim about the critical moment and goes on to
appeal to their memories of their ancestors' obedience and valor.
With this sort of patriotism, the ancient Romans had conquered the
world.
Gregory's remaining arguments follow much the same pattern;
maxims, appeals for loyalty to the state, are mingled with threats
which gradually increase in severity. An exemplum of a son who was
killed by his father for disobedience despite his valor (threat) is
followed by a maxim about the need for leaders and followers to
work together to achieve any success. He then returns to the specific
issue at hand and urges them to prove their loyalty once and for all
and return to obedience. After a final threat that he will wash his
hands of them if they do not yield, Gregory emphasizes the
expediency of his advice. Pretenders to the throne usually fail and
they will find it difficult to obtain supplies without fighting against
their fellow citizens. H e r e an oblique allusion to the deliberative
speech of the Corinthians in Sparta against the Athenians is made.
The Corinthians had stressed the difficulty inland powers had in
provisioning themselves in a struggle against Athens unless they
supported the coastal powers, because Athens ruled the sea:

πόθεν γαρ ή των ωραίων συγκομιδή, ή ων ες άντίληψιν ή θάλασσα

τη ήπείρω δίδωσιν;
11
Proverbs 21, 1. This is a standard topos of Byzantine rhetoric. See Francis
Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Philosophy: Origins and Background, 2
vols. (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1966), II,
p. 625.
 45
For from where will you gather the seasonal fruits or those things in
turn which the sea gives to the mainland? (VI, 12)

χαλεπωτέραν εξουσι τήν κατακομιδήν τών ωραίων καί πάλιν

«ντίληψιν ών ή θάλασσα τη ήπείρω δίδοκη.

They [the inland powers] will have a more difficult time exporting
their seasonal fruits and receiving in turn those things which the sea
gives to the mainland. (Thucydides 1,120,1)

The patriarch then returns to using the first person plural, exhorting
the soldiers in his peroration to benefit both themselves and the
state, and drawing a parallel between their receipt of amnesty and
the saving grace of Easter which was about to take place:

Δόντες οΰν δεξιάς και έαυτοίς και τω πολιτεύματι το συνοΐσον

σκοπήσωμεν, δταν και τάς ημέρας του σωτηρίου πάθους και της
παναγίας αναστάσεως Χριστοί) τοΰ θεοΰ συνεπιλαμβανομένας
εχωμεν.

Let us therefore give our pledges and consider what is advantageous

both to ourselves and to the state, at a time when we also have the
days of the saving Passion and of the most holy Resurrection of Christ
our God supporting [this action]. (VI, 12)

A fine, moving speech embellished with maxims as well as

allusions to both Scripture and classical literature, it remains to be
considered whether or not it represents the oration as delivered.
Evagrius implies that it is: π α ρ ' ους αυτός γενόμενος, και τ α ΰ τ α
κλινοπετής υ π ά ρ χ ω ν , ελεξε τοιάδε (He appeared before them, even
though he was bedridden, and spoke as follows; VI,11). As Evagrius
does not say specifically that he is quoting word for word, there is
room for conjecture that the speech, as recorded in the History, is a
reworking of the tenor of the actual exhortation given by Gregory.
Even though the patriarch was speaking to army leaders and not to
the common soldiers (VI, 11), there remains the strong possibility
that the elaborate Greek and erudite allusions of the speech would
not have been understood, much less appreciated by professional
soldiers. The periods are long, the perfect is used, and in general the
46

language does not appear to be suited to the audience, one of the

cardinal rules of rhetoric. Patriarch Gregory's own ability to write
such an oration is in question, given that he grew up in a monastery
(V,6) and that Evagrius never praises him for his eloquence. If the
speech was delivered as written, it is possible, although impossible to
prove, that Evagrius himself composed it.
Evagrius' literary style is thus demonstrably close to a
conservative and conventional rhetorical tradition which often, but
not always, prevents him from writing clear, lucid prose and from
giving more than one-dimensional portraits of his main characters.
Sometimes his rhetorical excursuses are digressions from his main
point and are purely decorative; at other times he attempts to
enhance his subject with fine language and distracting turns of
phrase. Photius' comment on his style has some justification: εστιδέ
την φράσιν ουκ άχαρις, ει καί πως περιττεύσθαι ενίοτε δοκεί (his
style is not deprived of grace, despite a tendency toward prolixity);12
for Evagrius' prose style is often pleasant to read. He presents his
points of view through his choice of material and direct statement
rather than through vivid action or dialogue, and portrays characters
in much the same way. He endeavors to impart his optimism and
enthusiasm about Maurice's reign, for example, but his one-sided
account of the ruler resembling an encomium does not entirely
convince, even though written in high literary style.
Discussion of Evagrius' History would be incomplete without
some mention, at least in passing, of the influence of non-classical
works on Evagrius' style and language. Procopius, previous
ecclesiastical histories, the Bible, and hagiography all made their
contributions.
Procopius was an important source of both information and
elegant phrases, which were sometimes borrowed without
attribution. Still, while Evagrius borrows phrases from Procopius
from time to time, in terms of his general style of writing he derives
less from authors such as Procopius and his models, Herodotus and
Thucydides, than from the ecclesiastical historians he himself was

12
Photius, Bibliothèque, text and trans. René Henry, Collection Byzantine, 8 vols,
[to date] (Paris: Société d'Edition "Les Belles Lettres", 1959-1978), §29.
 47
continuing. Evagrius' discursive and unstructured narrative style of
writing, which introduces new material at times without warning,
reflects the non-classical standards of both ecclesiastical historians
and Byzantine chroniclers. He often defends his digressions,
however, and believes that he is writing in a systematic manner. u
Evagrius uses Procopius' Wars extensively for much of the
material he presents in his fourth book. This material tends to give
this part of his History a. more anecdotal and lively color than most of
the remainder of the work, but neither Book IV nor the History as a
whole extensively reflects Procopius' style of writing except on the
level of diction. Despite some lexical influence, however, Evagrius
uses Latin terms and late Greek words without apology, unlike
Procopius, and he does not always quote Procopius exactly, often
summarizing and adding his own rhetorical flourishes.
A secular, not an ecclesiastical historian, Procopius frequently
digresses from his main points to give historical backgrounds and
geographical descriptions. He also includes material on military
tactics and battles, and deliberative speeches balanced between the
Byzantine and enemy leaders. Evagrius, on the other hand, inserts
only one deliberative speech into his work, and is probably following
the lead of Eusebius who did not use speeches or dialogues as a
narrative device in his Ecclesiastical History. The only occasions on
which Evagrius gives background material is when he wishes to make
a religious association, to add a moralistic note to his narrative.
When Evagrius discusses secular events, he usually does little more
than state the bare facts about the outcome, rather than discussing
underling causes or the means of attaining the results. His accounts
of battles do not report tactics or strategy, but the practical results
and the moral(s) he can draw from them. In fact he alters or expands
texts from Procopius in order to provide his own moral emphasis.14
The link between the Christian faith and Byzantine imperial

13
Cf. 1,18; 1V,29,31 and 11,4,10; 111,23; IV,7,32.
14
Cf. Evagrius IV,14 to Procopius, Wars III,viii,4; Evagrius IV,16 to Procopius,
Wars III,ix,5 - x,1,18-21; Evagrius IV,17 to Procopius, Wars IV,ix,9; Evagrius
IV,27 to Procopius, Wars II,xii,30 and xxvi-xxvii.
4S
sovereignty is indissoluble in Evagrius' mind, and this affects his
presentation of material, even material borrowed from a secular
source.
O t h e r ecclesiastical histories, the Bible, and hagiography all play a
part in Evagrius' History, but to different degrees. His inclusion of
actual documents and almost cómprete omission of rhetorical
speeches place his style closer to that of ecclesiastical historiography
than that of secular historians. T h e documents, letters, and
inscriptions in the History are cited precisely, for the diction changes
discernibly from Evagrius' usual style, and his quotations prove to be
quite accurate in the instances where it is possible to check them. 15
Along with his quotation of documents, Evagrius also shares an
inclusion of miracles, quotations from the Bible, short biographies of
saints and holy men, barbarian conversions, and encomia of good
emperors with Socrates, Sozomen, and T h e o d o r e t . They too tend to
avoid stressing military details and strategy in favor of making a
religious point of some kind. Evagrius differs from his three
immediate successors (but not from Eusebius) in neglecting dialogue
as a stylistic device. Ecclesiastical historiography thus influenced
Evagrius' treatment of his subject. It did not, however, affect his
diction. He draws on other church historians for information, but
rewords it.
Evagrius also uses biblical quotations and allusions in a limited
manner. The Bible does not represent an integral part of his style of
language. Whenever he quotes it, he states explicitly in almost every
case that the phrase is taken from Scripture, but he quotes the Bible
only 11 times, the context a discussion about the faith or Church in
all but one instance. Biblical language is thus used very selectively in
order to make a point. When Evagrius takes ideas from the New
Testament, he does not quote the language; his literary style is more
tightly structured in its syntax and his vocabulary more sophisticated
and archaic.
Hagiography has somewhat more influence on Evagrius' style, but

15
Procopius quoted letters, but their language was uniform with the remainder of
his rhetoric; they most likely did not represent actual documente, but were rather
narrative devices as they were in Thucydides.
 49

it is still a limited one. Evagrius' language sometimes becomes less

ornate and his style more anecdotal when he relates part of a saint's
life which includes popular material (cf. IV, 7; VI,23). His rare use of
dialogue appears in such a context (IV,7). He still, however, uses
complicated language and paradoxical imagery, which are not likely
to be derived from his hagiographical sources. Saints' lives are much
more discursive and not as compact as the short hagiographical
inserts and reports of miracles included in the History. Evagrius
emphasizes the asceticism and the miracles of holy men and their
relics rather than the motifs of upbringing and choice of vocation
found in complete saints' lives. He thus offers brief sketches, not
complete portraits, of holy men. These are not well integrated into
his History, but serve rather as moralizing vignettes which represent
a contrast to dissolute emperors. No explicit comparisons, however,
are drawn.
While Evagrius' treatment of his subject is not purely classical, his
diction is fairly close to a conservative and conventional rhetorical
tradition. The superficiality of his comprehension of deeper issues,
be they economic, religious, or political, parallels that of his
characterizations and narrative style. Although he uses the Greek
language well as a tool of rhetoric, it must be admitted that his style
has less freshness, liveliness, and dramatic interest than would be
desirable. Much of his narrative is flat and not smoothly organized.
He alternates "set pieces", designed to show off his rhetorical skill,
with straight narration which informs without pleasing, for he only
reports the facts drily and without much dramatic impact. Frequently
the work lacks transitions between its various compenents and it thus
has a choppy quality. Evagrius' training has taught him to compose
the separate parts, but not to combine them in a cohesive manner.
His ecphrases are vividly presented, however, and within his own
tradition of writing Evagrius deserves praise. It was no mean feat to
write an ecphrasis which allows the reader to visualize a given scene
easily.
Evagrius' Ecclesiastical History is not merely a chronicle; it
criticizes human events in the light of standards which aid in unifying
its discursiveness. His concern is not to entertain his readers (as
chroniclers were wont to do), but to offer his own views about
50
ultimate values. Evagrius' constant theme is the grandeur of
Byzantine sovereignty and its union with the Christian faith. He
views them as inseparable: the fortunes of the empire and the church
in his work rise and fall together throughout the doctrinal
controversies about the nature (or natures) of Christ. Evagrius"
History gradually progresses to the eventual high note of optimism
with which it ends. In that it has a happy ending, it may said to have a
"comic rhythm".
Remaining close to established literary tradition while writing in a
fairly new genre, Evagrius does not really invent so he rarely
transcends the limitations imposed by tradition. In this sense he
cannot be said to be entirely succesful in a literary sense, but
historians must be grateful for the valuable information he preserves
for posterity in his History.
 ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ BATTLE FLAGS

GEORGE T. DENNIS / WASHINGTON

The warrior who first dipped a rag in the blood of a fallen foe and
triumphantly raised it aloft, or who stuck his own bloody tunic on the
point of a spear to rally his tribesmen, may be said to have invented
the flag. Bits of cloth or other materials could be attached to poles for
the same purpose or to identify persons or groups. The Chinese seem
to have been among the first to make systematic use of such flags,
probably made of silk. Steppe nomads employed dyed horse tails and
shiny metal disks; other peoples, including Indians and Persians,
used metal, wooden, and cloth symbols. The Byzantine army and
navy, however, much as modern armies and navies, regularly used
flags made of cloth in assorted sizes, shapes, and colors. Their origin
may have been Germanic, as was the word the Byzantines used for
them, bandon. At any rate, beginning about the end of the sixth
century, Byzantine military manuals lay down detailed regulations
about the use of flags in training the troops, on the march, and in
combat.
The standards of the Roman legions were composed of several
symbols on a pole, often topped by a silver or golden eagle. Carried
by a reliable, heavily armed soldier, the standard identified the unit
and served as a rallying point in battle. 1 Also in use, either with the
eagle or by itself, was the vexillum, a more or less square piece of
cloth, generally purple or red with some gold trim, sometimes
bearing the imperial image or other device, carried crosswise on the
pole like a small processional banner. Raising it on high was the
signal to begin battle or for ships to sail. It also came to be the regular
banner for a cavalry detachment, to which it gave its name,

1
In general see R. Grosse, "Die Fahnen in der römisch-byzantinischen Armee des
4.-10. Jahrhunderts"", Byzantinische Zeitschrift. 24 (1924). 359-72. Some of the
material in this article was presented, along with illustrations in color, at the
Byzantine Studies Conference in Oherlin. Ohio, on 25 October 1980.
52
vexillatio.2 Images of the emperors were also borne on special shafts,
but apparently not after the fourth century. In the second century
n o n - R o m a n auxiliaries employed a dragon symbol as the rallying
point for their units. Its exact origin is uncertain, perhaps Scythian or
even Chinese, but it seems to have been adopted during Trajan's
wars against the Dacians, and was widely used in the fourth century.
It was made of a metal or wooden dragon head, with mouth open,
carried on a pole, with a long, colorful, windsock tail which billowed
out behind. 1
By the sixth century the eagle and the dragon seem to have
disappeared, and the battle symbol or standard regularly in use was
called the bandon. A Germanic word, it was readily adopted by the
Romans to designate the flag, as well as the basic, company sized
unit, the bandon or tagma.* The sources often use the more general
term, σημείον (signum), for flag or standard ; sometimes the word for
pennon or streamer, φλάμουλον (ťlammulá), is applied to the whole
banner. In this article we are concerned with military flags flown in
combat by the Byzantines, and not with processional or other purely
ceremonial banners, and we are limiting our investigation to flags in
use before the coming of the Crusaders.
T h e lance pennons were generally referred to by the Latin term,
flammula, a small flame, indicating its color and tapering shape,
although it assumed other colors and shapes. The Strategikon
attributed to E m p e r o r Maurice admits that the pennons give a nice
appearance at parades and sieges, but finds that they simply get in
the way during combat. For this reason they may be fixed to the lance
until about a mile from the enemy, then they should be furled and put

2
Ammianus Marcellinus, 24, 6, 5; 27, 10, 9; et alibi.
3
Perhaps it was derived from the "'Scythian standard", multicolored cloth sewn into
a long, tubular shape, giving the impression of a snake, held up by spears. As the
bearers raced along, the wind would roar through it and make it swell out like a
fearsome beast: Suidae Lexicon, ed A. Adler (Leipzig 1935), Σ 321: 4, 351.
4
See Procopius, Bella. 4, 2, 1; 10, 4: Suidae Lexicon. Β 94: 1, 452.
 53
5
in their cases. Some were double or swallow tailed. The Strategikon
of Maurice, written about 600 A.D., requires the cavalry to have
lances of the Avar type, with leather thongs in the middle and
pennons, which were sometimes swallow tailed.6 Digenes Akritas
was reputed to carry a gold, swallow tailed pennon on his lance.7 At a
later date, so some manuscript illuminations lead one to believe,
triple tailed pennons came unto use.
As with other military developments in the period from the fourth
to the sixth centuries, the sources tell us very little about the
evolution of the bandon. It may have derived from the cloth
vexillum, or it may quite possibly have come from the dragon
symbol. In the Strategikon of Maurice the field, the square or
rectangular section, of the flag, is called the head, κεφαλή, and the
streamers or tails are called the pennons or flammulae. One can
imagine that the carved dragon head was replaced by a less expensive
piece of cloth, perhaps with a dragon head painted or embroidered
on it, to which some long streamers were attached. Possibly it was
carried as the vexillum, crosswise on a pole with the streamers
hanging down. At any rate, it soon came to be borne sideways, as are
our modern flags, with the streamers flying laterally, which is how
the earliest illustrations depict the bandon.
The bandon, or military flag, consisted of a square or rectangular
field with streamers flying from it. The Strategikon of Maurice gives
more specific details, which are repeated in other military manuals,
especially the Tactical Constitutionsoi Leo VI. As with all Byzantine
regulations, these may represent the ideal rather than the actual, but
they nonetheless, especially when combined with manuscript
illuminations such as those of the Madrid Skylitzes, give us a fairly

5
Book 2, ch. 1 ; Sylloge Tacticorum. Quae olim "inedita Leonis táctica"dicebatur,
ed A. Dain (Paris 1938), 20, 2-5. References to the Strategikon are by book and
chapter: ed, Η. Mihaescu, Mauritius Arta militara (Bucharest 1970) ; new ed. by G.
Dennis with German translation by E. Gamillscheg (Corpus fontium historiae
Byzantinae, 17, ser. Vindobonensis; Vienna 1981); English translation by Dennis
in preparation.
6
B k . 1, ch. 2.
7
Digenes Akritas, 4, 251, although the text is not certain.
54
accurate picture of Byzantine flags from the late fifth to the twelfth
centuries.
A Byzantine army corps (stratos) was, at least according to the
books, composed of three divisions, each called a meros, later a
turma. Each meros was composed of three units, each called a moira,
later a droungos. The moira was made up of three companies called
variously bandon, arithmos, or tagma. The heads or fields of all of
the flags in a meros were to be of the same color, whereas each moira
should have its own color on the streamers. 8 Other distinctive
devices known to the troops should be imposed on the flags' heads.
According to the Strategikon, then, the troops could easily locate
their own tagma, moira, and meros. Size was also important. The
author of the Strategikon deplores the fact that the flags have
become large and unwieldy, and insists that the bandon of each
tagma, and there should be only one, be relatively small, easy to
carry, and bear some simple device.9 Its principle distinctive feature
should be its streamers. It is not clear whether this refers to the size,
color, or number of the streamers. The head of the flag should be the
color of the meros, and the streamers in the color or colors of the
moira. But the whole flag was to be smaller and probably with fewer
streamers. In the manuscript paintings the number of streamers
varies from two to eight. Perhaps one can assume that a bandon with
three, four, of five streamers might be that of a tagma, while flags
with more streamers designated larger units. The flag of the moira
was to be larger and of a different design, and the same for that of the
meros. Exactly what was meant by a different design is not clear. At
any rate, the flag of the center meros commanded by the lieutenant
general was to differ from those of the other merarchs. That of the
general who commanded the entire army was to be clearly
distinctive, more conspicuous than all the others, and well known to
all. In case of a reverse the soldiers were to look to it, rally, and
regroup. The same would obviously be true of the imperial banner

8
Strategikon. 1, ch. 2.
9
Bk. 2, ch. 14; Nicephori Praecepta militaría e codice Mosquensi, ed. Jo.
Kulakovskij, Mémoires de l'Académie imperiale des sciences de St. Petersbourg.
viic ser.. Cl. hist-philol., S, 9 (St. Petersburg 1900), 14, 33.
 χ-ι

when the emperor was present. The baggage train of each mo/rawas
also to have its own standard. 1 "
In each tagma an intelligent and courageous soldier was selected
to carry the bandon. and was called the bandophoros. Rufinus the
Thracian, for example, the bravest of Belisarius's followers, was
chosen to bear his b a n n e r . " T h e standard bearer was t o b e stationed
in the middle of the battle line next to or immediately behind the
commander. An alternate, or else the so-called cape bearer, should
be at hand to take over the banner if necesary. The standard bearer
should be well protected by armor, including iron gauntlets and a
good helmet with chain mail over his face leaving only his eyes
uncovered. 12 He was given special orders to maintain his position. 13
One of the first duties of the merarch before the day of battle was
to see that the banners were blessed. 14 Fifteen to twenty of the best
men in each tagma were detailed to guard the flag.15 It was, as with
other peoples, regarded as a great disgrace to have the flag captured
by the enemy. In the event that it was captured, the color guard was
to be punished and reduced to the lowest rank in its unit. 16 Flags
were, of course, taken by the enemy. In 628 when the Romans
captured the Persian imperial palace at Dastagard, they found about
three hundred of their own flags (banda) which had been captured by
the Persians at various times. 17 On the other hand, Persian flags

10
Strategikon. 1, ch. 9; Nicephori Praecepta, 14. 26.
11
Procopius, Bella. 4, 10, 4.
12
Κ. Κ. Müller, "Ein griechisches Fragment über Kriegswesen". Festschrift für
Ludwig Urlichs (Würzburg 1880). 106-138: p. 113, 25-33.
13
Strategikon. 3. ch. 5.
14
Strategikon. 7, ch. 1 ; also on ships: Naumachica. ed. A. Dain (Paris 1943). 1. 24:
5. 4, 3. ""
15
Strategikon. 2. ch. 15; 7. ch. 19.
1(1
Strategikon. 2, ch. 8.
17
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. J. Classen, 2 vols. (Bonn 1839). 1. 494, 10-12:
Georgius Cedrenus, Historiarum compendium, ed. 1. Bekker. 1 (Bonn 1839), 732,
10.
56
(banda), apparently similar to those of the Byzantines, were
captured at times and, along with prisoners, sent to Constantinople
to be displayed in triumphs.18 Slavic tribes were reported to have
captured or stolen Byzantine flags and other military insignia and
used them for purposes of deception.19
The bandon was essential in drilling the tagma and, of course, in
combat. The first set of orders shouted out by the herald, originally in
Latin, insisted that each soldier follow the bandon closely, neither
going ahead of it or falling behind it. "Silence. Do not fall back. Do
not go ahead of the standard. Advance even with the front rank.
Keep your eyes on the standard. Follow it with your company,
soldier. This is how a brave soldier should act. If you leave the
standard you will not be victorious."2" A soldier abandoning the flag
in battle was to be executed.21
The flag was meant to be a rallying point for the troops. It was also
used to convey signals and commands. This was done by holding it
high steadily, inclining it to the right or the left, waving it or dipping
it.22 This was especially important in naval warfare because of the
distance between the ships. Each ship, sea going or riverine, was to
have its banner and a designated bearer, although it was considered
safer and faster for the commander to give the signals himself.23
These were conveyed by raising, lowering, and otherwise moving the
flags, as well as by changing their shape and color, "as the ancients
did".24 To begin combat a red (dark colored) flag or kamelafkion was

IS
E.g., Theophanes, Chronographia, 1, 277, 14; 402, 16; Cedrenus, 1, 694, 18.
19
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, ed. G. Moravcsik
(Washington 1967), 29, 39; 30, 44.
20
Strategikon. 3, eh. 5.
21
Ibid., 2, eh. 8.
22
Ibid., 3, eh. 5; 7, eh. 16; De administrando imperio, 49; Byzantini anonymi de
strategia, ed. H. Köchly and W. Rüstow, Griechische Kriegsschriftsteller, 2 (Leipzig
1855), 30,5.
21
Naumachica, ed. Dain, 1, 8; 48.
24
Ibid., 6, 44.
 57
25
raised. Two flags could be used by a tagma in drills to deceive the
enemy, but only the regular one should be flown on the day of
battle. 26 In setting up camp the flags were used to designate the
locations in which the various units were to pitch their tents. 27 A
battle standard (πολεμικον σημεΐον) was flown from the roof of the
church of the Theotokos in Blachernai in Constantinople,
apparently to signal the approach of hostile forces or to warn them to
expect resistance. 28
Early in the tenth century, if not before, some flags were
surmounted by a gold or silver cross instead of a spear head. 29 In the
time of Nikephoros Phokas the cross, adorned with gold and
precious stones, seems to have fulfilled the same functions as the
flags.1" But it is not clear whether these were large processional
crosses or crosses attached to, or even simply depicted, on the
regular flags. A century later, however, both the Byzantine army and
its flags had greatly deteriorated. In Eastern Anatolia in 1070 the
military judge, Michael Attaliotes, viewed the survivors of the
famous fighting units of the past and remarked: "Their very
standards, as it were, silently proclaimed their condition, for they
looked filthy, as though discolored by smoke, and those who
marched behind them were very few and very poor." 1 1
The flags themselves have long since rotted away. Can we

25
Ibid.. 1, 48; 6, 45.
26
Strategikon, 2, eh. 20.
27
Nicephori Praecepta, 18, 30; Byz. anonymi de strategia. 26, 4.
28
Ioannis Scyiitzae Synopsis historiarum, ed. I. Thurn (Berlin 1973; CFHB 5), 34,
78; Josephi Genesii, Regum libri quattuor, ed. A. Lesmueller, E. Werner, I. Thurn
(Berlin 1978; CFHB 14), 28, 44.
29
Byzantine soldiers captured by the Arabs in 910 carried flags surmounted by
crosses: A. A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes. II. La Dynastie Macédonienne, éd.
Française, H. Grégoire et M. Canard, 1, Extraits des sources Arabes (Bruxelles
1950). p. 59.
10
Leonis diaconi Caloënsis Historiae libri decern, ed. C. Hase (Bonn 1828). 1, 3, p.
8; 4, 4, p. 6 1 ; also Skylitzes, éd. Thurn, p. 270.
11
Michaelis Attaliotae Historia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn 1853), 103. 16-19.
5<S
reconstruct their appearance and sec what they looked like? With
the help of the foregoing sources and by studying some manuscript
illuminations, we can form a reasonably accurate picture of the flags
used by the Byzantine military. One group of manuscripts contains
illustrations of biblical subjects. Military material, including flags, is
found chiefly in miniatures connected with the books of Exodus and
Joshua. 32 There is some dispute about the dates of these codices, but
it seems generally agreed that many of the paintings derive from
older models. T h e banners depicted fit the written descriptions we
have, so that they undoubtedly resemble the flags actually in use.
The second manuscript source is the illustrated Byzantine historical
work, of which the outstanding and nearly unique example is the
copy of the chronicle of John Skylitzes now in Madrid, cod. Matrit.
gr. 26 - 2. This appears to have been copied in Palermo in the second
half of the twelfth century from a Byzantine model, probably one
taken directly from the imperial library in Constantinople. 3 3 The
historical events, including military actions, narrated in the chronicle
arz illustrated on almost every page of the volume. Over thirty of
these contain flags. T h e r e is also the Slavic translation of the
Chronicle of Manasses which, although of a later date, was based on
an earlier Byzantine model. 3 4 O n e must be cautious, of course, in
drawing conclusions from a study of manuscript illuminations. We
cannot claim that a certain banner painted on a manuscript page was
actually in use or in use at a specific period. We must be satisfied with

32
Among the manuscripts examined were the cod. Vat. Palat. gr. 431 (see K.
Weitzmann, The Joshua Roll. A Work of the Macedonian Renaissance [Princeton
1948]); the octateuch of cod. Vatoped. 602, as reproduced in P. Huber, Image et
Message, Miniatures byzantines de l'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament (Zurich
1975); the Smyrna octateuch as reproduced in Miniatures de Γ Octateuque Grec de
Smyrně (Leiden 1909); the octateuchs in cod. Seraglien. 8 and in codd. Vat. gr.l 46
and 747 from photographs in the Dumbarton Oaks collection.
33
N. G. Wilson, "The Madrid Scylitzes", Scrittura e civiltà. 2 (1978), 209-19, with
references to older literature. Reproductions of the miniatures, mostly in black and
white, in S. Cirac Estopañan, Skylitzes Matritensis. 2 vols. (Barcelona 1965); A.
Bozhkov, Miniatjuri ot Madridskija rukopis na loan Skilitsa (Sophia 1972); A.
Grabar and M. Manoussacas, L7//usfraiion du manuscrit de Skylitzes de la
Bibliothèque Nationale de Madrid (Venice 1979).
34
Reproductions in 1. Dujcev, Miniatiurite na Manasievata Lefop/s(Sophia 1962).
 59
artistic impressions and hope that they are not too far removed from
reality.
Just as other objects in the miniatures, the flags have been
conventionalized and simplified. The devices on them, whether
crosses, squares, or circles, are not always clear. Often enough the
fields are without the devices which must have been on the real flags.
The cross is the most common emblem, even being painted on
Saracen flags, but there must also have been others. Most of the
paintings have only three streamers for banners which undoubtedly
had more. In the illustrations the streamers are from two to four
meters in length, which is probably fairly accurate. It is sometimes
not clear which are unit flags and which are individual lance pennons.
The colors are difficult to determine; a very dark blue, for example,
may really be a dark green, purple, or black. T h e colors most
commonly used on flags in the miniatures are red, blue, white, green,
and yellow; the blue is frequently very dark, and the green is of an
olive shade. Purple, black, and brown may also appear, but they do
not stand out clearly. Whether these colors were those of the actual
banners is another question. When the artists paint horses blue,
green, and red, one wonders about their fidelity to reality in other
matters.
The flags depicted in the manuscripts are quite plain and simple in
design and color with a very limited number of devices, which is how
they probably originated. But it is difficult to imagine that the
Byzantines would allow anything simple to remain that way for long.
Already in the sixth century Maurice had complained that the
tagmatic flags had become too large. There may well have been
ornamental accretions to the flags, gold thread, rosettes, ribbons,
and the like. Simple crosses may have become more complex and
elaborate in design. Other devices besides those found in the
manuscripts, mostly crosses, must have been in use. O n e would
expect some geometric designs, bird and animal motifs, and other
Byzantine decorative components. Perhaps the devices painted on
shields in the miniatures might furnish some clues. But until some
banners, miraculously intact and unfaded, are found, our picture of
Byzantine military flags will have to remain sketchy and imperfect.
Representations of some typical Byzantine flags as depicted in the
manuscripts follow.
G.T. DENNIS, Battle Flags PLATE 1

|||||||||11|Ι|ΐιΙΙΙΙυιϋ^^=°°—

ijj[[]jl|jjitlijiu^

m
Figure I
 PLATE It

?Bsr
p|itiiiiiMiimtfïïiïïîî7p

;.
Miíiim-MiaiíUilÍiiiL
Figure 2
 NEO-CHALCEDONIANISM AND THE TRADITION:
FROM PATRISTIC TO BYZANTINE T H E O L O G Y

PATRICK GRAY / HAMILTON, ONTARIO

The conservative defenders of the Council of Chalcedon in the

period between Chalcedon and Constantinople II (451-553)
represent a significant transition in the understanding of theology -
from the conservatism of their predecessors (which defended the
traditional faith) they moved to a self-conscious traditionalism which
made the tradition itself the central datum of theological reflection,
and made theological reflection entirely a matter of interpreting
tradition. This new attitude was to be a distinctive mark of the age
into which the Church was moving from the age of the Fathers.
The conflict between Cyril and Nestorius which led to the Council
of Ephesus in 431 was in large part a conflict between the
conservatism of Cyril and the majority and the theological
innovation (however biblically based) of Nestorius and the
long-suspect School of Antioch before him. It was in reaction against
novelty that the Council forbade the production of any new creed
beyond that of Nicea.1 It was enough to maintain the traditional faith
when novelty was the challenge. When Eutychianism emerged,
however, it proposed an alternative version of the traditional faith to
that held by the majority of church leaders; this challenge led the
majority to begin a process of active reflection on the tradition. It is
revealing that the final statement of faith of Chalcedon, produced to
meet this challenge, claimed to be neither a πίστις nor a σύμβολον,
but rather (on the model, as it thought, of Constantinople I) a
διδασκαλία and a ερμηνεία of the traditional faith of Nicea.2 In this

'This paper was read at the Sixth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Oherlin,
Ohio. 24 October 1980.
1
In Canon 7.
2
See the text of the Statement of Faith produced by the fifth session of the Council.
ίι2
way the new mode of doing theology was inaugurated.
In the controversy over Chalcedon which dominated the age in
question, the major argument took place between Neo-
Chalcedonians and Monophysites, i.e. between conservative
Cyrillians who accepted Chalcedon and conservative Cyrillians who
did not. T h e former were called upon to defend Chalcedon as having
been faithful to the tradition, the latter charged that it had not been
faithful. T h e real issue, then, was the authenticity of Chalcedon's
interpretation of the tradition, especially Cyril; hence the focus of
the debate was the interpretation of tradition from the very
beginning. T h e biblical evidence, or continuing Christian
experience, played a peripheral role at best in these discussions.
T h e extraordinary proliferation of florilegia, dyophysite or
monophysite, in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries is a typical expression
of the new attitude. 1 T h e dyophysite florilegium was an essential
weapon in the Neo-Chalcedonian arsenal: one was sent by the
E m p e r o r Leo I to Timothy Aelurus in 458; 4 another made up the
most extensive section of Nephalius of Alexandria's Apology for
Chalcedon; 5 Ephrem of Antioch, Leontius of Jerusalem, and
Justinian shared sources in earlier florilegia to produce their own." A
central place in all such florilegia was occupied, naturally enough, by
citations from Cyril. In itself, the existence of defence-by-
florilegium, as well as the volume of florilegia produced, shows the
centrality of the tradition for theological thought in the period.
Equally illustrative is the way these writers argue their case
elsewhere in their work. T h e argument for accepting Chalcedon's
"two n a t u r e s " is not that the biblical witness requires it, but that
Cyril and the tradition before him used some such formula or
indicated a similar intention. So Nephalius will argue that Cyril used

* See M. Richard, "Les florilèges diphysites du Ve et du VI e siècle". Das Konzil von

Chalkedon I (Würzburg, 1951) pp. 721-748.
4
Mansi, Concilia VI, col. 349f.
5
As may be deduced from Sevetus' Orationes ad Nephalium.
6
These inter-relationships are defined by M. Richard in a massive unpublished
study of the florilegia among the papers held by M. Geerard. Richard's literary
executor.
 63
dyophysite language precisely and intentionally, not "out of
condescension" to John of Antioch et al. as the Monophysites
maintained. He argues, on the other hand, that Cyril's use of the
"one incarnate nature of the Word of God" formula is not precise,
and that the word σεσαρκωμένη represents the second nature. 7 So
John the Grammarian will suggest, further, that Cyril's use of φύσις
must be understood in a sense equivalent to ύπόστασις, an argument
which leads eventually to, e.g., Ephrem's view that Chalcedon's talk
of one πρόσωπον and ύπόστασις expresses in more theologically
precise terms the intended sense of Cyril's "one nature" formula.8
Neo-Chalcedonianism had, of course, to find some way of
interpreting the latter favourably, since its association with the name
of Athanasius, as well as with that of Cyril, made it to some extent
sacrosanct. To accomplish this feat, they used a hermeneutic of
intention. Ephrem, for instance, says "The holy Fathers say that one
ought to pay heed to the pious thought of the writer." 9 Justinian
shows how that principle can be applied to the Cyrillian use of "one
nature": "Of course the Father, when he said 'one incarnate nature
of the Word', intended thereby the word 'nature' to have the sense of
'hypostasis'. In whichever book he uses this expression, he has for
the most part made it clear in what follows, where he says 'son' or
'Word' or 'only-begotten', that the reference is not to anything as
nature, but rather as hypostasis or prosopon." 1 "
By far the most extensive writing from a Neo-Chalcedonian of this
period available to us are the Contra Monophysitas and Adversus
Nestorianos of Leontius of Jerusalem." The former concerns us

7
Orationes ad Nephaliurn, ed. J. Lebon, CSCO, scriptores syri, series IV, 7, pp.
19-21 and 46, 15 and 24. See the discussion in my Defense of Chalcedon in the East
(451-553) (Leiden, 1979) p. 109f.
s
See the fragment in EuJogius, PG86 2 , col. 2953A15-B2: see also the account of
Ephrem's position in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 229.
9
Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 229.
10
Justinian, Contra Monophysitas. ed. E. Schwartz, Drei Dogmatische Schriften
Iustinians (Munich, 1939) p. 78.
11
PG 86, coll. 1769A-1901A and 1400Α-1768'Β. Ail subsequent citations are
from this volume.
64
here, and it provides us with a startling display of all the weapons in
the Neo-Chalcedonian arsenal. It is made up of the following
sections:
— a collection of 63 anti-monophysite aporiae
— a discussion of "intention"
— a dyophysite florilegium
— a "dyophysite" florilegium from Monophysite writers
— selections from a Monophysite florilegium and commentary
with Leontius' critique.
The whole represents an advanced stage in the controversy. This
work is a response to a previous Monophysite attack (including
aporiae) and follows a lost work in which Leontius criticized his
opponent's aporiae; his are "counter-aporiae". Because he cites his
opponent, and because much can be reconstructed of the opponent's
case from the counter-aporiae, one finds here a particularly
revealing insight into a controversy in processu.
One notes that approximately 70% of the entire work is explicitly
florilegium, commentary on florilegium, or critique of these. One
notes, too, that after the aporiae the section on "intention" forms an
introduction to the florilegium material. A citation from the
opponent opens this section, and it reveals much about Leontius'
concerns: "Why do you, scurrying around us on all sides, make war
against our teaching? We know what is the patristic teaching in so
many words about Christ, i.e. one incarnate nature of God the Word,
in accordance with holy Athanasius and Cyril, but you speak of a
foreign saying which we find set down nowhere expressly by the
Fathers, namely two natures, even if undivided, of Christ."12 The
opponent, that is, maintains a literal traditionalism. Leontius charges
that his opponent is able to avoid the conclusion that "in truth it is
potentially the same thing to speak of one incarnate nature of God
the Word and to speak of a duality of natures in Christ united in one
hypostasis" only by refusing to look "in the same writings for the
intention laid down by the Fathers". ,3 Chalcedon was faithful to
what the Fathers meant to say. The issue, he believes, is between

12
coll. 1804D-1805A. The italics are mine,
" c o l . 1805B.
 65

narrow traditionalism and a more faithful interpretation of

tradition's inner meaning. He points out, in defence of the latter
position, that Athanasius himself interpreted John 1:14 in novel
language when he spoke of "one incarnate nature" etc., and that
Nicea interpreted the biblical faith when it introduced the new term
ομοούσιος. He argues, further, that such interpretations are
absolutely necessary to protect the traditional faith against heretical
misinterpretations and innovations. There can be no question, in all
this, that Leontius' own intention is to provide an authentic
interpretation of the tradition, and that the question of an adequate
hermeneutic is foremost in his mind.
The dyophysite florilegium which follows is not in itself an original
piece of work. Neither is it accurate: Richard can point to false
ascriptions, doublets, and paraphrases. 14 The intent is clearly stated:
Leontius would support his case with "witnesses of our selected
Fathers who are eager to recognize natures of the Lord preserved
after the union..." 15
More interesting appears to be the "dyophysite" florilegium of
Monophysite writers, though it is hardly more accurate. His source is
mainly Severus, with one citation from each of Amphilocius of Side
and (as he supposes) Timothy Aelurus. Now one might think that
Leontius is, as he claims, attempting to show Severus et al. as secret
dyophysites. That is certainly part of his argument, but flurries of
commentary at certain points reveal a deeper purpose. He wants to
show that Severus et al. admit on occasion that Chalcedonian
language is traditional and can have an orthodox sense. He would
like to show that, by their own logic of faithfulness to the tradition,
therefore, they ought to be dyophysites, and thus that their followers
ought now to accept Leontius' argument from tradition. That is the
force of his citation from Amphilocius, in which Amphilocius warns
Leo that the pro-Chalcedonians "will have recourse to certain
teachers who have spoken of two natures." 16 To the same end he
cites Severus as admitting that "two natures in Christ... is said by

14
In the work referred to in n. 6 above.
15
col. 1817A.
16
col. 1841A.
66
many holy Fathers", and that "certain of the Fathers... used [the
expression] blamelessly..." 17 Having painted a glowing picture of
Chalcedon defending both the formulae and the intention of the
tradition the Monophysites hold dear, Leontius can then ask how the
same Severus who admitted a blameless use of dyophysite language
could claim that, though "by day and by night I was occupied by the
books of the Fathers, I was not yet able to find anyone even up to
now of the Fathers who imagines two natures in Christ..." 1 8 Having
questioned Severus' consistency, Leontius can close the section,
without comment, with a citation from "Timothy A e l u r u s " that
raises further difficulties:
Cyril... who in various ways articulated the wise proclamation of
orthodoxy, appearing inconsistent, is accused of dogmatizing
opposite things... But when he became contradictory in his own
words, he sowed the seed of the implacable war that now holds sway
in the churches... What if the patriarch Severus had not appeared by
divine favour? He with his divine writings healed what was unstable
and uncertain of Cyril, as if some son who honours his father clothed
his begetter's dishonour in seemly garments. 19

The unstated implication is that, if even the Monophysite champions

admit an inconsistency of language in the tradition, one mustlook for
a principle of interpretation. Severus and his followers do not admit
that interpretation is possible, and therefore either deny the
difficulties when they find them, or calumniate Cyril for
inconsistency. Much better, surely, is Leontius' admission of the
difficulty and open respect for the tradition which, at the same time,
he admits needs interpretation! So Leontius appears as the
champion of Cyril who, as he has said earlier, "clearly testifies to us
his harmony with himself and with the truth"! 2 "
It is from this stance as champion of the tradition that Leontius can
proceed to the longest of his sections, his critique of a Monophysite

17
co». 1841D-1844A.
IX
col. 1845A.
•"col. 1849A-C.
20
col. 18I3C.
 67
florilegium and commentary, with the question: "But what do they
say to all these things...who stop their ears with shields, and do not
hearken to the wise sayings of the Fathers?" 21 His opponents, he
says, charge him with skipping over the hostile passages in the
Fathers. He replies that "Really, the patristic sayings which seem to
you to agree with your dogmas, rather recommend ours, when
properly examined according to intention, as we were saying from
the beginning. For none of the select Fathers is at variance with
himself or with his peers in respect of the intention of the faith."22
One is not surprised, after the discussion of intention, that Leontius
makes his case by arguing that the Fathers' rather indiscriminate use
of terms like φύσις, ουσία, ύπόστασις and πρόσωπον requires
interpretation. One can see that, on occasion, Cyril uses φύσις for
ύπόστασις. To determine which identification (φύσις = ύπόστασις,
or φύσις = ουσία) is appropriate, one must examine the context, a
step he accuses his opponent of refusing to take. For example, the
statement taken by both Leontius and his opponent to be from
Cyril's Second Letter to Succensus, "To say that two natures existed
after the union inseparably is to fight against those who say there is
one incarnate nature of the Word", is shown to have a quite
acceptable, even pro-dyophysite, sense by the context, for Cyril goes
on to say "The 'individually* which was added seems in our judgment
to be significative of right doctrine, but [the Nestorians] do not so
understand it... For [Nestorius] says that the man is undivided from
the Word by equal honour, ere." 21 Leontius' conclusion: "Behold
then: consider prudently that he knows the expression of right
doctrine, but rejects the thought that is harmful..."24 Leontius
returns to the point with which he ended the previous section — his
opponent's necessary admission of Cyril's actual, rather than
apparent, inconsistency if he is to be literally faithful to the tradition
— when he comments: "If he holds [the one nature literally] as you

21
col. 1849C.
22
col. 1849C-D.
21
col. 1853B.
24
¡bid.
6S
would have it, everything which was said in other places by the
Father as concerning the two natures of Christ then was in conflict
with these things. The very thing no one says in the spirit of God he is
suspected of tolerating." 25 Again Leontius is the champion of Cyril'
and the rest of the tradition's consistency against the literal exegesis
of his opponents who must, perforce, have the tradition genuinely at
odds with itself. For our purposes, the most interesting fact to
emerge is Leontius' implicit belief that the tradition of "the select
Fathers" is never in any way in genuine conflict with itself, so that an
exegesis of any text can be produced which will harmonize it
absolutely with the rest of the tradition.
In the case of the pseudo-Athanasian text that initiated much of
the controversy in the first place — "We confess... not as two natures
the one Son, one to be worshipped and one not to be worshipped, but
one incarnate nature of God the Word..." — he provides an
acceptable interpretation (Athanasius means to say that both
natures are to be worshipped, not one) "if really it is by
Athanasius". 26 On the other hand, he suggests strongly that the text
is an Apollinarian forgery, and says that Cyril was probably attracted
to it "as to a patristic and not to a heretical text". 27 In the case of the
texts ascribed to Julius of Rome by the Monophysite, he makes a
strong case for their rejection as forgeries (one, he says, "we think
lacks neither falsity be reason of pseudepigraphy, nor subversion by
reason of invalidity").28 The same kind of charge is laid against texts
claimed to be from Gregory Thaumaturgus. 2 " Thus the process of
criticizing his opponent's florilegium leads Leontius to purify the
tradition of forgeries, and also to look in the tradition for the central
intention behind even the most difficult genuine passages an
opponent can produce. Again one notes the attitude: the tradition is
without internal inconsistency, and must bear tranquil witness to a

25
coll. 1861D-1864A. The reference is, of course, to 1 Cor. 12:3.
26
col. 1864A-B.
27
coll. 1864B-1865A.
2
* col. 1868D.
2y
coll. 1873C-IS76A.
 69

single orthodox and true faith if properly interpreted. The agenda for
theology, in his view, is to perform this proper interpretation.
As for the collection of aporiae, one might see them as the sole
exception to the exegetical focus of Contra Monophysitas. They
seem to concern themselves with would-be erudite discussions of the
terminology of christology — the paradigm of man, the part and the
whole, the nature of "nature", and so on. When one looks at some
internal clues, however, a different perspective on the aporiae is
gained. As has been pointed out, Leontius' aporiae are counter to
earlier aporiae addressed, presumably, to him by this same
opponent. What needs to be noticed is the fact that, when he later
cites his opponent's florilegium and commentary, the texts he cites
include the very terms the aporiae raise difficulties about. For
example, the complex and seemingly philosophical argumentation
about "whole" and "part" and their interrelation seems to find its
point of reference in a text, attributed by the opponent to Julius of
Rome, which argues for "one nature" on the analogy of a whole
being completed out of incomplete parts.30 The same is true of the
paradigm of man — the attempt to draw some conclusions about
chnstological union on the basis of its similarity to the union of body
and soul in man. In that case the opponent (in his florilegium and
commentary) argues that, as man is one nature out of the union of
body and soul, so Christ is one nature out of the union of the Word
and the flesh.31 Here one begins to see clearly how the aporiae
function for Leontius: they demonstrate the difficulties and
absurdities which result from his opponent's exegesis of the
tradition. In this case his point is that the anthropological paradigm
cannot be applied univocally to the chnstological union because the
Word pre-exists the flesh of Christ, whereas soul does not pre-exist
body; and because there does not result a nature or species of
"Christ" as there results human nature, of which there can be other

30
Aporiae 4, 19, 38 and 54. coll. 1772A-B, 1780D-I781C 1792D and 1800A.
The text of '"Julius"' is cited in col. 1865B.
31
The relevant section of the Monophysite florilegium and commentary is cited in
col. 1860A-B.
70

exemplars.12 Part of his own exegesis of the admitted use of the

paradigm in the fathers is that, as the natures of body and soul persist
in the anthropological union, so the human and divine natures persist
in the christological union.13 More importantly, the correct exegesis
of the paradigm as used in the tradition is reached when one realizes
that "in the case of Christ, the paradigm has been applied to Him not
according to the meaning of φύσις, but according to the meaning of
ύπόστασις." 34 This exegesis, seeing the paradigm of man as a
paradigm for hypostatic union, resolves all of the aporiae. For
Leontius, then, the aporiae are exegetical tools used to discover the
correct interpretation of the tradition. As in an earlier discussion, the
key is a harmonious interpretation — one that has no genuine
aporiae resulting from it. Conversely, they eliminate incorrect (and
necessarily unharmonious) interpretations. Again, the focus is
entirely on the tradition and its interpretation.
It has been shown, then, in the case of less well-known
Neo-Chalcedonians as in the case of Leontius of Jerusalem, that the
whole thrust of dogmatic theology in the era after Chalcedon, at least
in the majority of the Church, was directed towards that task on
which Chalcedon first focesed it, the interpretation of the tradition.
It is maintained that this thrust distinguished their theology from any
previous theology, and inaugurated a new era in the history of
theology. It is for students of later Byzantine thought to assess how
important and permanent was the transition effected by the
Neo-Chalcedonians, though the "scholastic" quality of the dogmatic
work of Maximus and John Damascene strongly suggests that it was
both important and permanent. Perhaps such scholars will also
suggest ways in which the theological energies of Byzantium were
re-channelled by the effective termination of dogmatic theology in
Neo-Chalcedonianism's canonization of the tradition.

12
Aporiae 15, 45 and 48, coll. 1777D, 1796C-D and 1797A. Some of the aporetic
material is repeated, with additions, in col. 1860C-D.

" The positive conclusion from Aporia 15.

14
col. 1860C.
L ' I D E O L O G I A E L L E N I C A D E L L A POLIS E I B I Z A N ­
TINI

JOHANNES IRMSCHER/BERLIN

La polis dell'antichità greca, basata sulla proprietà privata

fondiaria e sulla schiavitù, improntata da ideali come δημοκρατία,
αυτάρκεια, ελευθερία, αυτονομία, ισηγορία, παρρησία e di
conseguenza sostenitrice di una propria ideologia, creò le premesse
per il massimo splendore all'interno della Grecia nell' "era di
Pericle". Come un secolo aureo apparve alle generazioni successive
l'epoca in cui Atene assurse ad "Eliade dell'Eliade" (Ελλάδος
Ελλάς) e l'era moderna parlò di un "siècle de Périclès" volendo
caratterizzare la coincidenza di un incremento della potenza statale
con una prospetità della cultura e dell'arte.
Di fronte ad un tale significato d'entità storico-universale è
naturale chiedersi se e in qual guisa la polis classica abbia continuato
ad esistere dopo il mutamento dell'antico metodo di produzione sul
territorio in cui si era costituita, cioè nello stato greco di Bisanzio. In
primo luogo sarà necessario verificare quale posizione abbia
occupato la polis nel quadro storico dei Bizantini e quale impiego
abbia trovato la sua terminologia; in secondo luogo si dovranno
accertare gli effetti esercitati dalla polis sul pensiero politico e sulle
forme d'organizzazione sociale.

I.
Se la sofistica nell'Atene classica poteva essere considerata a
ragione il maggior movimento educativo della polis, la Seconda o
Nuova sofistica dell era imperiale romana ne assunse in ampia
misura il linguaggio e le formule, ma il dominio assolutista non lasciò
praticamente spazio ad alcuna attività politica di massa dei liberi
cittadini. Gli insegnanti di oratoria, perseguenti estrema eleganza
potevano rassegnarsi ad una simile limitazione del loro campo
d'attività. Ciò vale pienamente per esempio per Libanio, sofista per
eccellenza, che nonostante si fosse fatto tutelatore dei concittadini
72
oppressi e avesse criticato i danni provocati dall'amministrazione
non rivesti mai alcuna carica politica. Era un profondo conoscitore
dei classici e i suoi discorsi contribuirono a serbare Atene nel nimbo
di un grande passato. Per lui e per gli altri retori tuttavia i personaggi
di tale passato rimasero semplici soggetti letterari, temi di
declamazioni e componimenti; l'ambiente storico a cui essi
appartenevano gli rimase invece estraneo e non pensò minimamente
a voler ridar vita alle idee del passato a favore della propria epoca. E
ricollegandosi occasionalmente a tali idee, contestò in maniera
radicale gli ideali della polis. L'esempio più esauriente lo dà
l'orazione 25 Περί δουλείας; essa vuol dimostrare che ogni
individuo è schiavo e rimprovera agli Ateniesi e ai democratici,
convinti di vivere in pieno possesso della libertà, la relatività dei loro
ideali.
Non taciamo il fatto che nelle esercitazioni oratorie di Libanio, nei
proginnasmi e nelle declamazioni, si trovano anche concezioni
dissimili. Ma confrontando tali esercitazioni con i discorsi veri e
propri, risulta evidente che solo le orazioni posseggono piena
validità espressiva per quel che concerne l'intento personale di
Libanio. Negli esercizi scolastici di retorica infatti i temi mitologici, i
soggetti etologici sono altrettanto rilevanti quanto quelli storici. Ne
consegue che Libanio, i cui opuscoli a Bisanzio rientravano nelle
letture scolastiche e quindi nella cultura generale, interiormente non
aderiva affatto alla forma classica dello stato. Il concetto di stato si
personificava per lui nella monarchia, e con certezza non solamente
per lui ma anche per i raggruppamenti sociali di cui egli era il
portavoce: lo strato più elevato della popolazione cittadina, cioè i
curiali e i sostenitori di Giuliano.
Grazie alla sua provata saldezza l'Imperium R o m a n ů m era
divenuto infatti l'impero per eccellenza, destinato ad abbracciare
l'intera ecumene, ed in tutti gli strati della popolazione si andò
affermando sempre più la prospettiva monarchica, scevra di
qualsiasi comprensione storica sia per la polis greca che per la
repubblica romana. Lo dimostrano nel m o d o più evidente le
cronache universali, le quali escludono quasi completamente quei
due periodi storici, passando nelle loro narrazioni dalla storia
biblico-antico-orientale e persiana all'epoca di Alessandro il
Macedone e dei Diadochi. Iniziatore di tale linea è chiaramente
 73
Giovanni Maiala che, vissuto all'epoca di Giustiniano, creò il primo
influente esempio di cronaca monastica popolare cristiano-
bizantina. Dell'Atene del quinto secolo egli nomina il "filosofo-
pedagogo" Platone che nel suo " T i m a i o s " avrebbe riconosciuto la
dottrina della trinità, e come suoi contemporanei nomina Senofonte,
Eschine e Aristotele i quali avrebbero creduto nella metempsicosi.
Questo è tutto ciò che i lettori bizantini apprendevano sull'era di
Pericle!
Neppure i cronisti posteriori infatti danno informazioni più
soddisfacenti. La Cronaca pasquale, compilata poco dopo il 628 e
così denominata dalle osservazioni sul ciclo pasquale contenute
nell'introduzione, riporta la fama di E r o d o t o , l'apogeo di Bacchilide
e la nascita di Socrate; Pericle viene completamente ignorato come
era già avvenuto nel quarto secolo in Eusebio, padre della storia
ecclesiastica e autore di una cronaca universale riportata sotto forma
di tabelle. Più esteso, pur aderendo alla medesima tradizione è il
" C o m p e n d i o cronologico" del monaco Giorgio Sincello, appellativo
che significa fiduciario segreto del patriarca, carica da lui rivestita
sotto Tarasio (784-806.) Con l'interpolazione di aneddoti vengono
in esso narrate le guerre persiane; ma anche la guerra del
Peloponneso è esposta nella stessa forma: sarebbe scoppiata dopo
che Pericle ebbe fatto valere una deliberazione dell'assemblea
popolare, secondo la quale gli Ateniesi avrebbero dovuto
interrompere ogni rapporto di comunanza con i Megarici, avendo
costoro offeso Aspasia, moglie di Pericle (sic!); conseguentemente i
Megarici avrebbero cercato l'alleanza con Sparta. I più svariati
aneddoti vengono inoltre riportati sul soggiorno di Platone in Sicilia,
a proposito del quale viene tuttavia giustamente notato che il filosofo
avrebbe voluto trasformare la tirannide in una aristocrazia.
Nicheforo, successore di Tarasio nella dignità di patriarca, o m e t t e
completamente la storia greca e passa direttamente dai Persiani ad
Alessandro. Nella seconda metà del nono secolo Giorgio Monaco,
interessato primariamente all'aspetto ecclesiastico-teologico, fa una
lunga enumerazione di contemporanei greci degli Achemenidi, dei
quali tuttavia solamente Socrate viene degnato dell'aggiunta di aver
dovuto bere la cicuta, non avendo egli osservato le leggi elleniche.
La compilazione storico-universale che giunge fino al 9 4 8 , ad
opera di diversi autori, considera anch'essa rilevante solo la storia
74
dei re persiani. Sul governo di Artaserse Mnemone (404-358) si nota
che "a quel tempo godevano di grande fama il filosofo Platone ed
Aristotele". Gli stessi nomi collegati tra di loro appaiono un secolo
dopo in Giorgio Cedreno: "Aristotele è scolaro presso Platone".
Precedentemente erano state narrate le battaglie dei Persiani e
significativo è il fatto che il punto di vista è prettamente persiano:
"Serse giunse ad Atene ed incendiò la città". Senza troppi scrupoli
d'ordine cronologico vengono riportati: la morte di Socrate "dovuta
all'irragione volezza degli Ateniesi" e il terremoto di Achaia -
evidentemente la distruzione di Helike e Bura nell'inverno del
373/72. Ancora un secolo dopo Giovanni Zonara compilò la sua
"Epitome storico-universale" che sia per quel che concerne la forma
linguistica che per la considerazione di fonti antiche e medioantiche
eccelle su ogni altra opera di tale genere. Prescindendo da ciò, la sua
visione storica non differisce da quella dei suoi predecessori; cioè
viene dettagliatamente narrata la storia dei Persiani, mentre non si fa
parola della Grecia classica ad essa contemporanea.
Se ciò già succede con il legno verde non ci si può aspettar di più da
quello secco: la cronaca in versi di Costantino Manasse (1187),
improntata al quadro storico augusteo secondo la concezione di
Virgilio, passa dalla guerra di Troia ad Enea e alla storia di Roma
senza considerare minimamente l'Eliade. Il fatto che i Bizantini si
siano sempre considerati Romani e che abbiano giudicato il loro
impero come il proseguimento ininterrotto dell'Imperium
Romanům è chiaramente attestato dall'opera ingenua di Manasse,
che influì ben oltre i confini di Bisanzio. La linea di sviluppo persiana
riprende invece il sopravvento nei contemporanei di Manasse: nel
silenziario imperiale Michele Glykas e in Ioel. Per entrambi gli
autori il governo di Artaserse Makrocheir costituisce il punto
centrale a cui vengono collegate liste di eroi spirituali ellenici. La
dipendenza e l'ordine di successione rendono evidente il fatto che
nessuno dei due cronisti era in grado di collegare a tali nomi concetti
chiari e concreti.
Con i due ultimi autori ora citati la cronaca universale bizantina
aveva ormai oltrepassato il suo apogeo ed i testi pervenutici
dall'epoca dei Paleoioghi non sono in grado di illuminare nuovi
aspetti oltre a quelli già noti. Nella visione della storia e del mondo,
propria degli strati inferiori della popolazione bizantina, che
 75
astraendo dalla bibbia e dalle vite dei Santi era stata influenzata
prevalentemente dalle cronache popolari monastiche, non vi era
quindi spazio, come si è dimostrato, per la storia delle città-stato
dell'Eliade classica. Nel più favorevole dei casi venivano in esse
riportati alcuni nomi e concetti; da tali scritti era impossibile
acquisire una concezione chiara dell'ideologia e della prassi di uno
stato democratico perchè né gli autori, né le fonti a cui essi attinsero
direttamente possedevano tale concezione. Ma pur se i testi
tramandati fossero stati più attendibili e più ricchi, essi non
avrebbero incontrato alcuna comprensione presso genti per le quali
la monarchia rappresentava l'ordinamento eterno voluto da Dio.
Ciò nonostante ci si può chiedere se per lo meno le persone
provviste di una cultura classica, sia che appartenessero alla classe
più elevata o al proletariato intellettuale, che a Bisanzio specie negli
ultimi secoli non era irrilevante, avessero potuto rifarsi ad
informazioni più precise. E un dato di fatto che Bisanzio, fedele
bibliotecaria dell'umanità, custodi la letteratura classica antica come
patrimonio da salvare per i secoli futuri. Non si può tuttavia ignorare
che tale cura non è valsa affatto ai contenuti politici dell'Atene
classica. L'interesse culturale primario era indirizzato, non
altrimenti che nella tarda antichità, alla forma classica e non al
patrimonio spirituale antico e similmente l'attività filologica,
risvegliatasi dal nono secolo in poi, riguardava esclusivamente i testi
di per sé. Ma neppure nella trattazione di contenuti antichi si prestò
la minima attenzione alle istituzioni politiche dell'Eliade classica: ad
esempio nella grande enciclopedia fatta compilare dall'imperatore
Costantino VII. (912-959), o nei neoplatonici che presero in
considerazione esclusivamente gli scritti di Platone rivestenti una
certa importanza per le loro speculazioni metafisiche o
magico-teurgiche. Tali fatti devono essere tenuti in considerazione
volendo interpellare la letteratura bizantina, che potremmo quasi
identificare con i nostri lessici.
Nel nono secolo, nella forma di stato altofeudale di Bisanzio,
riconsolidatosi dopo l'occupazione slava, l'irruzione araba e i
disordini della contesa per l'iconolatria, il patriarca Fozio avviò una
rinascita degli studi classici. Egli non solo favori la rielaborazione
filologica dei testi classici ma compì personalmente studi filosofici su
Aristotele, e nella sua "Biblioteca" raccolse relazione sui libri
76
esaminati nella cerchia dei suoi scolari ed amici. In quest'opera
figurano 99 autori - deludenti se considerati nel contesto del nostro
discorso; la massima parte infatti appartiene all'era imperiale
romana o all'epoca bizantina. Da tale compendio sono esclusi gli
autori classici Platone, Senofonte e Tucidide; naturalmente essi
erano ben familiari a Fozio e i due ultimi citati furono da lui
significativamente giudicati come "linea normativa del dialetto
attico". L'autore più antico da lui considerato è Erodoto. Egli viene
caratterizzato con precisione sia dal punto di vista stilistico che
storico-letterario; il contenuto della sua opera viene esposto con
concisione e più precisamente, secondo la tipica mentalità bizantina,
dall'angolazione visiva della storia persiana; nella "Storia della
Persia" di Ctesia, medico personale di Artaserse Mnemone, da
Fozio profondamente analizzata e oggi perduta, una tale visione
risulta già dal tema stesso. Vengono riportati i nomi dei dieci oratori
attici con l'osservazione che Fozio non aveva preso visione di tutti i
loro discorsi. Contrariamente gli era ben noto il retore Elio Aristide
dell'epoca imperiale; ma da un panegirista dell'ordinamento
autoritario romano che cosa si poteva apprendere sull'Eliade
classica se non alcuni fatti esposti come esempi retorici? Degno di
nota è infine il testo indicato come codice 37, un trattato anonimo in
forma di dialogo, chiaramente del periodo altobizantino. Esso cerca
la miglior forma di stato che definisce "dominio di giustizia"; la sua
costituzione deve essere composta da elementi monarchici,
aristocratici e democratici. Fozio non prende posizione, ma aderisce
alla critica espressa dall'anonimo nei confronti dello "stato" di
Platone.
In summa esaminando Fozio ci si rende conto che l'eruditissimo
gerarca, politico e scrittore, a confronto dei compilatori delle
cronache universali, per lo più assai ottusi, disponeva di ben più ricco
materiale informativo, ma anche che il suo atteggiamento politico di
fondo non differiva affatto da quello dei suddetti autori.
Infine prestiamo la nostra attenzione al poligrafo e preumanista
tardobizantino Teodoro Metochite, alto funzionario e consigliere
imperiale, che contribuì a far affermare le scienze naturali a Bisanzio
e in tal senso elesse a propria guida filosofica Aristotele,
contrariamente alla corrente del neoplatonismo, dominante alla sua
epoca. Le sue "Miscellanea philosophica et histórica" riassumono in
 77
forma spigliata i risultati della sua ricerca e del suo pensiero, senza
voler ambire ad una compiuta sistematica filosofica o scientifica.
Nonostante la monarchia rappresenti per lui sotto ogni aspetto la
miglior forma di stato, egli, fedele al suo modello, analizza le
differenti costituzioni, dedicando interamente alla democrazia
l'esteso capitolo 96. Ma per quanto cerchi di spaziare nella sua
visione storica, egli sa scorgere ovunque solamente "l'irragionevole
demos". Atene, del cui ordinamento statale tratta il 99esimo
capitolo, "tesoriere illustre di ogni cultura e scienza", era da lui
considerata una "pura democrazia"; ma anche qui Metochite sa
scoprire solo infermità, esagerazione e giustificato declino.

II.
Il materiale riportato dovrebbe aver chiarito a sufficienza il fatto
che non si possa assolutamente parlare di una cosciente trasmissione
dell' idea della polis a Bisanzio, che anzi ai cittadini dell' impero
orientale gli ideali della polis di un governo popolare e di libertà
civica restarono concetti incomprensibili ed astratti. La cultura
classica che avrebbe potuto propagare la conoscenza di tali
concezioni e valori era tuttavia quasi esclusivamente privilegio degli
appartenenti alla classe dirigente e possedeva quindi di necessità un
orientamento aristocratico. Ma ancorché altri strati della
popolazione si famigliarizzassero con tale patrimonio spirituale, esso
non era in grado di mobilizzarli; la lettura degli autori classici era
infatti puramente formale, talmente formale, che persino la chiesa
cattolica affermata potè tollerare tale materia educativa. E là dove la
Paideia, il cui carattere di fondo aristocratico non deve essere
ignorato, al di là dell'insegnamento di artifici retorici, aveva
conservato qualcosa del suo vero scopo, indirizzandosi all' individuo,
non stava più al servizio dello stato. Tuttavia resta aperta la
questione se indirettamente - nelle vecchie o nelle nuove istituzioni -
la polis ellenica continuasse a vivere e, in mutate condizioni, senza
che i contemporanei ne fossero coscienti, continuasse ad influire su
di loro; e tale questione è tanto più pressante se si considera che
autorevoli personalità, riferendosi per esempio ai demi altobizantini,
parlarono di un vaso in cui continuarono a sussistere le tradizioni di
libertà delle città antiche. Bisognerà tener presente due aspetti: in
78
primo luogo il problema di una tradizione della polis
nell'amministrazione delle città bizantine, in secondo luogo la
questione delle tradizioni di libertà nell'amministrazione dell'
impero.
Indubbio è il fatto che anche dopo il crollo del sistema di stati greci
le poleis continuarono ad esistere, anzi, a causa della creazione di
territori statali ellenistici, aumentarono persino di numero. Tuttavia
non si deve ignorare questa sostanziale differenza e cioè le città
ellenistiche, per quanto estesa fosse la loro autonomia amministrati­
va, non costituivano oltre entità con diritto internazionale, bensì
erano annesse all'amministrazione delle nuove monarchie centraliz­
zate di tipo orientale. La terminologia politica tramandata si
conservò, ma il contenuto dei suoi concetti fu decisamente alterato.
La parola "libertà" non si ricollega più all'indipendenza statale e alla
sovranità, tale concetto significa ora semplicemente la mancanza di
un'occupazione, il diritto ad una propria costituzione civica (per il
quale in antecedenza si era usato il termine ben più pregnante di
autonomia) e l'esonero da tributi. Gli effetti di tali mutamenti dei
rapporti politici sulla coscienza della popolazione cittadina sono
vistosamente dimostrati dallo sviluppo della commedia, da
Aristofane con le sue opere a carattere decisamente politico,
rappresentanti i problemi della comunità della polis, giù fino a
Menandro, il quale pone al centro il desiderio individuale di
benessere, creduto dipendente dall'intervento della Tyche. Ma è
doveroso ricordare anche la filosofia in cui ora, in tutti i sistemi,
l'individuo diviene oggetto dichiarato di osservazione e l'etica
individuale prende il sopravvento sull'etica sociale. La teoria statale
tenne parimente conto di tali mutamenti. La dottrina di una forma
mista di organizzazione statale, preparata già in germe dagli uomini
di pensiero della Grecia classica, non intendeva affatto propagare il
concetto del governo popolare, cercava al contrario di motivare il
rifiuto di un ordinamento democratico e di giustificare scien­
tificamente l'illimitato esercizio di poterà dei grandi detentori di
schiavi. Da essa dipartì una via diretta alla concezione di un quadro
storico che presenta la monarchia universale, anche teologicamente
ancorata, come la forma ottimale di potere, anzi Punica possibile;
nelle cronache bizantine precedentemente citate abbiamo trovato
questa visione del mondo efficacemente trasmessa, essendo essa
 79
adattata ad una vasta cerchia di lettori.
Tenendo presente tale sfondo, ha ben poco significato il fatto che
nel mondo degli stati ellenistici e nell'impero romano che ne assunse
il retaggio, agli stati greci fu lasciata la loro organizazzione in demi e
che ginnasio, teatro e tempio divennero simbolo di una ellenicità per
lo più culturalmente intesa. Gli statisti dell'imperialismo romano
hanno per altro espressamente manifestato il loro disprezzo per la
democrazia greca con la sua libertas immoderata ac licentia
concionum e di conseguenza ovunque essi si imbatterono in polis a
costituzione democratica, in Grecia o in oriente, le ristrutturarono su
base timocratica.
Ma neppure tale libertà, che in realtà significava solamente libertà
di uno strato plutocratico, restò inalterata. Già con Traiano
esistevano plenipotenziari imperiali a sorveglianza dell'amminis­
trazione finanziaria delle città: i curatores rei publicae. Nel corso
degli anni si verificarono scambi di competenza, le cui cause sono da
ricercarsi non per ultimo nella configurazione del sistema liturgico
municipale con il decurionato, un'istituzione coercitiva contraria a
tutti i principi della polis, fondalmentalmente però non mutò il fatto
che, con il sistema politico di Diocleziano, la polis cessò
definitivamente di esistere come organizzazione autonoma e
autoamministrativa. Il defensor civitatis (che incontriamo anche
come defensor plebis), in origine eletto a difesa degli humiliores
contro i soprusi dei potentiores, rimosse gradualmente il curator rei
publicae dal suo ruolo di suprema autorità civica, ma anche tale
carica di dissolse a causa del crescente influsso dei vescovi e nel
periodo di Giustiniano il vero e proprio patrono della città era
rappresentato dall'episcopo.
I mutamenti politici qui accennati influirono di necessità anche
sulla semantica. Naturalmente si continuò ad usare il vocabolo polis;
ma nel sesto secolo chi lo pronunciava intendeva semplicemente
città come agglomerato cittadino o come comune, come unità
organizzativa inferiore nel q u a d r o della gerarchia imperiale, non
intendeva sicuramente una comunità sovrana in possesso di tutti gli
attributi di cui abbiamo parlato all'inizio e con piena certezza non
considerava la polis sinonimo di "democrazia". Però, come era
successo per Roma, divenuta la urbs per eccellenza, successe ora per
la capitale Costantinopoli che divenne la polis per antonomasia.
KO
mentre le altre città vennero comunemente denominate castrum.
Ancor più radicale è il mutamento del concetto democrazia. Già
Polibio parlò sporadicamente di democrazia in senso peggiorativo
(la democrazia come insegna dell'oclocrazia!) e il valore di tale
concetto si deteriorò sempre più man mano che si estinse il pensiero
della polis. Nel combattivo patriarca Cirillo di Alessandria, nella
prima metà del quinto secolo, ed in seguito nella cronografia
bizantina, democrazia significa: "giustizia sommaria, assembramen­
to, ribellione, rivoluzione ,, e solamente nella metaforica cristiana si
può ancor parlare di "meravigliosa democrazia degli atomi"; e per
altro il linguaggio ecclesiastico fa propio l'insieme di concetti della
polis; libertà è specificamente libertà cristiana, diviene una qualità
dei santi, viene riconosciuta in rapporto alla vita eterna e alle
proprietà di Dio; politela significa primariamente "modo di vivere,
forma di vita" soprattutto in riferimento alla prassi ascetica; polites è
il cristiano in qualità di cittadino della patria celesta e l'espressione
"registrare nel ruolo di cittadino" viene usata metaforicamente per
"battezzare". Il considerevole mutamento di significato subito dalla
parola democrazia si rispecchia nella transformazione del senso di
demo, cosa altrimentri inspiegabile. Demo non definiva più l'intera
comunità di cittadini liberi, bensì il partito circense - prevalen­
temente dei Blu e dei Verdi - delle grandi città dell'Impero romano
d'oriente. Tali partiti circensi erano territorialmente articolati,
avevano mansione di milizia cittadina ed esercitavano ulteriori
funzioni pubbliche.
Con l'accertamento di tali fatti non si mette minimamente in
dubbio l'importanza politica rivestita dai demi sul piano locale e
soprattutto nella capitale Costantinopoli, la cui popolazione per
diritto consuetudinario in periodi di crisi si elevava, nelle sue
organizzazioni, a rappresentante e mandataria con piena libertà
d'azione dell'intera popolazione dell'impero. Di fronte all'assolutis­
mo imperiale tuttavia né il demo - che usato al singolare spesso stava
ad indicare in senso collettivo i due demi dei Verdi e dei Blu - erano
in grado di farsi valere come partner equiparati; questi si limitavano
per lo più ad inoltrare proposte e petizioni. Ma, come il senato
metteva in gioco tutte le sue possibilità in un periodo di
indebolimento del potere imperiale, in egual guisa reagivano anche i
demi, in seno ai quali gli strati inferiori della popolazione
 81
costituivano la massa del partito, mentre la sua direzione era affidata
all'alta aristocrazia e ai funzionali nobili presso i Blu e ai grandi
commercianti e ai possessori di ergasteri presso i Verdi. Le azioni dei
demi divennero quindi una valvola attraverso la quale potevano
manifestarsi le reali necessità delle masse popolari, necessità che
tuttavia venivano troppo spesso manipolate nell'interesse della
classe dirigente. Comunque tale istituzione costituiva per la potenza
imperiale una forza da non sottovalutare e che saggiamente fu
calcolata. Per quanto l'istituzione dei demi avesse creato una certa
libertà d'azione politica, risvegliando di conseguenza una certa
coscienza politica - in realtà l'ippodromo esercitò l'effetto contrario
del circo romano, espletando su un piano diverso la funzione del
dramma attico - per quanto essa avesse risvegliato illusioni di libertà
civica e di autonomia comunale, tuttavia essa non fu mai e in nessun
luogo all'insegna della polis classica e della sua caratteristica forma
di governo democratico. Le fonti di quel passato, come abbiamo
evidenziato precedentemente, erano tuttavia ben note agli ideologi
dei demi, e dovremmo quindi presumere che essi avrebbero potuto
servirsi di tale arsenale spirituale, se lo avessero reputato utile ai loro
fini politici.
Ma successe proprio il contrario. Persino il vocabolo polis = città
subisce sempre maggiori delimitazioni nel suo impiego: esso
definisce la capitale e le città greche in partibus infidelium, cioè al di
fuori del territorio imperiale, mentre a Bisanzio stessa si afferma il
termine castrum. Precedentemente era andato perduto anche il
nome di Elleno, che, proprio per la coscienza del cittadino della
polis, aveva rivestito la massima importanza; Elleni venivano definiti
ora i pagani, mentre i Bizantini si sentivano Romani: volevano essere
cittadini e legittimi rappresentanti dell'impero mondiale romano,
mentre l'Eliade classica scomparve dal loro quadro storico e
solamente con il decadimento del feudalesimo bizantino l'antico
nome di Elleno riacquistò dignità, poté persino significare un
programma. La monarchia universale romanocristiana divenne
l'ordine mondiale per eccellenza e quando i demi cercarono di
assoggettare con i mezzi a loro disposizione monarchia e senato, il
suo equilibrio sembrò divenire precario. Tale processo veniva
definito "democrazia" anche dai cronisti popolari che forgiavano la
coscienza delle massse! Di conseguenza simili azioni "demo-
<S2
natiche" furono considerate da tali autori come delitti di stato e
Maiala trova perfettamente convenevole il fatto che il rappresen­
tante dell'autorità in un caso simile ricorse alla violenza e "ridusse in
suo potere la 'democrazia' bizantina". Tempi nuovi e una nuova
società spogliarono anche il concetto democrazia, come successe per
il termine Elleno, del suo valore e della sua dignità, diffamandolo ed
esecrandolo nel vero senso della parola. I demi bizantini, per quanto
furono in grado di dar espressione al volere del popolo, non
poterono quindi servirsi per le loro azioni di lotta di classe di tali
concetti centrali, né della globale ideologia della polis.

III.
E noto che già al tempo dei Commeni le città riacquistarono
importanza grazie allo sviluppo del commercio e dell'artigianato.
Considerate globalmente però le città bizantine non furono in grado
di apportare mutamenti nel sistema politico; infatti mentre in
occidente si andavano formando comuni ad amministrazione
autonoma, in lotta con i signori feudali urbani, nelle città dell'impero
orientale mantennero il sopravvento i feudatari, sufficientemente
forti per soffocare movimenti democratici. La denominazione πόλις
si riaffermò nei confronti di κάστρα e non mancarono tentativi di
mettere nuovamente in pratica i diritti dei partiti circensi
altobizantini. Ma tale presa di coscienza per le condizioni
altobizantine non incluse affatto una presa di coscienza per la polis
classica.
I moti popolari bizantini culminarono, tra il 1343 e il 1349, nella
sommossa di Tessalonica, capeggiata dal raggruppamento radicale
degli zeloti. Nel nostro contesto è di sommo interesse soprattutto
l'ideologia dei rivoluzionari. Alcuni studiosi richiamarono l'atten­
zione sulle presunte tradizioni democratiche, che a Bisanzio
avrebbero continuato a sussistere accanto all'autocrazia e al
despotismo e credettero di poter ricollegare tali tradizioni alle
antiche città-stato. Ma abbiamo già avuto occasione di mettere in
dubbio un simile presunto tradizionalismo dal punto di vista
dell'accertamento filologico delle fonti e vorremmo associare la
richiesta storiografica "di non citare singoli testi, bensì di
considerarli globalmente, nel loro insieme". Sotto tali premesse
risulta però che i demi altobizantini basavano su ben altri
 S3
presupposti rispetto al movimento tardobizantino degli zeloti; le
lotte di classe della storia bizantina non derivano dal perdurante
effetto di un presunto democratismo, bensì dai momentanei concreti
rapporti di classe. Di fatto si sarebbe potuto senz'altro supporre che i
capi degli zeloti, evidentemente in possesso di un programma
socialpolitico, per rafforzare la loro posizione ideologica si fossero
serviti "della lingua, delle passioni ed illusioni" delle "austere
tradizioni classiche". Che ciò non avvenne lo dimostra chiaramente
la testimonianza dell'eruditissimo storico Nicheforo Gregora, che
sottolineò espressamente l'originalità della repubblica zelota,
contrapponendola alle altre forme statali conosciute: non sarebbe
stata un'aristocrazia come quella fondata da Licurgo nell'antica
Sparta, né una democrazia sul genere di quella ateniese di Cleistene,
ma neppure paragonabile allo stato di Zaleuco a Locri nell'Italia
settentrionale, né di Caronda a Catania, in Sicilia e tanto meno alle
costituzioni miste posteriori di Cipro e dell'antica Roma, né di altre
località; si tratterebbe piuttosto di una inconsueta forma di
oclocrazia, determinata più che altro dal caso. Più che naturale è il
fatto che l'aristocratico Gregora considerasse con riserva gli zeloti;
ma tenendo presente appunto il suo distanziamento, li avrebbe
sicuramente condannati, se costoro nelle loro azioni si fossero
ricollegati alla grecità classica.
Il fatto che si considerò nuovamente con attenzione anche i suoi
contenuti politici, all'insegna di un rafforzato atticismo e di una
erudizione polistorica, caratteristica importante della letteratura
tardobizantina, viene testimoniato oltre che da Gregora anche dal
filologo Tommaso Magistro. Attingendo al pensiero di Isocrate, egli
trattò l'argomento dei doveri del sovrano e compose un secondo
discorso sullo stato. Pur dovendo ammettere che il trattato dà rilievo
alla dipendenza del reggente dalla massa dei cittadini, esso tuttavia
accetta acriticamente la tradizionale concezione monarchica del
mondo: cerca di placare le lotte di classe con l'ammonimento ad
un'intesa: "Pur articolando l'intero stato in aristocrazia e plebe, non
consideriamo giusto che prendan piede malevolenza ed arroganza
degli uni nei confronti degli altri, entrambe le parti dovrebbero
piuttosto considerarsi con adeguata benevolenza". In tal senso
l'autore tende ad orientare esclusivamente verso uno sviluppo delle
qualità morali dell'individuo, la cui collocazione nella monarchia
S4
universale gli appare più che naturale. Rilevante a tale riguardo è
l'affermazione secondo la quale Atene, dal settimo secolo ridotta a
piccola città periferica, viene esaltata nell'importanza da essa
rivestita per l'intera Grecia, anzi per l'intera umanità. La
concretizzazione di tale pensiero delude però le speranze che si
vorrebbe collegare ad esso; infatti egli non accenna affatto alle
conquiste politiche del quinto secolo, ma si limita a menzionare il
senso morale degli Ateniesi, il loro senso religioso, la loro probità
ecc. Sarebbe perciò erroneo vedere nell'esortazione finale alla
calocagazia, indirizzata ai lettori, un avvicinamento all'antichità
pagana.
Resta tuttavia inconfutabile il fatto che anche la grande
dimestichezza con gli aspetti formali dell'antica letteratura significò
un passo decisivo verso la preparazione di quel grande progressivo
rivolgimento che si basò affatto sui manoscritti "salvati dalla rovina
di Bisanzio". La Bisanzio in decadenza non solo preparò il terreno
alla renaissance, ma ne ebbe essa stessa parte. Già nell'undicesimo
secolo Michele Psello (1018-1079 o 1097) aveva riscoperto Platone
- non il politico, tuttavia il filosofo e l'uomo di scienza -
riimpossessandosi attraverso di lui delle conquiste dell'antico
pensiero: razionalismo, accertamento dei fatti, ricerca delle cause,
rifiuto di ogni credenza cieca, basata sull'autorità o sull'analogia.
Tale linea culminò in Giorgio Gemisto Pletone (metà del
quattordicesimo secolo - 1452) che a ragione è stato definito filosofo
politico. Nel despotato di Mistra credette di scorgere la possibilità di
erigere uno stato ideale, ispirato al pensiero platonico, che avrebbe
condotto l'ellenicità a nuova fioritura. Negli scritti di Pletone infatti
si parla a ragion veduta di Elleni e non più di Romani. Nella
tradizione degli Elleni vengono però considerati in primo luogo gli
Spartani. Ciò deriva dal fatto che i piani di riforma dell'umanista
utopista Pletone avrebbero dovuto realizzarsi su suolo un tempo
spartano; ma tale inclinazione trova la sua causa primaria nel fatto di
per sé. Nel libro di Pletone sulle leggi l'antico stato spartano viene
preso esplicitamente a modello, naturalmente purgato dell'eccessivo
rigore e corredato della sostanza centrale della dottrina statale di
Platone. In altra occasione - in un discorso al despota Teodoro II. - la
monarchia viene definita in tal senso la migliore delle tre forme di
stato, sempre che venga sorretta da ottimi consiglieri e da valide
 85
leggi, fattori considerati forze determinanti; nei riguardi dell'imper­
atore Manuele II. si sottolinea espressamente la responsabilità del
regnante. In tali concezioni aristocratiche non restò quindi spazio
per la democrazia ateniese - e tanto meno per chiesa e clero, cosicché
il patriarca Gennadio, alcuni anni dopo la morte di Pletone, ordinò di
bruciare le sua opera sulle leggi, permettendo di conservarne solo
alcuni stralci a scopo dimostrativo.
Con Giorgio Gemisto Pletone si conclude la storia del pensiero
politico a Bisanzio, nel 1453 la capitale del grande potente impero di
un tempo cadde in mano del conquistatore turco. Lo stato che in tal
modo cessò di esistere come potenza politica fu tutt'altro che uno
stato ideale, sinonimo di fasto e ricchezza, potenta all'esterno ed
concorde all'interno; negli oltre 1000 anni d'esistenza fu
caratterizzato dal declino definitivo degli antichi metodi produttivi e
dalla formazione ed in seguito il pieno sviluppo dell'ordinamento
feudale, nella cui fase conclusiva si poterono già avvisare i primi
indizi del metodo di produzione capitalista. Accanite lotte di classe,
nelle quali le masse popolari rivendicarono i loro diritti e le loro
libertà contro lo sfruttamento e l'oppressione, divennero la spinta
motrice di tale sviluppo. Rientra nelle caratteristiche dello stato
bizantino che esso, come "bibliotecario dell'umanità" abbia
custodito fedelmente le conquiste spirituali dell'antica Grecia. La
memoria della libertà e della democrazia della polis avrebbe
senz'altro potuto divenire un'arma efficace in quelle lotte. I fatti qui
esposti dovrebbero aver chiaramente dimostrato l'illusiorietà di tale
aspettativa: in conseguenza del pensiero imperiale tramandato e
della visione storica da esso derivante mancava alla vasta massa dei
Bizantini, ai dominatori come ai dominati, il senso di un'entità
statale ad amministrazione e governo autonomi - e sia pure limitati al
suo strato più elevato. Gli eruditi, pur conoscendo i testi classici, non
poterono né vollero rendere utilizzabili per la propria epoca i loro
contenuti politici. Tuttavia li curarono e tramandarono con accorta
scrupolosità, cosicché essi restarono armi efficaci, di cui in seguito la
borghesia seppe ben sevirsi nella lotta per la sua emancipazione.
Il testo si ispira ad un saggio apparso nella raccolta edita da
Elisabeth Charlotte Welskopf "Hellenische Poleis - Krise -
Wandlung - Wirkung", volume IL, Berlino 1974, p. 1639 seg. Per
dati più specifici si rimanda a tale saggio.
 T W O S T U D I E S IN T H E C O N T I N U I T Y O F L A T E
ROMAN AND BYZANTINE MILITARY
INSTITUTIONS*

WALTER EMIL KAEG1, JR. / CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

This is not the appropriate occasion to offer a general review of the

extensive scholarly literature on the subject of the origins and
character of the Byzantine themes, probably the most obscure, the
most controversial, and the most important issue for twentieth-
century Byzantine historians.1 The recent penetrating investigations
by Haldon and Lilie decisively support and confirm the earlier
arguments of Karayannopulos, Lemerle, and Pertusi, to name some
of the most eminent scholars, who rejected any theory of a
comprehensive creation of the themes by Heraclius in the 620's,
especially as a conscious and sweeping social, political, and military
reform. Instead, there is growing evidence for the gradual
emergence of Middle Byzantine institutions from those of the Late
Roman (or Early Byzantine) period. This does not mean that such a

'Sections of this article were read and discussed at the Annual Meeting of the
American Historical Association, Dallas, 1977, and in a public lecture at the
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 10 December 1980. I wish to
acknowledge my thanks to various scholars who have read earlier versions of
sections of this paper, including John Teall, Averil Cameron, Robert Edbrooke,
Irfan Shahid, and Arnaldo Momigliano, although this in no way implies that they
agree with all of the conclusions. I wish to acknowledge with thanks the reference to
Parastaseis42, which was called to my attention by Dr. Judith Herrin and the
research team of Averil and Alan Cameron.

1
For a review of earlier literature, see: John F. Haldon, Recruitment and
Conscription in the Byzantine Army c. 550-950. A Study on the Origins of the
Stratiotika Ktemata (Sitzungsberichte, "österreichische Akademie der Wis­
senschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Bd. 357, 1979) 20-40; also R. Lilie,
Die byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber (Miscellanea
Byzantina Monacensia, 22, Munich 1977) 287-360.
«ss
gradual process always operated at an even pace. Elements of the
Late Roman civilian and provincial structure survived into the early
eighth century, as H. Gelzer correctly observed long ago. 2 Late
Roman military nomenclature survived well into the seventh
century. O n e contemporary source, for example, shows that the
names of some very old Roman military units were restored in
Byzantine Palestine after the Byzantines recovered Palestine from
the Persians. 1 If major changes in the Byzantine army had been made
elsewhere, such as the creation of the themes, it seems that they
would have been instituted in Palestine after its recovery from the
Persians; however there is no such indication. Indeed, the scraps of
references are beginning to point to a conclusion that some earlier
Byzantinists had hypothesized without knowledge of some Arabic
texts: that the A r a b invasions and conquest of Palestine and Syria
and Mesopotamia provided the catalyst that accelerated what had
been a gradual development, almost imperceptible, of Late Roman
military institutions into Byzantine ones. T h e Futûh al-Shâm ("The
Conquest of Syria") by al-Azdî al-Ba§rî states that in the face of
impending A r a b invasions Heraclius appointed commanders from
his army over certain major cities of Syria; this text deserves more
study but appears to describe the creation of emergency military

:
Haldon, Recruitment and Conscription, and R. Lilie, Die byzantinische Reaktion.
The fundamental earlier studies: J. Karayannopulos, Die Entstehung der
byzantinischen Themenordnung (Munich 1959); P. Lemerle, "Esquisse pour une
histoire agraire de Byzance", Revue Historique 219 (1958) 32-74; Lemerle,
"Quelques remarques sur le règne d'Héraclius", Studi Medievali 3, ser. 1 (1960)
347-361 ; A. Pertusi, "La formation des thèmes byzantins", Berichte zum XI. Inter.
Byzantinisten-Kongress (Munich 1958) Pt. 1: 1-40; Pertusi, "Nuova ipotesi suli'
origine dei 'temi' bizantini", Aevum28 ( 1954) 126-150, and Pertusi, "La questione
delle origine dei temi", in his criticai edition and commentary, Costantino
Porfirogenito, De thematibus (Vatican City 1952) 103-111. See also: W.E. Kaegi,
Jr. "Some Reconsiderations on the Themes", Jahrbuch der österreichischen
Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 16 (1967) 39-53. On the slowness of change: H.
Gelzer. Die Genesis der byzantinischen Themenverfassung (Leipzig 1899, r.p.
Amsterdam 1966) 8-72.
1
W.E. Kaegi, Jr., "Notes on Hagiographie Sources for Some Institutional Changes
and Continuities in the Seventh Century", Byzantina 7 (1975) 6Ü-70.
 89
4
government in Syria in the middle of the 63()'s. This process may
have been extended when the shattered remnants of Byzantine
armies withdrew into Asia Minor. T h e Futûlj al-Buldân by
al-Baladhuri indicates that a military unit called " A r m e n i a c u s "
under the command of a patricius was in existence in the 640's
although it may not technically have been called a theme. 5 The Arabs
gave Amorion much attention in 644 and 646 probably because it
had already become the command post for the remains of the
Orientales (the troops who served under the Magister Militum per
Orientem) that were in the process of becoming the Anatolic
Theme. 6 The overall trend of evidence is vindicating the arguments
that Pertusi made in 1952, 1954, and 1958, that the themes took
their essential form in the wake of the retreat and regrouping of the
Byzantine armies, especially the orientales, that withdrew before the
victorious Arabs. 7 Many details require clarification and some of
them may not receive clarification for a long time. It is still uncertain
when the words θ έ μ α and θ έ μ α τ α began to be used for Byzantine
armies. Mature themes do not appear until the eighth century, that
is, thematic structures do not appear to have included civilian
responsibilities and the old Late Roman civilian administrative
structure does not appear to have disappeared until that advanced
date. Yet the process of transformation of Late Roman military units
into Byzantine themes quickened in the course of and immediately
following the evacuation of Byzantine Syria and Palestine. 8
Those who believe that there was a gradual development of the
themes have an obligation to show how that process worked. This
paper investigates two institutional continuities between the sixth
and early seventh century.
4
Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah al-AzdF al-Basn, TSnkh Futùh al-Shäm (ed. 'Abd
al-Mimim, 'Abd Allah 'Amir, Cairo 1970) 28, 31.
5
W.E. Kaegi, Jr. "Al-Baladhuri and the Armeniak Theme", Byzantion 38 (1968)
273-277.
6
W.E. Kaegi, Jr. "The First Arab Expedition Against Amorium", Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies 3 (1977) 19-22.
7
Pertusi. "Nuova ipotesi" 126-150; Pertusi, "La questione delle origine dei temi"
1 1 1 ; Pertusi. "La formation" 30-36.
* See important conclusions of W. Seibt in his review of G. Zacos, A. Veglery,
Byzantine Lead Seals in: Byzantinoslavica 36 (1975) 209.
yo
I
A neglected passage — called to my attention by Dr. Judith Herrin
and a team of investigators under Professor Averil Cameron — in
the early eighth - or late seventh-century Parastaseis Syntomoi
Chronikai indicates that the corps of Excubitors continued to have a
role in scrutinizing military fitness in the reign of Heraclius, a role
that they or at least some of their officers had already exercized in the
reign of Justinian I.
The text of Parastaseis 42 describes the end of the huge brazen
ox-head that had once decorated the Forum of the Ox (Bous, Forum
Bovis) in the region of Constantinople that is now Aksaray. The
ox-head had been brought to Constantinople from Pergamům,
probably in the reign of Theodosius I.9 The author of the Parastaseis
explains: "And after the same Phocas was burned by Heraclius the
ox was melted in the treasury of the Watch and passed over to Pontos
because of a recruitment of an army (the Watch was in Pontos)
'twenty-four stathma ("weights"] of coin were melted for it. What is
here still preserved until today for viewers is cast in very sad little

** Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, 42, ed. T. Preger, in Scriptores Originum

Constantinopotitanarum (Leipzig 1901) 1: 49: on the removal of the ox-head from
Pergamům, George Cedrenus, Hist. (ed. I. Bekker, Bonn 1838) 1: 566. On Forum
Bovis, W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tübingen 1977)
253-254. See J. Herrin, "The Date and Purpose of the 'Curt Historical Notes*
(Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai)", Abstracts, Sixth Annual Byzantine Studies
Conference( 1980) 44-45. Cf., also, on the Forum Bovis, Patria Konstantinopoleos
53 in: Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitarum (2: 180 Preger). paraphrasing
important information in the Parastaseis, including the minting of bronze coinage
(folles) from the ox-head. Even though a few coins "busts" survived from the
meltdown that the author of the Parastaseis could still identify at the beginning of
the eighth century, I am informed by Professor Phillip Grierson that no such pieces
are known to exist today.
 91
1
¡mages [busts]." "
This passage describes the imperial Watch (το σκουλκάτον), or
some members of it, melting down the brazen ox-head of the Forum
of the Ox in Constantinople and transferring it to Pontos because the
Watch was there for the purpose of raising an army. This recruitment
was probably a general one, that is, not intended to recruit new
soldiers specifically for the unit of the Excubitors or Watch, but for
broader military purposes. The conclusion that the recruitment was a
general one derives from reading Procopius Of Caesarea's Anecdota,
in which Procopius critically describes how in the reign of Justinian,
Later on also some of the Palace Guards were sent out through the
whole Roman Empire, and ostensibly they were in search of any
among the armies who were quite unsuitable for active service; and
they dared to strip the belts from some of these as being unfit or too
old, and these thereafter had to beg their bread from the pious in the
public square of the market-place, so that they became a constant
cause for tears and lamentation on the part of all who met them; and
from the rest they exacted great sums of money, to the end that they
might not suffer the same fate..."

These guards almost certainly were, as Stein observed, scribones,

that is, officers, of the corps of Excubitors. 1 2 Procopius is not
describing their actions as directly involving recruiting here, but the
scrutinization of the fitness of soldiers is an integral aspect of the
process of recruitment. It was officers of the Excubitors who were

10
Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, 42 (Preger 1: 49): και μετά το καυθηναι τον
αυτόν Φωκαν υπό 'Ηρακλείου χωνευθηναι τον βοΰν εις σκουλκαταμείον και εις
τον Πόντον περάσαι ένεκεν στρατολογίας | (ήν δε το σκουλκάτον έν τω Πόντω)
t σταθμών του αργυρίου κδ' δια το είναι αυτό χυτόν. "Οπερ καί ένταϋθα σώζεται
εως της σήμερον τοις όρώσιν εις λαιμία χωνευτά σκυθρωπά πάνυ. See the
comments of Preger on p. 49, n. 11 (significat effigiem collo tenus) and Dindorf, s.v.
Λαιμίον, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae(Paris 1842-1846) 5: 42 (imaguncula) for the
meaning of λαιμία. Note reference to Heraclius' recruiting in a plausible source:
Σύνοψις Χρονική, ed. C. Sathas (Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη, VII, Venice 1894)
108: εξήλθε δια θαλάσσης κατά Περσών, καί δι' εξ χρόνων στρατολογήσας.

" Procopius. Anecdota 24.8

12
Ernest Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire (Paris 1949) 2: 445-446, esp. n. 1, 446:
"me paraissent être des scribons".
92
responsible for determining fitness. Reinforcing this passage from
Procopius is one from the correspondence of Pope Gregory I in 592,
who instructs Petrus, subdiaconus of Sicily, that "Venientibus
scribonibus, qui sicut audio iam ulic tyrones colligunt, loci servatori
tuo deputa, ut parum aliquid exenium offerant, quatenus eos sibi
placabiles reddant."' 3 This passage does not prove that there was any
general conscription (Gregory's order to give the scribones a little
gift may suggest that he wished the scríbonesto avoid conscripting on
ecclesiastical estates, but their recruiting may not have been
compulsory conscription; the text is not conclusive on this
controversial question). It does show officers of the Excubitors
recruiting soldiers in a province exactly three decades before the
instance of Excubitors recruiting in the Pontus, which the Parastaseis
mentions. In both instances their function is not to examine or raise
manpower for the corps of Excubitors itself, the implication is that
this is broader in scope, scrutiny of soldiers for the larger army.
Another letter of Gregory describes a scribon distributing pay to
soldiers in Rome. The description of the ceremony of creating
scribones — at the door of the Excubitors in the imperial palace in
the presence of their domestic — shows that the scribones were
officers of the Excubitors: the De Cerimoniis is decisive.14
The author of the Parastaseis provides no explicit date for the
melting down of the brazen ox head, except the statement that it took
place after the execution of Phocas, which means after 5 October
610. It is true that Emperor Heraclius may have sought to recruit
soldiers for any army at any time after his accession. Yet the revolt of
Comentiolus, brother of Phocas, would have denied Heraclius'

** Gregoru I. Registrum Epistolarum 2. 38 (ed. P. Ewald, L.M. Hartmann, MGH,

Epp., Berlin 1891) t: 137.
14
Gregoru I, Ep. 5. 30 (310-311 Ewald-Hartmann), in a letter to Emperor
Maurice. On the ceremony for creating a scribon at the door of the Excubitors, in
the presence of the Domestic of the Excubitors: Constantine VII, De Cerimoniis
1.32 (ed. trans. A. Vogt, r.p. Paris 1967, 1: 121) and the commentary of Vogt, 2:
151, "Comme il est naturel, les scribones relevant du domestique des Excubites.
étaient promus dans leur quartier propre". Important is the discussion of A.H.M.
Jones, Later Roman Empire 658-659, and esp. n. 118, p. 203 of the notes, who
believes that the scribones were officers of the Excubitors.
 l
)3
Excubitors access to Pontos immediately after the execution of
Phocas. The most likely date for the recruitment or raising of an
army in Pontos was sometime in 622 or immediately thereafter.
Before leaving Constantinople on 5 April 622 for the east in order to
turn back the Persian invaders of Asia Minor, Heraclius, according
to the Chronographia of Theophanes, "Taking money from the holy
houses [presumably churches and monasteries] in loan, being in want
he even took the candelabra of the Great Church and other service
vessels, minting very many nomismata and milliaresia." 15 It is very
likely that the brazen ox-head, associated in Christian tradition with
the burning of Christian martyrs in its furnace (including St. Antipas
as well as Christians in the reign of Julian the Apostate), was a target
for contribution to the war effort against the non-believing Persians.
It surely would have been difficult to justify sparing the ox-head with
its pagan and explicitly anti-Christian associations — whatever the
truth of such traditions — when ecclesiastical establishments,
including the Great Church, were yielding up some of their most
sacred treasures to finance the struggle against the Persians. It is true
that the ox-head was merely bronze, not precious metal, but its
meltdown did produce twenty-four stathma worth of coin for its
bronze. The ox-head did adorn a famous forum in Constantinople
but the empire's financial circumstances were so strained that the
melting of the ox-head would have been one of the emergency
actions that were deemed to be necessary for survival.
The σκουλκαταμείον of treasury of the Watch melted down the
ox-head. This reference to the existence of a treasury of the Watch is
unique; only the Parastaseis mentions it. The corps of Excubitors
probably possessed some sort of treasury from its inception, but it is
unclear whether its functions and capacity had included melting

15
Theophanes. Chronographia. A.M. 6113 (ed. C. de Boor. Leipzig 1883, 1:
302-303): λαβών οέ τα των ευαγών οικιον χρήματα εν δανείω. απορία
κατεχόμενος έλαβε και της μεγάλης εκκλησίας πολυκανοηλα τε καί έτερα σκεύη
υπουργικά, χαράξας νομίσματα τε καί μιλιαρίσια πάμπολλα. Cf. Zonaras,
Epitome historiarum. 14.15.38 (ed. Th. Büttner-Wobst. Bonn, 1897) 3: 208:
Cedrenus (717 Bckker). Date of departure: Chronicon Paschale (cd. L. Dindorf.
Bonn 1832) 1: 713-714. Heraclius in Pontos: T.S. Brown, A. Bryer, D. Winfield.
"Cities of Heraclius". Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 4 (1978) 15-30.
94
metal at an earlier date. The Excubitors were charged with
examining the credentials of soldiers and with fining those who were
delinquent in the reign of Justinian; any such fines probably were
deposited in the treasury of the Excubitors or Watch, even though
there is no explicit testimony to the corps' treasury in connection
with the collection and disposal of such fines. The total scope of the
treasury is uncertain but obviously it could not only receive fines, but
could melt down large metal objects, and presumably it also could
and did use funds to accomplish recruitment of any army. lh
The reference to military recruiting in the Parastaseisis very brief
but extremely important. It shows that the participation in and
responsibility of the Excubitors in general recruiting does not appear
to have changed between the 620's and the middle of the reign of
Justinian I. Furthermore, it emphasizes that coin was an
indispensable medium for raising troops. That such was still the case
in the wake of Heraclius' departure for Asia Minor in April of 622
indicates that any hypothesis — moreover undocumented — of a
shift to some new system of recruiting troops through grants of lands,
whether called stratiotika ktemata or some other form of public land
grants, is very improbable.' 7 There is no reason to posit any creation
of land grants to fund Heraclius' recruiting efforts in Asia Minor in
the year 622 or the years that immediately followed. The passage
from the Parastaseisis consistent with the statement of Theophanes
in his Chronographia that Heraclius did recruit an army in Asia in
622-623 but it shows that such recruitment was accomplished in a
traditional manner by the traditional institution, the Excubitors or
excubiae, who had exercized that responsibility in the middle of the
sixth century. In short, the passage from the Parastaseis shows that
one must interpret in a traditional fashion the much debated

"■ Pope Gregory I mentions no treasury for the Excubitors, even though he refers to
a scribon paying soldiers, and others who recruited.
17
On the complex issue of stratiotika ktemata, see the important monograph by
John Haldon, Recruitment and Conscription in the Byzantine Army c. 550-950. A
Study on the Origins of the Stratiotika Ktemata. (Sitzungsberichte, Philosophisch-
Historische Klasse, österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 357. 1979)
esp. 66-81, who argues convincingly against their creation in 622, and includes
major bibliography on the problem.
 95
assertion of Theophanes that εντεύθεν δε επί τάς των {δεμάτων
χοάρας άφικόμενος συνέλεγε τα στρατόπεδα και προσετίΦει αύτοϊς
νέαν στρατείαν. τούτους δε γυμνάζειν ήρξατο και τα πολεμικά
έργα έξεπαίδευσεν. 18
Advocates of the origin of soldiers' properties or stratiotika
ktemata under Emperor Heraclius have pointed to 622 as the logical
date for such an innovation ; they have not suggested any later date in
the 620's. Yet it is clear that in 622-623 monetary payments — as
shown by the Parastaseis — were the medium for recruitment.
Indirectly, Theophanes himself had suggested the importance of
money in recruiting soldiers by his very reference to the need to
borrow ecclesiastical vessels made of precious metals to finance the
war. The text of the Parastaseis'is, however, more specific, explicitly
connecting the need for coin to the process of raising an army. There
is no statement in extant sources suggesting any later date in the
620's for the initiation of land grants. Therefore the elimination of
622 because of the information in the passage from the Parastaseis'is
extremely important.
Curiously, the corps of Excubitors are associated with the Forum
of the Ox in the imperial Book of Ceremonies compiled by Emperor
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. It was at the Forum of the Ox that
the domesticus of the Excubitors received the imperial family during
its procession of the Feast of Ascension (although it is possible that
this passage has been incorrectly transposed for the Feast of the
Virgin). There is no explanation given in the Book of Ceremonies for
the presence of the domesticus of the Excubitors at the Forum of the
Ox and it seems impossible to date this particular section on the
Feast of the Ascension.19
The continuing role of the Excubitors in recruiting in the 620's
helps to explain the prominence of the Excubitors and their Count in
many events of the late sixth and seventh centuries, because after the
downgrading of the command of the Magister Militum Praesentalis
in the fifth and early sixth centuries, the Count of the Excubitors was,
as far as can be determined, the most important Byzantine military

18
Theophanes, Chron.. A.M. 6113 (1: 303 de Boor).
19
Constantine VII, De cerimonüs 1.8 ( 1 : 5 1 Vogt).
%
commander, certainly the one with the best chance of rising to the
imperial throne if a vacancy appeared (one thinks of Justin 1,
Tiberius II, and Maurice, as well as the disappointed ambitions of a
Priscus and a Valentinus). Control of recruitment and the right to
scrutinize the fitness of soldiers and officers to serve, in addition to
physical proximity to the emperor and responsibility for his personal
safety, made the Excubitors and especially their Count an extremely
influential commander in a superbly well placed situation. There is
no known text that clarifies when the Excubitors ceased to have any
responsibilities in connection with the scrutinization of the fitness of
soldiers, but a reasonable estimate is that it ceased with the reduction
in importance of the Excubitors or Watch after the failure of the
revolt of Valentinus, who was Count of the Excubitors, at the
beginning of the 640 , s. 20
The Excubiae or Watch presumably accompanied Heraclius
throughout his campaigns in Asia starting in 622. Heraclius explicitly
mentions the presence of Excubitors in his camp at Ganzak in
March, 628, in an official victory communication that the Chronicon
Paschale preserves.21 In 626 or 627 there had been a census made of
Byzantine soldiers who accompanied Heraclius. In that census or
exetasis it was discovered that only two soldiers remained who had
served with the previous emperor, Phocas. Byzantinists have often
called attention to this census (because of its information about the
ostensible attrition of soldiers).22 The primary sources, Theophylact
Simocatta and Theophanes, do not explain any details about the
procedures and the precise officials who accomplished this census.

20
On the importance of the Excubitors in internal military politics, see: W.E. Kaegi,
Jr. Byzantine Military Unrest, p. 33.
21
Chronicon Paschale(ed. L. Dindorf, Bonn 1832) 1: 730, oi τήςσκούλκας. On the
Germanic origin of this word for the Excubitors, E. Gamillscheg, Romania
Germanica (Berlin, Leipzig, 1934) 1: 392. Date of Heraclius at Ganzak: F. Dölger.
Regesten, Nr. 190 (Munich, Berlin 1924) 1:21.
22
Theophylact Simocatta, Hist. 8.12.12 (ed. C. de Boor. r.p. Stuttgart 1972, p.
308); cf. Theophanes, Chron.. A.M. 6103 (300 de Boor). On the date"in 626: N.A.
Oikonomides, "Les premières mentions des thèmes dans la Chronique de
Théophane," Zbornik Radova, Vizantoloshki Instituía, Belgrade 16 (1975) 2-3.
 97
One scholar has suggested that the census involved the logothesion
ton stratioton, which was in charge of army muster-rolls in the ninth
and tenth centuries, which lacks documentary proof for existence in
the 620's.23 If anything, the neglected text of the Parastaseissuggests
the possibility that officers of the Excubitors may have undertaken
or at least participated in that census. The fact that there was a census
of soldiers in 626 or 627 does not prove the existence of a
logothesion ton stratioton at that time; the Excubitors may have
conducted such a scrutiny just as they had been doing back in the
reign of Justinian I.
References in other primary sources also indicate the continuation
of monetary payments and soldiers' grievances about inadequate
monetary compensation in the 630's, specifically in some of the
detailed narratives about the Arab conquest of Byzantine Palestine
and Syria. Some Arabic sources report military unrest among
Byzantine soldiers in Syria because their pay was in arrears; such
soldiers were not supporting themselves from any kind of land
grants. Those sources provide no information about the Excubitors
but their description of a Byzantine army sensitive to monetary
payments is consistent with the role of money in securing military
services that the Parastaseis mentions for the previous decade. 24
The passage from Parastaseisis of exceedingly great importance in
providing a rare statement about military institutions in the 62(Ts.
The passage has the ring of authenticity. Although it helps to
eliminate the case for Heraclius as the creator of any comprehensive
program of social, economic, military, and political reforms in the
620's, it increases his stature as a strategist and as a field commander,
who was able to make skillful employment of existing tactical books
and military institutions to fashion his ultimate decisive and

23
Oikonomides, "Les premières mentions des thèmes" 6-7, following without
discussion of the argument of Ernest Stein, "Ein Kapitel vom persischen und
byzantinischen Staate", Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher 1 (1920) 74-75;
argument rejected, convincingly, by Haldon, Recruitment and Conscription n. 43
on p. 34. Unspecified logothete: Chron. Pasch. (721 Dindorf).
24
al-Azdî al-Basrï, Futüh al-ShSm 175-177: also, 151-152: Eutychius Annalesed.
L. Cheikho (CSCO Scrip. Arab. Ser. 3, T. 7. Pt. 2, Louvain 1909) pp. 13-14.
98
smashing victory over the Sassanid Persians in 628. His victory over
the Persians owed itself to many things but not the least of them was,
simply put, his generalship — a subject that has been out of fashion
for so long that it seems trite to list or discuss. It requires that the
historian restudy and seek to appreciate even more — despite the
scanty sources — the strategic and tactical brilliance of Heraclius'
thrusts into Persia in the late 620's, including his obscure tactical
maneuvers and improvisations.
Parastaseis 42 provides a glimpse into conditions during the 620's.
It demonstrates continuity in military institutions with those of the
sixth century, not any radical reform. Yet it is clear that the crisis of
financing the army was so extreme that only the most desperate
measures could provide the financial resources to perpetuate
traditional recruiting. The highly unusual acts of melting sacred
objects, vessels, and plate, and famous landmarks such as the
ox-head of the Forum Bovis underscore the condition in extremisof
the empire; such meltdowns could not have continued indefinitely,
because one would have exhausted objects that could be melted.
Existing procedures for recruiting indigenous soldiers were under
such strain that other methods and institutions, it may have gradually
become recognized, were necessary to produce and pay for adequate
domestic military manpower, but that had not happened in 622 nor is
there evidence that it happened later in tlve same decade or even in
the following one, the 630's. The role of the Excubitors and their
treasury in recruiting and paying soldiers was symptomatic of, if not a
direct contribution to, the decline of the office of the Comitiva
Sacrarum Largitionum, which had formerly collected the aurum
tironicum (ostensibly a recruit substitute tax) and which had
distributed coin payments (and uniforms) to soldiers.

II
The second institution also involves the problem of financing the
Byzantine army, and more specifically, supplying it. Once again, it is
a question of institutional procedures of the sixth century that
survived into the seventh century. In contrast to the role of
Excubitors in recruiting and paying new soldiers, a practice that was
replaced in the Middle Byzantine Period by new methods, this
 99
second institution was a precedent and a significant part of the
background of the gradual development of the themes. In order to
understand the genesis of the bureaucracy of the themes, one should
again retrace the logic of interpretation of the civilian administration
of the early themes back to the scholar who established the
interpretation that has prevailed for half of a century: Ernst Stein.
Stein published a major article in 1920 entitled "Ein Kapitel vom
persischen und byzantinischen Staate", in which he investigated the
early civilian bureaucratic structure of the themes. He correctly
called attention to a protocol for the feast of Easter, mistakenly
ascribed to Pentecost in the De Cerimoniisot Constantine VII.25 The
archaic Latin phrases and the inclusion of certain names of officials
demonstrated that the protocol was very old, that it could not have
been written later than some time in the seventh century. The fourth
entree or group of officials who were to be presented contained the
following officials: "The Praetorian Prefect, the Quaestor, the
Proconsuls and Prefects of the themes", (τον υπάρχον των
πραιτωρίων, τον κουαίστωρα, ανθυπάτους των θεμάτων και
έπαρχους). 26 and their wives are called later in the same protocol
έπαρχίσας θεματικός άνθυπατίσσας; 27 there can be no doubt,
because of this reference to the wives, that the έπαρχους of the
Easter/Pentecost protocol were prefects of the themes, that
έπαρχους must be read with των θεμάτων. The έπαρχοι presumably
had a function in the themes, and they are again mentioned in the
Tacticon Uspenskii, dated 842-843, in which they are called οι
ανθύπατοι και έπαρχοι των θεμάτων. 28 Stein realized that

25
Ernst Stein, "Ein Kapitel vom persischen und vom byzantinischen Staate",
Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher 1 (1920) esp. 70-82.
26
Constantine VII, De Cerimoniis 1.9 (ed. I.I. Reiske, Bonn 1829) vol 1: 61, and
wives, 1: 67; in ed. and trans, of Α. Vogt, 1: 56, wives, 1: 61. Note the remarks of
Vogt in his commentary, vol. 1, 93: "Quant aux proconsuls des thèmes et aux
éparques nous ne savons rien. Que ces personnages aient existé, cela ne fait pas de
doute". On p. 94 Vogt wonders whether both institutions disappeared in the ninth
century.
27
Constantine VII, De Cerimoniis 1.9 ( 1 : 67 Reiske and 1: 61 Vogt).
28
Ν. Oikonomides. Les listes de préséance byzantines(Parh 1972) 51, lines 25-26.
100
Constantine VII's reference to the "Proconsuls and Prefects of the
Themes" was an invaluable clue to the character of the
administration of the themes at a very early stage, because these
proconsuls and prefects of the themes were different from the
ordinary proconsuls and praetorian prefect who are mentioned
separately in the protocol. It was a citation of the passage by the
mediaeval legal historian Ernst Mayer in a 1903 article on the history
of Dalmatia thatf irst attracted Stein's interest. Mayer, who was not a
Byzantinist, was not interested in any possible relevance of the
passage for an understanding of thematic origins.29 Stein devoted
most of his labors to an analysis of the enigmatic proconsuls of the
themes and their probable authority within the themes. His analysis
remains basic; aithough it needs some modification, I have no
intention to discuss it thoroughly here. Stein was convinced that the
proconsuls of the themes were the most important civilian officials in
the original themes, and that ultimately their powers devolved upon
the protonotarii of the themes (by the tenth century). The proconsuls
soon disappeared.
Stein did not say much about the prefects of the themes. Mayer
had decided that the prefects (έπαρχοι) "deutlich die praesides
provinciae sind",30 but he cited no texts or modern authorities to
support his opinion. Stein accepted Mayer's argument about the
prefects of the themes without providing any substantial reasoning
except that Mayer, a mediaevalist, had said it: "Die έπαρχοι, die hier
drei Grade nach dem praefectus praetorio rangieren, müssen, wie
Mayer erkannt hat, die Chefs der έπαρχίαι, also die rectores
provinciarum sein".31 He concluded that the passage in the De
Cerimoniis was proof for the sudden and total creation of the
themes, not their gradual emergence.32 Since Mayer and Stein so

29
Ernst Mayer, "Die dalmatisch-istrische Munizipalverfassung im Mittelalterund
ihre römischen Grundlagen", Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschich­
te, Germanistische Abteilung 24 (1903) 2l8n.
30
Meyer, "Die dalmatisch-istrische Munizipalverfassung" 218n.
31
Stein, "Ein Kapitel" 71.
32
Stein, "Ein Kapitel" 75-77.
 101
briefly identified the έπαρχοι or prefects of the themes in 1903 and
1920 there has been no discussion about them, except for a brief but
important argument by Pertusi that the proconsuls and prefects of
the themes demonstrated the existence of a civilian authority in the
themes that from the beginning was distinct from and not dependent
upon the military commander. 11 Oikonomides in his excellent Listes
de préséance byzantines merely identified the prefects of the themes
as "gouverneurs civiles" and referred his readers to the 1920 article
by Stein.14
There is a major difficulty with Mayer's and Stein's handling of the
passage from the De Cerímoniis. The Greek word έπαρχος, pi.
έπαρχοι, contrary to Mayer and Stein, cannot easily be identified
with the praeses, rector, or moderator, that is, governor, of a Late
Roman or Early Byzantine provincia or province, έπαρχος was
normally used in a restricted sense to express some kind of
praefectusor prefect. Even though the Greek word eparchiameans a
provincia, the word for its governor is not έπαρχος, but άρχων,
κυβερνήτης, διοικητής, ηγούμενος, ήγεμών. Such was the practice
up to Diocletian according to Mason, Greek Terms for Roman
Institutions,35 and in the Early Byzantine period according to the
standard manual of papyrology that expressly warns against thinking
that έπαρχος can refer to praeses: "Die Präsiden heissen titular nur
ήγεμών, nie έπαρχος". 16 The epigrapher Louis Robert, who was not
interested in the problem of thematic origins, doubted Stein's
identification because of his own epigraphic knowledge, but buried
his criticisms in an obscure footnote where it has remained almost

11
Pertusi, "La formation" 29.
14
N. Oikonomides, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et X e siècles (Paris
1972) 343, "gouverneurs civiles", and n. 323.
15
H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (American Studies in
Papyrology, Vol. 13,Toronto, 1974)45, 139-140.Onp. 140,"Colin'ssuggestion...
that έπαρχος may mean 'provincial governor' by a kind of extrapolation from
επαρχεία must be rejected".
>h
L. Mitteis, U. Wilcken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyrusurkunde
(Leipzig, Berlin 1912, and reprints) vol. 1, Pt. 1: 73 n. 4.
102
unnoticed." Consultation of Justinianic legislation and a leading
Roman legal historian, A.M. Honore (Oxford) shows that έπαρχος
is not the appropriate Greek term for a praeses or governor in
sixth-century legal texts. A separate check of the usage of praeses,
moderator, and rector of a province in the word index of Justinian's
Novellae also shows, when compared with the Greek texts, that
praeses, moderator, and rectorare expressing the Greek ηγούμενος
or άρχων but not έπαρχος. 38 Moreover, the glossary of difficult
vocabulary in Greek hagiography, printed in Migne, Patrologia
Latina, also warns that it is incorrect to translate έπαρχος as praeses;
the correct translation is praefectus.™ Asfar as I can determine, the
Greek and Latin word lists in glosses of the medieval period, some of
which aJmost certainly date back to the Late Roman period, indicate
that έπαρχος means praefectus, and although a number of Greek
words appear in those glosses as the equivalent of a praeses, rectoror

" L. Robert, Hellenica(Paris 1948) 4: 45 n. I : "le travail de Stein ne donne aucun

exemple de hyparchos au sens de gouverneur de province; il n'y a que quelques cas
pour eparchos". Only one verse inscription, none in prose, from Asia Minor was
known by Robert, who used the references of E. Hanton, "Lexique explicatif du
Recueil des inscriptions grecques chrétiennes d'Asie Mineure", Byzantion 4 (1929)
88: the other examples in fact are to επαρχία, not έπαρχος in Hanton's list.
w
This conclusion results from my own reading of the Justinianic corpus, for which
there is no thorough study of vocabulary (especially for the Novels). I also received a
letter from the leading expert on Justinianic law, A. M. Honore, of Oxford, 26
August 1977, discussing the vocabulary in Greek for a praeses in the Novels of
Justinian. A perusal of Legum lustiniani Imperatoris Vocabularium. Novellae, Pars
Latina (ed. Anna Maria Bartoletti Colombo, Milan, 1979) 7: 3166-3167 for
Praeses (as well as other Latin words) for a provincial governor, and a comparison
with the Greek originals, demonstrates that έπαρχος was not regarded as the
equivalent of praeses. rector, moderator.
3
'' Onomasticon rerum et verborum difficiliorum quae in his patrům vitisoccurrunt.
Migne, Patrologia Latina vol. 74: 487: PRAEFECTUS, έπαρχος. Diversus hic a
praeside. Saepe tarnen interpres επαρχον non rite praesidem vertunt.
 103
40
moderator oí a province, έπαρχος is not among them. It would be
incautious to say that έπαρχος could never refer to a praeses, but it
would be an extremely exceptional usage, very unlikely to occur in
the official imperial court protocol for Pentecost. To summarize, the
unsubstantiated and quick identification of έπαρχοι in the Easter
protocol with the praeses or governor of a province by Ernst Mayer
and Ernst Stein is very improbable, even untenable, in the light of
known Greek usage for Late Roman institutions.
There is a better explanation for the Ιπαρχοι or prefects of the
themes in the protocol of the De Cerimoniis. A thorough
investigation of fifth-, sixth- and seventh-century Byzantine
administrative practice reveals that there was a kind of prefect — not
in existence at the time of the writing of the Notitia Dignitatum —
who was the antecedent for the έπαρχοι in the passage from the De
Cerimoniis. A.H.M. Jones, who was unaware of the official's
possible relevance for the evolution of thematic structure, explained,
"it became the practice to appoint a deputy praetorian prefect ad hoc
to organise the supplies of an expeditionary force".41 At the

40
Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum (ed. G. Goetz, Leipzig 1888, 1892); Eparchos
is a praefectus in 2: 306 even though in the same list eparchia means provincia.
Archon means prepositusmoderatorrector/Vmagispatuspreses on 2:247. Hegemon
is equivalent to dux preses princeps (2: 323). Another list gives prefectus as the
meaning for eparkos (tenth century), Corp. Gloss. Lat. 3: 517. According to L.
Cantarelli who was speaking of usage in Late Roman and Early Byzantine Egypt, "il
titolo poi di έπαρχος dato al preside di una provincia contradicce ai nostri
documenti nei quali esso e chiamato sempre ήγεμών", "L "Επαρχος Αιγύπτου nei
papiri di Theadelphia", Byzantinische Zeitschrift 22 (1913) 75. A more recent
study shows the usage is extremely rare, exceptional, although it could occur:
Claude Verdersleyen, Chronologie des préfets d'Egypte de 284 à 395 (Collection
Latomus, vol. 55, Brussels 1962) 102 n. 4; the normal words for a praeses were
άρχων, ήγεμών. The remarks by F. Dölger on the praetorian prefecture in
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 40 (1940) 181 are worthless because of his
uncharacteristic sloppiness; he relied totally upon Stein's 1920 article, and even
gave a very erroneous page reference to it.
41
Jones, LRE 628, cf. 673-674. Cf. also, R. Grosse, Römische Militärgeschichte
von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der byzantinischen Themenveríassung(Berlin 1920)
312, who viewed the office as the "Oberleitung" of the "Intendatur", in a very brief
reference.
 104

beginning of the twentieth century the character of this official was

not understood, that is, when Mayer wrote his article. The
sixth-century historian Procopius described that prefect as του
στρατοπέδου... έπαρχος or "prefect of the army", "prefect of the
camp", 42 however by law this prefect was accorded the rank of a
Praetorian Prefect even though he held an extraordinary
appointment. 41 Procopius twice described his scope of duty "the
officer charged with the maintenance of the army".44 These deputy
prefects held the rank of a Praetorian Prefect; they were not lowly
optiones, actuaries, or the old praefectus castrorum. Because they
were accorded the rank of a regular Praetorian prefect, they may
easily be confused with them. They were appointed by emperors.
Some had previously held eminent civilian posts: Apion, the first
known member of the distinguished Apion family of Egypt, served
as prefect to the army in 503 at Edessa,45 Calliopius of Berrhoea

42
Procop. Bella 3. 11. 17.
43
Important law of 441 gives earliest reference to the office, its responsibilities, and
the entitlement of its holder to the rank of a praetorian prefect: Codex Justinianus,
12.8.2.4, aut cur excellentissimus Pentadius non egisse dicitur praefecturam, cuius
illustribus cincti dispositionibus vice praetorianae miles in expeditione copia
commeatuum abundavit, (ed. Paul Krueger, Berlin, r.p. 1959, 456.). E. Stein,
Histoire du Bas-Empire {Pans, 1949) 2: 95 η. 2, realized that such prefects existed,
and he criticized Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire (2nd ed. London 1923)
1: 470, for not understanding that these prefects had the rank of praetorian prefect.
But Stein was no longer interested in the passage in the De Cerimoniis — about
which he had written when he was in his late twenties — when he was writing his
opus on the Late Roman Empire, and so he did not see any possible connection. No
relevant material on special prefects is found in, L.E.A. Franks, "The Fiscal Role
and Financial Establishment of the Pretorian Prefecture in the Later Roman
Empire" {Ph. D. diss., Christ's College, Cambridge University, 1971).
44
Procop. Bella. 3.11.17, οΰτω γαρ ό της δαπάνης χορηγός ονομάζεται. 3.15.13,
τον της δαπάνης χορηγον επαρχον. The translation is that of H.B. Dewing, for the
Loeb Classical Library edition of the Wars, vol. 2:107, 135. Also see Procop. Bella
1.8.5, χορηγός δε της του στρατοπέδου δαπάνης Ά π ί ω ν Αιγύπτιος εστάλη.
45
Procop. Bella. 3.11.17. Cf. Stein, HBE2: 245, on Archelaus. On Apion, Procop.
Bella 1.8.5, and E.R. Hardy, The Large Estates of Byzantine Egypt (New York
1931) 25-28. Άππίιον ό Αιγύπτιος, ύπαρχος τότε του στρατεύματος ών και της
δαπάνης και της έποψίας πάντων, Theoph. Chron. A.M. 5997, (ed. C. de Boor,
Leipzig 1883, 1: 146).
 105
(Aleppo), who had previously held the important office of Comes
Orientis, replaced him as special prefect to the army in 5()4.4i'
Archelaus had been Praetorian Prefect of the East from 524 to 527
and Prefect of Illyricum before Justinian appointed him to be special
prefect to the expedition to Africa in 533. Procopius asserted that
Archelaus even unsuccessfully debated the strategy for landing in
Africa with Belisarius, attempting to justify his proposals in terms of
the logistical needs of the army.47 It seems that the office was
sufficiently prestigious that its holder did not regard himself as the
simple executor of the instructions of the commanding general. The
historian Zachariah of Mityléně even identified Archelaus as one of
the three men in charge of the expedition to Africa.48 There was,
already in the sixth century, a potential for the semi-independent
role of some later thematic bureaucrats, i.e., the protonotarii. The
titular praetorian prefect was, strictly speaking, praefectus praetorio
vacans.
The special praetorian prefects had responsibilities that impinged
on both civilian and military spheres. Emperors probably appointed
distinguished men to this position to emphasize that they had a
personal interest in their soldiers' welfare, to act as their personal
representatives, to insure that the pay and provisions reached the
soldiers and were not diverted to bureaucratic pockets, that is, to
demonstrate their personal commitment to the scrupulous
provisioning of their armies. The prefects were probably chosen for
their reliability to the emperor and accordingly, they probably
reported to him about problems and conditions within the army and
concerning the soldiers and commanders and any other matters that
they thought the emperor should know. They served, then, as
troubleshooters and were a potential check on ambitious and
unreliable generals. (It may be dangerous to engage in historical

46
Joshua the Stylitě, Chronicle, chapters 54, 70. 77, 93, 99 (ed. trans. W. Wright,
Cambridge University Press, 1882, pp. 44, 58,63, 71, 75), esp. chapters 54, 70, 77.
47
Procop. Bella 3.15. 2-17.
48
Zachariah of Mityléně, The Syriac Chronicle, 9.17 (trans. F.J. Hamilton, E.W.
Brooks, London, 1899, 262).
106
comparisons, but one can see a comparable set of institutions in
seventeenth-century France, in the intendants and the intendants of
the army. They, like the Praetorian Prefects and special prefects,
were easily confused. The intendants of the army served to report to
the King of France and Minister of War concerning the condition of
the army and concerning the conduct of generals, while attending to
the provisions and pay of French soldiers. They were not regular
intendants). 4y Among the specific acts of two of these special prefects
on the eastern frontier in the reign of Anastasius I was the
supervision of the baking of bread for the soldiers, procuring and
distributing flour to households to bake the bread for the troops. It is
possible that these prefects were responsible for dividing up and
assigning shares of military booty to officers.5" Syriac sources
sometimes simply call the official the hyparchos (ύπαρχος). 51
References are scattered in the sources; none provides a lengthy
description of this unglamorous but important position.
Any connection between such early sixth-century prefects of the
army Apion, Calliopius, and Archelaus and the early development
of the themes sometime in the seventh century may seem
far-fetched, because there would be a hiatus of a century or more.
Yet the Syriac history of John of Ephesus mentions one such prefect
in 577, again on the eastern front: Gregorius, who was in charge of
paying the soldiers.52 Jones was not aware of him. Yet only the
publication by A.-J. Festugière of previously unedited sections of the
Life of St. Theodore of Sykeon (d. 613) in 1970 provided an example
of such a prefect of the army at Ancyra (Ankara) in late 610, during

49
Douglas C. Baxter. Servants of the Sword. French Intendants of the Army
1630-1670 (Urbana, 111., 1976).
50
Possible role in dividing booty: Codex Justinianus, 1.46. 5 = Basilica 6.1.97.
51
Joshua the Stylitě, Chronicle, chs. 54. 70, 77,93 (44, 58, 63, 71 Wright); John of
Ephesus, Hist. Eccl. 6.14 (ed., trans. E.W. Brooks, CSCO. Script. Syr., Versio, Ser.
3, T. 3 [Louvain 1936) 235.
52
John of Ephesus, Hist. Eccl. 6.14 (235 Brooks): praefectus [ύπαρχος]
praetorianorum cui nomen fuit Gregorius ut copiarum sumptus [δαπάνη]
disponeret et curaret... (translation from the Syriac).
 107
the rebellion of the commanding general, Comentiolus. The author
(George) of the vita mentioned Εύτυχιανος δε ό ενδοξότατος άνήρ
έπαρχων του στρατού, who corresponded with St. Theodore, asking
him to pray for the end of the rebellion.53 Eytychianos' prominence is
underscored by his rank of ενδοξότατος or gloriosissimus, the
highest rank in the seventh century, and, we know from a
contemporary source, was the rank held by an ordinary Praetorian
Prefect in 615. 54 This is evidence that the practice of appointing
deputy prefects ad hoc continued into the early seventh century: it
may have become a standard rather than extraordinary procedure,
but there are no conclusive data.
Whatever the etymology of the word θέμα, scholars agree that it
quickly became synonymous with "army". One should consider the
possibility that what Procopius called του στρατοπέδου., έπαρχος or
prefect of the army/camp in the middle of the sixth century had
become transformed into έπαρχους των θεμάτων, prefects of the
themes in the seventh century, and so appeared in the protocol of the
De Cerimonüs and as an anachronism, in the Tacticon Uspenskii in
the middle of the ninth century. It is uncertain whether the prefects
of the themes were responsible for any tasks beyond those of their
predecessors, the prefects o£ the army, who had been in charge of
supplies. The office of prefect of the themes is mentioned only in the
De Cerimonüs and the Tacticon Uspenskii, not in any narrative or

53
Vie de Théodore de Sykéôn. c. 152 (ed. A.-J. Festugière, Subsidia
Hagiographica, no. 48, Brussels, 1970. 1: 123, line 54). On the background of the
revolt of Comentiolus: W.E. Kaegi, Jr.. "New Evidence on the Early Reign of
Heraclius", Byzantinische Zeitschrift 66 (1973) 308-330.
54
Chronicon Paschale (ed. L. Dindorf, Bonn 1832) 1: 707. for a Praetorian Prefect
in 615 with the rank of ενδοξότατος. On the rank of ενδοξότατος and its superlative
character in the seventh century: P. Koch, Die byzantinische Beamtentitel von 400
bis 700 (Jena 1903) 70.
 108
other documentary sources.55 In the absence of more data, it is
incorrect to identify the prefect of the theme as a civil governor. It is
conceivable that the official who was in charge of military
provisioning may have gained considerable authority in the civilian
sphere, but one must stress that his office probably originated from
the need to provide a steady, honest, and dependable stream of
provisions to the army, not from the civilian powers of the praesides
or governors of the old Justinianic and pre-Justinianic provinces,
which still retained some identity throughout the seventh century.
Because of their responsibility for the material well-being of an
army, these prefects would have been able to override local
provincial officials. Indeed, in the sixth century, Justinianic
legislation attempted to meet local complaints about arrogant and
irresponsible behavior on the part of vicarii or deputies of praetorian
prefects and masters of the soldiers who extorted levies from
civilians with or without legitimate reason. Justinian attempted to
limit the practice.56 It is easy to see how the prefects assigned to
armies for the supervision of the provisioning of soldiers continued
to handle financial resposibilities, provisioning, and bureaucratic
paperwork when those Late Roman armies were transformed into
thematic armies in the seventh century. However this is a
hypothetical reconstruction, not an absolute certainty. As a prefect,
he was responsible not only to the commanding general but to the
prefecture, as long as it existed, and to the emperor, from whom he

55
In the Tacticon Uspenskii dated to 842-843. in latest edition by N. Oikonomides,
Les listes de préséance byzantines 51, lines 25-26. Cf. comment in A. Vogt
commentary on Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Livre de cérémonies. Commentaire
(Paris 1935, r.p. 1967) 1: 93-94. See also the remarks of R. Guilland in his essay,
"Le Proconsul", Recherches sur les institutions byzantines (Berlin, Amsterdam
1967) 2: 69-71. J.B. Bury, 77ie Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth
Century (London 1911, r.p. New York) 18-19, admitted that there was a large
problem about the proconsuls and prefects of the themes in the Tacticon Uspenskii,
but he avoided any explanation: "A large question of considerable difficulty,
touching the position and the districts of these officials, and their relations to the
Strategoi. is involved, and I have not been able to discuss it in the present
investigation".

Justinian, Nov. 134.1.

 109
held his appointment. Stein long ago realized that the enigmatic
protonotarius of the theme probably derived from the defunct
officium of the Praetorian Prefecture, but he did not understand
precisely how the term survived; he assumed that it somehow
descended from the officium of the Proconsuls of the early themes.57
That is indeed possible, but even more likely is the survival of the
term protonotarius from the officium of a genuine Praetorian
Prefect, albeit ad hoc, that is, from the officium of the special prefects
of the army whose officia probably paralleled (although they were
probably smaller in number) those of the ordinary Praetorian
Prefecture.
The title of prefect disappeared for some unexplained reason in
the course of time — perhaps because of jealousies between the
prefects and the strategoi, or simply because the term became an
anachronism with the disappearance of the bloated Praetorian
Prefecture; one cannot make any certain conclusion. But it appears
that the head notary of the officium of the prefect of the thematic
army continued to exercise some of the same functions of victualling
the army and its beasts, and providing other supplies that his
predecessors, the prefects of the army, had performed in the sixth
century.58
The responsibility of the protonotarius for supplying food to
soldiers and beasts for a military expedition, his role in paying the
soldiers, all suggest that this critical office — the second most
important in the theme — did evolve from the functions that are
attested for prefects of the army in the sixth century. It is uncertain
whether the exact stages of that evolution will ever be known in
detail. A comparison of the functions of the sixth-century prefect of
the army and the tenth-century protonotarius provides indications
both as to the military needs — supplies, — that required the genesis
of the "civilian" bureaucracy of the theme and as to otherwise

57
Stein, "Ein Kapitel" 79-82.
58
Textual references to the responsibility of the protonotarius of the theme for food
and supplies for military expeditions and for the passage of the emperor and his
accompanying armies: Constantine VII, De Cerimoniis(l: 451,476-477,486-487,
464, 489 Reiske).
IK)
unattested functions of early prefects of the themes, which surely
involved, among other responsibilities, finances and provisions for
the soldiers and their animals. In any case, the prefects of the themes
mentioned in the Easter protocol of the De Cerimoniis did not
reflect a stage in the merger of the governors and the old
Diocletianic-Justinianic-Constantinian provinces into the theme
system. Stein was wrong (although he was correct to point to the text
as an important one). They represented a stage in the evolution of
the bureaucratic apparatus for provisioning the army, a process that
had its earliest traceable origin in the fifth century. They were a
major link between the armies of the age of Justinian and the
structure of the early themes. From the beginning, it appears that the
emperor and his bureaucrats had an institution that could act as an
independent control on finances and as an independent source of
information on affairs and personalities within the army and its
jurisdiction.
The evolution of the special praetorian prefects into prefects of the
themes is a specific example of slow or gradual transformation of
older Late Roman institutions into thematic ones. It conforms to
A.H.M. Jones' observations about the slow, almost imperceptible
character of institutional change in the Late Roman Empire, and to
the views of Gelzer and Diehl about the gradual development of the
themes.59
The disappearance of the prefects of the themes probably was
related to the broader and still unclear problem of the disappearance
of the entire bloated and inefficient Praetorian Prefecture, and
perhaps also to the absence of the need for the same kind of system of
distributing provisions when there no longer were the kind of
Byzantine expeditionary armies that had caused earlier governments
to create and use such special prefects in the fifth and sixth centuries.
The office is still mentioned in the ninth-century Tacticon Uspenskii
but it probably was already a vestigial anachronism.60 It is possible

59
Jones, Later Roman Empire vi; H. Gelzer, Die Genesis der byzantinischen
Themen ver/assung 8-72; C. Diehl, "L'Origine du regime des thèmes dans Γ empii e
byzantin*". Études byzantines (Paris 1905) esp. 289-292.
N. Oikonomides, Listes de préséance byzantines 51. lines 25-26.
 11!
that newer methods of supporting soldiers — even land grants to
soldiers, although more documentation is needed about this, —
contributed to the disappearance of the institution. It is no longer
mentioned in the tenth century protocols. The strategoi or generals
of the themes may also have resented the potential rivalry of such
prefects and succeeded in eliminating them, leaving only
protonotarii. But this is a conjecture. There remain many questions
to be answered, but the solution is much closer than it was a few years
ago. There is no evidence to show that special prefects were
appointed for all expeditionary armies in the sixth century, although
Justinian's Novel 134 indicates that they became common in the
east.61 One cannot be certain that every thematic army possessed
such a prefect; the protocol in the De Cerimoniisìs not that specific.
Archelaus ceased to be prefect of the army in 534 when Justinian
reestablished the prefecture of Africa and appointed Archelaus to be
its Prefect;62 this is an unusual case that demonstrates how one
special military prefect was employed by an emperor to reconstitute
civilian authority over several traditional provinces. The special
circumstances of Africa in 533 and 534 may have no relevance for
ways in which seventh-century prefects acted or attempted to act
within the emerging thematic armies. The case of Archelaus simply
shows one way in which the powers of a special prefect of the army
could develop into a full-blown civilian prefecture; that line of
development did not take place in the seventh century. One cannot
prove whether these special prefects became a general phenomenon.
The Praetorian Prefecture is normally described as a "civilian"
authority. The special prefects of the army or deputy praetorian
prefects were a hybrid institution, a vital link between the emperor,
the Praetorian Prefecture, and the given army. Their powers were
not simply "civilian". They represented the Praetorian Prefecture,
but they were assigned to a particular army and they performed their

61
Justinian, Nov. 134. 1 (ed. R. Schoell, G. Kroll, Berlin, r.p. 1959, 677): Solum
vero iubemus esse loci servatorem praefecturae in Osroenaet in Mesopotamia, et si
nécessitas vocaverit, in allis locis tempore expeditionis pro nutrimentis eius
destinatos, et hoc quidem per nostram iussionem.
62
Codex Justinianus 1.27.
112

responsibilities in a military context. It is easy to see how their

responsibilities overlapped both military and civilian spheres, a
trend, moreover, that was apparent in a number of sixth-century
institutional arrangements — especially in the reign of Justinian I."-1
The military institution of the prefect of the army, which can only be
understood from the sources of the sixth century, joins the Quaestor
Justiniani Exercitus and the Justinianic praetors and proconsuls who
held joint civil and military authority (Novels 24-31), as
sixth-century institutional developments that anticipated and
contributed to the institutional changes of the seventh century.64
The explanation for the civil and military authority within early
thematic units is more complex than hitherto assumed, but
comprehensible when viewed in the longer perspective of military
institutional developments. The early commanders or strategi of the
themes did not develop their bureaucracy ex nihilo. One of the
probable but neglected sources of that bureaucracy, completely
misunderstood until now, was the special praetorian prefect, the
prefect of the army and his officium, that were already in existence
and that were a natural substructure on which to develop a
bureaucracy. Part of the thematic bureaucracy probably developed
from the responsibilities of the prefect for victualling the army. The
prefect had always been inferior to the commanding general with
respect to military decisions — although he might debate strategy
with the general, especially if there were special problems of
provisioning.
The two institutional phenomena that are the subject of this
investigation are examples of transitional practices and changes of
the sixth and early seventh century that do not fit into any standard
schema of classic Late Roman or Middle Byzantine institutional
structures. They respectively arose, one presumes, out of the
inability of the Comitiva Sacrarum Largitionum and the Praetorian

61
Justinianus, Nov. 28-31, 4 1 , 50.
M
Ernst Stein, "Zum frühbyzantinischen Staatsrecht", Studien zur Geschichte des
byzantinischen Reiches (Stuttgart 1919) 165-168, for an important analysis of the
Quaestura Justiniani Exercitus.
Prefecture to discharge certain vital responsibilities efficiently. Yet
both the involvement of Excubitors in recruitment and the creation
of some specific military prefects ad hoc failed to solve basic
problems and in turn they disappeared, gradually replaced by what is
somewhat erroneously called a theme "system". Yet they existed at
the beginning of the reign of Heraclius, and it is strikingly clear that
Heraclius had not fundamentally changed the nature of recruiting
and financing his armies early in the 62(Ks.
TWO NOTES ON BYZANTINE D E M O G R A P H Y OF T H E
ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES

A. KAZHDAN - WASHINGTON. D.C.

It is needless to say how important demography might be for

Byzantine studies, and needless to say, too, that the Byzantine
demographic studies are scarcely an eyelash away from their
embryonic stage — not because of the lack of scholarly eagerness but
rather because of the scarcity of our sources, which makes it hard to
arrive at any statistics. Angeliki Laiou-Thomadakis' book1 presents
a happy exception but we have to bear in mind that the author is
dealing there with the peasant society of the first half of the
fourteenth century which forms a unique period of time in Byzantine
history. For its investigation an abundant amount of the so-called
praktika is available — that is of the lists of the rustic population with
indications concerning peasants', families, fields, vineyards, and
livestock. No source of such a type is to be found for other epochs.
For other epochs a scholar has to be satisfied with scanty and
occasional evidence drawn from different sources,2 with unreliable
data leading, of necessity, to hazardous conclusions. But we have no
option: we cannot afford simply to jettison demographic problems;
Quite the contrary — our task is to gather the slightest hints that

1
A.E. Laiou-Thomadakis. Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire
(Princeton, N.J. 1977). P. Karlin-Hayter's report ("Preparing the Data from Mount
Athos for Use with Modern Demographic Techniques". Byz4H [1978] 501-1 1 and
her review, ibid.. p. 580-5) seems to me too severe and lopsided, without
demonstrating the positive and provocative significance of this pioneering
monograph.
:
Some problems were touched by P. Charanis in his several articles collected
eventually under the title Studies on the Demography of the Byzantine Empire
(London, 1972) and by H. Antoniadis-Bibicou: "Problèmes d'histoire économique
de Byzance au Xle siècle: démographie, salaires et prix". BS 28 (1967) 255-61 ;
"Démographie, salaires et prix à Byzance", Annales 27 (1972) 2 15-46; "Villages
désertés en Grèce", in Villages désertés en histoire économique (Paris. 1965).
116
allow us to arrange our meager figures, check them up by comparing
various rown of data, and try to conceive "the physical sense" of the
results attainable.

I
Angeliki Laiou-Thomadakis in the above-quoted book (p. 271)
has emphasized that even for her period an age structure of society
can be calculated only with a very uncertain accuracy. She suggested
nonetheless that 71 percent of the females would have died before
reaching 45 and 74 percent of the males would have reached no more
than 50 (p. 296). For the earlier period only crude and vague figures
are available.
According to Nicholas Mysticus (ep. 29.47-49) very few of his
contemporaries would have reached the age of 70. Psellos in
Chronography (II, p. 151 §27.8) corroborates this point when he
says that Constantine X, who died at 60, has completed all his life
term. At the end of the twelfth century Basil Pediadites complained
about the hard conditions of life on the island of Korkyra, where a
man of 5Í) was considered to be old and a man of 60 already
decrepit. 3 It seems evident, from Pediadites' lamentations, that the
normal age span in Byzantium was significantly longer. We may try
to approach the problem from another side. Marc Bloch affirmed
that the average adult in the medieval West had lived a relativly short
life;4 to illustrate this idea, he cited the example of the Saxon dynasty
in Germany the four members of which had reached respectively 60,
28, 22, and 52. We can compare with these figures the data
concerning the Comnenian dynasty in Byzantium: the life span of
Byzantine emperors happened to be more considerable. Alexios I
dies at about 70, John II at 56, Manuel at about 57; Andronic I was
executed at about 62, and only Alexius II was murdered at the age of

' S . Lampros. Kerkyraika anekdota (Athens. 1882) 48.21-3. A. Guillou, La

civilisation byzantine (Paris, 1974) accepts 60 as a normal life exspectancy for the
Byzantines.
4
M. Bloch, La société féodale. I (Paris, 1949) 117.
 117
14.s
Certainly, these figures can be happenstance. However we can
enlarge our comparison by including the data concerning the age
exspectancy of a specific social group whose biographies can be
relatively well established, that is of literati. Basing our study on the
list of the Tusculum-Lexicon (Munich, 1963) we get the conclusion
that Byzantine literati of the end of the eleventh and the twelfth
centuries would have died at a rather high average age of 71 (15
writers taken into consideration). The respective life term of the
Late Roman writers of the fourth century (27 men) amounts to 67;
of Greek and Latin authors of the sixth century (13 men), to 62 only;
and of western writers of the end of the eleventh and of the twelfth
centuries (more than a hundred), to 63.

II
One of the most striking puzzles that we have to cope with is that
Byzantium survived after the loss of the provinces that were the
major source of grain supply for the Late Roman Empire: Egypt and
North Africa were conquered by the Arabs respectively in the
mid-seventh and in the beginning of the eight centuries, Sicily was
lost by 902, and the steppes of the Northern shore of the Black sea
also ceased to be an imperial granary as far as we know from the
correspondance of the Pope Martin exiled to Cherson in 655. A
hypothesis was launched that the loss of an external grain supply had
fostered the agrarian development of Italy in the fifth century; 6
might we suppose the same for the agriculture of Asia Minor and the
Balkan peninsula?
The point of departure of our following considerations is the
observation made by Evelyne Patlagean that the daily bread ration

5
G. Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates (Munich, 1963) 326
makes him die at the age of twelve, but Alexius was born in 1 169 and assassinated in
1 183 (see P. Wirth. "'Wann wurde Kaiser Alexius II. Komnenos geboren". BZ49
[1956] 65-7).
6
Κ. Hannestad. L'évolution des ressources agricoles de l'Italie du 4ème au 6ème
siècle de notre ère (Copenhagen, 1962) 106 f. See also V.G. Gavrilov. "Sel'skoe
chozjajstvo Itálii IV v.n.e". Vestnik drevnej istorii (1979) No 4.
us
in the Late R o m a n Empire had oscillated from 3 through 6 pounds. 7
Unexpectedly, the respective figures for the twelfth century
Byzantium happen to be exorbitantly lower.
T h e typikon of the monastery of John Baptist tu Phoberu states
that different people eat different quantities of bread: some remain
hungry after finishing two pounds a day, while others are satisfied by
one pound or even by six ounces, that is by a half-pound. 8 Thus we
can assume a pound and a half as an average daily ration, the figure
that can be approached also by a different way of calculating.
Michael Attaleiates enjoined in his will of 1077 that 18 widows and
old men had been granted, 216 " a n n o n a r y " modioioi bread a year
( M M V, 306. 14-17; 320. 11-12), that is 12 m o d i o i f o r a p e r s o n , o r a
modios monthly. An " a n n o n a r y " modios m a k e s 2/3 of a
sea-modios, that is 26 2/3 pounds. 9 Pródromos indicates the same
ration while saying that 12 " m e d i m n o i " (an archaic term to
designate the modios-the sea-modios?) are hardly sufficient to
nurture 13 persons during a month. 1 0
If the Byzantine "liter" corresponded to the Roman libra" and if
Patlagean's tables are correct, we are coming across an appalling
reduction of b r e a d consumption during the period after the sixth
century. How might this reduction be explained?
Scanty evidence of the Later Roman Period permits us to suggest a
serious "understocking", at any rate in several regions of the
Empire: the cadastral records show one horse, 29 head of cattle,
some more than 150 sheep 3 oxen and 20 goats on the area of about
870 acres in Mityléně, and 3 oxen, 2 donkeys, and 15 sheep on 275

7
E. Patlagean, Pauvreté économique et pauvreté sociale à Byzance. 4c-7e siècles
(Paris, 1977) 46, 52.
s
A.J. Papadopulos-Keramcus. Noctes Petropolitanae (S. Petersburg, 1913) 13.
16-1 Κ.
" E. Schilbach. Byzantinische Metrologie (Munich, 1970) 99 f.
10
D.C. Hesseling, H. Pernot. Poèmes prodromiques en langue vulgaire
(Amsterdam, 1910) 41. On the Byzantine medimnos see E. Schilbach,
Byzantinische Metrologie. 97 f.
" E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie. 174 calculates its weight as 320 gr.
 119
acres in Thcra, while a similar record from Lydia mentions no stock
at all.12· The Byzantine country-side presented a completely
different picture. Already in the Farmer's Law the cattle-breeding
seems to have a priority over the cultivation of soil: 37 articles treat
the attitude toward cattle and flock, while 22 are concerned with
fields and crop, 10 with vineyards and gardens, and 4 with mills. The
articles dedicated to the damage of field or vineyard committed by an
animal primarily protect the animal from the proprietor of the
damaged allotment: he was obliged to return the animal demanding
at the same time a compensation. The damaging ox was protected
even after two fines or compensations (n° 53) while pigs or sheep
were allowed to be killed after two incidents of damage (n° 49).
Slaves and hired laborers are mentioned in the Farmer's Law only in
connection with the pasturage. The Book of the Eparch testifies to
the developed meat-trade in Constantinople: not only special guilds
of butchers and porkmongers are known, but the so-called
saldamarii would sell meat in their shops (XIII, 1) and the so-called
bothroi had the commitment to serve as intermediaries in the
purchase of animals. The cattle were brought to Constantinople
mostly from Nicomedia or the regions beyond the Sangarios (XV, 3).
Even the inhabitants of islands raised significant herds: in the twelfth
century a Russian pilgrim Daniil was astonished at the amount of
stock he saw on the islands of Patmos, Rhodes, and Cyprus.11
Bulgaria became one of the most important cattle-breeding areas;
we even might surmise that the proportion of cattle (with regard to
flock and swine) increased gradually: at any rate, the osteological
investigations of animal bones excavated at the Bulgarian site of

12
C.E. Stevens, Agriculture arid Rural Life in the Later Roman Empire, in The
Cambridge Economic History of Europe. I (Cambridge, 1966) 95.
13
Daniil. Ziťe i chozen'e. Pravoslavný) Palestinskij sborník 1.3 (1885) 8.
120
Popino lead to such an inference.14
J.L. TeaH came to a conclusion, on the basis of hagiographie texts
and Pródromos' verses, that the everyday Byzantine ration consisted
mainly of bread, fish and vegetables and the bread formed the most
important element of Byzantine alimentation; I pursued his
conckision.15 However the "catastrophic" decrease of grain
consumption forcibly leads us to a hypothesis that meat, cheese and
milk occupied in the Byzantine ration a more considerable place
than it had in the Late Roman empire.
Many times scholars have stressed the devastating influence of
Byzantine famines, especially the crop failure of 927-28 and
disasters of the eleventh century. But is it incidental that we have
almost no evidence concerning famine of the twelfth century? 16
Moreover, the Byzantines managed, from the twelfth century on, to
export grain, wine, and meat to Italy.17 Particularly important is the

v v
Z. VuŽarova, Siavjano-buigarskoto selišce kraj sela Popino, Silistrensko (Sofia,
1956) 89. The analysis of bone remnants at the site of D^edzovi lozja, in the same
region, reveals different results, that is an increasing role of the flock (Z. Vužarova,
Slavjanski i slavjanobulgarski selišca v bulgarski zemi ot kraja nà VI-XI vek [Sofia,
1965J 208, tab. 2); we have however to take into consideration that the village of
Özedzbvi lozja ceased to exist by the middle of the eleventh century. There are
many data concerning the high level of cattle-and flock-raising in Byzantine
Bulgaria — for instance Acropolites, Opera 1 (Leipzig, 1903) 18.13-4; J.
Darrouzès, "Deux lettres de Grégoire Antiochos", BS 23 (1962) 280.63-4; R.
Browning, "Unpublished Correspondence between Michael Italicus, Archbishop
of PhilippopoUs, and Theodore Pródromos", Byzantinobulgarica I (1962)
285.82-9. However they do not comprise any qualitative, comparable,
demographic material.
15
J.L. Teal!, "The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire, 330-1025", DOP 13
(1959) 98 f.; A.P. Kazhdan, "Skol'ko eli vizantijey?", Voprosy istorii(1970) No9,
215-8.
,f>
Some local famines are mentioned: E. Sargologos, La Vie de Saint Cyrille le
Philéote(Brussels. 1964) XIV, 2,p.84.26, XLIV, L p.209.l, XLVIII, l,p.235.29;
S. Doanidu, "He paraitesis Nikolau tu Muzalon apo tes archiepiskopes Kypru",
Hellenika 7 (1934) 136.893; MM V, p.395.1, 395.33-396.1; Nicetas Chóniatae
Orationes et episiulae(Berlin, New York, 1972) 190.4-15. But even such a critical
author as Nicetas Choniates is silent about nation-wide famines.
17
A.Schaube, Handelsgeschichte der romanischen Völker des Mittelalters bis zum
Ende der Kreuzzüge (Munich, Berlin, 1906) 238, 245.
 121
evidence of an unpublished monody on Nicholas Hagiotheodorites
by Eustathius of Thessalonica (Escorial. Y-Il-10, fol. 35 r), where
the hero has been praised for sending grain from his diocese in
Peloponnesus to the other coast of the Ionian sea (i.e., to Italy) and
to Illyricum.
The figures concerning crop capacity of the twelfth century are
scanty and unbelievable. Eustathius of Thessalonica boasted that he
had harvested 59 medimnoi from the field where he had sowed only
3 medimnoi of grain.18 Even more fabulous figures are given in an
unpublished speech by Gregory Antiochos to Andronicus
Kamateros (Escorial. Y-II-10, fol. 334 rv): the rhetor mentioned
thirty-, sixty- and hundred-fold yields. It would be very hazardous to
build any far-fetched theory on the basis of such data.
Nevertheless, western chroniclers unanimously praised the riches
of Byzantine agricultural production and the abundance of bread,
wine, oil, and cheese in Byzantium,19 and a Jewish writer of the
twelfth century, Samuel ben Meyr, affirmed that the apiculture
reached in "the Greek kingdom" a higher level than in his country, in
Northern France.20
All these facts are scanty and vague, but they coincide with the
data, which indicate an unexpectedly long life expectancy in the
twelfth-century Byzantium. In any case, they convey an impression
that the traditional opinion of the economic crisis and collapse of
Byzantium in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is far from being
true. I tried to undermine this traditional opinion by drawing

ls
Eustathius Thessalonicensis, Opuscula (Francfurt u.M., 1832) 155.69-71.
|y
A.P. Kazhdan, "'lzekonomiceskoj zizni Vizantü X1-X11 vv.", VizantijskieOcerki
(Moscow. 1971) 190 f.
20
S. Krauss, Studien zur byzantinisch-jüdischen Geschichte (Leipzig, Vienna,
1914) 113.
122
attention to the urban development of those days; 2 ' this idea, first
rejected and then forgotten has found endorsement in a series of
recent works. 22 Is not the rural development of this epoch to be
reconsidered as well?

21
A.P. Kazhdan, "Vizantijskie goroda v Vll-XI vv*\ Sovetskaja archeologija 21
(1954) 164-88. In a revised and elaborated form — A.P. Kazhdan, Derevnja i
gorod v Vizantii, IX-X. (Moscow, I960), esp. p.246-9,260-72. The most important
objections were made by G. Ostrogorsky (now in his Zur byzantinischen Geschichte
[Darmstadt, 1973] 99-118), S. Vryonis (now in his Byzantium: its Internal History
and Relations with the Muslim World [London, 1971 ], pt. VII) and I.V. Sokolova,
"Klady vizantijskich monet kak istocnik po istorii Vizantii VIII-Xl vv.", VizVrem
15 (1959) 50-63.
22
M.F. Hendy, "Byzantium, 1081-1204: an Economic Reappraisal", Transactions
of the R. Historical Society, 5th Ser., 20 (1970) 31-52; C. Foss, Byzantine and
Turkish Sardis (Cambridge, Mass and London, 1976) 66-76 and Ephesus after
Antiquity (Cambridge, 1979) 116-37, esp. p.123. n.29; C. Morrisson, "La
devaluation de la monnaie byzantine au Xle siècle", TM6(1976) 3-47, esp. p.27 f.;
P. Lemerle. Cinq études sur le Xle siècle byzantin (Paris. 1977) ch.V (with my
remarks in Byz 49 [1979] 497-503); P. Tivčev, "Sur les cités byzantines aux
Xle-XUe siècles". Byzantinobulgarica 1 (1962) 145-82.
 T H E E M P E R O R IN B Y Z A N T I N E A R T O F T H E
TWELFTH CENTURY

PAUL MAGDALÍNO / ST. ANDREWS. FIFE

ROBERT NELSON / CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Byzantine religious painting can be studied primarily on the basis

of what survives, but the study of Byzantine imperial art depends to a
much greater extent on a knowledge of what has been lost. The
survival of miniature representations — in manuscripts, enamels,
ivories, steatites, coins, and seals — and of a small number of
monumental works, mainly in churches, cannot adequately
compensate for the fact that we can no longer see imperial
subject-matter depicted in its own architectural setting: the city
streets and squares, and the halls and chambers of the imperial
palace. We should form an inadequate idea of the place of imperial
iconography in the art and society of medieval Constantinople, if
written evidence were not available.
Much of the relevant documentation has been used by Grabar in
his seminal study of Byzantine imperial iconography;1 several
important texts have been collected and translated by Mango in his
anthology of written sources for Byzantine art,2 and Wessel has
provided a useful survey of imperial portraiture in the Reallexikon
zur byzantinischen Kunst.* However, Byzantine literature contains
several references to imperial portraiture to which attention has not
yet been drawn. While individually they contain few, if any,
surprises, together they add greatly to the stock of available

1
A. Grabar, L'empereur dans l'art byzantin (Paris, 1936, reprinted, London,
1971).
:
Cyril Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453. Sources and
Documente (Englewoix) Cliffs, N.J.. 1972). 46-8. 108-113. 117-8. 128, 130-1, 133.
141, 154. 192-9. 220-1. 224-8, 234-5, 245-6.
' Κ. Wessel. •'Kaiserbild." RBK. 3 (Stuttgart, 1976), cols. 722-853 with extensive
bibliography.
124
information about the variations in and contexts of state pictorial
propaganda.
A large number of such references date from or refer to the twelfth
century, and combined with those already known, they make this
period the best documented in the history of Middle Byzantine
official portraiture. This fact is in itself significant for our
understanding of both the period and the genre, and, it is hoped,
justifies the twofold purpose of the present work: first, to assemble
and interpret all the relevant twelfth-century texts of which
translations or, in some cases, editions do not exist; second, to assess
the general significance of imperial art under the Komnenoi and
Angeloi ( 1081 - 1 2 0 4 ) . The method adopted here has been to present
a full translation of each text, preceded by the G r e e k original if this is
not available in print, and followed by a commentary in two parts,
which broadly speaking represents the separate approaches of the
authors. T h e first part discusses the problems of interpreting the
internal evidence of the text, relating this as far as possible to other
textual evidence as well as to the historical context. T h e second
attempts to make the evidence intelligible in terms of surviving
works of art. It should be noted that the title at the head of each piece
is part of the translated material.
T h e first two texts are poems of Nicholas Kallikles, a court doctor
who ministered to E m p e r o r Alexios I (1081-1118) on his deathbed
and seems to have enjoyed close ties with the Palaiologos family. T h e
poems evidently refer to murals commissioned for buildings in one of
the major imperial palaces, the Great Palace or the Blachernae.

Edition: L. Sternbach, 'Nikolai Calliclis carmina', Rozprawy

Akademii Umiejetnosci, Wydziat filologiczny(Krakow), 2nd series,
21 (1904), 3 1 5 - 9 2 .

I (1081-1118) O n the Second Coming in the Palace (pp. 337-8)

The thrones set up, the opened books, the trumpet raising the lid of
every tomb, and the Spirit giving life to the dead; the thousands of
praying spirits and the myriads of worshipping angels indicate. O
Christ, your final coming. Here is a dread judge and a strange
judgement seat. Who are the accusers? Deeds alone. Whom do they
 125
accuse? Those who have stumbled. Henceforth 1 stand in fear of your
judgement, tryer of reins and weigher of hearts. The left hand order
and flame consume me. Ai! Ai! A river of fire swirls around me, a
sleepless worm is in me, devourer of my bones. Indeed, sceptres are
but smoke, the purple but dust, all splendour but nothing, and the
crown but a bauble. If my works burn with me, I shall be punished;
only by fire shall I be saved. Judges, as you look upon these things, put
aside all consideration of persons and of gain, and keep the scales of
justice balanced. "In what measure ye judge, 4 ye shall be judged by
me"; the saying is God's, and to be believed. This is what I have to say
and paint for you, I Alexios Komnenos, King of the Ausonians.

The Last Judgment scene from a tradition of religious rather than

imperial iconography was featured in the mural programmes of
Byzantine churches. 5 Yet the context of this particular composition
does not seem to have been ecclesiastical, since its purpose was,
apparently, to put the fear of G o d into the civil judiciary. T h e explicit
mention of the dispensation of justice seems to indicate that the
painting was in a hall where o n e of the judicial tribunals sat, 6 or
alternatively in a throne room where the emperor presided over the
'senate' in a judicial capacity. Alexios' references to his place on the
side of the d a m n e d and to his personal purification by fire may
simply be a dramatic expression of the emperor's well-known piety;
on the other hand, it may indicate that he was actually portrayed in a
penitential role, to the left of Christ. Certainly, there were aspects of
his career which might have given him cause for anxiety as to his
chances in the next life: the outrages committed by his troops when
he entered Constantinople in 1081, his appropriation of church plate
to pay for the Norman war, and his oppressive fiscal policy, all of

4
Matt. 7. 2.
5
Although the iconography of the scene may, initially, have borrowed heavily from
imperial art: Grabar, L'empereur, 249-58. On the Last Judgment see B. Brenk,
Tradition und Neuerung in der Christlichen Kunst desersten Jahrtausends (Vienna
1966), 79-103.
h
On the judicial tribunals of this period see N.A. Oikonomides, "L'évolution de
l'organisation administrative de l'empire byzantin au XIe siècle (1025-1118), "TM.
6 (1976), 133-5.
 126
which earned him clerical censure. 7
T h e language of the poem is graphic and no doubt describes an
actual mural. T h e thrones and open books refer to the iconography
of the hetoimasia, the prepared throne, a standard element of the
Middle Byzantine composition of the Last Judgment, although it
must be noted that more than one throne is without p r e c e d e n t /
Angels blow their trumpets to summon the dead from their tombs in
the well-known scene in the eleventh-century Gospel book in Paris,
Bibl. Nat. gr. 74 (fig. 1), in which groups of pious souls pray to Christ,
who is surrounded by the hosts of angels and apostles. T h e r e too, the
stream of fire pours forth from Jesus and engulfs the damned at the
right side of the viewer but the left side of Christ. Thus Kallikles
describes the scene from the viewpoint of Jesus in accordance with
the Biblical account in Matthew 2 5 : 3 1 - 4 6 .

II (c. 1118) O n the golden chamber (κουβούκλειον).

The gold has driven out the former cloud, beautifying the house, but
weeping; or rather golden streams of imperial tears water a garden of
mourning, this dwelling of a king a garden which has bloomed with
the balsam of pain, the lilies of wailing, and the narcissi of sighs. Who
sighs, and whom does he bewail? The child (bewails) his parent, the
lord his lord, John, alas, mourns the great Alexios. I see sweet
mourning and sorrowful joy, the parent both victorious and deceased.
He (John) is divided, but inclines to grief. He sees the Celtic shield
thrust aside, and rejoices but little, for the mingled grief for his father
dulls the edge of his joy. The howling of the Paristrian dogs is

7
See especially P. Gautier, "Diatribes de Jean lOxite contre Alexis 1er Coirmene."
REB. 28 (1970), 5-55, Alexios' reputation for piety and penitence: Anna
Comnena, Alexiad, ed. Β. Leib (Paris, 1937-45), I, 116-9; II, 45-8; Nicholas
Kataskepenos. La Vie de S. Cyrille le Philéote. moine byzantin, éd. E. Sargologos,
Subsidia Hagiographica, 39 (Brussels, 1964), J. Darrouzès, Georges et Demetrios
Tornikès. Lettres et discours (Paris, 1970), 237-9.
s
See T. von Bogyay, "Hetoimasia." RBK. II (Stuttgart. 1971), cols. I 189-1202. In
many cases the throne has a closed book on it, but the open book is also found, as for
example in the bronze relief placed above the imperial door of H. Sophia in
Constantinople. Cf. H. Kahler, Die Hagia Sophia (Berlin, 1967). pi. 62.
 127
nowhere (to be heard), the twang of the Persian bowstring has died
down, but these delights are painful to the lord of the earth now that
the trophy-bearer is no more. All that is delightful hurts; thus the
images of the fallen father seem but shades to the lord and child,
whose mind is stung with the pricks of pain; his tears run like blood
from his wounds. 1 see the sun weeping with him. Although he ran the
course of a powerful giant, and although he was for all men the flame
which warmed their life he has now given up his heat and his running.
Approach, behold, and learn the truth. For seeing the bearer of light
hidden, him, who was bright before all creation with the rays of
virtues, depicted only as a shade and a mere image, he too is only a
shadow and shape. Thus the vanishing of Alexios, the setting of the
sun, has put two suns in darkness, the child who is king and the actual
giver of light, (p. 338-40)

In this, as in the previous poem, there is a degree of literary

sophistication which makes it more difficult than is often the case to
visualize what was actually represented. However, the mention of
gold ornament indicates gold mosaic, and the rest of the poem
suggests that this served as a background for a pictorial cycle. The
poet declares that he "■sees" "sweet mourning and sorrowful joy",
Alexios "both victorious and deceased", and later, the sun weeping
with John. These statements, and the exhortation to "approach,
behold, and learn the truth", seem to indicate that the themes of the
poem were all represented on the walls or ceiling of the
Kouboukleion, and that the decoration thus comprised:
(a) a picture or a series of pictures showing Alexios triumphant
over his Norman, Pecheneg, and Turkish enemies;
(b) a picture of Alexios deceased;
(c) representations of John and the sun in an attitude of mourning.
No parallels for such a scheme are attested in surviving or lost
monumental painting: triumphal iconography usually celebrated the
exploits of a reigning emperor. But it would not have been
inappropriate or unconventional for John to commemorate his
father's achievements and register his grief in the same context. This
was, after all, the function of a traditional literary genre, that of the
monodia or funeral oration and an important early Byzantine
panegyric, Corippus' In laudem Justini Augusti minoris, makes
much of the way in which Justin II and Sophia mourned the late
I2.N

emperor Justinian and celebrated his triumphs.''

The circumstances of John II's accession to the throne made it
highly necessary for him to demonstrate his filial affection. Although
designated beyond doubt as Alexios' successor during the latter's
lifetime, his position as head of the family had been challenged by his
sister Anna, his mother, and his brother-in-law Nikephoros
Bryennios, who were all powerful influences on the old emperor.
John was so apprehensive of a family plot against him that he
deserted his father on his deathbed in order to secure control of the
Great Palace. Consequently, Alexios "was abandoned by almost all
his servants, with the result that apparently there was none to bathe
his corpse with the ritual ablutions, and no imperial attire was
available to those around him, so that his body might be
ceremonially arrayed, nor was his corpse borne out in a way
appropriate to an emperor — and all this not with an outsider, but
with his own son having succeeded to his imperial estate, a son whom
he had appointed to rule" (Zonaras). In spite of his precipitate
action, John still faced hostility from some members of his family,
who planned an abortive coup to put Nikephoros Bryennios on the
throne.1"
John II, therefore, at the beginning of his reign, needed to
convince his subjects, especially those closest to him, that the
dynastic legacy belonged to him, and not to other members of the
family who had stood high in Alexios* affections; at the same time —
indeed, before he could begin to carry conviction — he had to make
up for his serious failure to honor his father on his death bed. A
mosaic cycle prominently displayed in the palace to show him
identifying with his father's achievement and lamenting his father's
death would be a suitably comprehensive and permanent statement
of his attitude. It is instructive to compare the statement made by his

" I. I I5ff. 226-95: edition and commentary by A veril Cameron (London. 1976).
111
Zonaras. Epitomac Historiarum. ed. Th. Büttner -Wobst. ΙΓI. CSHB (Bonn.
1897). 747-8. 754-5. 761-5: Anna Comnena. cd. Leib. III. 238-9: Nieetas
Chômâtes, Historia, ed. I. Bckker.CSHB (Bonn. 1835). 8-17: F. Chalandon. Jeun
li Comnène (1118-1143) et Manuel 1 Coirmene (1143-1 ISO) (Paris, 1912). 1-8:
Darrouzès. Georges et Demetrios Tornikès. 26H-9. n. 52.
 129
chief rival in the affair, his sister Anna. Her Alexiad is closer to the
genres of court rhetoric than any other piece of Byzantine historical
writing, and Anna's professed intention to avoid singing her own
praises or writing her father's encomium cannot obscure certain
facts: the book is about one man, whom it celebrates as the
incarnation of the imperial virtues and notably those which bring
success in war; the author takes every opportunity to bring out her
special relationship with Alexios; she describes his final illness and
death in great detail, laying considerable emphasis on her own
presence and distress, and concludes with a lament whose language,
like that of Kallikles' poem, is highly reminiscent of monody. Anna's
work breathes the spirit of family tension which hung over John II's
accession to the throne; completed in scholarly seclusion thirty years
after the event, it represents the loser's version of the official Alexiad
which we glimpse in Kallikles' poem."
The scant details of the text offer little evidence for a
reconstruction of the mosaics in the Kouboukleion, but the mention
of John inclined to grief conforms to a centuries-old convention for
denoting mourning.12 The general scene of lamentation probably
took the form of the standard Byzantine composition of one or more
figures gathered about the bier of the deceased. Painters used this
iconography for the Koimesis of the Virgin, as well as for most any
other scene of death and mourning in religious and secular art. In the
latter realm examples are readily found in the Madrid copy of the
Chronicle of John Scylitzes. Recently N. Wilson has argued
convincingly that the manuscript, heretofore considered to date to
the Palaiologan era, was actually written in the mid or second half of
the twelfth century at the Norman court in Palermo and that the

11
Anna Comnena, Alexiad, ed. Leib. I, 1-8; III, 229-242, especially 229, line
30-230, line 2: διττόν μοι τον αγώνα του λόγου της προκείμενης ύπαγορευούσης
υποθέσεως Ιστορείν αμα και τραγωδείν τα συμπεσοντα τώ αύτοκράτορι, Ιστορείν
μεν τους αγώνας, εις μονωδίαν δέ αγειν όπόσα την καρδίαν διεμασσήσατο.
See also Chalandon, op. cit., 16; G. Buckler, Anna Comnena (Oxford, 1929),
27-46; Darrouzès, Georges et Demetrios Tornikès, 303ff.
12
In general for gestures of lamentation sec H. Maguire, "The Depiction of Sorrow
in Middle Byzantine Art," DOP, 31 ( 1977). 123-174, in which much is made of the
correspondence between the literary and pictorial descriptions of grief.
130
source in part is an illustrated exemplar sent from Constantinople. 13
Thus the Madrid codex provides important evidence for imperial
iconography in the period of the Comneni. In the manuscript, the
deaths of emperors, Patriarchs, or members of the imperial family
are shown in accordance with the arrangement just described.14 In
mural painting, a similar court funeral is depicted in the narthex of
the thirteenth-century church of the Trinity at Sopocani. There King
Uros, the founder of the church, had represented the death of his
mother, Queen Anne. He stands behind the bier and inclines his
head toward her in an expression of grief.15 This fresco, as well as
others in the lowest zone of the narthex, stresses the dynastic
continuity of the Serbian rulers in terms that recall Byzantine
imperial iconography.
Among the works of the next Byzantine 'poet-laureate', Theodore
Pródromos (c. 1100-c. 1156), is a poem concerning a portait of John
II.

Edition: W. Hörandner, Theodoros Pródromos, historische

Gedichte, Wiener Byzantinische Studien, XI (Vienna, 1974), no.
X U , pp. 394-5.

ΠΙ (1136-1143) Inscription on a painting painted for the emperor

" N.G. Wilson, "The Madrid Scyfitzes," Scrittura e civiltà, 2 (1978), 209-219. His
argument is accepted by P. Canart, "Le livre grec en Italie méridionale sous les
règnes Normand et Souabe: aspects matériels et sociaux," Scrittura e civiltà, 2
(1978), 147. The new publication of A. Grabar and M. Manoussacas, L'illustration
du manuscrit de Skylitzès de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Madrid (Venice, 1979),
has yet to reach us.
14
S.C. Estopañan, Skylitzes Matritensis. 1 (Madrid, 1965), figs. 98, 157, 313, 362,
364, 368.
15
R. Ljubinković, "Sur le symbolisme de l'histoire de Joseph du narthex de
Sopocani," L'Art byzantin du XIIIe siècle. Symposium de Sopocani (Belgrade,
1967), 234-235, fig. 6. The same general composition is used as well to represent
the death of Ivan Asen, the son of Tsar Ivan Alexander, in a fourteenth-century
Slavic translation of the chronicle of Constantine Manasses, Rome, Bibl. Vat. Slavo
2. See I. Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts (Leiden,
1976). 162-3, fig. 103.
 131
Kyr John Komnenos by his brother Kyr Isaakios."'

One father's seed united us; conception in a single womb combined

us; the Porphyra ,7 iias joined us from birth, O King and brother, and
in the same swaddling clothes we two were blended in a single soul.
We grew, and our bond grew with us; we became men and grew to
manhood, as from a tiny spark to a great torch, and from a torch to a
furnace. But - O turn of fate, O wheel of fortune - envy gained
strength at our expense, and, alas, sundered our community of spirit.
But, as was fitting, affection triumphed and all is well again between
us, and I continually strain to see you always. But this being
impossible for mortal nature, divided by time and place and the
fluctuating affairs of fortune, I portray and depict you by the artist's
hand, you whom I have engraved at the centre of my heart, in order
that I may always see you and be with you, and refresh and divert my
desire, staring at the copy as if it were the original. May I receive as
much grace from God as I, O emperor, nurture affection for you.

The sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos, Alexios I's youngest son,

unhesitatingly supported John II in 1118, but quarrelled with him in
1122, and spent the next fourteen years in exile. Although
reconciled with his brother in 1136 — an occasion to which this poem
evidently alludes — he remained suspect to John, and to Manuel
after him. As renovator of the Chora monastery, founder of the
Kosmosoteira monastery at Viros in Thrace, patron of T h e o d o r e
Pródromos, and an author in his own right, Isaac was culturally one

16
The "Purple Chamber", the building in the Great Palace where in the Middle
Byzantine period it was customary for the wife of the reigning emperor to give birth;
see J. Ebersolt, Le Grand Palais de Constantinople et le Livre de Cérémonies (Paris.
1910). 148-9.
17
It is clear from the content of the poem that Isaac commissioned the painting for
his own use, and therefore, as Hörandner suggests, this lemma is probably a later
addition.
132
of the most influential members of the Comnenian family."*

IV (1161) Euthymios Malakes, Oration to the emperor Manuel

Komnenoš, delivered when the Sultan came to Constantinople^'

Edition: A . Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Noctes Petropolitanae (St.

Petersburg, 1913)

In 1161 KHij-Arslan II, Seljukid sultan of Konya (Iconium),

hard-pressed by rivalry with his brothers, decided to seek the
friendship of the Byzantine e m p e r o r and came to Constantinople.
Manuel made most of the fact that the sultan was his favoured but
dependent guest, taking the opportunity to overwhelm Kilij-Arslan
with his generosity and extract promises of political concessions in
return, and to impress upon his own subjects the extent of his
diplomatic triumph. 2 0 T h e present oration, delivered at the time,
fully expresses the significance which the Byzantine government
attached to the event. Using a standard convention of imperial
panegyric, the author compares his oration to an image of the
e m p e r o r — whose deeds themselves constitute icons of triumph,
superior to the images of pagan heroes and gods, because they are
celebrated in every town in the oikoumene. H e continues:

But rather, let me leave the false gods and delineate the good

ls
For Isaac's political career, see Choniates, 42-3; John Cinnamus, Epitome
Rerum, ed. A. Meinecke, CSHB (Bonn, 1836), 32-3, 53-4 - this work has been
translated by C M . Brand, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (New York.
1976), with reference to the page-numbers of the Bonn edition;Chalandon, Jean II
Comnène et Manuel I Comnène, 83-5, 2 16. Pródromos composed three poems for
him, including this one: ed. Hörandner, nos. XL-XLH. pp. 390-8. Isaac as author:
J.J. Rizzo, Isaak Sebastrokrator's Περί της τών κακών υποστάσεως (Μ eisen heim
am Gian, 1971 ). The Kosmosoteira monastery: L. Petit. "Typikon du monastère de
la Kosmosotira près d'Aenos (1152)," IRAIK. 13 (1908), 1-61. The Chora
Monastery: Paul A. Underwood. The Kartye Djami, 1 (New York, 1966). 8-13.
19
On the authorship and date, see J. Dariouzès. "Notes sur Euthyme Tornikès,
Euthyme Malakès, et Georges Tornikès," REB. 23 (1965), 156-8.
2,1
Cinnamus. 204-8: Choniates. 152-8; Chalandon, 462-5.
 133

emperor by drawing an analogy, which is much more natural and

appropriate, with the true and good God. Just as Christ the Saviour of
the world, although alone as liberator of all Christendom, is depicted
in every town and is glorified in splendid festivals befitting his
divinity, every icon displaying one of the miracles by which we are
saved, one showing his unique birth, another his fearful passion,
another his ineffable resurrection, and the rest of the mysteries of our
salvation; in the same way my emperor, the imitation of my Christ, is
one and (yet) shared over all the earth. The towns bear his images as
teachers of the virtues by which he has saved the earthly order, and
one may see him represented here as a founder of cities, there as a
besieger bringing his brilliant triumphs to fulfillment, making
captives of the foreigners, freeing those under their yoke; in one town
laying the first foundations and giving the town its name; in another
surrounding it with a crown of walls and raising fallen towers, and
restoring to the town its lost name - these things are festive occasions,
the towns leap (for joy), and gifts come to the emperor from all over
the world, (p. 173)

Malakes here develops the common topos that the emperor is the
image of Christ into a rare analogy between imperial and Christian
iconography. T h e analogy is interesting as an explicit statement by a
Byzantine author to the effect that representations of the e m p e r o r ' s
deeds, while they may narrate specific incidents, are primarily
didactic expressions of universal truths about the emperor, just as
icons of Christ express the theological significance of events in his
life. At the same time, the analogy causes difficulty in interpreting
the passage as a piece of evidence for imperial art. Exactly what was
represented, and where? Since we know that the Birth, Passion, and
Resurrection of Christ were represented in every church, it is logical
to infer from Malakes' analogy that every provincial town was
decorated with a full pictorial cycle showing the e m p e r o r as founder,
besieger, victor, and restorer. Yet the fact that Malakes contrasts
what happens in o n e town with what happens in another suggests
that he is referring to pictures of the emperor as being represented in
each town performing only the action or actions appropriate to that
town. If this is so, what of towns which have not benefited from
restoration, liberation, or refoundation? T h e problem is further
complicated by another passage, earlier in the oration. Here
134
Malakes lists all the wonders that Manuel had accomplished in Asia
Minor, and that the Sultan must have seen while passing through
Byzantine territory on his way to Constantinople. He asks the sultan:

Did you see cities on the plains? Did you see lofty fortresses on the
mountains? Did you see imperial pictures set up on them? These all
show my emperor who raised the fortifications in a day. (p. 169)

This passage would seem to suggest that Malakes was seeking to

impress upon the Sultan the examples of towns which he had seen
and which, of course, lay in territory that Byzantium had recently
reconquered from the Seljuks. O t h e r evidence, indeed, suggests that
Manuel's work of urban restoration was mainly confined to Asia
Minor. 20 " Moreover, this passage does not refer to pictures showing
the e m p e r o r in action, but to mere imperial portraits. It may be,
therefore, that Malakes' analogy boils down to the banal statement
that imperial portraits were to be found in every town.
It is possible, in any case, that whatever the content and
distribution of the provincial pictures in question, Malakes drew his
analogy with reference to a cycle of depictions much closer at hand,
which he and his audience were more familiar, and which the Sultan
could perhaps see as he listened to the oration. T h e oration must
have been delivered in o n e of the throne rooms of t h e Great Palace,
where Manuel entertained his Turkish guest. We know that Manuel
constructed a triklinos here, which he decorated with mosaics
depictmg his victories; this was certainly complete by 1166. 21 If
already built in 1162, it could well have served as the scene for at
least o n e of the occasions when Manuel tried to impress the sultan
with his power and wealth. Kinnamos, referring t o Manuel's Italian
'victories' of 1155, mentions that the captured towns were recorded
by nameon the wallsof this throne room: one is reminded here of the

2l,a
Choniates, 194-5: W. Regel. Fontes rerum byzantinarum (St. Petersburg,
1892-1917). 29-33; Eustathii opuscula. ed. T.L.F. Tafel (Frankfurt, 1832) 208;
Cinnamus, 63.
21
See P. Magdalino, "Manuel Komnenos and the Great Palace." Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies. 4 (1978). 101-2, 106-8.
pictures described by Malakes as showing the emperor giving new
towns their names, or restoring names to others. Another imperial
oration of Manuel's reign describes the Serbian zupan, Nemanja,
looking at pictures of Manuel's victories, when Nemanja came to
Constantinople to make his submission to the emperor. 2 2

Poems from the Marcianus gr. Z. 524

This thirteenth-century codex contains a large collection of
anonymous verses which contitute a major body of evidence for
works of art, among them several imperial representations,
commissioned by the emperor Manuel I and his court circle. T h e
material presented below supplements that available in the partial
edition by Lampros and the translations by Mango.

Edition: Sp. Lampros, " Ό Μ α ρ κ ι α ν ο ς Κ ώ δ ι ξ 524", Νέος

Έλληνομνήμων, 8 (1911), 3-57, 123-92. fol 37" v

V. (post 1150) On the pictures of the emperors Kyr Alexios...

The lustre of wealth and gold, and the gleaming brightness of many
kinds of stone, display the splendour of the golden building. But the
inner charm which comes from these is not as great as that which
derives from the depiction of images on the outside. For John
renowned in the dignities of protosebastos and protovestiarios23
(whom Andronikos the sebastokrator, flower of the Porphyra, sired),
demonstrating the affection which he had in his heart for the imperial
lords, founders of the dynasty, depicts their figures in front of these
gates, to increase of beauty, as a great adornment. Here to be seen is
Alexios Komnenos, the king who crowns the Crown with victories;
then the scion of the Porphyra John, who further increased his

22
Regel, Fontes, 43-4; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 225.
23
More information about John and his family is to be found in Cinnamus, 126ff;
Choniates. 135-6. The sebastokrator Andronikos was a son of John II who
predeceased his father; John was therefore Manuel's nephew. Manuel granted him
his titles to console him for having lost an eye in a tournament (1 149/1 150). See also
P. Gautier, "Michel Italikos Lettres et discours." Archives de ¡'Orient Chrétien."
XIV (Paris 1972). 281-2
 13o

father's glory, from the eastern ends of the earth to where the sun sets.
Next see the lord Manuel, born in the Porphyra, frightful to all
barbarians, to whom bow down Dalmatians, Persians, Scyths, the
land of Antioch, the Cilicians, and Aleppo. Stranger, you (are to)
consider that the building boasts all its splendour, all its great charm,
from this source. Behold here the measure of the affection which the
purple flower's offshoot who depicts these things bears towards the
emperor Manuel. For, showing the servitude and incomparable
loyalty which he cherishes towards him, he falls at his feet even in
representation, and hus portrayed appears to speak as follows:
"My father simply brought me into the world, O mightiest of
emperors, glory of the crown, but you have looked after me from my
tender years, and created me anew in a mystical way; as a guardian
bringing me up nobly, adorning and fortifying my character with the
pursuit of arms, teaching me every rule of generalship, unstopping all
the founts of benevolence, never tired of being my benefactor, giving
me double honours - in a word, (you are) revealed as a second God to
me. Since I have not the power to render fitting gratitude, I pray that
the solar cycles of your reign may be as David called the days of
heaven.24 May you have the monarchy of the land and seas, enjoying a
full span of longevity; may you leave to your child the Crown and the
state, that the line of your family may be woven longer still; and may
you at the end, together with the supreme king and Word, reign over
the Kingdom which has no end.

This is o n e of several poems in the anthology referring to portrait:

of Manuel commissioned by various of his subjects, mostly thost
with important positions in the hierarchy, to decorate their house:
and religious foundations. 2 5 T h e image in question was of a type, tht
dynastic group, that seems to have been quite widespread ir
Manuel's reign, and which reflects the strong sense, shared also wit!
his father, of the dynastic context to which his own achievement:

24
Psalm 88 (89): 29.
2:1
Cf. fols. 4f>r, l()8r. I8()r; Cinnamus. 266 (Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire
224-5), wtio says that such commissions were "the custom among men placed ir
authority*.
 137

belonged. : '' It is interesting, however, that none of the

twelfth-century portrait groups for which we have evidence include
Isaac I; also no two are exactly identical.
The portraits alluded to here were evidently displayed on the wall
outside the gates of John's home, no doubt in Constantinople and
apparently showed John in prostration before Manuel and his
imperial ancestors. Proskynesis before the emperor as a sign of
respect and not merely indicative of military defeat was a common
part of court ceremonial but is rarely seen in surviving art. 27 . O n e
possible parallel is a miniature in a copy of the Homilies of St. John
Chrysostomos in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Coislin 79. On
f. 2v an emperor, now designated as Nicephoros Botaniates, stands
between St. John Chrysostomos and the Archangel Michael. T h e
tiny figure below, who kneels before the emperor, may be the scribe
or the painter of the manuscript. 2 8 Although the iconography of the
miniature has some affinities with the group portraits commissioned
by the protosebastos John, the latter probably would have been
accorded greater prominence in the pictures made for his own house.

fol. 107 t είς εικόνα εχουσαν ίστορηθέντα τον βασιλέα, < κ α ί > την

26
A sense of dynastic solidarity is frequently expressed in panegyrical literature of
the period: e.g. Regel, Fontes, 29, 66; Tafel, Eustathii opuscula, 197; Pródromos,
ed. Hörandner, XIII, lines 47-8 (p. 266) - αύξάνου, σκήπτρον Κομνηνών, εύρύνου
θείον γένος γένος χρυσοΰν ήριοικον βασιλικον κςχί μέγα
XVIII, lines 13ff (p. 303). The theme of the dynastic portrait group was later used
by the Grand Comneni of Trebizond, and the Nemanjid dynasty of Serbia; cf.
Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire. 183, 252-3: S. Curcić. "The Nemanjic family
tree in the light of the ancestral cult in the church of Joachim and Anna at
Studenica," ZR VI, 14/15 ( 1973), 191 -5 ; N. A. Oikonomides, "The Chancery of the
Grand Komnenoi: Imperial Tradition and Political Reality," "Αρχεΐον Πόντου, 35
(1979) 322-4.
27
A. Culter, Transfigurations, Studies in the Dynamics of Byzantine Iconography
(University Park, Pa., 1975), 69-70, I. Spatharakis, "The Proskynesis in Byzantine
art. A Study in Connection with a Nomisma of Andronicus II Paleologue." Bulletin
Antieke Beschaving, 49 ( 1974). 190-203. Proskynesis as a gesture of submission to
a victorious ruler is more common, and this is the sense of the miniature in Venice.
Bibl. Marc. Gr. 17, f. 3 of the Emperor Basil II with barbarians prostrate at his feet,
(cf. Spatharakis. Portrait, pi. 6)
2S
Spatharakis, Portrait. 1 12, fig. 72.
13S
δέσποιναν ευλογουμενην π α ρ ά του Χριστού

t Κάνταύθα τέρμα της προφητείας βλέπ<υ

ην ό βλέπων προεϊπεν 'Ιερεμίας, 29
ουδείς γαρ άρτι προυλαλεί τω πλησίον
και έκδιδάσκων γνώθι τον βασιλέα
πάντες γαρ έγνώκασιν αυτού το κράτος
μικρών απάντων μέχρι και τών έν τέλει,
οί μεν γαρ άλλοι τών μεγίστων έν βίώ
μείζους χαρίτων είσφέρουσι τους τρόπους,
στηλογραφούντες έν διηρμένοις τόποις,
λόγοις διαδήλοντες αύτοΰ τα κράτη,
κοινον καλούντες αγαθόν τών Αύσόνων,
σωτήρα, ρύστην, φύλακα, σκέπην, βάσιν,
άλλον Θεον πλάττοντα δευτέραν πλάσιν,
την συντριβήν τών εκδρομών τών βαρβάρων.
Ιωάννης δε του Θεού Λόγου Θύτης
Χρυσοφορίτης εξ επωνύμου γένους
καν ευτελής ή και μικρός τα προς τύχην,
πίστει πόθον σύγκρατον αύτοΰ δεικνύων
δν προς τον αύτάνακτα Μανουήλ τρέφει,
τον πορφυρόχρουν της Νέας 'Ρώμης στύλον,
χρώμασι τυποί δουλικώς τούτον γράφων
καί την άνασσαν Μαρίαν συνεγγράφων
Άντιόχου γης πριν φέρουσαν το κράτος
καί νύν δι' αυτού κοσμίου παντός κύκλου
γραφαίς άφώνοις κεκρατώς τα τού πόθου
ους ó κρατών γης, ουρανού παντοκράτωρ
συνήψε εις εν καί λέχος καί το στέφος
άμφω συναπτών προσφυώς καί παγκάλως
έπεύχεται δέ τού Θρόνου μεν ημέρας
δσας ό Δαυίδ ουρανού ψάλλων λέγει,
υίόν δ' άπ' άμφοϊν ώσπερ εκ κήπου ρόδον
έκπορφυρώσαι σπαργάνοις τήν πορφύραν
καί <ε>χειν παρ' αυτού το στέφος κληρουχιαν
γήρα λιπόντων έν βαθεί τα τού κράτους.

VI ( 1161 -1169) On an icon which has the e m p e r o r represented, and

the empress blessed by Christ

:g
The allusions are presumably to Jer. 26. 16; 36. 34.
 I.V)
24
Here I sec fulfillment of the prophecy which Jeremiah the seer
spake - for "none had uttered to his neighbour" - teaching, "Know
the king". All have known his power, from lesser men to those of
rank. Those who are great in the world contribute greater expressions
of their gratitude, portraying him in various places, advertising his
power in words, calling him the common good of the Ausonians,
saviour, liberator, guardian, shelter, foundation, another God
making a second Creation, the destruction of barbarian incursions.
John, priest of God the Word, of the family of Chrysophorites,
although low and insignificant in his lot, showing the affection mixed
with loyalty which he bears towards the emperor Manuel, the
purple-hued pillar of the New Rome, slavishly portrays him in
colours. He also portrays the empress Maria, who formerly held sway
over the land of Antioch, and now through him (Manuel) of every
worldly orbit. Containing his emotion in voiceless representations, he
depicts those whom the Pantokrator, ruler of earth and heaven, has
joined decorously and splendidly in one bed and one crown. He
wishes that the days of their throne may be as many as David, in the
psalm, numbers the days of heaven; that the Porphyra may blossom in
swaddling clothes with a son for them, like a rose from a garden; and
that the crown may find inheritance from him, when in ripe old age
they leave their power.

This poem and the painting to which it refers must have been
executed between 1161, when Manuel married Maria of Antioch,
and 1169, when Alexios II was born. 3 0 The text is interesting as
evidence of the extent to which imperial portraiture under Manuel
was commissioned by his subjects, and as an uninhibited statement
of the traditional, but extreme, principle that the emperor was G o d
on earth. A portrait of the imperial couple survives in a Vatican
manuscript, gr. 1176, f. Ilr (fig. 2). T h e text is of a church council of
1166 at which Manuel presided. H e subsequently took a great
interest in publicizing its findings on carved marble panels originally
set up in Hagia Sophia and recently rediscovered in a nearby turbe.
The Vatican version is thought to be an original or the original

Chalandon, 491, 523.

140
copy, 11 and thus its portraits of Manuel and Maria provide good
evidence for reconstructing the contemporary panel.
In addition, one has to imagine the inclusion of Christ blessing
either the empress only, as the title would indicate, or more probably
both figures. T h e benediction might have taken one of two forms —
either Christ gesturing in the act of blessing or else actually placing
his hands on the crowns of the couple. T h e latter iconography can, of
course, signify coronation, but it was also used to express the blessing
of Jesus upon the e m p e r o r and empress, as in another miniature in
Paris, Bibl. Nat. Coislin 79 (fig. 3). In the latter the accompanying
verses specify that Christ is blessing the couple, 3 2 and the same is true
of a similar scene on the cover of an ivory casket in the Palazzo
Venezia. 1 1 T h e verb employed to describe Christ's action in these
two preserved works is the same used in the above text.

VII fol. 108v ( 1 1 4 3 - 1 1 8 0 ) On the conch of the newly built

throne-room (τρίκλινος) 1 4 on the hill of the Blachernae.

In you have I securely laid the foundation of this imperial and

11
On the Manuscript see Spatharakis, Portrait, 208-210 with further bibliography
to which may be added P. Classen, "Die Komnenen und die Kaiserkrone des
Westens," Journal of Medieval History, 3 (1977), 214-20. The inscription,
mentioned by Classen, was first published by C. Mango, "The Conciliar Edict of
1166," DOP, 17(1963), 315-30.
12
Quoted in Spatharakis, Portrait, 108.
11
A. Goldschmidt and K. Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des
X.-XII. Jahrhunderts, I (Berlin, 1930), 63, pi. LXX. Because of the generalized or
symbolical significance at times of Christ placing his hands on the crown of rulers, it
is questionable if such images, in the absence of other evidence, should be
considered to be the representation of a specific coronation, as has been argued in
the past by various scholars. A case in point is provided by a Psalter of c. 1059 in
Rome, Vat. gr. 752 in which this composition appears three times. In two miniatures
Saul is shown placing his hands on the crowns of David and Michael. In one instance
(f. 2v) the accompanying inscription states that Saul crowns them; in the other (f.
449r) it says that he blesses them. See E.T. DeWald, The Illustrations in
Manuscripts of the Septuagint, Volume III, Psalms and Odes. Part 2: Vatican us
Graccus 752 (Princeton, 1942), 4, 4 1 , pis. IV, LIII.

This is the correct reading, not τρικιόνοι» as proposed by Lampros.

 141
splendid house, O Maiden, living palace of the universal King, and I
also represent the figures of my parents, so that I may see my
lamented, if only in shadows. 3 5

Two emperors are known to have built throne-rooms at the

Blachernae Palace, Alexios I and Manuel I,36 and given the poem's
place in this collection, the latter is likely to be the ruler who
commissioned the work. If the 'conch' reflects a structural feature of
the building, we probably have to envisage this as a basilica with an
apse at the end where the emperor was enthroned. 37 The use of the
first person suggests that the poem was inscribed on the mosaic. This
would seem to have depicted a kind of deesis, with the Virgin in the
centre of the semi-dome, flanked by the emperor and his parents, or
simply by the latter. The composition calls to mind the simple, spare
decoration of the apses of early churches, such as that at S. Agnese in
Rome from c. 625 in which three standing figures, the patron saint
and the two Popes, are evenly spaced on a gold ground.38 Closer in

35
For 'shadows' see also text II above. The words σκιά and τύπος have a long
history in Greek literature. Applied to iconography, they tend to be used in a
negative sense, to express the insubstantial approximation of the image rather than
its true likeness to the original. Cf. Canon 82 of the Council in Trullo (Quinsext).
36
Sources of the Palaiologan period contain several references to the triklinos of
Alexios: Pachymeres (CSHB), I, 263; II, 89, 188: Gregoras. 783-4, 898; Mansi.
XXVI, 191. This was built by the end of 1094: P. Gautier, "Le synode des
Blachernes (fin 1094)," REB. 29(1971), 220. Manuels throne room is mentioned
by Choniates, 269, and Benjamin of Tudela: ed. and tr. M.N. Adler, The Itinerary
of Tudela (London, 1907), 13.
37
The analogy between the cult of the emperor and that of Christ was carried into
ceremonial architecture: O. Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser-und Reichsidee
nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell (Darmstadt, 1956), 5öff. A
striking illustration of the parallel is provided by the description of a dream in which
the monk Cyril Phileotes is said to have seen the imperial campaign tent of Alexios I
"in the form of a church": Kataskepenos, Vie de S. Cyrille le Philéote, ed.
Sargologos, 154.
3S
G. Matthiae, Mosaici medioevali delle chiese di Roma, Il (Rome, 1967), fig. 90.
On the importance of the monument for Byzantine painting see E. Kitzinger,
"Byzantine Art in the Period between Justinian and Iconoclasm," Berichte zum XI.
Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress. IV, 1 (Munich, 1958), 17.
 142
date would be the imperial portraits in the south gallery of H. Sophia,
where in one case John II, his wife Irene, and his son Alexios are
arranged on either side of Mary and the Christ child. ,y The Virgin
also stands in the center of an imperial couple and their children in a
miniature in Paris, Bibl. Nat. gr. 9 2 2 , representing Constantine X
Ducas and his family. 40

VIII fol. 112v. t εις το κ α ι ν ο υ ρ γ η θ έ ν κουβούκλειον εν τω κ α τ ά τ ά ς

Βλαχέρνας κουβουκλείω

t Tí τον μέγαν ανακτά τυπών ζωγράφε

μέσον δ' έπ' αυτής της στοάς διαγράφεις
το πορφυραυγές κοσμικού κέντρον κύκλου
μακράν διϊστάς αρετών τας εικόνας
ας εντός αυτός άδιαστάτας έχει;
αλλ' εύγε ταύτα της αληθείας τύποι,
τω γαρ κρατίστω Μανουήλ συνεγγράφεις
τού χρυσοπάστου κυκλόθεν ταύτας δόμου,
εμψυχον αυτών αρετών οίκον κρίνων
φρουρούντα ταύτας παρθένους ώσπερ κόρας.
συνεννοείν και τι μοι πλέον δίδως
όπως περιστήλουσιν αυτόν έν μέσω
συνεμπλακεϊσαι δακτύλοις άκηράτοις
και φύλακες γάρ είσιν αύτφ τού κράτους
ύψοΰσιν αυτόν μέχρις άντύγων στόλου
υπέρ κεφαλής ώσπερ είσδεδεγμέναι,
ύφ' ων τροπούται Δαλμάτας, Πέρσας, Δάκας,
καΐ βάρβαρον παν και παράσπονδον γένος

(?1165) O n the newly built kouboukleion'm the kouboukleion at the

Blachernae

Why, O artist, in portraying the great king, do you depict him in the

19
V. Lazarev, Storia della pittura bizantina (Turin, 1967), figs. 289-92.
411
Spatharakis, Portait, fig. 68. Here Mary places her hands on the crowns of the
emperor and empress, but there is no reason to think that the Virgin performed a
similar act in the palace mosaic.
 143
middle of a stoa, the purple-rayed centre of the worlds orbit, and set
at a distance the images of the virtues which he has inseparable within
him? But these are rightly representations of the truth, for you
portray them along with the most mighty Manuel, around the gilded
house, seeing (in him) a living habitation of these very virtues,
guarding these virgins as if they were his daughters. You also give me
occasion to see another meaning in the way that they surround him,
entwined by undefiled fingers. For they are guardians of his state;
they raise him to the railings of the chariot, as if acclaiming him above
their heads. Through them he triumphs over Dalmatians, Persians,
Dacians, and every barbarian and faithless race.

This representation of the emperor as the incarnation of the

virtues corresponds to a standard topos of panegyrical and
"Speculum Principis" literature and belongs to an artistic tradition
which was also common to the medieval west. 41 In Byzantine
literature, a close parallel to this poem can be found in some verses
addressed by T h e o d o r e Pródromos to John II; 42 in art, we have
evidence for the same theme being expressed in one other painting of
Manuel's reign and one in the palace of Andronikos II Palaiologos. 41
41
Cf. A. Katzenellenbogen, Allegories of the Virtues and Vices in Medieval Art
(London, 1939).
42
Pródromos, ed. Hörandner, Poem V, exhorting the emperor (John II) to enter
the city on the triumphal chariot which has been made for the occasion: Lines 54 ff
(p. 215): έχεις μεν έτερον εντός άρμα λαμπρον και θείον
τάς τεσσάρας των αρετών τάς γενικός και πρώτας
δικαιοσυνην φρόνησιν άνδρείαν σωφροσΰνην
δι' ών και μέχρις ουρανών αυτών έπελαφρίζη
και φθάνεις εις τάς αντυγας τάς ύπερουρανίους
43
Cod. Marc. Gr., 524, fol. 22v; E. Miller, Manuelis Philae Carmina, II (Paris,
1857), 124; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 225, 247. Virtues are found
decorating the canon tables of two twelfth-century Gospel books in Melbourne and
Venice. See H. Buchthal, "An illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book of about 1100
A.D.," Special Bulletin of the National Gallery of Victoria (Melbourne, 1961 ), 4,8.
The Venice manuscript, Bibl. Marc. gr. Z. 540, may date to the mid twelfth century
and thus is approximately contemporary with these murals from the reign of Manuel
I. The imaginary mural depiction of the four virtues which Eustathios
Makrembolites describes in great detail in Hysmine and Hysminias no doubt
faithfully reflects works of art familiar to the author, who is thought to have lived in
the mid-to-late 12th century: R. Hercher, Erotici scriptores graeci, II(Leipzig,
1859), 170-4; H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 1
(Munich, 1978). 137-41.
 144
The use of the words κύκλος, κυκλόΐτεν, and the mentions of Manuel
being represented above and in the middle of the virtues suggest that
the composition occupied a domed ceiling, with the emperor in the
middle and the allegorical figures, such as Justice, Fortitude,
Prudence, and Temperance, surrounding him — presumably not too
far distant from each other, since they appear to have been shown
holding hands. The reference to the conquest of Dalmatia probably
makes 1165 a terminus post quern for the poem if not for the
mosaic.44
The mural as described has no close parallels in surviving imperial
art. The general notion of an emperor accompanied by
personifications of virtues was, however, well established by the
reign of Manuel. Ancient Roman emperors were often represented
in the company of virtues, such iconography being a common feature
of Roman coinage from Vespasian to Diocletian. Virtues were
gradually eliminated from the coins of Christian emperors with
Victoria, the last to remain, finally being replaced by an angel.45 In
the Middle Byzantine era an important example of what
Katzenellenbogen calls the "retinue" arrangement of virtues is
encountered in Coislin 79, where the enthroned emperor is flanked
by Truth and Justice (fig. 4). 46 The same scheme is employed for the
seated Christ in Vat. Urb. gr. 2, and there Jesus, as the heavenly Lord
who places his hands on the crowns of John II and Alexios, is
accompanied by Mercy and Justice (fig. 5).47 In many instances,
religious and secular representations of majesty were interchange­
able, and for this reason the miniature of David, dressed as an
emperor and flanked by Wisdom and Prophecy in the tenth-century
Paris Psalter (Bibl. Nat. gr. 139, fig. 6), functions both as a logical
introductory image for David's Psalms and as an allegory of
Byzantine kingship intended for the son of Constantine VII, as

44
Chalandon, 485.
45
H. Mattingly, "The Roman "Virtues'," Harvard Theological Review, 30 (1937).
103-17. Prof. K. Shelton kindly furnished this reference.
46
Katzenellenbogen. Allegories. 29-30; Spatharakis, Portrait, 110-11.
47
Spatharakis, Portrait. 79-83 with literature.
 145
4
Buchthal has so successfully demonstrated. "
This equivalence of the earthly and celestial court offers the
potential for visualizing the mosaic in the Blachernae in terms of
surviving religious art, such as the mosaics in the dome of the palace
chapel of the Norman rulers in Palermo (fig. 7). Although the
building's basilical plan is Western and its painted ceiling Islamic, the
mosaics of the Cappella Palatina are the work of Greek artists, and
the dome, dating to 1143, shows a bust of the Pantocrator
surrounded by a ring of angels and archangels, the members of his
imperial retinue. 49 Their close proximity to each other perhaps
suggests a parallel to Manuel's virtues with their interlocking hands.
Lastly in this context one other vault should be mentioned, even if its
relevance is less certain. The central dome of the cathedral of San
Marco in Venice depicts the Ascension of Christ at its summit with
the usual ring of Apostles and the Virgin around the outer edges.
More exceptional are the sixteen personifications of virtues placed
below, between the windows of the drum of the cupola. According to
Demus,50 these figures date to the end of the twelfth century and are
western in inspiration, so that the agreement in position with the
outer circle of virtues in the imperial palace in Constantinople may
only be accidental.
Finally, a precedent for the entwined fingers of the virtues appears
in the eleventh-century Psalter in Rome, Bibl. Vat. gr. 752. 51 As a
prefatory illustration to the first Ode of Moses, celebrating the
Israelites' triumph over the Egyptians at the Red Sea, the illuminator
depicted Miriam and a group of women dancing in a circle around a
company of musicians. He chose not an illusionistic scene of a crowd

4ři
H. Buchthai, "The Exaltation of David," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes, 37 (1974), 330-3.
4
" O. Demus. The Mosaics of Norman Sicily (New York, 1950), 25-6, 38-9.
5,1
O. Demus, Die Mosaiken von San Marco in Venedig 1100-1300 (Baden bei
Wien, 1935), 24-5, fig. 12.
51
DeWald, Vaticanus Graecus 752. 41-42. Illustrated in color in Quinto
Centenario della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 1475-1975 (Vatican, 1975). pi.
XI.
146
but an abstract arrangement of a ring of women linking their arms
and framing a circular field of instrumentalists who are seen from a
more normal perspective. This miniature and the above examples
thus show Byzantine artists creating appropriate visual solutions to
compositional problems similar to what is described in the text. The
common propensity of such painters was to illustrate new subject
matter by means of traditional formulas, and probably the mosaicists
employed by the palace were no exception.

IX fot. 120r (1131-1180) O n the things depicted in the holy

monastery of the Holy Trinky by the Bosphoros ( κ α τ ά το Στενόν).

Many are the vines of your donations which you have planted in the
paradise of this monastery, O emperor, with the red signatures of
your hand, and you have dug for us a wine-vat of grace by fencing
these in with golden bulls. And now, as we harvest the grapes of
rejoicing, we in joy depict you the planter and your beloved mystikos
Nikephoros, faithful to both God and your state, through whom as
intermediary and instigator you were found ready to plant.

This is the first of two poems in the anthology written to be

inscribed in this monastery, whose existence is not otherwise
attested. The second poem reveals that it was founded in 1130-1 by
one Symeon. It is highly likely that Manuel was the e m p e r o r
represented, since at least t w o of his mystikoi were called
Nikephoros."

X fol. 180r. (c. 1171) O n representations of the famed e m p e r o r

John, his son Kyr Manuel, and the latter's son Kyr Alexios

Grandfather, father, child, emperors of New Rome, whom you see

depicted here, Ό stranger, constitute a divinely woven golden cord

52
Nikephoros Scrbiias: loannis Tzetzae Epistuiae. ed. P.A. Leone (Leipzig, 1972),
no. 18, p. 31: Nikephoros Borbnos: PG. 140, col. 177. A mystikos Nikephoros
rcfounded the monastery of Elaiobomoi or Etegmoi in Bithynia before 1162: R.
Janin. Les églises et les monastères des grands centres byzantins(Parh, 1975), 146.
 147
encompassing the ends of the earth, articulating all aspects of its
government, bending the necks of gentiles and barbarians. These
three trees are of the Porphyra, covering and refreshing those
beneath them with the shady foliage of their benefactions. John the
scepter-bearer of the Ausonians who increased the fame of his father
and, much more, the emperor Manuel, at whom every satrap, king,
prince and count, the whole of Rus, the Egyptian Nile have trembled,
as at one invincible in mind and strength. To whose God-given
monarchy may Alexios, his son and fulfillment of the series, succeed
after the revolution of thrice-old suns.

The terminus post quem for this picture is the elevation of Alexios II,
born in 1169, to the rank of c o - e m p e r o r in 1171, and it may well
have been commissioned in honour of that occasion, when the
emperor's subjects swore an oath of allegiance to the
heir-presumptive. 5 3 It is curious that Alexios I was not represented in
this instance — perhaps in order to k e e p the number of figures at a
mystical three; perhaps to emphasize that the other male line of
descent from Alexios I, represented by the relative whom Manuel
had most reason to fear, his cousin A n d r o n i k o s , had been excluded
from the succession. 54

XI. fol. 18Ir. t επί τοις είκονίσμασι του βασιλέως, του μεν Κυρίου
ημών Ίησοΰ" Χρίστου συλλαλοΰντος α ύ τ ω π ρ ο ς το ους, του δε
Ά γ ι ο υ Π ν ε ύ μ α τ ο ς εν ειδει π ε ρ ι σ τ ε ρ ά ς εξ ο υ ρ α ν ο ύ κατερχομένου,
των δέ ά γ ι ω ν α π ο σ τ ό λ ω ν Πέτρου καΐ Π α ύ λ ο υ , και των α γ ί ω ν
π α τ ρ ι α ρ χ ώ ν του Χρυσοστόμου, τ ο υ Θ ε ο λ ό γ ο υ και έτερων
αρχιερέων ε π ι δ ι δ ό ν τ ω ν αύτω τόμους τών χρήσεων

t συ μέν ώ Παί τω βασιλεϊ προσλάλει

ο δ' αν προς ους ήκουσε κηρύττειν θέλει
ώς εις μέν εσύ πλην φύσεις σώζεις δις
άμφοίν άμίκτους εις ύπόστασιν μίαν,
και συ δέ Πνεύμα χάριν ύψόθεν δίδου
και σην γαρ έκπόρευσιν εκ Πατρός μόνον

" Choniates. 220-1; Chalandon. 212.

54
See infra.
148
πιστοΐς διδάσκει, και μαν αρχήν σέβειν.
Χριστού" μαθητών, ιεραρχών άκρότης
πάρεστιν ί,δού και προτείνεται τόμους
πλήρεις ακριβών ορθοδόξων δογμάτων
τούτους Μανουήλ Αύσονοκράτορ δέχου
και δόγμα παν έκφύλον αύτοϊς εκτρέπου

XI (e. 1166) On representations of the emperor, our Lord Jesus

Christ speaking in his ear, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove
descending from heaven, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and the
holy patriarchs Chrysostom, the T h e o l o g i a n " and other bishops
giving him tomes of quotations.

You, O Child, speak to the emperor; he wishes to proclaim what his

ear has heard, how You are one although You have two natures, both
unmixed in one person. And you, O Spirit, give grace from above, for
he teaches the faithful to revere your procession from the Father
alone, and your one origin. Behold, the most exalted of Christ's
disciples and hierarchs are present and proffer tomes full of proper
orthodox doctrines. Receive these, Manuel, ruler of the Ausonians,
and reject all teachings which are foreign to them.

This painting was probably occasioned by Manuel's involvement

in one of the doctrinal controversies of his reign, the most significant
of which occurred in 1166, when the emperor took a special interest
because of his current negotiations with the papacy and laid great
emphasis on his role as arbiter of orthodoxy. 5 6 In this, as in the
preceeding poem, the context of the picture is not mentioned, but
since both pictures conveyed important political propaganda and
engaged the talents of a poet whose works were valued by later
generations, it may be supposed that they were imperial
commissions for monumental display.

>>
I.e. St. Gregory Nazianzcn.
56
Chalando«. 564-5, 646ff. Cf. J. Parker, "The Attempted Byzantine Alliance with
the Sicilian Norman Kingdom ( 1166-7), "Papers of the British School at Rome, 24
( 1956), 86-93 ;C. Mango, "The Conciliar Edict of 1 166." DOP. 17(1963), 3 15-30.
 149

The composition involved figures of the emperor, Christ, the Holy

Spirit in the form of a dove, two apostles, and various church fathers.
The descending dove is easily visualized from scenes of the Baptism
of Christ, but a more relevant image is the portrait of David shown as
an emperor in the Psalter in Paris (fig. 6). Here the bird hovers just
above the halo of David. The mention of Jesus speaking in the ear of
Manuel might refer to a type of inspirational group in which a muse
or apostle leans over the shoulder of a seated author to instruct him.
The scene in the Middle Byzantine period is occasionally used for St.
Paul speaking to St. John Chrysostomos or for various portraits of
David composing his Psalms.57 However, it is difficult to reconcile
such a self-contained group with the inclusion of the fathers offering
Manuel their tomes and with the suggestion that the emperor in
some way is receiving these gifts.
It is in this context that two miniatures in a manuscript in Rome,
Vat. gr. 666, present twelfth-century solutions to rather similar
compositional problems and thus bear closer examination. The
images are found on facing pages, ff. lv and 2r (figs. 8-9), at the
beginning of the Panoplia Dogmatica of Euthymius Zygabenus, a
text dealing with heresies and written at the request of the Emperor
Alexios I, probably in the twelfth century.58 The first page represents
nine saints who extend scrolls to the emperor on the opposite recto
(fig. 8). The emperor simultaneously receives the profferred rolls
and listens to the half-figure of Jesus above, who is raising his right
arm in the traditional gesture of speech (fig. 9). A second copy of the
composition exists in a Moscow manuscript of the same text, Codex
Synod, gr. 387, probably from the latter half of the twelfth century.59
It has been suggested that the Vatican version was the original
manuscript offered by Alexios I,60 but problems arise with this

57
On the former see S. Der Nersessian, "A Psalter and New Testament Manuscript
at Dumbarton Oaks," DOP 19 (1965), 178; on the latter see most recently H.
Buchthal, The "Musterbuch" of Wolfenbüttel and Its Position in the Art of the
Thirteenth Century (Vienna, 1979), 30, with further references.
58
Spatharakis, Portrait. 122-8 with older literature.
>9
Ibid., 128-9, figs. 83-5.
60
Ibid. 127-8.
150
proposal. First, if Alexios was either the patron or the intended
recipient, why are the two imperial portraits on folios 2r and 2v not
inscribed with his name cither on the miniatures themselves or above
in the verses describing the images. Such an inscription is found
paradoxically on the distinctly later Moscow portrait. hI Byzantine
artists or scribes seldom omit the name of the emperor from a
portrait made in his lifetime and frequently go to some effort to make
alterations, when another ruler takes office. 62 Second, the miniatures
may have been painted after the reign of Alexios Ì. The dry, linear
highlighting on the garments of Christ on f. 2v corresponds to the
drapery style of a portrait of Gregory Nazianzenus in a Sinai
manuscript from the middle years of the century,' 3 and the gaunt,
lined faces of the fathers on f. 1 v recall the busts of apostles depicted
on a leaf now in a private collection in Athens, but formerly

61
Ibid.. 129.
62
As in the cases of the mosaic of Constantine Monomachos at H. Sophia and the
imperial portraits in Paris, Coislin 79. On the former there is the recent study of N.
Oikonomides, "The Mosaic Panel of Constantine IX and Zoe in Saint Sophia,"
REB. 36 (1978), 219-32; on the latter see Spatharakis, Portrait, 113-8.
Uninscribed imperial portraits have naturally occasioned problems of
interpretation, a well-known case being the mosaic over the imperial door of H.
Sophia in Constantinople. N. Oikonomides has tried to incorporate the image's
anonymity into his analysis of the work. See "Leo VI and the Narthex Mosaic of St.
Sophia," DOP, 30 ( 1976). 151 -172. On one level, the portrait in Vat. gr. 666 could
represent Alexius I, as he commissioned the text and isextolled in a panegyric on ff.
3-4, but if this was the primary function of the miniature and accompanying verses,
why is there a reticence to mention the emperor's name? Might the scene be a less
specific and more generalized image of imperial ideology in analogy to what
Oikonomides sees as the symbolical nature of the H. Sophia mosaic?
ί,Λ
Mt. Sinai, cod. gr. 339, f. 4v. G. Galavaris, The ¡¡lustrations of the Liturgical
HomHies of Gregory Nazianzenus (Princeton, 1969), frontispiece. For the date of
the manuscript see J.C. Anderson, "The Illustration of Cod. Sinai. Gr. 339." Art
Bulletin. 61 (1979). 167-85.
 151
belonging to Mt. Athos, Dionysiou8of 1133. 64 The possibility exists,
then, that the Vatican codex might be from the early reign of Manuel
I, so that the correspondence between this double page composition
and the now lost painting of Manuel, receiving what may be
translated as tomes or possibly even scrolls" 5 from the saints and
apostles, may not be coincidental.

XII Niketas Choniates, History: I. Bekker, Nicetae Choniatae

historia, C S H B (Bonn, 1835), 308

During the fight at the Milion (1181) between the partisans of Maria
Porphyrogennita and the regency government of Alexios II, the
loyalist troops "raised above the Arches the standards which
portrayed the emperors"." 6

XIII Ibid., 352

Following the fall of Andronikos I (1185),

"in the city his image was effaced, whether one means by this the
actual outline of his face, or the representations on walls and boards,
since the vulgar mob destroyed them, tore them to the ground and

64
Byzantine Art, An European Art (Athens, 1964), 317-8, illustrated asno. 313.
Here the parent manuscript of the miniature is not mentioned, but F. Dölger,
Mönchsland Athos (Munich, 1943), fig. 116, illustrates the page when it was still in
Dionysiou cod. 8. Since then not only the single miniature, but the entire manuscript
has been removed from Mt. Athos, and the book today is in the Ludwig collection,
for which see A. von Euw and J.M. Plotzek, Die Handschriften der Sammlung
Ludwig, I (Cologne, 1979), 159-63. This linear facial highlighting continues to be
used in mural and manuscript painting of the later twelfth century, so that the
comparisons to the two cited manuscripts are not contradictory.
65
The word in question here, τόμος, referred to a scroll in the ancient world, but its
meaning in the medieval period became less specific and could indicate other
concepts, still including, however, the sense of rotulus. See B. Atsalos, La
terminologie du livre-manuscrit à l'époque byzantine (Thessaloniki, 1971 ), 150-61.
ftft
On the incident, see C M . Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West. 1180-1204
(Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 34ff; on the Milion: C. Mango, The Brazen House
(Copenhagen, 1959), 47-8.
152
stamped on them".

One type of imperial portrait set up on walls survives in two

circular marble reliefs in Washington and Venice. Thought to depict
either Isaac II or Alexios III, the tondi display the Byzantine
e m p e r o r dressed in ceremonial attire and holding a labarum and a
globus cruciger. The identifications are not definitive, but there are
resemblances to coinage of the two successors of Andronikos I."7 In
any event, t h e roundels are not likely to represent the latter emperor
precisely because of the damnatio memoriae that Choniates
describes.

Epigrams of Theodore Balsamon

Three poems by the canonist and titular patriarch of Antioch,

Theodore Balsamon, refer to representations of Isaac II Angelos
(1185-95)

Edition: K. Horna, " D i e Epigramme des Theodoros Balsamon,"

Wiener Studien, 25 ( 1 9 0 3 ) , 165-217; see also Lampros, Ό
Μ α ρ κ ι α ν ο ς Κώδιξ 524, p. 13Iff.

XIV (post 1187) O n an icon of the bishop of Sidon having portraits

of the e m p e r o r and patriarch, and of himself standing behind, near
the patriarch's feet

Like Moses, beholding in shadowy or rather reversed images the

angelic protection of the emperor and the good deeds of the
patriarch, you pray to see them with your own eyes illuminating, after
the manner of the stars, the land of Canaan and the breadth of
Paradise. And thus too may you see God cover the shore of AiliaftX
breaking the arms of the barbarians and saving the church of Sidon (p.

67
H. Peirce and R. Tyler. -Three Byzantine Works of Art." DOP. 2( 1941 ). 1 -10.
W.F. Volbách and J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Byzanz und der christlichen Osten
(Berlin. 1968), 207, entry by W.F. Volbách.
6S
I.e. Jerusalem.
 153
184-5).

The significance of this poem is not altogether clear, but the most
likely explanation is that it alludes to the benefits which the
Orthodox clergy hoped to reap from Saladin's conquest of Palestine
and expulsion of the Latin episcopate. Isaac continued the alliance
with Saladin made by Andronikos I, and religious concessions for
Orthodox in the Holy Land and Muslims in Constantinople were
among the terms he negotiated. 6 y The patriarch referred to is
probably the controversial Dositheos. 7 "

XV ( 1185-1195) On the emperor Kyr Isaac represented in the holy

bath of the Holy Theotokos of the Hodegetria

This spherical bathing place was domed by the decree of emperors,

but all-corrupting time blackened it, even though it had an 'apse of
Solomon', a Siloan pool of hot waters, and a well brimming with
miracles for the sick. But powerful time, pelting with the immoderate
hail of neglect, put an end to their cleansing force. There was, it
seems, no angelic grace to drive away the freezing evil and bring in
warming gold. Since these unfortunate things had been done, it was
necessary for the old outrages of time to suffer the sufferings of
Tantalus, and arrows, killers of disease,71 to issue forth again for the
world's salvation. Salvation thus came forth out of Sion, a faithful
emperor, first of Angels, not destroying bows of iron and brass, as
when he cut down the tyranny, but measuring our rivers of gold and
scouring out the old basins. Bath ye, then, become clean, and putting
off all evil-doing, pray that the imperial angel-protection may enjoy
long life (p. 190-1).

T h e Hodegetria monastery, situated by the shore of the sea of

Marmara to the north-east of the Great palace, seems to have owned

e
"C.M. Brand, "The Byzantines and Saladin." Speculum. 37 (1962). 170ff.
7(1
See Brand. Byzantium Confronts the West. 100-1, 182ff.
71
Possibly an allusion to the bow which Andronikos used while defending himself in
the creat Palace after Isaac's coronation: see infra.
154
two bathing establishments: the " α γ ι ο ν λ ο ΰ μ α " mentioned in this
poem, and the public bath (δημόσιον λουτράν) mentioned in
another of the same collection (no. XLII, p.20()). 72 Either or both
may have incorporated parts of the Baths of Arcadius, which are
known to have been located in this area. 71 T h e building in question
here was clearly a domed chamber containing a hot water pool,
which Isaac II had restored to use. No indication is given as to the
position or iconography of the emperor's portrait, which is
mentioned only in the title.

XVI (1185-1195) O n the emperor Isaac portrayed in a picture on

horseback with his crown and a naked sword

As you see the angelic flood of light poured out into a bodily nature,
think of the dominical salvation; for as the presence of God in the
flesh put an end to the deadly work of Satan, so by (divine) wisdom
the grace of an Angel, having taken on a bodily nature, stopped the
tyrannical homicide. So as you see Angelos carrying his sword, and,
indeed, Angelos wearing his crown, praise him for his sword and his
crown: the one has upheld the state of the Ausonians, the other has
severed the tyrants' heads (p.200-1)

This poem and the painting described in it must refer to the

dramatic events of Isaac's accession in 1185. Stephen Hagiochris-
tophorites, the leading agent in Andronikos Γ s reign of terror, came
to Isaac's house to arrest him. Isaac with the courage of desperation
mounted his horse, rode out, cut off Hagiochristophorites' head, and
galloped down the avenue to Hagia Sophia brandishing his sword
and proclaiming what he had done. 7 4 By taking sanctuary in Hagia
Sophia, Isaac unexpectedly precipitated A n d r o n i k o s ' downfall and
his own coronation as emperor. His ride through the city and his

72
On the monastery των Όδηγών in Constaninople and its dependencies see R.
Janin. La géographie ecclésiastique de l'empire byzantin, I: Le siège de
Constaninople et le Patriarcat Oecuménique, III: Les églises et les monastères
(Paris, 1969), 199ff.
71
Procopius, De Aedificiis, II, 11.
74
Choniates, 445-6; Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 70.
 155
coronation were two chronologically distinct events, but the picture
described in this text clearly alluded to them both, by representing
the emperor on horseback with both sword and crown.
These attributes are the details on which a reconstruction of this
equestrian portrait must be based, and only one, the sword, is
noteworthy, for an emperor wearing a crown is scarcely remarkable.
While one would wish that Balsamon had been more specific, still
there is enough here to make some remarks on the image. In the first
place it is important to realize that representations of emperors on
horseback were not ubiquitous in the twelfth century. T h e ancient
Roman iconography of such portraiture, known from coins and
statues like that of Marcus Aurelius in R o m e , was continued by the
Christian emperors down to Justinian. 75 T h e latter's monumental
equestrian statue still stood in the Augustaion of Constantinople in
the twelfth century, surviving in fact until the fifteenth century; 7 '' but
as a genre of official portraiture, the depiction of an emperor on
horseback disappears after Justinian. His statue is the last of this sort,
and hereafter the iconography is eliminated from coins. 77
In the Middle Byzantine period the theme occasionally occurs in
minor arts with perhaps the most significant examples being the large
silk of Bishop Günther in Bamberg (fig. 10), an object that
commemorates triumphs of Basil II, according to Grabar, 7 8 and an
ivory casket in Troyes with several representations of mounted
figures dressed in imperial garb and either receiving the subsmission

75
For a general discussion see H. von Roques de Maumont, Antike
Reiterstandbilder (Berlin, 1958).
76
W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tübingen, 1977),
248-9 with bibliography. On the date of the statue's destruction see the letter to the
editor of the Art Bulletin, 41 (1959). 354 by C. Mango.
77
Grabar, L'Empereur, 47.
78
The drawing of the textile, reproduced here, is taken from C. Cahier and A.
Martin, Mélanges d'archéologie. II (Paris, 1851), pi. XXXIV and was made soon
after the piece's discovery. Detailed photographs of the better preserved sections
and a thorough analysis of the work is to be found in A. Grabar. "La soie byzantine
de lévêque Günther à la cathédrale de Bamberg." L'Art de la fin de l'antiquité et du
moyen âge. I (Paris. 1968), 213-27. pis. 30-3.
156
of a town or hunting.7" The mounted warrior or hunter appears also
on various other objects, such as ivory caskets with the subject in
question usually placed on the lid;8" some enameled roundels now
part of the Pala d O r o in Venice;111 and a bronze medallion perhaps of
the late twelfth century.82 Yet with the possible exception of the
Bamberg silk, none of this art could be considered official. It is only
in the Palaiologan context of the De officiis of Pseudo-Kodinus that
equestrian portraits of the emperor are mentioned as decorating
various official banners, although such devices may have been used
in earlier centuries.83
Thus the description of Isaac II on horseback is important
evidence for the existence of this category of imperial iconography in
the twelfth century and for what initially would appear to be a
continuation or revival of the ancient Roman forms. Yet this is where
the mention of the bare sword is important, for this detail serves to
distinguish the image from earlier traditions. Mounted Roman
emperors, if they carried anything in their hands at all, only held a
lance or a globe. The right hand either gestured or grasped the spear,
while the left hand controlled the reins or else sometimes supported
the globe. For example, Justinian in his famous monument had a
globus cruciger in his left hand and stretched forth his right arm, and
as Procopius says, carried "neither sword nor spear nor any other

79
Ibid., 222-3, pi. 35.
80
Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, I, nos. 12a, 20a. 29a, 31a, 33a, 34. 42, 40a, 85a, 98.
81
A. Grabar, "Les succès des arts orientaux à la cour byzantine sous les
Macédoniens," L'Art de la fin de l'antiquité, I, 280-2. pi. 60.
82
Tliomas Whittemore, "Byzantine Bronze Medallion with an Imperial
Representation," Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene
(Princeton, 1954), 184-92. The object represents an emperor Isaac, whom
Whittemore considers to be Isaac Doukas Comnenos, who ruled the island of
Cyprus between 1184 and 1191. It certainly is not likely to be an object made for the
court in Constantinople because of the misspellings in the titulature.
81
J. Verpeaux, Pseudo-Kodinos. Traité des offices (Paris, 1966). 167, 196.
Whittemore suggests that such banners were used as well in the eleventh century:
'"A Bronze Medallion", 190. n.37.
 157
84
weapon." In the period after Iconoclasm two of the mounted
imperial figures on the Troyes casket carry lances in the manner of an
earlier medallion of Justinian I, and two other horsemen hunt with
sword or bow and arrow, activities that may link them ultimately
with the Sassanian tradition of the royal hunt.85 The emperor on the
Bamberg silk (fig. 10) holds a labarum by then a venerable symbol of
power, as does an emperor inscribed as Isaac on a bronze medallion
published by Whittemore. 86 Finally the riders shown in imperial
dress on those small roundels on the Pala d'Oro gallop along with a
bird of prey on their right arms, all of which represents another
imitation of oriental princely themes, in this case from the Muslim
world.87
The portrait of Isaac II, riding and holding a drawn sword, departs
from any of these earlier examples. A possible exception might be
the single figure on the Troyes ivory of an emperor attacking a lion
with his sword, but the latter vignette probably belongs to a separate
category of hunting scenes and is thus not truly relevant. This is not
to suggest that Byzantium did not know any iconographie tradition
analogous to the picture of Isaac II, because it did in other types of
subject matter. For example, on the decorated rosette caskets of the
tenth to twelfth centuries small warriors, either on foot or horseback,
often battle real or imaginary foes with lances, shields, and swords.88
More important, though, are the depictions of military saints in the
same period. To emphasize their martial prowess, they frequently
hold spears or half- or fully-drawn swords. Thus on an
eleventh-century steatite carving in Moscow, St. Demetrios, who

84
Procopius, De Aedificiis I, ii, Iff. Translated in Mango, Art of the Byzantine
Empire, 110-11. The drawing of the statue is illustrated in von Roques de
Maumont. Antike Reiterstandbilder, fig. 36a, as are other ancient examples of the
equestrian figure.
85
For the casket see above note 79. On the medallion see von Roques de Maumont,
Antike Reiterstandbilder, fig. 36b.
8ft
See above note 82.
87
Grabar, "Le succès," L'Art de la fin de l'antiquité. I, 281.
Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, I, nos. 20a, 34, 40a, 98.
often bears a sword, holds his weapon proudly against his chest in a
military salute, as he parades past on his horse (fig. 1 I ).*"'
A close interrelationship existed between such holy warriors and
the emperor in his role as leader of the army, so that in the
well-known portrait of Basil II in the Marciana Psalter, the soldier
saints and emperor are dressed similarly, and the accompanying
verses state that these saints are Basil's allies, "for he is their friend.
They smite [his enemies] who are lying at his feet."90 Thus it is
legitimate to propose the Moscow carving as one way in which to
visualize the lost portrait of Isaac, and indeed, with the exception of
the hand-held attribute, the pose of both the saint and his horse
mirrors that of the principal figure on the Bamberg silk (fig. 10). If
the portrait of Isaac, on the other hand, was less ceremonial and
more active, it might have resembled the several small ivory panels
of riders waving their swords,91 a scene used also for an
eleventh-century miniature of Saul dressed as an emperor and riding
in pursuit of David.92
The fact that it is difficult to find closer contemporary analogies to
the equestrian figure of Isaac underscores its singularity. In content
the image fits better with the Early Byzantine tradition of an
emperor vigorously triumphing over, if not actually stepping on, his
foes93 and corresponds less to the more passive Middle Byzantine
images of emperors shown receiving their gifts of power and victory
from God. To perceive this change in ideology, one has only to
contrast the representations of triumphant emperors on the

S9
A. Bank, Byzantine Art in the Collections of Soviet Museum$(New York, 1978),
298, pis. 145-6 in color. The pose, probably a conventional one, echoes that of an
anonymous warrior on an ivory casket in Baltimore: Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, I.
no. 40a. pi. XXI.
90
Translated by I. Sevcenko, "The Illuminators of the Menologium of Basil II,"
DOP, 16(1962), 272. A recent study of the manuscript is A. Cutler. "A Psalter of
Basil II". Arte Veneta. 30 (1976). 9-19: 31 (1977). 9-15.
91
Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, I, nos. 20a. 34. 98.
92
DeWald. Vaticanus Graecus 752. 38, pi. L.
1,1
In general see Grabar. Empereur. 44-5.
 159
sixth-century Barberini diptych and the Marciana Psalter from the
early eleventh century.94 Coinage too displays a similar retreat from
themes of imperial conquest to images of Christ, the Virgin, or saints
crowning or blessing the emperor.
Given this general trend, it is interesting to note the exceptions to
it, for they may bear upon the portrait of Isaac II. The first is a type of
histamenon (fig. 12), issued by Isaac I Comnenos (1057-1059). 95
Isaac appears on the reverse, holding a bare sword against his
shoulder in a manner similar to the equestrian St. Demetrios on the
Moscow steatite (fig. 11) and to the standing figure of St. Theodore
Tiro on one wing of at tenth- or eleventh-century triptych in
Leningrad,96 correspondences that once more reveal the connections
between military saints and the emperor. Contemporary historians
did not approve of Isaac I's iconographie innovations. To them the
pronounced military character of this coinage was offensive, because
it implied that the emperor owed his power to his own martial talents
and not to the will of God.97
Hereafter this particular coin type was not repeated, but there is
an interesting use of the sword once again during the reign of Isaac II.
His hyperpyra represent the emperor and the Archangel Michael
standing side by side and jointly holding a partially sheathed sword
(fig. 13). In these instances Michael wears military dress.98 Earlier
emperors had been set next to a soldier saint, and as in the case of
coins of Manuel I, the two might hold a cross or labarum between
them. Alternatively the two figures might rest their outer hands on

94
Ibid., pis. IV, XXIII, 1.
95
P. Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection and in the Whhiemore Collection, III, 2 (Washington, 1973), 759-60, pi.
LXIII.
96
Bank, Byzantine Arf(1978), pi. 124; Goldschmidt-Weitzmann, II, 27, no. 9, pi.
HI.
97
Grierson, Catalogue, HI, 2, 759-60.
9ři
M.F. Hendy. Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire 1081-1261
(Washington, 1969), 143, pi. 20, 1-4.
160
their scabbards in mirror image of each other,1** but the replacement
of the traditional symbols of the cross or labarum by a half-drawn
sword is a significant variation that magnifies the military aspect.
This, then, is the background against which the lost portrait of Isaac
II should be seen. Borrowing from the iconography of soldier saints,
a source of continuity with the war-like poses of early Byzantine
emperors, the picture presented the equestrian emperor in an
attitude that would have appeared triumphal and militant to the
contemporary, and this impression may explain the general tone of
Balsamon's poem.100

XVII Robert of Clari, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. P. Lauer

(Paris, 1924), 28

After the day that Kyrisaac became emperor, they depicted on the
portals of the churches how Kyrisaac had become emperor by a
miracle, and how Our Lord placed the crown on his head on one side
and Our Lady on the other, and how the Angel cut the string of the
bow with which Andrommes (Andronikos) tried to wound him,
because his (Isaac's) family had the name Angelos.

This passage occurs in the context of the long digression on recent

Byzantine history introduced by the author in order to explain the
dynastic intrigues which led to the diversion of the Fourth Crusade.
Robert's account of Isaac's rise to power, like that to be found in

w
Ibid.. I11-16, pis. 13-14.
100
Whittemore ("A Byzantine Bronze Medallion," 190-1), who published a
bronze medallion which he assigned to Isaac Comnenus of Cyprus, tried to make the
argument that the iconography of the roundel was influenced by the coins and seals
of the Crusaders. That case might also be put forth for the portrait of Isaac II,
because such coinage and sigillography depict a mounted ruler with a drawn sword.
However, the thrust of the above discussion is that the equestrian emperor follows
indigenous traditions of Byzantine art. There is no need to go outside that sphere for
inspiration unless a particular detail can only be found in western sources, and such
is not the case with either the medallion or the described portrait. For the Crusader
evidence, see G. Schlumberger, Numismatique de l'orient latin (Paris, 1878.
reprinted Graz, 1954) and G. Schlumberger et al.. Sigillographie de l'orient latin
(Paris. 1943).
 161
other western histories, and like much else in his work, seems to have
been based on stories current at the end of the century, which weave
factual threads into highly embroidered versions of the truth."" In
this instance, the author refers back to a tale he has just told of how
Andronikos had tried to shoot at Isaac from the roof of Hagia Sophia
after the latter had been crowned (p. 24). It is easy to dismiss this
explanation: according to Choniates, Andronikos was out of
Constantinople up to the time of Isaac's coronation, and when he
returned he did not leave the Great Palace.102 But does this
invalidate Robert's description of the paintings? He had every
opportunity to visit the churches of Constantinople in 1204, and his
description of the city's monuments shows that his visual memory
was both vivid and accurate. The iconography he describes does not
seem inappropriate. Coronation by Christ and the Virgin was a
standard theme. The pun on Isaac's name of Angelos was common
enough in encomiastic literature of Isaac's reign, including
Balsamon's poems, and representations of figures with a bow and
arrow are common enough in mythological, hunting, and historical
illustrations.I,)3 It seems unlikely that Andronikos tried to shoot Isaac
in the church, but would this necessarily have been implied in the
painting? In much of Byzantine imperial art the concern was
evidently for apt symbolism rather than strict historical accuracy.
The testimony of Robert of Clari makes sense, when it is seen that
the pictures he describes, like that described by Balsamon in the
previous text, conflate two separate episodes. Choniates records that
when the mob stormed the Great palace immediately after Isaac's
coronation, Andronikos at first tried to defend it, but finding few of
his followers disposed to fight, "he himself carried the battle, taking
a bow in his hands... and shooting arrows at his attackers". Realising

101
E.H. Macneal, "The Story of Isaac and Andronicus," Speculum, 9 (1934),
324-9.
1(p
- Choniates. 448ff.
103
Cf. scenes in the Pseudo-Oppian in Venice. Bibl., Marc. Cod. gr. 479: K.
Weitzmann. Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art (Princeton, 1951), figs. 128, 129,
131: and on the Troyes casket: Grabar, L'Art de la fin de l'antiquité. Ill, pi. 35b;
and in the Madrid Scylitzes: Estoparían. Skyllitzes, passim.
162

that he was attempting the impossible, he offered to abdicate in favor

of his son Manuel, believing that this would make the crowd
disperse, but in fact it enraged them all the more. Soon they broke
into the palace and Andronikos had to flee.1"4
Thus according to the most reliable source, Andronikos did
contest Isaac's accession with a bow and arrows, in highly public and
dramatic circumstances. That the pictures described by Robert of
Clari appear to tell a different story is surely to be explained by the
need to keep the composition simple, and give it maximum
propaganda value. By showing Andronikos aiming at Isaac and Isaac
being crowned, the artist emphasized that Andronikos, not Isaac,
was the usurper, trying to upset a divinely-established order; by
showing the angel cutting the bowstring he depicted the vanity of
Andronikos' effort while working in an iconographie pun on I s a a c s
family name. All in all, the representations described by Robert of
Clari are entirely credible, even if his version of events is not. Indeed,
the latter perhaps reveals his reliance on pictorial evidence, or on the
word of people whose knowledge of recent history had been
influenced by visual propaganda.

Conclusion

The material presented above, together with that previously

available in translation, offers a basis for some general remarks
about Byzantine imperial art of the twelfth century and, equally,
about the twelfth century as a period in the history of Byzantine
official portraiture. Firstly, as regards the physical context of
imperial portraits, o n e learns that they were widely displayed, both
in Constantinople and in provincial towns. Imperial portraits were
displayed on boards, banners, and walls; dynastic portrait groups
and cycles representing imperial exploits were commissioned for
private houses. Emperors were also portrayed in churches and
monastic buildings, often to c o m m e m o r a t e their benefactions, but
sometimes too for purposes of pure political propaganda. Above all,
the imperial palaces were decorated with ambitious mosaic

104
Chômâtes, 450-1.
 163
programmes, which no doubt served as the iconographie prototypes
for representations elsewhere.
To judge from all written and pictorial evidence, the essential
feature of every work of imperial art was the full-length frontal
portrait of the emperor in his regalia. Probably the great majority of
official pictures were representations of this type, which was
complete in itself, for in showing the emperor wearing his exclusive
vestments, it pointed to his essential attribute: his God-given and
godlike power.105 Insofar as public portraiture was intended to show
people who was emperor and make his presence immediate, some
degree of realistic portrayal was necessary, and surviving
representations of John and Manuel are consistent with physical
descriptions of them.106 However, equally important was the need to
show how the emperor differed from other mortals, and in this it was
the unchanging, impersonal features which counted. The basic
portrait type was as stylised as that of any religious figure, and could
be reproduced and incorporated into composite scenes with a
minimum of difficulty.
At first sight, imperial art would seem to have required greater
innovation and more complex handling than religious art in that its
iconography was bound to change with the taste, the political
preoccupations, and the repertoire of exploits of individual
emperors. Yet if we try to reconstruct the composite scenes
described in our sources, we realize that in most cases the artist was

105
Grabar, L'empereur, 2()ff. Cod. lust. XI, 2 reserved a number of precious
materials ad cultum et ornátům imperatorium; rhetorical sources frequently dwell
on the imperial insignia and their symbolism: Regel, Fontes, 94, 244; Gautier,
Michel Italikos, 76; and the text cited infra, n. 17-18. On the purpose and
significance of imperial images, see St. Basil, PG, 32, col. 145; St. Athanasios, PG.
26, col. 332; St. Gregory Nazianzen, PG, 35, col. 635; A. Alföldi, "Die
Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhofe,"
Mitteilungen des deutschen archaeologisehen Instituts, römische Abteilung, 49
(1934), 65-79, especially 73ff; Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser und Reichsidee,
205ff.
106
Spatharakis. Portrait, 79-83, 209-10. 254-8. Cf. Anna Comnena, Alexiad, ed.
Leib, II, 63: Choniates, 69; Eustathios, Opuscula. ed. Tafel, 201. Especially
interesting is the physical description of Manuel given in the inaugural oration of his
reign: Gautier, Michel Italikos, 281-2.
IM

either working within an established tradition or creating simple

compositions from familiar and straight-forward elements. The most
ambitious and complex programmes appear to have been those
showing the emperor victorious in war, or hunting. Both scenes were
traditional to imperial art, and, if not continuously practised up to
the Comnenian period, were certainly represented in old buildings of
the Great Palace, such as the Chalke of Justinian and the
Kainourgion of Basil I.107 The other scenes described in our sources
were 'new' in the most superficial sense, but whether they were
dynastic portrait groups or compositions showing the emperor with
divine or allegorical figures, they involved no more than the
juxtaposition of stylised types. The statue projected by Andronikos I
and the painting in which he had himself portrayed as a farm
labourer called for more ambitious borrowing, but material for the
former was readily at hand in early Byzantine imperial statues,1"8 and
the latter may have drawn on 'labours of the months' programmes,
or illustrated books of prophecies."w The pictures commemorating
Isaac H's accession would seem to have introduced new elements —
the emperor riding with drawn sword, or Andronikos drawing his
bow; but as we have seen, they might easily have been composed
from stock elements found in traditional secular and religious art.
The twelfth-century imperial iconography for which we have
evidence is less remarkable for its innovations than for one obvious
omission: there is no indication of the emperor being portrayed in his
ceremonial role at the Hippodrome, as he clearly had been in the

107
Procopius. De Aedificiis. I, x, i Off ; Theophanes Continuants, CSHB (Bonn,
1838). 332-5; Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, 108-10, 196-8; Grabar,
L'empereur. 36-40.
108
That these were numerous is clear from the Parastaseis and Patria. The last
rulers before Andronikos known to have commissioned statues were Constantine
VI and Eirene at the end of the eighth century. Cf. Th. Preger, Scriptores originum
Constantinopolitarum. II. (Leipzig, 1907). 181-2, 278.
i0<
' Choniates, 332; Mango. Art of the Byzantine Empire. 234; Grabar.
L'empereur. 4. 16ff. Mango, "The Legend of Leo the Wise," ZRVI. 6 (1960). 64.
suggests that Andronikos" picture may have inspired illustrations of the Oracles of
Leo the Wise, but it is equally conceivable that the borrowing was vice-versa.
 165
eleventh century."" This omission is surprising in view of the fact that
games were held by all the emperors of the period. 1 " The apparent
eclipse of hippodrome iconography in the twelfth century may
reflect the religious policy of the Comneni and their patriarchs, who
made great efforts to stamp out heretical and pagan practices, and
may therefore have shared the purist attitudes of such as Niketas
Stethatos." 2 It is equally possible that increased imperial residence
at the Blachernae Palace during this period diminished the
traditional role of the Hippodrome as the place where the emperor
made his ceremonial public appearance, especially if it is true that
the prokypsis ceremony, which seems to have replaced the
ceremonial acclamations at the Hippodrome, was instituted by one

110
The staircase frescoes of the church of S. Sophia at Kiev: A. Grabar, "Les
fresques des escaliers à Sante-Sophie et l'iconographie byzantine," Seminarium
Kondakovium, 7 (1935), 103-117; idem, L'empereur, 62-74; V. Lazarev, Old
Russian Murals and Mosaics (London, 1966), 56ff, 236ff. The eleventh-century
writer Niketas Stethatos presumably had this kind of depiction in mind when he
complained that those people who were offended by icons of Symeon the New
Theologian were quite content to have churches and sacred hangings decorated with
"things of the stage... games, and hunting and dancing scenes, different kinds of
dogs, apes, and reptiles, and flocks of beasts and birds": Vie de Syméon le Nouveau
Théologien, ed. I. Hausherr, Oríentalia Christiana, 12 (Rome, 1928) 128. Grabar's
statement (L'empereur, 58, 62) that Manuel and Andronikos took part in chariot
racing and had themselves depicted in this role is based on a misunderstanding of the
texts of Eustathios and Choniates which he quotes.
111
Anna Comnena, ed. Leib, II, 71-2; 111,230; Pródromos, ed. Hörandner, 261-4;
Cinnamus, 86, 207, 211; Choniates, 120, 155-6, 206, 375-6, 410, 521, 702; K.
Horna, "Eine unedierte Rede des Konstantin Menasses," Wiener Studien, 28
(1906), 194-7; Benjamin of Tudela, ed. and tr. Adler, 13; William of Tyre, in
Recueil des historiens des croisades, historien occidentaux, I, 2 (Paris, 1844), 985,
1067; Eustathios of Thessalonica in Scorialensis GR. -11-10, fols. 368ff; Theodore
Balsamon, PG, 137, cols. 592-6,692-3,757. Altogether, these testimonies suggest
that the Hippodrome was more active during the twelfth century than modern
scholars have supposed: R. Guilland, "La disparition des courses," Études
byzantines (Paris, 1959), 89-90, followed by A. Cameron, Circus Factions(Oxibrd,
1976), 308.
112
See note 52; cf. also Balsamon, PG, 137, cols 732. 741; R. Browning,
"Enlightenment and Repression in Byzantium in the Eleventh and Twelfth
Centuries," Past and Present (1975), 15-23.
166
of the Comrrenian emperors. 1 "
In the main, therefore, imperial art of the twelfth century was as
formulaic as religious art. Grabar has shown how Byzantine religious
iconography in its formative years borrowed heavily from the
imperial tradition." 4 By the twelfth century, any borrowing was
probably in the other direction, since religious art had become the
mainstream, and much imperial portraiture occurred in a religious
context. Whichever way the current flowed, the notion that the
emperor was the image of Christ ensured a permanent bridge
between the two traditions.
Imperiai art of the period also has much in common with the
stylised literary genres of Byzantine court rhetoric. We have already
seen how the idiosyncracies of one palatine mosaic cycle can be
compared to those which make the A/ex/addistinctive in Byzantine
historical writing. Other, more direct and explicit parallels can be
found. Panegyrics celebrating the emperor's virtues or recounting
his victories had their counterparts in the mosaic cycles of the
imperial palace. The connection between art and rhetoric becomes
all the more meaningful when it is remembered that such works were
delivered before audiences familiar with their artistic equivalents
and in close proximity to them. Few texts are so explicit as the
orations of Eustathios of Thessalonica and Euthymios Malakes
which actually refer to works of art, but these allow one to suppose
that the topos of likening the panegyric to a picture could be
functional as well as conventional. The common function of official

113
A. Heisenberg, "Aus der Geschichte und Literatur der Palaiologenzeit,"
Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch­
philologische und historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1920, 10. Abhandlung, 84ff. It
should be noted, however, that the text on which Heisenberg based his argument —
a passage from the vulgar paraphrase of Choniates' history (p. 629) — does not
prove that the prokypsis ceremony was long established at the time of the event to
which it refers, the Christmas celebrations of 1196. It suggests, moreover, that the
name itself was a later development (την νΰν λεγομένην πρόκυψιν). Certainly, it is
not until the Pataiologan period that we find evidence of a permanent structure for
the performance of the prokypsis at the Blachernae: Pseudo-Kodinos, Traité des
Offices, ed. J. Verpeaux (Paris, 1966), 196-8; Gregoras, II, 616. Xanthopoulos
states that this structure was built by Andronikos II: PC 145, coi. 585.
1,4
Grabar, L'empereur, part 3.
 167
art and official literature is demonstrated most clearly by the very
purpose of the verse texts which have concerned us. Whether these
were actually inscribed on the monuments, or whether they were
literary celebrations in the nature of ekphrasis, the verbal expression
and the visual image accompanied each other with liturgical
coordination, as closely as the words and music of a hymn. Both were
examples of rhetoric produced for public occasions. The collections
of (largely) twelfth-century belles-lettres with which we are
concerned are perhaps poorer in literary elegance and intellectual
puzzles than the Palatine and Planudean anthologies, but they
represent the same cultural processes at work and are equally
valuable as means of approach to a vanished visual world." 5
In connection with the subject of parallels between imperial art
and rhetoric in this period, mention must be made of a text which
could not be reproduced here in translation, partly because of its
length, and partly because it lacks any conclusive identifying
features. This is the Ekphrasis of the jousts of our mighty and holy
lord and emperor published by Lampros." 6 As Lampros argues, the
emperor in question is almost certainly Manuel I, although there is
nothing in the title or in the text to substantiate his assumption that it
describes a picture of jousting, rather than a joust as such. However,
the description has a remarkably pictorial quality in its close
attention to color, and in the way it evokes static attitudes rather than
action. It translates so well into the language of Byzantine painting
that it could almost serve as the specification for a commission. Even
if it does not attest to the existence of an actual painting, it is a
striking example of the common perception shared by artists and
writers, and indicates, moreover, that Byzantine secular literature is
useful to the art historian not only as a mine of information about lost
monuments, or for what it has to say about art — which is likely to be
disappointingly banal by modern standards — but also for what it
does in common with art. This being so, the relevant texts are not

115
The classic study of rhetoric in its monumental context is Alan Cameron,
Porphyrius the Charioteer (Oxford. 1973).
116
Sp. Lampros, «"Εκφρασις τών ξυλοκονταριών τοΰ κραταιού και αγίου ημών
αύθενοτυ και βασιλέίος». Νέος Έλληνομνήμων, 5 (1908). 3-18.
168
only those which explicitly mention art; equally, in studying those
which do, the fundamental criterion is not that of 'realism', but the
purpose and context for which a work was composed." 7
Enough has been said to make it clear that the rhetoric of
twelfth-century Byzantine imperial art is entirely explicable in terms
of well-established cultural conventions. But given that all
iconographie and possible stylistic elements are likely to be
derivative, do twelfth-century developments represent a normal
phase of a continous process, or a revival of old themes in a context of
exceptional efflorescence, as the abundance of written evidence
might suggest? Other factors must now be considered: the quantity
of evidence for the period in relation toothers, its distribution within
the period, and variations in subject-matter according to reign and
patron.
The evidence for imperial art in any period of Byzantine history is
hard to measure quantitatively, since surviving art-works and textual
documentation do not fall into recognisably corresponding
chronological patterns. Even within the body of textual material, it is
difficult to know whether to give priority to the general, but weighty,
statements of patristic, legal, and canonical texts which provide such
important evidence for the fourth, fifth, and eighth centuries; the
narrative sources which constitute major sources for the sixth, ninth,
and twelfth centuries; or the rhetorical pieces which are especially
numerous for the twelfth century. These rhetorical pieces are clearly
most valuable in that they provide very specific information and
were usually executed in conjuction with the monuments
themselves. On the other hand, their survival has depended heavily
on the selective and accidental processes of manuscript preservation
and textual transmission. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that
because verbal and visual rhetoric served trie same purpose they
were always equal and complementary partners. Basil II is said to
have had little time for men of letters, but he employed the best

117
On the question of "realism", see H. Maguire, "Truth and Convention in
Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art." DOP, 28 (1974), 113-40; for an attempt
to apply common criteria to artistic and literary style, see Averil Cameron,
"Corippus" poem Justin U: a Terminus of Antique Art?," Annali della Scuola
Normale Superiore di Pisa Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, 3rd series. 6 (1975).
129-45.
 169
artists of his day to execute his famous Menologium and Psalter, of
which the latter and perhaps the former included portraits of
himself."8 Literary celebrations of works of art may, therefore,
reflect a patron's respect for the written and recited word rather than
the extent to which he commissioned the painted image.
Even with these considerations in mind, it is fair to say that the
amount of evidence for twelfth-century imperial portraiture is
impressive, and perhaps exceptional if we confine our attention to
the post-iconoclastic period. It is a phenomenon to be explained, not
explained away. Turning to the distribution of literary evidence
within the period, we find that it is far from evenly spread. For one
emperor, Alexios III (1195-1203), there is no evidence at all.
Alexios I (1081-1118) and John II (1118-1143) are minimally
represented, and in somewhat self-effacing roles. Very little is
attested for Alexios II (1180-1182), although given the shortness of
his reign and his failure to take an active political role, this is perhaps
not surprising. It is therefore the remaining three emperors —
Manuel I (1143-1180), Andronikos I (1182-1185), and Isaac II
(1185-1195) — who account for the bulk of the evidence. Of these,
Manuel I takes clear precedence. Not only is the number of attested
examples exceptional, but so are the range of themes and the variety
of context; Manuel is in fact the only one of the three represented in
triumphal and hunting iconography as well as in dynastic portrait
groups, donor/patron portraits, and scenes depicting the emperor in
the company of heavenly figures; the only one, too, whose exploits
are known to have been depicted in private houses and provincial
towns.
On the face of it, therefore, it would appear that the reign of
Manuel I is the key to the whole period as far as developments in
official art are concerned. But again, does the written evidence speak
for itself in its quantity and variety? Above all, does it show that
Manuel commissioned and encouraged imperial portraiture on a
larger scale or in a more flamboyant way than his father, John II, or
his grandfather, Alexios I?
In general, the three great Comnenian rulers present such striking
^lx Michael Psellos, Chronographia. ed. E. Renauld (Paris, 1926), 1, 18; 1.
Sevcenko. "The Illuminators of the Menologium of Basil II," 245-76=, and idem.
"On Pantoleon the Painter," JOB. 21 (1972), 241-9.
17(1

similarities in their aims and methods that the attempt to contrast

them can easily become an artificial, or superficial exercise. The
innovations in administration, finance, hierarchy and patronage
which had been introduced by Alexios I were maintained by his son
and grandson. All three rulers saw themselves as contributing to a
single Comnenian renovatio imperii, aimed at recovering lost
territory in the east and resisting encroachment from the west, and
all recognized the value of cultural patronage for giving conviction
and expression to their ¡deal. The Orphanotropheion of Alexios I,
the Pantokrator monastery of John II, the towns founded or
refounded by Manuel I, Alexios' and Manuel's palace buildings,
John's and Manuel's triumphal processions and games, the court
litterateurs whose careers span more than one reign, not to mention
the lavish patronage of all kinds dispensed by imperial relatives and
subsidised from imperial funds, suggest that from the beginning it
was consistent dynastic policy to display imperial magnificence to the
full."9
1,9
There is no comprehensive and up to date study of Comnenian society and
administration, although the révélant chapters of H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Byzance
et la mer (Paris, 1966), provide a useful introduction. See also A. Hohlweg,
Beiträge zur Verwaltungsgeschichte des Oströmischen Reiches unter den
Komnenen, Miscellanea ßyzantina Monacensia, I (Munich, 1965); A.P. Každan,
Sociaì'nyj sostav gospodsvujuščego ¡classa Vizantii Xle-XIIE vv. (Moscow, 1974)
(French summary by I. Sorlin, TM, 6 (1976), 378); N. Oikonomides, "L'évolution
de l'organisation administrative de l'empire byzantin au Xle siècle," TM, 6 (1976),
127-8; P. Lemerle, Cinq études sur le Xle siècle byzantin (Paris, 1977), 297-300,
309-12. The Comnenian sense of renovatio: e.g. Eustathios, ed. Regel, Fontes, 66
— το Κομνηνόθεν εαρ. The Orphanotropheion: Anna Comnena, ed. Leib, ΠΙ,
214-8; Michael Glykas, CSHB (Bonn, 1836), 621-2; Lemerle, Cinq études, 283.
The Pantokrator Monastery: P. Gautier, "Le typikon du Christ Sauveur
Pantokrator," REB, 32 (1974), 1-145; A.H.S. Megaw, "Notes on Recent Work of
the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul," DOP, 17 (1963), 335-64. Müller-Wiener,
Bildlexikon, 209-215; T. Mathews, Byzantine Churches of Istanbul (University
Park, 1976), 71-101. Towns and palace buildings: see note 20a, 36, supra. Games:
supra, note 110. Triumphs: Cinnamus, 13, 249; Choniates, 26, 120, 205;
Pródromos, ed. Hörandner, 199-228. On the literature of the Comnenian period,
see the révélant sections of K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen
Literatur (Munich, 1897), and H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur
der Byzantiner; also Horändner's introduction to his edition of the poems of
Theodore Pródromos, and Browning, op. cit. (supra, note 112). Comnenian family
patronage: supra, note 18: Zonaras, III 767; Gautier, "Diatribes de Jean I'Oxite,"
REB. 27 (1969), 4 1 ; Choniates. 266. 271.
 171
However, against this general background the cultural patronage
of Manuel I does stand out in certain significant respects. Although
all three Comnenian rulers patronised men of letters, the quantity of
surviving rhetorical literature devoted to praise of Manuel is
exceptional.120 All three rulers built on a large scale, but Manuel was
the one who achieved most fame as a palace builder. He not only,
like Alexios I, made extensive additions to the Blachernae complex,
but added at least one major building to the Bosphoros.121 No other
emperor since Basil I is recorded as having commissioned so much
palace architecture. This fact is important to note, because it
indicates that Manuel provided unusual scope for the execution of
palatine mosaic cycles; it also suggests that he sought to emulate
those emperors of a remote past who had done most to create the
physical environment of Byzantine imperial power.

120
The distribution of known imperial orations addressed to the Komnenoi and
Angeloi is as follows: Alexios I: 2; John II: 2; Manuel I: 13; Alexios II: none;
Andronikos I: none; Isaac II: 6; Alexios III: 7. Of all the Byzantine emperors, only
Andronikos II Palaiologos, with 13 orations to his name, appears to have rivalled
Manuel as a subject of panegyric, and any comparison must take into account the
certainty that much literature was destroyed in the sack of 1204. Works composed
in praise of the emperor's specific achievements, or in honour of events such as
imperial marriages, may also be considered as pieces of imperial panegyric, and
encomia of patriarchs or government officials included tributes to the imperial
master: cf. e.g. Gautier, Michel Italikos, 75-6. For editions and studies of the
relevant prose works of Michael Italikos, Theodore Pródromos, Basil Achridenos,
Eustathios of Thessalonica, Nikephoros Basilakes, Michael the Rhetor, Michael of
Anchialos, Euthymios Malakes, Constantine Manasses, John Diogenes, Gregory of
Antioch, see Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, I,
123ff, 136f, 150, 185-6, 235-6. George Tornikes (ed. Darrouzès, 233) says that
there were "thousands of orators" at the court of Alexios I, but the editor rightly
points out that Tépoque de Manuel est beaucoup mieux représentée et fut
certainment plus féconde'. No doubt with equal exaggeration Michael of Anchialos
claimed that Manuel revived philosophy and the Muses: R. Browning, "A New
Source on Byzantine-Hungarian Relations in the Twelfth Century. The Inaugural
Lecture of Michael ó του 'Αγχιάλου as ύπατος των φιλοσόφων," Balkan Studies,
2(1961), 188-90 (despite the title given it by the editor, this work deserves to be
considered as an imperial oration).
121
Magdalino. "Manuel Komnenos and the Great Palace," passim and note 42;
Choniates, 268-9: Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire. 224; supra, note 36.
172
It seems fair to conclude, therefore, that if the evidence for
pictorial representations of Manuel I is especially abundant, this is
because Manuel's cultural patronage, although not necessarily more
munificent than that of the earlier Komnenoi, gave special
encouragement to those forms of expression which emphasized the
imperial ¡mage (in the widest sense of the word). Everything about
Manuel's style of government suggests that such was indeed his
policy. The almost fairy-tale descriptions of his ostentation;122 the
emphasis given in literature to the energy and versatility with which
he assumed the roles of law-giver, theologian, physician and
diplomat;123 the importance he attached to astrology and
divination;124 his taste for symbolic commemoration;' 25 his pointed
preference for public benefactions which restored the ancient
institutions and monuments of urban, ecclesiastical, and monastic
life, as opposed to the prestigious new foundations for which other
Komnenoi were famous;126 his concern to identify himself as the heir
of Constantine and Justinian, explicitly claiming the territories they

122
Cinnamus, 205-7; Choniates, 158; William of Tyre, RHCC, Historiens
occidentaux, I, 2 (Paris, 1844), 983-5; Michael the Syrian, RHCC, Documents
arméniens, I, 155; Robert of Clari, ed. Lauer, 16, 19; Regel, Fontes, 94, 310.
123
Regel, Fontes, 3ff. 12; Browning, "New source," 188, 190-2; Euthymios
Malakes, ed. K.G. Mpones, Τά σωζόμενα, fase. 2 (Athens, 1949), 47ff (especially
51, lines 18-24), 83-7; Eustathios, Opuscula, ed. Tafel, 202-6; Cinnamus, 253. For
a less favourable view of Manuel's pretentions to theological expertise, see
Choniates, 274.
124
Choniates, 126, 196, 200, 220, 286-7: Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum
Graecorum, ed. F. Cumont and F. Boll, V, 1 (Brussels, 1904), 106ff; L.
Oeconomos, La vie religieuse dans l'empire byzantin au temps des Comnenes et des
Anges (Paris, 1918).
125
E.g. the bronze cross which he planted in Hungarian territory in 1166, and the
precious reliquary cross which he commissioned for his expedition against Iconium
in 1175-6: Lampros, Neos Hellenomnemon, 5 (1908), 51, 178; Cinnamus, 261.
126
Cinnamus, 274ff; Choniates, 268-72; Regel, Fontes, 32, 138, 164; Eustathios,
Opuscula ed. Tafel, 207-8; Browning, "New source," 196-7; N. Svoronos, "Un
rescrit inédit de Manuel 1er Comnène," TM, 1 (1965), 328-9, 360-1. 379ff.
 173
127
had lost: all these characteristics mark Manuel out as a ruler who
not only wanted to be impressive, but was acutely conscious of the
impressions he was making; who not only believed in a Comnenian
renovatio, but was obsessed with projecting and defining his own
role as renovator. In this, he differed perceptibly from his
predecessors, but the difference was not incompatible with his basic
commitment to inherited dynastic aims. It was only natural that
Comnenian imperial ideology should have evolved, rather than
remained static, in the course of three generations, and that it should
have matured in the third generation, after half a century of dynastic
continuity, internal stability and military success. Manuel's reign fits
into " t h e typical rhythm of generations in a powerful family", at the
stage where the prodigal grandson takes over, " b u r d e n e d with the
heritage of fame and responsibility, dissatisfied with mere wealth,
striving restlessly for higher things, a gifted dilettante, perhaps the
most interesting of the three generations but also the most
elusive". 128 The scheme which E . H . Gombrich applies to Lorenzo de
Medici has some relevance to Manuel, as also to other medieval
monarchs of the third generation. Its weakness lies in its possible
implication that the third generation lacks realism; this is not a
helpful point of view from which to examine the attitude of an

127
C. Mango, "The Conciliar Edict of 1166,·" DOP. 17 (1963), 324: an explicit
claim to the inheritance of Constantine the Great, and a string of triumphal epithets
reminiscent of Justinian. Cf. P. Lamma, Comneni e Staufer. Ricrche sui rapporti fra
Bizanzio e l'Occidente nel secolo X/i(Rome, 1955). 204. P. Classen, op cit. (Supra.
no 31).
128
E.H. Gombrich, "The Early Medici as Patrons of Art,*' Italian Renaissance
Studies. Edited by E.F. Jacob (London, I960), 304.
174
accomplished politician such as Manuel undoubtedly was.l2y In
trying to understand why Manuel's career could have represented a
new stage in the development of Comnenian imperial ideology, it is
important to recognize that not only had generations changed since
1081, but so had the shape of external and internal politics. Abroad,
it was no longer sufficient for an emperor to repair the damage done
to Byzantine prestige by barbarians; he had to steal the thunder from
monarchies which competed with Byzantium very much on its own
civilized terms: the Norman-Sicilian kingdom built up by Roger II
(1101-1154), with its formidable sea-power and brilliant
cosmopolitan court, where the Greek element was strong;130 and the
German monarchy of Frederick Barbarossa with its own programme

'-' , The literary qualities of Choniates' history have perhaps led modern scholars to
credit the author with more objectivity than he possessed, and to be insufficiently
wary of accepting his generally unsympathetic appraisal of Manuel and later
twelfth-century emperors. Despite the perceptive study of Manuel's western policy
by Paolo Lamma (Comneni e Staufer), the idea dies hard that Manuel's
over-ambition undid the real, and realistic, achievements of Alexios and John:
Chalandon, 607; G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, tr. J.M. Hussey
(Oxford, 1968), 380ff. A re interpretation of the reign is needed, one that will take
into account (a) the possibility that Manuel's flamboyance was essentially a
defensive reaction to the circumstances of his accession and the double trauma of
the Sicilian invasion and the passage of the Second Crusade (1147); (b) the
likelihood that Byzantine society in the twelfth century was not, as has traditionally
been supposed, in a state of economic decline, but recovering from the late
eleventh-century crisis, and therefore capable of meeting the increased demands
which Manuel made on it; see M.F. Hendy, "Byzantium, 1081 -1204: An Economic
Reappraisal", Transactions of the Royal HistoricalSociety,(197'()), 31-52; cf. also I.
Sorlin, TM, 6 (1976), 391-2: reference to work of Ka/idan; Lemerle, Cinq études
sur le XIe siècle byzantin. 272-87, 305-9.
110
E. Caspar, Roger II (1101-1154) und die Gründung der Normannisch-
Sicilischen Monarchie (Innsbruck, 1904: reprinted Darmstadt. 1963), passim but
especially 435-80; aspects of Roger's patronage of Greek culture are considered by
V. Laurent, "L' oeuvre géographique du moine sicilien Nil Doxapatris," Echos
d'Orient. 36 ( 1937), 5-30; E. Jamison. Admiral Eugenius ofSicily (London, 1957).
 175
of renovation" Diplomatic contests with first the one and then the
other of these powers affected the nature of Manuel's cultural
patronage and imperial propaganda, especially since in either case
Manuel was obliged to intervene in Italian politics — intervention
which involved negotiation with the papacy and could best be
justified in western eyes by emphasising how the Byzantine ruler was
the legitimate heir of sovereigns whom the Latins also claimed as
their own.
At home, the Comnenian policy, inaugurated by Alexios I, of
sharing imperial epithets, privileges, resources among the emperor's
relatives had made the family as a whole virtually unshakable, but it
created the new danger that the reigning emperor might be eclipsed
or eliminated by male relatives who were passed over in the
succession but could not be denied substantial consolation prizes,
and thus remained influential patrons. T h e danger increased as the
family proliferated, and it was ultimately responsible for every
political crisis after 1180. It certainly worried Manuel. He had to
assert his authority over an elder brother, as well as a paternal uncle
with a long record of disloyalty. The largesse of his early years and his
excessive generosity to his family throughout his reign suggest an
awareness that his authority was not unchallenged. H e constantly
felt threatened by his cousin Andronikos, and apparently groundless
suspicions led him to ruin one nephew, Alexios Axouch. His sense of
insecurity must have been increased by his first wife's failure to
produce a son, and by the fact that when Alexios II was born (1169)
he himself was fairly advanced in years. Manuel thus had not only to
maintain his prestige among his subjects as a whole, but also to make
his imperial stature stand out in a crowd of munificent, flamboyant,

'■" On Frederick, sec P. Munz. Frederick Barbarossa (London, 1969). Frederick's

imperial style may or may not have been influenced by Byzantium, but rivalry
between the two empires undoubtedly sharpened their respective claims to
'Roman' legitimacy: W. Ohnsorge. "Kaiser Konrad. Zur Geschichte des
staufischen Staatsgedankes," Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Ge­
schichtsforschung, 4 (1932), 343ff. reprinted in Abendland und Byzanz (Bad
Homburg. 1963). 364-86; P. Lamma. Comneni e Staufer. 116-7. 120-1: P.J.
Alexander "The Donation of Constantine at Byzantium and its Earliest Use against
the Western Empire". ZRVI, 8 (Mélanges G. Ostrogorsky), (1963), part, I, pp.
11-26.
176
and uncomfortably close relatives. This may help to explain the way
in which he drew attention to himself as an individual, and sought
inspiration from ages when emperors had kept an awe-inspiring
distance between themselves and their subjects.132
The proposition that Manuel projected and defined his imperial
role more fully than either of his predecessors is thus supported by
evidence that he had both the predisposition and the motive to do so.
We may, then, accept that our sources accurately reflect his use of
rhetoric, verbal and visual, and that his reign was a period of
exceptional activity in medieval Byzantine imperial portraiture. The
evident importance which his effective successor, Andronikos I, also
attached to pictorial self-advertisement, despite the more limited
range of subject-matter at his disposal, may be a further reflection of
the extent to which Manuel had promoted the genre. Andronikos
had spent most of his life in the cultural milieu of Manuel's court. He
belonged to Manuel's generation and displayed much the same
combination of characteristics as his cousin — theatricality,
incestuous sensuality, virtuosity, captivating charm, and paranoia.
That all these traits were exaggerated and idiosyncratic in
Andronikos, producing, as a result, a far more over-extended and
unbalanced personality, is largely to be explained by the fact that he
developed them as a private citizen with a keen sense of frustration at
the way in which his own branch of the dynasty had been excluded
from the succession. His provocative behaviour to Manuel despite
the suspicion which he automatically incurred as son and brother of
men who had constituted a dangerous focus of disaffection under
John II, and the savagery with which he set out to destroy Manuel's
widow, children, and memory, are a measure of the extent to which
he was motivated by the feeling that he was his cousin's less fortunate
equal and rival. There are thus good reasons for seeing his fairly
ambitious cultural patronage, including his self-portraiture, as an

1,2
Chômâtes, 42-3, 65-6, 78-9, 133ff. 180-9, 266; Cinnamus, 26-7, 31-2, 53-4.
126-30, 265ff; Chaiandon, Jean II Comnène et Manuel I Comnène, 212-221:
Svoronos, TM, 1 (1965), 376ff; Lamma, Comneni e Staufer, 48, 127, 152-3.
 177
133
expression of family rivalry.
The relative abundance of evidence for representations of the next
emperor, Isaac II, is largely explained by his propaganda needs; as a
usurper whose claim to the Comnenian inheritance was far from
preeminent, he had to make the most of the dramatic nature of his
accession and the symbolic potential of his family name to emphasize
that he held power by divine rather than dynastic right. His choice of
propaganda methods cannot, however, have been unrelated to his
experience of Manuel's court, at which he had grown up. His lavish
building programme and his autocratic handling of church affairs
recall Manuel's style of government, and suggest that he regarded
this as the imperial norm.154
The spate of imperial portraiture which is attested in Byzantium of
the mid to late twelfth century may therefore be seen as the result of
an effort by Manuel I to boost the imperial image in relation to those
external and internal presences which threatened to overshadow it.
As we have seen, this effort necessarily involved emphasis on the
continuity between the empire of the time and that of the remote
Christian past. It is thus highly likely that twelfth-century
developments in imperial portraiture were directly inspired by early
Byzantine practice. This is not to suggest that twelfth-cen tury
patrons revived a dead tradition — the basic imperial portrait, at
least, was a permanent feature of the imperial cult — but rather that
they exploited a continuous tradition to an extent and perhaps in a
style which had not been traditional for a long time.
The difficulty of distinguishing revival from continuity in the
Byzantine cultural tradition is suitably illustrated by the opening
passage of a twelfth-century imperial epiphany oration delivered by
the rhetor John Kamateros; the occasion is not specified, but from
internal evidence it would appear to have been the Feast of

133
Choniates, De Andronico, passim, but especially 333. 349, 363, 428-434,
462-3; Charles Diehl, Figures byzantines, II (Paris 1909). Chapter 4; Brand,
Byzantium Confronts the West, 28-9, 38-75, especially 74-5. In his own
portraiture, and by disfiguring that of the ex-empress Xene, Andronikos
unashamedly vaunted his destructive motives: Choniates, 432-3; Mango, Art of the
Byzantine Empire, 234-5;; idem, ZRVI, 6 (1964), 64.
134
Choniates, 565-8, 578-87; Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 100-4.
178
Epiphany (6 January), 1196. 135

There is this law among us which is, so to speak, engraved on imperial

tablets; for all I know it may exist among certain other nations which
come under other governments, but at any rate the Romans have it
and it is one of the most laudable. What is this law, and what do I
mean by this decree? That emperors be represented in public pictures
and appear imposing in these colourful depictions of their purple
robes and crowns, and that these may thus raise the imperial majesty
to the height of glory. To these icons, to these coloured
representations of the imperial insignia, they have chosen to add
various things; some have added barbarians being vanquished and
slain, others depict Victories hovering above their heads and
crowning them, and cities bearing tribute to the emperor on account
of this. Others have chosen to depict their well-aimed shots at wild
beasts, and to present the various and manifold shapes and figures of
animals. The law of our society most commendably ordains these
things, in order that everything by which emperors are honoured may
be more lasting.

This passage is largely a paraphrase of one by Gregory of

Nazianzos, 136 but most of the statements it makes about the purpose
of imperial art and the types of imperial iconography were relevant
to the experience of contemporary Byzantines. T h e fact that
Kamateros considered Gregory's words appropriate to his purpose
and adapted them without any hint of acknowledgement shows that
twelfth-century Byzantines were well aware that recent imperial art
perpetuated an ancient tradition, and found this perfectly normal.
This does not mean, however, that they took the tradition for
granted in quite the same way as men of the fourth century would

135
Regel, Fontes, 244; cf. Darrouzès, Georges et Demetrios Tornikès, 47, note 17.
136
PG, 35, cois. 605-6. It is interesting that Kamateros does not echo Gregory's
reference to pictures of the emperor "with officials making obeisance". Gregory's
descriptions approximate the imperial art of his day, as seen in monuments such as
the somewhat later column base of Arcadius: Grabar, L'Empereur, pis. XIII-XV.
By the twelfth century some of this iconography had changed. For example it is no
longer Victories which crown the emperor but angels in several eleventh-century
manuscripts: Spatharakis, Portrait, figs. 6, 7, 66.
 17V
have d o n e . Gregory of Nazianzos wrote against a background where
the cult of the emperor and imperial iconography were long
established, but the Christian church was then developing its own art
and had mixed feelings about the propriety of figurai decoration.
John Kamateros wrote more than three centuries after the victory
over iconoclasm had not only frustrated a powerful effort to prevent
Christian holy persons from acquiring the kind of pictorial presence
accorded to the emperor, but had also prescribed that icons were
necessary aids to orthodox worship; as a result, Christian
iconography irrevocably displaced imperial iconography as the
mainstream of Byzantine official art, and now it was imperial art
which ran the risk of being considered superfluous, blasphemous, or
idolatrous. More generally, attitudes and assumptions changed. T h e
diminuation of territory and resources, the militarisation of society
in response to external crises, and successful ecclesiastical opposition
to imperial policies: these trends of the period from the sixth to the
ninth century all tended to reduce the Byzantine ruler to m o r e than
human proportions and emphasise his duties as opposed to his
prerogatives; he came to appear less and less as the gracious host
who had m a d e Christianity comfortable in his house, and more and
more as the armed custodian of a religious establishment.
Public opinion of the twelfth century may have preferred the
emperor not to effect the autocratic style of the Constantinian and
Justinianic periods. Choniates hints that Manuel and Isaac gave
offence, at least to the church, by their high-handed manner of
dealing with religious affairs. 137 It is instructive to quote his
comments on Isaac's practice of appropriating sacred treasures to his
own use.

To those who offered him the advice that these things he was doing
were not becoming to him as a God-loving emperor who had
succeeded to the traditional righteousness of his forebears, but were
patent sacrilege, he was violent and irritable, and he accused those
who spoke in this way of being plainly devoid of intelligence and
knowledge of what was right. For he argued that it was permissible for
emperors to do anything, and that the distinction between God and a

1,7
Choniates. 274ff, 529ff.
180
king in the government of earthly affairs was not at all unbridgeable
or antithetical, like that between affirmation and negation.
Contending that no blame or responsibility attached to what he had
done, he introduced the example of Constantine, the first and most
powerful of the Christian emperors, who fastened one of the nails by
which the Lord of Glory had been pinned to the accursed wood tó the
bridle of his horse and the other to his helmet. He deliberately
overlooked the reason for which the emperor and leader of the faith
had adorned himself by these actions, that is, in order to proclaim the
Word of the Cross as a divine force to the Hellenes, who thought the
preaching of it foolishness.138

One wonders, however, if Isaac was altogether wrong in thinking

that Constantine could have got away with doing what he had done.
In the world of the High Middle Ages, the universalist, autocratic
structure of the Roman imperial tradition was simply out of
proportion to the resources and support, however considerable,
commanded by contemporary secular monarchs, and itself proved
the undoing of every attempt at renovado. The renovated imperial
superstructure of twelfth-century Byzantium already showed signs
of strain in the last years of Manuel's reign, and it was badly shaken
by the events of 1180-1185. Further undermined by the revolt of
Peter and Asan (1186), the attempted coup of Alexios Branas
(1187), and Frederick Barbarossa's roughshod ride through
Byzantine territory (1189-1190), much of it collapsed when the
magnates of Isaac H's entourage decided to replace him by his
brother Alexios (1195). Brought to the throne in ignominious
circumstances, snubbed by his wife, obliged to spend his resources in
buying internal support and external security, Alexios III began his
reign without the conviction or the means to cut a properly imperial
figure. He commissioned no major building that we know of, and it is
thus not surprising that we lack evidence for pictorial
representations of him. In one respect, however, he made a more
explicit claim to renovatio than any of his predecessors, by having
Constantine represented on his coins. 09 His fortunes began to

1.8
Ibid., 583-4.
1.9
See M.F. Hendy, Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire, 1081-1261
(Washington, 1969). 150-5.437.
 181
improve in 1200, and the orations addressed to him subsequently by
Choniates, Tornikes, and Chrysoberges show that he was not above
celebrating his achievements in the traditional way.140 His cultural
patronage might have developed further but for the arrival of the
Fourth Crusade in 1203.
The occupation of Constantinople in 1204 by a penurious Latin
regime, and the painful reconstruction of Byzantine authority in rival
provincial centres further increased the fragmentation of imperial
resources and lowered the credibility of imperial claimants, thus
leaving even less opportunity for the cultivation of magnificence in
the twelfth-century manner. Even the regime to which most Greek
loyalties gravitated, that established in western Asia Minor, seems
for a long time to have kept a low profile in this respect, partly, no
doubt, because of limited resources, partly because imperial style
was cramped by exclusion from its natural setting, and partly because
of an inevitable reaction against the 'sins' which were considered to
have caused God to withdraw his support for the Byzantines. John II
Vatatzes, who ruled the Nicaean state for more than half the period
of exile (1221-1254), stands in complete contrast to the
twelfth-century imperial type, through the reputation which he
acquired for making a virtue of 'living off his own', and for
submitting to criticism of his private life.141
The recovery of Constantinople in 1261 made another renovatio
inevitable, and for the next forty years the first two Palaiologan
emperors, Michael VIII (1258-1282) and Andronikos II
(1282-1328) governed as if the old ideal of imperial autocracy had

140
Brand, Byzantium Confronts the West, 130-5; Hunger, Die hochsprachliche
profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 127-8.
141
Pachymeres, I, 38-9; Gregoras, I. 43-7: cf. also the chronicle attributed to
Theodore Skoutariotes, ed. Κ. Sathas, Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιουήχη, 7 (Paris, 1894),
506ff: reproduced by A. Heisenberg, Georgii Acropolitae opera (Leipzig, 1903), I,
284-8; M. Angold, Λ Byzantine Government in Exile. Government and Society
under the Laskarids of Nicaea (Oxford, 1975), 116-7; Nikephoros Blemmydes in
PG, 142, cols. 605-9, 6l3ff, especially 617B.
182
been fully vindicated by the event.142 The result was a burst of
cultural activity of the traditional kind — the "Last Byzantine
Renaissance" — in which imperial palace building and monumental
portraiture had their place. ,43 It does not appear, howeverV that
Palaiologan developments in this area can compare with those of the
twelfth century, either in scale or in duration. The patronage of late
Byzantine art and architecture was less centralized and more
dispersed among the aristocratic elite of major cities and the
neighboring kingdoms that were under the cultural but not political
influence of Byzantium.144 From the beginning of their rule the
Palaiologoi had considerably smaller financial resources than the
Komnenoi. Their autocracy was even more unpopular, partly
because it originated in a brutal act of usurpation, and partly because
it was used by Michael VIII to enforce a highly unpopular religious
policy. In these circumstances the idea that the empire was more
truly represented by its spiritual than by its secular leaders could only
gain ground; with the loss of Asia Minor it became more and more of
a reality.

142
For official statements to this effect, see Pachymeres, I, 153-7; Manuelis
Holoboli orationes, ed. M. Treu, Programm des Königlichen Victoria-Gymnasiums
(Potsdam, 1906), passim;F. Miklosich - J. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii
aevi sacra et profana, (Vienna, 1860-90), IV, 345-6; V, 254-5; H. Grégoire,
"Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi De Vita Sua," Byzantion, 29-30 (1959-60), 457.
The Patriarch Germanos II (1265-6) acclaimed Michael as a "Second Constantine"
(Neos Konstantinos), and Michael adopted this title officially: Pachymeres, I, 300;
Heide and Helmut Buschausen, Die Marienkirche von Apollonia in Albanien
(Vienna, 1976), 153-4. R. Macrides, "The New Constantine and the New
Constantinople-1261?," Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 6(1980), 13-41.
,4S
Palace buildings: 1. and P. Zepos, Jus Graecoromanum (Athens, 1931) 1,665;
PG, 145, col. 585. Portraiture: Pachymeres, 1, 517; II, 234, 614-5 (cf. Mango, Art
of the Byzantine Empire, 245-6): Buschausen, Die Marienkirche, Chapter IV.
144
On these matters see the important recent studies of H. Buchthal and H. Belting,
Patronage in Thirteenth-Century Constantinople, An Atelier of Late Byzantine
Book Illumination and Calligraphy (Washington, 1978), 103-104; H. Belting, C.
Mango, and D. Mouriki, The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakaristos
(Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul (Washington, 1978); H. Belting, Das illuminierte Buch
in der Spätbyzantinischen Gesellschaft (Heidelberg, 1970), 50-71; S. CurČic,
Grafanica, King Milutin's Church and Its Place in Late Byzantine Architecture
(University Park, 1979).
 1X3
Photographie Credits
Figs. 1, 3, 4, 6 Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; Figs. 2, 5, 8, 9
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; Fig. 7 Photo Alinari; Fig. 10 from
C. Cahier and A. Martin, Mélanges ď archéologie, II, pi. X X X I V ;
fig. 11 after W.F. Volbách and J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Byzanz und
der christliche Osten, pi. 100; Figs. 12-13 Courtesy of D u m b a r t o n
Oaks Collection, Washington, D.C.
 P L A T E III
P.MAGDAL1NO&R. N E L S O N , T h e E m p e r o r in Byzantine Ari

Κ Gr * tro ΤΤΓ στο-Δ o\> Λ^ο~μ trd μ t*& μ TOJ >\t &}·!'& "-ri. ■

ουΛ_»»« lj-ofJn rroLfjii-y trvt -f- τ ο τ ^ - o m e K f f -φΊΛ-'

f\ σ-^-cu.cttn-o ι e A^V" 5 / 7 *f" 'oLfjdAjuu/LÍSfx» I^JU μ + ¿ V i
^ o p o u K C r r o i Η TTXJT&¿τ-}*ι -ΊΌ\ττ-αομταοy t/-»-'Vi «Γ 0 0 / 7 ·
β V ťTfr· f JA« ι 6-ΤΓΟ ι Η rmrr-b- -f·» OLCU 0^ττ6~/-α^Β-ο μ τ~* '
ο υ τ - ο ι đ c IMO LojB-f μ rit ce «s/o is

1. T h e Last J u d g e m e n t . Paris, Bibl. Nat. gr. 74, f. 51 v.

 P L A T E IV

Ji

2. Manuel I and Maria. R o m e , Bibl. Vat. gr. 1 176, f. Ilr.

 PLATE V

\i
'uKommm&NM ST T

3. Nicephoros III and Maria. Paris, Bib!. Nat. Coislin 79, f

 P L A T E VI

4. Nicephoros III with virtues and attendants. Paris, Bibl. Nat.

Coislin 79, f. 2r.
 P L A T E VII

*^~tr-t'?-f - w » » n »; »ι >-f>

·. HC^tKxuic■!

John II and Alexios. R o m e , Bibl. Vat. Urb. gr. 2, f. 19v.

 PLATE VIN

■■■_

i^i^r
win
ι "i":" '
BU? I
P^i
m A

Mi
Y
ΓΑ
Al

.¿I

^ ^ « L Č5 < ^ O*'

6. David with Wisdom and Prophecy. Paris, Bibl. Nat. gr. 139, f.
7v.
PLATE
 PLATE X

ffkss α-i ι

'/:.>, / V ' . ¡" , : >*£-> . ¿¿g '*' ■ -■

+6 •ν»
r

S. ( ' l u n c h Fathers. R o m e . R i b l . Vat. μ ι . o d o . Γ. Iv.

 PLATE XI

Ci

ν/
» ·· ·
: <·■: Λ « V ' « i »ϊ.

mperor and Christ. R o m e , B i b l . V a t . gr. 6 6 6 , f. 2r.

mffigfl ^ -UWOwWUt; ) »Ωtoll
/ > « ' r ·. ' o 9 o V o <™ o * e. ', t> ¿ o< o
9 O Ν Ο »"Ο β Ο Ci O - 0 i 0 9 O · O
0'0"Q| b'o'gVoocteoog'c Οβ »eo'o'e'o'
. ■ : ·
»ν c o"e'Q'feO< . a eoe
I θ'οο'9'οι ' ο eoo'
Q ϊ ■ :■) υ 9 9 O O O O O O O ^ g
■■',:'. G . e» 0 9.9 o O'O C ο ς ο ς. ο
O O: O tf999í - oo;o;©o.ooo,'e
OvO 5'Än ΛΛ< _ 00.9.099999
'99'9'θ'
bo'o'oeooooo
tOGOCGCOOO
O'OOOOO'OOO
GCOOGCC
r.r;c -o^t ^OOOOOO
tt&QQ'OQ.Q
9'ί>"9'θ"9'θ"^ Ο 9 O'O Ό uTì-oc/oto
r v ·<: '•■'ü'y'oyO
Oí. G GO
' (; ' Ό'9'999
9«?9090.$.9
í'CGř99909
k
»G»cwQGt;
LOï'0909 9
Q< 9 9 0 9 9
o ■ ■',. «í O C Ö

'ö'9'O É
'd'9'9'QÍ9'9'9
>':H ^ , r* y ·;-, o & 9 ( ' ü » ¿ β o w y ;> 9.9
. ■ G G'G'G'C
. O '-. í ; '.'O O'C Ç. C ? O G O O O WO β ' ύ Κ ) C O 9 O 9 9 9.9
r
O > 9 9'9"0 O'O 0 9 O 9 0 G O 9 9 9 C O O 9 O β O 9 «. >
CQOrOOO'GOGOQOGO9G6O&OG0G9O9 H
•w» s i~is» iTJuAm.*A m
10. Textile of Bishop Günther, Bamberg. Drawing after the original
by Cahier and Martin (1851).
 PLATE XIII

11. Steatite of St. Demetrios. Moscow, the Kremlin Armory.

 P L A T E XIV

12. Histamenon of Isaac I. Washington, Dumbarton Oaks

Collection.

13. Hyperpyron of Isaac II. Washington, Dumbarton Oaks

Collection.
 LEGIOIV MARTIA AND THE_LEGIONARY CAMP AT
EL-LEJJUN

JAMES LANDER / LOS ANGELES, CAL.

S. THOMAS PARKER / RALEIGH, N.C.

The study of the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire has long
been a neglected subject. Surveys conducted over a half century ago
and a few excavations, such as at Dura-Europus, illustrated the
potential of the military sites of the East. In recent years renewed
interest has been aroused in the eastern frontier; current or planned
archaeological projects in eastern Turkey, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi
Arabia have begun to fill in a still spotty picture. The study of the
Roman legions in the East has been hampered by the relative
scarcity of legionary castra, because the legions were normally
garrisoned in the cities of the more urbanized eastern provinces.
Though rare, a few legionary camps do exist along the eastern
frontier, and therefore these sites are of paramount importance.
One of these sites is the camp at el-Lejjün, which formed part of
the limes of Arabia (now mostly within the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan). Lejjün is located ca. 60 kilometers east of the Dead Sea in
central Jordan and was rediscovered and described by European
explorers in the 19th century. By far the most important of these
early investigators were R. Brünnow and A. von Domaszewski, who
reached the site in 1897 and published a description, photographs,
and plans of the camp more than seventy years ago.1 An earlier

The following abbreviations are used in this paper:

PA R. Brünnow and A. von Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia, 3 vols.
(Strassburg, 1904-09).
PAES Butler, H. C , et. al., Princeton Archaeological Expedition to Syria in
1904-5 and 1909.
PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement.
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins.
1
PA vol. 2, 24-38. The account of Brünnow and von Domaszewski includes the
descriptions of earlier explorers.
1K6
visitor to the site, Charles Doughty, had already suggested that
"Lejjun" was an Arabic corruption of the Latin "legio"2 But
Brünnow and Domaszewski were apparently the first scholars to
suggest that Lejjun had been garrisoned by iegioW Martian This
identification, although not certain, has become widely accepted.
Nelson Glueck identified a major Early Bronze fortress one
kilometer west of the Roman camp in the 1930's; he also published
the first aerial photo of the Roman camp.4 No further investigation
of the camp occurred until the late 1970's.
Parker first visited the site in June of 1975, while conducting a
feasibility study for a proposed survey of the Limes Arabicus. A
sample of surface potsherds was collected and the site photographed.
The following year, in August and September of 1976, the surveyor
the entire frontier was conducted. The survey team covered most of
the major military sites in Jordan, from the Syrian border in the
north to the Gulf of Aqaba in the south, a total of 41 sites. Lejjün was
surveyed on August 31, 1976. A larger sample of sherds was
collected, more photographs were taken, and several adjacent sites
were surveyed. The site and region were the objects of further study
in 1979.5

2
C. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1888) vol. 1, 20.
3
PA vol. 2, 36.
4
N. Glueck, The Other Side of the Jordan (Cambridge, MA, 1970) 170 (fig. 83).
This photo was originally published in Glueck's Explorations in Eastern Palestine, 4
vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1934-51).
5
The survey was sponsored by the American Schools of Oriental Research and was
aided by its affiliate in Amman, the American Center of Oriental Research. For the
initial results of the survey, cf. S. T. Parker, "Archaeological Survey of the Limes
Arabicus: A Preliminary Report", Annual of the Department of Antiquities of
Jordan 21(1976) 19-31. The staff of the 1976 survey consisted of S. Thomas Parker
as director, James A. Sauer as ceramic typologist, Frank L. Koucky as geologist, and
Paul M. McDermott as photographer. In July and August of 1979 Parker and
Koucky returned to the site, and were joined by James Lander. Mr. Lander wrote
the section of this paper on the architectural evidence; Mr. Parker is responsible for
the sections on the topography, the pottery, and the historical conclusions.
This research was funded by grants from the Shell Oil Foundation, the U.C.L.A.
Friends of Archaeology, the U.C.L.A. Academic Senate, and the Kyle Kelso
Research Fund. The authors are grateful for their support.
 187
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the topography of the site,
review the associated archaeological evidence from Lejjün and
several related sites, and draw some conclusions concerning this
camp, its garrison,Tarici the history of this sector of the frontier.

I. Topography (see fig. 1)

The site is located in the hill country of Biblical Moab in central
Jordan, approximately 135 kilometers south of Amman and 24
kilometers west of the railroad station at Qatrana. A good asphalt
road leads westward from Qatrana towards Karak. Nearly halfway
between Qatrana and Karak is a narrow paved road which extends
northward for two kilometers before reaching LejjOn.6 The camp is
situated at an elevation of ca. 700 meters above sea level; it lies in a
shallow valley formed by the Wadi LejjOn and the Wadi MQjib and is
surrounded by low hills on all sides but the east. The hills effectively
cut off summer breezes but also provide good protection from the
elements in the winter months (see fig. 2). To the northwest of the
camp the Wadi LejjOn narrows and has cut a steep canyon with walls
nearly 100 meters high. At the point where the wadi begins to
narrow is the main water source of the site: a perennial spring ('Ain
Lejjün) which today provides enough water for summer pasture and
irrigated crops. In a semi-arid region such as this, the presence of the
spring was probably a major factor in selecting the location of the
camp. The major surface geologic formation is the Belqa Series
limestone, deposited in the Cretaceous period. Several igneous
intrusions of more recent date dot the area.7 The rich but thin loess
soil of the valley still produces good winter pasture for livestock.8
Access to the site is somewhat limited by the surrounding hills.
Approach from the north and west is difficult because of the steep
sides of the Wadi LejjOn. The route from the south along the modern
road is somewhat easier but approach from the east seems easiest
because it is not blocked by hills. A watchtower, Rujm Beni Yasser,

6
See map, fig. 1. Location coordinates on the Palestine grid are
2324-2328/0716-0720.
7
D. J. Burdon, Handbook of the Geology of Jordan (Amman, 1959) 41-49.
8
We are indebted to Frank L. Koucky for much of this topographic data.
188
on an isolated hill due east of the camp guarded against any approach
and also served as the hub of a complex system of signalling and
observation posts that extended towards the desert to the east.
Another of these watchtowers guarded the easiest crossing of the
Wadi Müjib, a point now used by the modern highway some two
kilometers southeast of the camp. To the northwest of the camp
there is only one easy crossing point across the Wadi Lejjün. This is
near the spring where the modern track crosses the wadi and climbs
its northern cliff. The presence of a badly ruined watchtower above
the north bank suggests that this crossing was also used in antiquity.
About one kilometer west of the spring is the castellum of Khirbet
el-Fityan, which controls access into the valley from the north and
west and commands an excellent view in all directions. This fort will
be discussed more fully below.

II. Architecture
The information gleaned from direct observation of the existing
ruins of Lejjün can be supplemented by the descriptions of 19th
century travellers, primarily the careful 1897 survey of Briinnow and
Domaszewski.9 The admirable plans drawn by Domaszewski are still
the best available, though some of his reconstructions may be overly
influenced by the evidence from the "twin" camp at Udhruh, whose
defenses are much better preserved.10 The camp of Lejjün is a
rectangle (240 x 190 meters, excluding tower projections) whose
walls enclose an area of 4.6 ha., or about 25% of the areal norm for
legionary fortresses in Britain." The proportion of length to width,
about 5:4, is more squarish than the 3:2 suggested by Ps.-Hyginus

9
PA vol. 2, 24-38. Other early accounts include C. Doughty, Travels in Arabia
Deserta, vol. 1, 20; F. J. Bliss, "Narrative of an Expedition to Moab and Gilead in
1895", PEFQS( 1895) 222ff;. S. Vaiihe, "Dans les Montagnes Bleues", Echos de
Notre-Dame Biblique 7 (1896) 234-236; H. Vincent, "Notes de voyage", Revue
Biblique! (1898) 437; A Hornstein, A Visit to Kerak and Petra", PEFQS(1898)
97; and L. Gautier, "Autour de la Mer Morte", Le Globe 11 (1900) 101-103.
10
PA vol. 2, 25. For his account of Udhruh, cf. PA vol. 1, 433-460.
11
S. Frère, Britannia (London, 2nd ed. 1974) 253; R. P. Duncan-Jones, "Pay and
Numbers in Diocletian's Army", Chiron 8 (1978) 554.
 189
12
(eh. 21), yet many legionary fortresses were broader. The camp is
oriented roughly towards the points of the compass, perhaps done
less in obedience to convention than in desire to position a long side
of the camp next to the Wadi Lejjün (which runs west to east). 11

The Enclosure Wall

The enclosure wall is 2.4 meters in width: comparable to late
Roman enclosure walls in Europe. 14 The greatest extant height is
about 4 meters; at present no information is available on the original
height or the arrangements for parapet or crenellation. The wall
construction is of a rubble core between two faces of roughly squared
stones set in level courses which vary between 0.20 m. and 0.50 m. in
height. The constructional material is mostly limestone with some
use of chert and basalt (There is some evidence of quarrying in the
wadi, near the spring). The rubble core is set in mud or clay; the
stones of the two wall faces are bonded with a gypsum mortar flecked
with bits of charcoal.15 Although harder lime mortars are also
present on the site, the prevalence of gypsum in the enclosure wall
probably accounts for the collapse of most of the curtain wall down
to a level where it is protected and buttressed by its own rubble. The
enclosure wall, though segmented on Domaszewski's plan by the

12
Pseudo-Hyginus, Des Fortifications du Camp, ed. M. Lenoir (Paris, 1979) 26.
For comparisons of fort proportions, see R. Rebuffat in Thamusida I, ed. J. P.
Morel, et ai. (Paris, 1965) 136-142; also cf. H. von Petrikovits, Die Innenbauten
römischer Legionslager während der Prinzipatzeit (Opladen, 1975) 113ff.
13
O.A. W. Dilke, Roman Land Surveyors (Newton Abbot, 1971) 86. The first
section, now missing, of Pseudo-Hyginus' work may have dealt with orientation.
14
H. von Petrikovits, "Fortifications in the North-Western Roman Empire", JRS
61 (1971) 197.
15
The edge of a large area of gypsiferous marl is located within a few hundred
meters of Lejjün.
The presence of charcoal in the gypsum mortar may indicate some hastiness in
preparing the gypsum or it may be simply one ingredient of the mortar. There is a
parallel in the city wall of Ashkalon in Palestine, which has been dated to the 3rd
century A.D.; cf. Β. Ζ. Kedar and W. G. Mook. "Radiocarbon Dating of Mortar
from the City Wall of Ashkalon", Israel Exploration Journal 28 (1978) 173-176.
 190
entrances to the towers, is continuous, with the towers bonded into
it. Therefore, the wall and towers appear to have been a
simultaneous construction.

77ie Interval Towers

The twenty interval towers are U-shaped and project about 1 lm.
from the enclosure wall (see fig. 4). The width of the towers varies
between 7.80 and 9.90 m., with 8.70 m. as the average. The walls of
the towers are about 2 m. in width and are of the same general
construction as the curtain wall, into which the towers are bonded.
The towers were originally of two stories, with the upper story
supported by the barrel vaulted roof of the lower. The recessed
ground level entrance is clear, but we do not yet know the
arrangement for the passage (if any) between stories nor the exit on
to the enclosure wall. Domaszewski suggested the existence of
stairways direct to the curtain wall and separate from the towers, but
the evidence is unclear.16 It is uncertain whether there were once
windows or slits through the walls of the lowest story because at
present the evidence is buried; the evidence for such openings in the
upper stories may be lost. Still, we may assume that the curtain wall
and gates were carefully enfiladed. Except where they flank the
gates, the interval towers are spaced at roughly regular intervals,
averaging about 28 m. (with extremes of 24.50 m. and 31m.). The
spacing of the towers flanking the gates is interesting because the
disposition seemingly ignores the size of the gates. This may indicate
that the disposition of the towers was planned before the decision
was made to erect two triple-entry gates somewhat asymmetrically.
Apart from examples at Udhruh, the parallels for this U-shaped
tower are found primarily on the lower Danube and are mostly dated

16
PA vol. 2. 3 0 - 3 1 .
 191
17
to the late 3rd and early 4th centuries. A comparison has also been
made between Lejjun's interval towers and those of the late 3rd
century British fort at Portchester.18 It can also be noted that in the
East such towers do have antecedents in Greek and Hellenistic
fortifications.19

The Angle Towers

Each angle tower is basically a circle with a diameter of ca. 19 m.
(see fig. 5). However, before the tower wall begins to curve it initially
projects, at a right angle to the curtain wall, on a straight line for
about 6 m. This part of the tower wall is 1.80 m. wide, while the part
which curves is 2 m in width, the same thickness as the interval
towers.
Domaszewski's investigation of the angle towers was restricted by
the presence of bedouin burials (still a ticklish feature of the site) and
thus his reconstruction owes much to the clearer evidence of
Udhruh. 20 If, however, the analogy holds, then the ground level of
Lejjun's angle towers would have a single entrance, an internal
stairway to the upper level, and exits on to the two conjoining
segments of the curtain wall at that level. Unlike Udhruh, the ground
floor has three (not four) chambers. According to Domaszewski's
reconstruction,21 the angle towers were at least 1 lm. in height, but no
17
For Iatrus, cf. T. Ivanov, "Ausgrabungen im Kastell latrus in den Jahren
1958-1962", Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms (Köln, 1967) 154; also see K.
Wachtel, "Zum gegenwartigen Forschungsstand der Kastellgrabung latros", Actes
du Xle Congress international d'études sur les frontières romaines, ed. D. M.
Pippidi (Köln, 1974) 139.
For Tropaeum Traiani, cf. Ivanov, 155 (plan: 156).
For Capidava, cf. G. Florescu et al., Capidava (Bucharest, 1958) 27.
For Dinogetia, cf. G. Stefan et al., Dinogetia /(Bucharest, 1967).
For Labidia, cf. A. S. Stefan, "Recherches de photo-interpretation
archéologique", in Pippidi (éd.) 105 (cf. pis. 21-22).
18
C. Dalton, "Note on Dr. Bliss' Lejjun in Moab", PEFQS( 1895) 332-333. Oh the
date of Portchester see S. Johnson, The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore (London,
1976) 59-62. Β. W. Cunliffe, Portchester I (Dorking, 1975), 197.
19
F. E. Winter, Greek Fortifications (London. 1971) 192-203.
20
PA vol. 2, 27.
21
PA vol. 2, 28, figs. 582-583.
192
information is yet available regarding the arrangement and use of the
roof. Again we lack evidence concerning windows or slits.
Close parallels for angle towers of this shape exist in Syria,22 but
the underlying principles (of presenting a convex face to the enemy
while maintaining a section of straight wall perpendicular to, and
enfilading, the curtain wall) were at work throughout much of the
fortifications of the Late Empire. Notable examples include the
"fan" and "horseshoe" shaped angle towers on forts of the
Danubian frontier.23

The Gates
Of the four gates, two are provided with a single entrance and two
are triple entry (i.e., a central passageway with smaller entrances to
either side). The latter two gates are the porta praetoria and the
porta principalis sinistra (east and north, respectively). Domas-
zewski explained this orientation by the fact that the north gate is
nearest the spring and the east gate is directed against the enemy,
and thus they received the most traffic.24 Actually the south gate, the
porta principalis dextra, faces the more likely approach of any
enemy, though Roman marching order may have been best
facilitated through the porta praetoria. It must be noted, however,
that troops and transport could have passed through even the
smallest of the four gates,25 and so the location of the triple entry
gates perhaps was intended to facilitate normal pedestrian traffic.
Even with all four main gates closed, the side entrances would permit
movement to and from the spring to the north and the large vicusand
irrigated areas to the east. Another consideration, of course, would
be the route of the Roman road presumed to run between Areopolis
(modern Rabba) and Lejjün, though its entrance into the Lejjün

22
A. Poidebard, La Trace de Rome dans le désert de Syrie(Paris„1934): Manqoura
(pi. 21), Qattar (pi. 39), Hallabat (pi. 41) and Abyad (pi. 43).
23
A. Mócsy, "Pannonia", RE Sup vol. 9, cols 636-637. Cf. Petrikovits,
"Fortifications", 199.
24
PA vol. 2, 34; Pseudo-Hyginus, 56: porta praetoria semper hostem spedare
debet.
25
Gate widths: north = 3.4 m.; south = 3.29 m.; east = 3.83 m.; west = 2.53 m.
 1<Í3

valley has not yet been located.

Little can be said about the unexcavated remains of the four gates.
A common feature of construction is the use of fossiliferous
limestone monoliths, carefully cut and set without mortar, for both
uprights and lintels.
The relieving arches above the lintels, reported by Bliss,26 no
longer exist; nor could we find any convincing blocks for this feature
in the rubble. But lintels with relieving arches are much in evidence
at Udhruh.
Each gate is centered in its wall of the camp; the viae which
connect the gates, but for the obstruction of the principia, effectively
divide the camp into four equal quarters.

Internal Arrangements
This equal quartering by a cruciform street plan is not a
characteristic of legionary camps of the Principáte; 27 and, whatever
else it may represent, this arrangement does indicate a break with the
marching camp convention of placing the principia (for security and
ease of communication) in the center of the site. With the smaller
scale of late Roman fortifications and with the emphasis now on
manning a perimeter rather than organizing a marching-order, there
are alterations of barracks, streets, and the principia of late camps.
At Lejjün there is no sign of a via quintana and the principia is not
centralized exactly. It seems that, in late Roman fortification
generally, this new street plan takes precedence over the princip/a in
terms of location.28
Domaszewski argued that in an early phase Lejjfln was traversed
by several minor streets aligned with the entrances to interval

26
Bliss, "Narrative". 221.
27
Petrikovits, Innenbauten, 114-115 and n. 141, compares Lejjün, Udhruh,
Palmyra, Drobeta, and Diocletian's palace at Spalato as examples of a Byzantine
layout as proposed in the Anonymous περί άπλήχτον (Incerti scriptoris Byzantini
saecuii X Liber de re militari, ed. R. Vàri, Leipzig, 1901).
28
This is shown in the paradigms drawn up (to argue a different point) by R.
Fellmann, "Der Diokletianspalast von Split im Rahmen der spatrömischen
Militärarchitektur". Antike Welt. Heft 2 (1979) 47-55.
194
towers. 2 " This suggestion not only calls for a liberal interpretation of
the existing plan, but also requires some evidence for significant
architectural phasing of the barracks. Although our own
examination of the construction of the barrack walls found some
irregularities, the nature of these gives no particular support to
Domaszewski's suggestion. T h e matter requires testing by
excavation.

The Principia
The headquarters building at Lejjun is perplexing in both its
evidence of rebuilding and its present stage of dilapidation. It is
conventionally positioned where the via praetoria meets the via
principalis, but the location of the latter street forces the principia off
the central point in the camp. That point, which could properly be
called the groma,Mi was marked by a tetrapyle (now lost from view)
which served as the monumental entrance to the principia.*1
T h e principia is relatively large (64 x 41 m.). T h e actual size of the
central courtyard cannot yet be stated. Domaszewski's plan (see fig.
3) shows only a simple wall enclosing a courtyard, the main range of
rooms along the west wall, and three small apsidal rooms near the
southwest corner. There is no indication of a portico, colonnade, or
chambers along the other walls surrounding the central courtyard.
There is also no sign of a transverse hall between the courtyard and
the main rooms at the rear of the complex. However, in 1979 we
discovered faint traces of walls (still too indistinct to plan) projecting
internally from the courtyard wall for several meters. T h e northern
courtyard enclosure wall does not align with the north wall of the
main range of r o o m s ; further evidence for rebuilding is seen in the
three apsidal rooms (scholae?) in the southwest corner of the

29
PA vol. 2, 36.
w
Pseudo-Hyginus, 12; HyginusGromaticus, delimitibus constuendis.in F. Blume,
ed.. Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser (Berlin. 1848) 180. For examples of
gromae in the Principáte, cf. Petrikovits, Innenbauten, 75 (and bibliography in η.
78).
Vailhe (η. Ι), 235; PA vol. 2, 35.
 195
2
principia? These rooms are almost certainly a later and rather
cramped addition to the main structure. Domaszewski's plan of the
northwest corner of the principia may be slightly in error, but only
excavation will throw real light on the problems involved with this
structure.

Internal Structures
Several of Domaszewski's important identifications of internal
structures deserve to be noted and supplemented with some
corroborative material. A basilica! building near the north gate was
said to be the praetorium," though it may be a secondary
construction, perhaps a church. A heap of rubble beyond the
northwest corner of the principia (barely traced on the plan) was
identified as the armamentarium.34 In the northwest corner of the
camp Domaszewski identified a circular depression in the ground,
over 12 m. in diameter, as a basilica exercitatoria equestris. If so, it is
a small one;" it might as easily be a collapsed cistern. In the
southwest corner of the camp Domaszewski reported seeing a large
structure built upon arches (no longer visible); he suggested it was a
horreum.™ Though unbuttressed, the walls appear to be thick, and
an examination of the mortar revealed the same charcoal-flecked
gypsum material found in the enclosure wall. The location of this
structure near the highest elevation in the camp is further evidence in
support of Domaszewski's identification. Confirmation of his
suggestion awaits excavation.

The Barracks
Most of the remaining structures within the camp were considered

12
PA vol. 2, 34. On scholae cf. Petrikovits, "Die Spezialgebäude römischer
Legionslager", Legio VU Gemina (Léon, 1970) 239-241.
"PA vol. 2, 35.
34
PA vol. 2, 34. Domaszewski's suggested identification was based on analogy with
the well preserved armamentarium at ed-Dumer (PA vol. 3, 186-188) in southern
Syria. Cf. Petrikovits, "Spezialgebäude", 235-236.
,s
PA vol. 2, 35; cf. Petrikovits, Innenbauten. 80-81.
PA vol. 2, 35.
196
barracks by Domaszewski. If so, they show a great deal more
variation than barracks of the Principáte. There is no doubt that the
eastern half of the camp is filled by six barrack blocks for ordinary
ranks." Four of these blocks show a similar layout: a central spine
wall with pairs of rooms abutting on each side. Two other blocks,
flanking the via praetoria, consist of a spine wall into which are
bonded the larger rooms facing the street; behind are pairs of the
more regular sized rooms abutting the spine. In all six blocks the
three rooms nearest the via principalis are somewhat larger and are
no doubt centurions' quarters. The differentiation in size between
rooms of centurions and those of the rank and file pales, however,
when compared to legionary camps of the Principáte.
The primary construction of the barracks is rough compared to the
enclosure wall.38 The walls, ca. 0.80 m. thick, consist of two faces of
roughly squared stone encasing a rubble core; they are held together
by a gypsum mortar and were originally faced by a gypsum plaster.
The present stage of collapse precludes a simple examination of door
passages, though it seems clear that there was no communication
through the central spine wall.
If we apply the convention of one pair of rooms for each
contubernium, then the two central barrack blocks with only three
rooms across pose a problem. A portico facing both of these blocks
where they face the via praeřoria would ease the difficulty and be
traditional, but at present there is no sign of a portico.1"

37
The blank area in the northeastern corner of Domaszewski's plan remains a
mystery. The area is devoid of rubble which could indicate that barracks once stood
here. Domaszewski's plan pre-dates the Late Ottoman settlement (which
apparently led to considerable stone robbing of the camp). This is the lowest portion
of the camp, however, and deposition caused by ponding may have covered these
blocks.
38
This was interpreted by Domaszewski (PA vol. 2, 36) as evidence of a later phase
of construction. But Petrikovits (/nnenbauřen.n. 4) counters this argument with the
example of differing but contemporary constructions at Lauriacum.
3
" No column bases are indicated on Domaszewski's plan (see fig. 3), and we have
found only one column drum fragment on the entire site. The single fragment was
found near the reported tetrastyle (see no. 31 above).
 197
In general, then, it seems that a centurial block at Lejjün consisted
of 18 pairs of rooms, the first three being centurions* quarters and
the remaining 15 occupied by ordinary troops. The Principáte norm
of 11 to 13 rooms is exceeded slightly in this instance, though the
significance of this is unknown.40 If we assume that each
conventional eight man contubernium occupied a pair of rooms,
then the sleeping space for each man would have been about two
square meters, which is comparable to the Principáte norm.41

Other Structures inside the Camp

Immediately north and south of the principia are groups of rooms
which Domaszewski briefly compared to the barrack blocks in the
eastern half of the camp.42 The blocks to the south of the principia
vary considerably in their arrangement and room size, but in general
these rooms are larger than those in the eastern blocks. This accords
with the relative size and traditional location of the barracks of the
first cohort in camps of the Principáte.41 But it is difficult to imagine
how a full size cohort (much less a double cohort) could squeeze into
the number of rooms available.
It is unlikely that the rooms north of the principia are barracks.
The rooms attached to the northern courtyard wall are probably
offices or storerooms. The row of barrack-sized rooms along the via
principalis might have sheltered a special unit of immunes or
cavalrymen (or, less likely, their mounts) ;44 but equally they could be

40
Petrikovits, Innenbauten, 36-38, 59-60. Lauriacum and Inchtuthil have 14 or
more pairs of non-centurial rooms, but both forts might (for different reasons) be
excluded from the Principáte norm (cf. Petrikovits, innenbauten, 60, 119-121).
41
Petrikovits, Innenbauten, 36.
42
PA vol. 2. 35-36.
** Petrikovits, Innenbauten, 38; Pseudo-Hyginus, 3 and 36.
44
Although the legionary cavalry by the 4th century were detached as independent
units (équités promoti) stationed apart from the legion, a limited number of
mounted soldiers probably were required at the legionary bases. This row of rooms
along the via principalis may be stables, although the rooms are very near (and
up-wind of!) the principia. Horses may have been kept in the retentura or even
outside the camp.
Ï9H
fabricae or storerooms.
Finally, a rectangular structure near tower XII on Domaszewski's
plan (see fig.3) is well placed for use as a latrine: down slope from the
possible cisterns near towers III, VIII, and XV and near the lowest
point within the camp.

External Structures
There are traces of structures outside the walls of the camp in all
directions but the north. These traces suggest that a sizable vicus
grew up around the camp, especially towards the east and south.
Most of these areas have been covered quite recently by expanding
agriculture, although the ruins of two or three heavier structures
have been left exposed thus far. One of these, located near the
western wall of the camp, consists of ranges of rooms built around a
central courtyard (see fig.6). This building, 3 5 x 2 8 m., remains an
enigma; suggestions of its purpose range from a mansio, praetorium
(since none has been identified convincingly within the camp), or
accommodation for married officers.45
Finally, an important structure on a hill overlooking the camp
from the west was photographed and planned by Briinnow and
Domaszewski in 1897.46 But by 1934, when Nelson Glueck
examined the area, the structure had disappeared. 47 It was a large
platform of coursed masonry, 21 meters square and approached via
staircases on both the east and west sides. Dubbed the "altar 1 ' by
Domaszewski, this structure stood some 3.50 m. in height. Glueck
noticed similar structures at Ekhwein el-Khadem and Museitiba and
suggested they functioned as cultic centers during the Nabatean
period.48 Though no Nabatean pottery was found at the camp itself,
sherds of Nabatean date were recovered from Khirbet el-Fityän and
Rujm Beni Yasser. Both sites are within two kilometers of Lejjün.

45
Vailhe, 235, calls the structure a "fortin".
46
ΡΛ vol. 2, 36-38.
47
Ν. Glueck, Explorations in Eastern Palestine, 4 vols. (New Haven. 1934-51 ) vol.
1, 40.
48
Glueck. vol. 1, 42-44, cf. pi. 8.
 199
Therefore, the suggestion of Glueck seems possible. The hill is now
occupied by a Late Ottoman domestic complex and a school (once an
Ottoman police station). The construction of these buildings out of
well cut, weathered blocks seems enough explanation for the
disappearance of the "altar". This more recent building activity by
the Turkish settlers may also account for the otherwise
unaccountable evidence of stone robbing from the camp itself.
In summary, the rectangular plan of the camp of Lejjun, the
number and locational symmetry of the gates, and the general
arrangement of the barrack blocks show continuity with legionary
fortresses of the Principate. However, the relatively small area
enclosed, the strength of the enclosure wall, the projection of the
towers (which are not entirely regular in their size and spacing), the
cruciform street plan, and the variations in the size and layout of the
barracks all suggest that this camp postdates those of the Principate.
The architectural evidence rather suggests a late 3rd or early 4th
century date.

III. The Pottery

The recent development of a more refined ceramic typology for
the Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic periods in Trans-Jordan, when
combined with other evidence, permits a reconstruction of the
occupational history of Lejjün. The chronological system of J.A.
Sauer, developed from the excavations at Heshbon (ca. 60
kilometers north of Lejjün), was controlled by associated
numismatic evidence.49 The periods relevant to this study are
presented below:

Early Roman I ca. 63-37 B.C.

Early Roman II ca. 37-4 B.C.
Early Roman HI ca. 4 B.C. - A.D. 73
Early Roman IV ca. 73-135
Late Roman I ca. 135-192
Late Roman II ca. 193-235
Late Roman III ca. 235-284

J. A. Sauer. Heshbon Pottery 1971 (Berrien Springs. MI. 1973).

2<X)
Late Roman IV ca. 284-324
Early Byzantine I ca. 324-363
Early Byzantine II ca. 363-392
Early Byzantine III ca. 392-450
Early Byzantine IV ca. 450-491
Late Byzantine I ca. 491-527
Late Byzantine II ca. 527-565
Late Byzantine III ca. 565-614
Late Byzantine IV ca. 614-640

During the initial visit to the site in 1975 a sample of 549 sherds
was collected from within the walls of the camp. The sample taken in
1976 was nearly twice as large (1,050 sherds) and included some
sherds from outside the camp. The most striking fact about this
ceramic corpus is its date: over 99% of the total sample dates to the
Late Roman IV through Early Byzantine IV periods (ca. 284-491).
Of the remaining sherds, there were a few Iron Age (1200-600
B.C.), nine Early Roman IV, three Late Byzantine I, two Umayyad
(A.D. 661-750), and three Ottoman (1516-1918).
The discovery of two surface coins within the camp provides some
confirmation for the dating of the pottery. Both coins were bronze
issues of Constantine (306-337).

Analysis of the Pottery*9'

49a
Bibliography of sites for ceramic parallels:
Amman Roman Tomb: Harding, G. L., "A Roman Family Vault on Jebel Jofeh,
Amman", Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 14 (1950)
81-94.
Beth She'arim: Avigad, N., "Excavations at Beth She'arim, 1954", Israel
Exploration Journals (1955) 205-239.
Dhiban: Tushingham, A. D., The Excavations at Dibon (Dhiban) in Moab
(Cambridge, MA, 1972).
Heshbon: Sauer, J. Α., Heshbon Pottery 1971 (Berrien Springs, MI, 1973).
Jerash: Fisher, S., and McCown,. C , "Jerash-Gerasa 1930", Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 11 (1931).
Judean Desert Caves:
Expedition A: Avigad, N., "Expedition A", Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962)
169-183.
Nahal Hever: Aharoni. Y., "The Caves of Nahal Hever", A tiqot3 ( 1961 ) 148-162.
Late Roman Pottery: Hayes, J., Late Roman Pottery (London, 1972).
 201
The Early Roman IV pottery from Lejjûn is represented by
Sherds 1, 7, 25 (see fig. 8). Sherd 1 is a closed cooking pot with a
rounded, slightly thickened rim. It is well fired and is covered with a
brown slip. Possible parallels have been published from the Judean
Desert Caves (Expedition A, fig. 5:15; Nahal Hever, fig. 10:9).
Sherd 7 is a jar rim with a fairly straight neck and a flattened,
thickened lip. Sherd 25, of well fired red ware, is a ring base,
probably of a shallow bowl or plate.
Sherds 2-4, from the Late Roman IV period, represent closed
cooking pots, all displaying the characteristic grooved rim. All three
sherds are well fired and are of yellowish brown or gray ware.
Published parallels for these forms include Heshbon (fig. 2:46, 47,
49, 50), Rujm el Melfuf (figs. 24, 25), Amman Roman Tomb (pi.
26:12, 105), Jerash (pi.2) and Umm el-Jimal (sherds 1-2). Handles
of these cooking pots are pictured as Sherds 30-33, which display
characteristic pinched cross sections. Handles of this type have been
found at Heshbon (fig. 2:82, 83), Rujm el-Malfuf (figs. 24, 25) and
Umm el-JimSl (6-7). Sherds 15-17 represent Late Roman bowl
rims. Sherd 15 may be compared to possible parallels from Rujm
el-Malfuf (tig. 38) and Heshbon (fig. 2:67).
Early Byzantine cooking pots are represented by Sherds 5-6; both
have rounded, slightly thickened rims and a brown exterior slip.
Similar closed forms have been found at Heshbon (fig. 2:85-87), Tell
er-Ras(fig. 11:3-5), and Beth She'arim (fig. 3:12). Both the Lejjun
examples probably date to the 4th century. Sherds 8-12 represent
Early Byzantine jugs and jars. All but Sherd 10 are of well fired
finely levigated ware with very small inclusions. Sherd 10 displays a
dark interior core, suggesting it was less well fired. The rims vary
from the simple rounded rim of Sherd 10 to the complex rim of Sherd
8. A possible parallel to Sherd 9 is attested at Tell er-Ras (fig. 10:1-2

Rujm el-Malfiif: Boraas, R. S., "A Preliminary Sounding at Rujm el-Malfuf,

1969'", Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 16 (1971) 31-45.
Tell er-Ras: Bull, R. J., and Campbell, E. F., "The Sixth Campaign at Baiatali
(Shechem)", Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 190 (1968)
2-41.
Umm el-Jimäl: Parker, S. T., "The Pottery from the 1977 Season", forthcoming in
B. DeVries (ed.], The Umm el-Jimâl Excavations.
202
although with a slightly different stance). Sherd 14 represents a deep
kráter of light brown ware, probably of the 4th century. It is similar
to several unpublished examples from Umm el-Jimä!. Early
Byzantine bowl forms are illustrated by Sherds 18-24. Sherd 24 is an
imported red ware bowl, probably of the 5th century. Published
parallels include J. Hayes, Late Roman Pottery (fig. 18:3, 5) and
Heshbon (fig. 3:99). Sherd 18 displays a red slip which may be a local
imitation of a Red Ware bowl. This form is paralleled at Beth She
"arim (fig. 3:18). An unusual form is represented by Sherd 23; its
ware and exterior brown slip suggest a Byzantine date. An Early
Byzantine ring base, probably from a jug, is represented by Sherd 26.
Sherds 34-36 illustrate cross sections of handles of the period.
A few sherds of Late Byzantine I date were also found at the site.
Sherd 13 is a juglet with a rounded, slightly everted rim and a ridge
along the neck. It is not well fired and is covered by a reddish brown
slip. A close parallel to this juglet is from Dhibân (fig. 12:6-7). The
handle section of Sherd 37 is attached to a jug rim and is paralleled at
Heshbon (fig. 3:102).
The Umayyad period (661-750) is represented by Sherd 28: a cup
with an everted, tapering rim. Sherds 27 and 29 are of the Ottoman
period. Sherd 27 is a painted body sherd, with red paint on a red
slipped background. Both sherds are poorly fired, of coarse ware,
and hand-made, without the use of a wheel. This pottery is paralleled
in its general characteristics by material from Umm el-Jimal(66-85).

IV. Khirbet el-Fityän

The castellum of Khirbét el-Fityän is situated about two
kilometers northwest of Lejjün above the steep northern wall of the
Wàdi Lejjun. This fortified strong point controlled access into the
valley from the north and west and still commands an excellent view
in all directions. The castellum, nearly square in plan (78.8x76.8 m.)
is constructed of roughly quadrated limestone and chert blocks.50
The enclosure wall measures two meters in width. Rectangular
towers (4.3x3.7 m.) once projected from all four corners and two
rectangular interval towers flank the main gate on the smaller

See fig. 7. reproduced from PA vol. 2, figs. 602-603.

 203
postern gates are situated in the east and west walls. Other interval
towers were built on the south and west walls. Several towers along
the south wall, which appear on the plan of Domaszewski, now have
disappeared: These include the two southern angle towers. Within
the fort, the only recognizable structures are located in the northwest
sector; these structures are probably part of the barracks. A large
rockcut cistern is located near the center of the castellum.
The 1976 survey team collected 207 sherds from Fityän, of which
56 could be dated.50* Over half these identifiable sherds (30) dated to
the Late Roman IV period (ca. 300). The presence of 11 Iron Age
and five Nabatean sherds suggests that this strategic observation post
was also used in these periods. The extant plan is almost certainly
Roman, however, and seemingly was constructed in the same period
as the camp at Lejjun. The relative scarcity of Byzantine pottery
(only four sherds of the 4th century) implies an abandonment of
Fityän by the early 5th century. Perhaps this castellum served as a
temporary base while the legionary camp was under construction.
The handful of 4th century sherds may indicate that a small garrison
continued to occupy this post, which guarded the legionary camp
from the north, after completion of the camp. The abandonment of
Fityän by ca.400 suggests that this site was no longer needed for the
defense of the legionary base.

V. Historical Conclusions
The only literary reference to the garrison of Lejjun is found in the
Notitia Dignitatum (Oriens 37.5, 22), which mentions that sub
dispositione viri spectabilis ducis Arabiae is the praefectus legionis
quartae Martiae, Betthoro. Thus, the Notitia provides a terminus
ante quern of ca. A.D, 400 for the creation of this legion. The use of a
pagan name, Mars, suggests a date no later than the early 4th
century. Dio makes no mention of the unit in the legionary list of his
history;51 therefore the IV Martia must have been created after ca.
230. Thus, the literary evidence supports the conclusion of the
architectural and ceramic evidence: the camp was constructed and

50a p o r t h e popery from Fityâh, see fig. 9, Sherds 38-55.

51
Dio 55.23-24.4.
204
the legion created between 230 and 324, probably in the Late
Roman IV period (ca.284-324). Diocletian would seem to be the
most likely candidate for creator of the legion within this period,
although Aurelian is also a possibility.52 It is well known that
Diocletian greatly increased the size of the army (especially on the
frontiers) and strengthened the limites.™ The addition of IV Martia
thus doubled the number of legions in Arabia, complementing legio
III Cyrenaica stationed at the provincial capital of Bostra to the
north. The coupling of legions in pairs in the frontier provinces was
common practice.54
The size of the legionary garrison is difficult to determine.
Legionary castra of the Principáte averaged 20 to 25 hectares (50-60

52
Speculation about the creator has centered mostly on either Aurelian (H. M. D.
Parker, "The Legions of Diocletian and Constantine", JRS 23 ( 1933) 175-189; D.
Graf, "Saracens and the Defense of the Arabian Frontier", Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 229 (1978) 1-26) or Diocletian (E.
Nischer, "The Army Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine", JRS 13 (1923) 1-55;
S.T. Parker, The Historical ¡development of the Limes Arabicus (forthcoming).
Briinnow and Domaszewski (PA vol. 2, 36) favored Diocletian, but E. Ritterling
("Legio", RE vol. 12, col. 1556) conjectured either as possibilities. D. Hoffmann
( Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum, 2 vols. (Düsseldorf,
1969) vol. 2, 69, n. 589) recently has suggested a connection between the name of
the legion and Galerius, whose protective deity was Mars. Hoffmann thus suggests a
date after 293. Several scholars have pointed out that the IV Martia was based close
to the "city of Mars" (Areopolis, the modern er-Rabba, located ca. 13 kilometers
west of Lejjun and situated directly on the via nova); they suggest that the name of
the town may have figured in the selection of the unit's name. There seems little
doubt that the number "four" was chosen as a continuation of the sequence begun
by the other legion of the province: III Cyrenaica. For a general treatment of the
Roman army of the province, cf. M.P. Speidel, "The Roman Army in Arabia",
ANRW 11.8, 687-730.
53
Zosimus, 2.34; Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors. 7. For a thorough
discussion of the ancient evidence, cf. A; H. M. Jones, Tfte Later Roman Empire. 3
vols. (Oxford, 1964) vol. I, 52-60, who concludes that "the army was
approximately doubled between the Seveřan period and the reign of Diocletian, and
the greater part of the increase was due to Diocletian himself". Also see D. van
Berchem. L'armée de Diocletien et la réforme constanf/n/enne(Paris, 1952) 25-26.
54
H.M.D. Parker, The Roman Legions (2nd ed., Cambridge. 1958) 177-181.
 205
acres).55 These legionary camps held a normal legionary complement
of ca. 5,000 men. But it has long been known that the legions of the
Late Empire were somewhat smaller. The Lejjün camp, for
example, is only 20% of the size of camps from the Principáte,
covering ca. 4.6 ha. (ca. 11 acres). Thus, the estimate by
Domaszewski of a garrison of 4,000 or more seems too high.56
As discussed above, the six main barrack blocks in the eastern half
of the camp each consists of three or four rows of 18 rooms. The
three larger rooms in each row closest to the via principalis are
somewhat larger than the rest and were probably centurions'
quarters. The remaining 60 rooms in four of the blocks would have
furnished accommodation for 30 conrubern/a;each contuberniumof
eight soldiers normally was assigned two rooms. One room was for
sleeping, the other for storage. Under this formula each block would
have contained three centuries (240 men) and each pair of blocks
would have held one cohort (480 men). Altogether, the six blocks
would represent three cohorts, or 1,440 men.57 The blocks of larger
rooms south of the principia may have sheltered other troops. It
appears that the camp was designed to accommodate ca. 1,500 men.
It seems probable that detachments of the legion garrisoned the
adjacent castella, such as Khirbet el-Fityân, and the numerous
watchtowers of this area. In any case, it seems clear that iegio IV
Martia, like most legions of the limitanei, was smaller than the
standard legions of the Principáte.
The results of the 1976 survey of other sites in this sector of the
frontier suggest that Lejjün was not the only military installation
constructed in the period of Diocletian. The casteilum of Khirbet
el-Fityân already has been discussed above. Qasr Bshir, a casteilum
located ca. 25 kilometers northeast of Lejjün, was constructed in

55
G. Webster, The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D.
(New York, 1969) 182.
56
PA vol. 2, 36.
57
The middle pair of blocks (flanking the via praetoria) consist of only three rows of
18 rooms instead of four; as suggested above, the fourth row once may have been
formed by a portico along the via praetoria. It must be stressed, however, that there
is no extant evidence to support this suggestion.
206

306.5* The large sample of pottery gathered at Bshir dates entirely

within the Late Roman IV to Early Byzantine II periods (ca.
284-392), confirming the date of foundation. From Bshir a line of
three more castella runs northward: Qasj eth-Thuraiya, Khirbet
ez-Zöna, and al-Qastal (see map, fig. 1). On the basis of the ceramic
evidence it appears that at least the first two forts also were founded
in the Late Roman IV period. Further west, on the via nova, the
upper and lower castella of Muhättet el-Hâj in the Wadi Müjib were
also occupied in this period, although they were originally
established by the Nabateans. 59
The existence of many Iron Age and Nabatean wathctowers in this
region provided the Romans with a ready-made observation system.
The survey sampled nine watchtowers in this area; all but two
yielded Late Roman pottery. One tower, Qasr Abu Rukba, ca. 15
kilometers south of Lejjun, seems to have been built in the Late
Roman IV period because this was the date of the earliest pottery
from the site.60 Further, the architectural plan is quite different from
that of the Iron Age watchtowers.61 As one might expect from all this
construction, there was considerable work on the Roman road
system, both in this sector and in the province generally. Milestones
in the sector of the limes east of the Dead Sea are attested from the
years 288, 292-304, 305-306, and 307, primarily along the via
nova.62 The military units which guarded the central sector included,
in addition to IV Martia, two elite cavalry vexillations: the équités
Dalmatae Wyriciani (at Ziza, modern Jiza) and the équités Mauri
lUyriciani(at Areopolis, modern Rabba). 61 The auxiliaof the sector

M
CIL 3.14149.
59
For a summary of the dated pottery from each of these sites, cf. S.T. Parker,
"Preliminary Report", 23-24.
60
Ibid. For the pottery from Rukba, see fig. 9, Sherds 56-62.
61
For a plan of this watchtower, cf. PA vol. 2, 43.
62
P. Thomsen, "Die römischen Meilensteine der Provinzen Syria, Arabia, und
Palestina", ZDPV 40 (1917) 92-93.
63
N.D. Or. 37.16. 17.
 2(17

included three cohorts: cohors octava voluntaria (M Valtha, modern

Wadi Wäla), cohors tertia felix Arabům (in ripa Vade Afaris fìuvii in
castris Arnonensibus, modern Wadi Mujib), and cohors tertia
Alpinorum (described simply as apud Arnona).M
Although the central sector of the Limes Arabicuswas the primary
focus of this buildup, other portions of the frontier also received
attention during the period of the Tetrarchy. In the north, the
castellum of Deir el-Kahf in the Hauran was built in 3Ü6.65 To the
south of Kahf a fort was built at the important oasis of Azraq in this
period.66 The southern sector of the frontier was reorganized into the
Limes Palaestinae, part of the new province of Palaestina Salutaris.
The great legionary camp at Udhruh, near Petra, probably was built
in this period, as its architecture and pottery suggest.67 One scholar
has recently suggested that Udhruh may have been garrisoned
originally by legio VI Ferrata, which had been posted in northern
Palestine since the early 2nd century and may now have moved up to
the newly strengthened frontier in Trans-Jordan. The legion may
have been destroyed or disbanded during the 4th century, which
would explain the absence of both the unit and the post in the
Notifia.™ Farther south, the transfer of legio X Frentensis from
Jerusalem to Aila on the Gulf of Aqaba also must have occured in
this period. This legion was still in Jerusalem as late as 251-254 but
had shifted to Aila by the early 4th century.6"
All told, it appears that two great castra, seven castella and several

64
N.D. Or. 37.33-35. Speidel ("The Roman Army in Arabia", 708-711) suggests
that cohors III Alpinorum and cohors Vili voluntariorum were brought to Arabia
from the Danubian frontier by Aurelian.
65
PAES. III. A. 2, no. 228 (pp. 126-127).
66
IGR 3.1339.
67
S T . Parker. "Preliminary Report", 24.
M
Speidel, "Notes on the Roman Army in Palestine", ZPE forthcoming.
M
D. Barag, "Brick Stamp Impressions of the Legion X Fretensis", Bonner
Jahrbücher 167 (1967) 244-267, notes coins of Aelia Capitolina (249-251) and
Neapolis (251-254) with the legionary insignia (p. 244, n. 1); Eusebius.
Onomasticon, 210. ΊΗ. attests that the legion was at Aila by ca. 325.
2(>X
watchtowers were constructed in this period, and that the bulk of this
work centered on the area east of the Dead Sea. The reasons for this
buildup are not entirely clear. Certainly the disaster of the
Palmyrene invasion and occupation of the province necessitated
some rebuilding; Aurelian probably strengthened the provincial
garrison with cavalry units drawn from the West.70 Diocletian,
however, seems to have gone farther by increasing troop strength,
repairing the road system, and building new fortifications. He also of
course reorganized the command structure: the former ¡egatus
Augusti was replaced by two duces of Arabia and Palestine. There
may have been increasing Arab pressure on the central sector of the
frontier, although the evidence for this is scanty. It is known that
Diocletian conducted a major campaign against the Arabs
("Saracens") in 290, but few details of this operation have
survived.71
Throughout the 4th century the central sector seems to have
remained well fortified, as the evidence of the Notifia, Ammianus
Marcellinus, and ceramic evidence from the forts of the sector
suggests.72 But during the 5th century there are strong indications of
widespread abandonment of the fortifications in this sector. Among
these were the castella of al-Qastal, Qasr eth-Thuraiya, Qasr Bshir,
and Khirbet el-Fityan. Several watchtowers in this area, such as the
two Qasr ez-Za'faran watchtowers, er-Räma, Qasr el-"Al, and Qasr
Abu Rukba were also abandoned during the 5th century. The
legionary camp of Lejjun itself probably was abandoned soon after
500; only three sherds of Late Byzantine date were found in the
sample of over 1,500 sherds. These three sherds were identified as
Late Byzantine I (ca. 491-527) in date. The only military sites of the
central sector that continued to be occupied after ca.500 were the
two castella of Muhättet el-Häj on the via nova and the castellum of
Khirbet ez-Zôna, near the source of the Wadi Wâla. Significantly,

70
Speidel, "The Roman Army in Arabia*'. 724-725.
71
Latin Panegyrics 11.5.4; W. Ensslin, Zur Ostpolitik des Kaisers Diokletians
(Munich, 1942) 27.
72
Ammianus. 14.8.13; N.D. Or. 37; S.T. Parker, "Preliminary Report". 27-28.
 2m
none of the surveyed watchtowers produced any Late Byzantine
(i.e., post ca. 500) pottery; thus all probably were abandoned during
the 5th century.73 The wholesale abandonment of the watchtowers,
which functioned as the "eyes and ears" of the ìtmes, must have
severely weakened the system.
Once again, the reasons for this withdrawal are obscure. But it is
clear that Arab pressures on the frontier had not ended with
Diocletian's campaign. The reign of Valens (364-378) witnessed a
major Saracen invasion under Queen Mavia.74 Jerome mentions
another Saracen incursion in 4 1 1 . " Although some military
construction continued in Arabia after the 4th century, none of it
occured in the central sector, but in the northern region.7A Procopius,
in a famous passage, blames Justinian for the sharp reduction of the
limitaneion the eastern frontier.77 But it now appears on the basis of
the survey evidence that this process was underway, in Arabia at
least, during the 5th century. The disasters of the eastern emperors
along the Danube, beginning with the crushing defeat at Adrianople
in 378, as well as continuing pressure from the Sassanids in
Mesopotamia, may have encouraged the emperors to strip troops
from the Limes Arabiens for service in more threatened areas.
Justinian merely completed this process with the formal turnover of
primary defensive responsibility to the Ghassänid phylarchs early in

73
S T . Parker, "Preliminary Report", 23-24, 28, and fig. 3.
74
Rufinus, HE 2.6; Socrates, HE 4.36.
75
Jerome, Epistle 126.
76
The castella of Qasr el Bä'iq (PAES III. A. 2, no. 21, p. 42) and Umm el-Jimäl
(PAES III. A. 3, no. 237, pp. 136-137) both were built between 411-413 and
probably are related to the invasion mentioned by Jerome. This has been suggested
by G. W. Bowersock, "Limes Arabicus", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology SO
(1976) 219-229. In 1977 Parker supervised soundings within the castellumat Jimal
which confirm the date of the inscription. The latest evidence of military
construction in Arabia is the rebuilding of Qasr el-HalllbSt in 529 (PAESIU..A. 2,
no. 18, pp. 22-23, republished by Speidel, "The Roman Army in Arabia", 706.

Procopius, Secret History. 24. 12ff.

210

the 6th century.71*

Eventual excavation of Lejjun, Udhruh, and other contemporary
sites of the central limes, now planned to commence in 1980, should
increase greatly our knowledge of the Limes Arabicus, the eastern
frontier, and the Late Roman army.7"

78
Wolfgang Liebeschutz, "The Defences of Syria in the Sixth Century", Studien zu
den Militärgrenzen Roms II (Cologne, 1977) 487-499, rightly points out the
abandonment of the Syrian limes south of the Euphrates during the 6th century.
This frontier, marked by the Strata Diocletiana, seems to have undergone a
development comparable to the central Arabian limes.
79
For a recent summary of the history of the Arabian frontier, cf. S. T. Parker,
"Towards a History of the Limes Arabicus", in W. S. Hanson and L. J. F. Keppie,
eds., Roman Frontier Studies 1979 (Oxford, 1980) 865-878.
 '*
.....;
.'

-=
>
;:;::
A
;;:
I.::
'-

>
Z
v

;:;::

r:
'1:-

...-
--.
'>

...;.

Aerial view of the legionary camp of el-Lejjun, 1977, facing

northeast (photo by lames A. Sauer: all rights reserved).
 PLATE XVI

// / ^PHILADELPHIA
JEAICMOÜ l J
CENTRAL
y ^ \ \\ O (USTAL
LIMES
ARABICUS

y Diu. -\ 4*/ Il
γ" ¿>ea. tJ~·;·"" \\
γ ^ ^ Ί *^S^* FA''··. DTHURAIYA

ï^f FITYAN

p^3 | LEJJON
1
1

r^l S
"

y χ "x
]] 9/JURF-ED-DARAUiSH

Legionary camp [3
J /jL DA'JÂNIYA
Auxií.ory fort α

I / Town

R.o*d
O

<======s^
:===
=-===4^^
AIL J Q a™UAB
ff HAMMAM 0 5 10 20 JO ΊΟ »o

Km»

1
Fig. 1
 PLATE XVIII

Fig. 3 Plan of el-Leijün

 PLATE XIX

Fig. 4 Plan of interval tower at Lejjnn

 ■β
r
>
Η
m
χ
χ
Fig. 5 Plan of angle tower at Lejjfln
 PLATE XXI
"Ή
ç SK
€
jU ^
gřQ° o.û^^&^pQ
oT1
0 Í
'P?50^^^
as
C3
*=·
ör>- ο^ΈΒ^Ρ*7 α
 PLATE XXII

a
1

Fig. 7 Plan of Khirbet el-Fityân

 PLATE XXIII

Τ ^li ~Ί "71 I '«

I I > > ·

ϊ 1 Ί 1 1 1

-fl -^ρ> ι "Ί? "F ~"?

Il M IS tt W W

7 7 1 Ί' "Ί

Fig. 8 Pottery sherds from LejjOn

 PLATE XXIV

?
77 "Ti ? 9 - <?
° Ό Ο ο

τ*
! »
1
» V»
^ ~v
« β

7p "^ "^ "*P ~~J/ "^

^
O ° o

il ΊΙ ^ ^ ^fl o

fig. 9 Pottery sherds from Lejjurt (28-37), Fityân (38-55), and Abu
Rukba (56-62)
 USURPERS' COINS: THE CASE OF MAGNENTIUS*
KATHLEEN J. SHELTON / CHICAGO. ILLINOIS

The study of ancient numismatic evidence seems to swing

between two poles. Roman and Byantine coins, from one
perspective, are a medium of official art, and the representations
found on these coins are often analyzed for their iconographie
statements, thought to reflect specific, contemporary, official policy;
The coins are simultaneously, and perhaps more importantly,
money. As such they offer evidence of the functioning of major
institutions within the government, for the production of coin was
one of the charges of ministers of finance with changing titles and
varying responsibilities over the course of centuries. During the
empire, these officials were involved, in part, in the establishment of
monetary policies and with the procedures whereby such policies
were implemented. At the practical level, officials had to insure a
supply of metals to the mints, fix the quantity of metal to be coined,
and decide in what denominations. At some level in the bureaucracy,
officials were also charged with the oversight of the functioning of
individual mints and the introduction of coin into circulation.
Most Roman imperial coins carry on their surfaces inscriptional
references to the then-reigning emperor, the ultimate authority for
the coinage, although in the early empire some measure of minting
authority lay with the Roman Senate. Senatorial or imperial, the
coins with rare exception also carry the emperor's portrait on the
front or obverse side and a scene or figure on the back or reverse.

* A version of this paper was presented at the second Burdick-Vary Symposium on

"The Formation of States in History and Theory," April 1980, sponsored by the
Institute for Research in the Humanities and the School of Law of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Funds for the purchase of study photographs for this project were provided through
a grant from the Hays Research Fund of the American Philosophical Society. The
Graduate Division of the Humanities of the University of Chicago generously met
expenses involved in the publication of photographs that accompany this article.
212
The portraits with their distinctive costumes and insignia, in
combination with the coin legends, often serve to fix the date of a
given specimen. Nevertheless, it is to the representations found on
the reverses of the coins that most attention is paid: the deities,
personifications, actions, and attributes found there, often
associated with imperial figures, are understood as visual
commentary on contemporary affairs, and these commentaries are
analyzed (at times overzealously) by historians, art historians, and
numismatists for the evidence they might add to the historical
record.
Our literary sources give little or clouded evidence for the
ill-understood question of who in the populace could or would
contemplate trie pictures and inscriptions on the coins. Back at the
court, however, coins viewed from the perspective of the emperor
and his ministers seem relatively clear in their testimony. From the
early empire, with little variation, the awarding of honorific titles,
entry into specific offices, adoptions into the imperial family,
associations of children or colleagues in positions of power, military
victories, annexations of provinces, and similar events are recorded
in the coinage. The achievements are sometimes fictive but, even
when fabricated, allow some sense of the emperor, the empire, as it
might or should be. In order that these changing offices, events, and
aspirations be recorded, new coin types were continually created.
The actual execution of a new type was carried out by the engravers
and manual laborers who formed the core of any individual working
mint. The origin of a type as a concept — perhaps even the
perception that there should be a new type — apparently lay quite
near the emperor, in his inner circle of ministers. The translation of
the concept into a visual image seems also to have occurred in the
imperial court. As early as the Julio-Claudian period, the evidence of
coins from multiple mints suggests that legends and reverse types
were being sent out from a central authority in Rome with only
minor modifications made on the part of mint procurators in the
provinces.1 For many decades after the Julio-Claudians, imperial

1
C.H.V. Sutherland, "The Personality of the Mints under the Julio-Claudian
Emperors," AJP68--( 1947) 56-63. Chief sources for the institution of the Roman
mint are K. Pink's researches "Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung," printed
 213
coinage issued primarily from the city of Rome, and therefore few
questions arise concerning the transmission of types to distant
locates. The chain for the creation of a new type, however, from the
imperial court through the/a finance minister to the head of the/a
mint to the engravers in individual workshops seems to have
remained relatively constant.
During the later empire, when multiple mints in the provinces
were again used, observations of regional styles and local fabrics are
possible, but a strong sense remains of firm instructions sent out from
the imperial court(s). It is a savage simplification, but the
generalization applies that the later, the more centralized the
financial structure of the empire. For the Late Antique period, a
great deal can be known or reasonably hypothesized concerning the
workings of the imperial mints and treasuries. But it is also a time
when traditions of singular, specific, topical imagery appear to be
changing radically» For this paper, I focus on the mid-fourth century,
at which time two centralized financial systems, relatively closely
coordinated with one another, divided the empire into two units,
each with multiple mints. That in the West was centered in the court
of the emperor Constans and that in the East, centered in the court of
his brother Constantius II. In order to explore both the technical,
bureaucratic processes that result in the production of coins and ffte
actual images carried on their surfaces, I have chosen to investigate,
to isolate, the problems that arise within this centralized system
when a usurper declares for the throne. What follows suggests
something of the nature of ancient usurpation and of the changing
aspects of imperial imagery in the Late Antique.

in successive issues of the Numismatische Zeitschrift for the years 1933 through
1936; idem. The Triumviri Monetales and the Structure of the Coinage of the
Roman Republic (Numismatic Studies, 7; New York, American Numismatic
Society 1952). Also, H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, 2nd ed.. rev. (London 1960)
130-31. Discussion of the later empire is provided by A. H. M. Jones, The Later
Roman Empire, 284-602,3 vols. (Oxford 1964) 1:411 -37. C.H.V. Sutherland, RIC
6: From Diocletian's Reform (AD 294) to the Death of Maximinus (AD 313)
(London 1967) 105-107; P. Bruun, RIC 1: Constantine and Licinitts (London
1966) 13-21 ; also J. P. C. Kent, "Excursus: The Comes Sacrarum Largitionüm, "in
E. C Dodd, Byzantine Silver Sfa/nps(Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 7; Washington. D.
C . Dumbarton Oaks 1961) 35-45.
214
In the winter of AD 350, Flavius Magnus Magnentius, a prominent
military official, the comes rei m Hi taris for Gaul under the emperor
Constaras, was acknowledged and proclaimed Augustus by his troops
and by the local population in and about the Gallic city of
Augustodunum, modern day Autun. From the first, it is obvious that
Magnentius moved in league with powerful supporters and fellow
office holders from within the administration of the western emperor
whose rule they openly challenged.2 Even the ceremonial occasion of
Magnentius' assumption of the purple on the 18th of January 350
was provided by a banquet given by one Marcellinus, a high ranking
financial minister, the comes rei privatae in the court of the emperor
Constans. Within weeks, this same Marcellinus was Magnentius'
Master of Offices. One Fabius Titianus, consul for the year 337,
prefect of the city of Rome from 339 to 341, and Constans'
praetorian prefect for Gaul in the years preceding the revolt,
supported Magnentius as well. Titianus took the office of urban
prefect for the second time in his career in 350 and, along with
others, defended the hopes of the Magnentian party in the city of
Rome against subsequent usurpers. 3
Magnentius himself had risen to power in the West through
military service during the reign of the emperor Constantine and the
joint rule of Constantine's sons. The year 350 found Magnentius at
the head of the two elite palatine legions of the West with specific
association with the western emperor and therefore with the
imperial court or comitatirs of Constans. Upon learning of
Magnentius' revolt, Constans fled south only to encounter cavalry
loyal to Magnentius headed by Gaiso, Magnentius' magister
militum, who had Constans executed. The revolt was thus begun and

2
Magnentius is briefly mentioned in atl the major surveys of the later empire. For
more specific reference see W. Ensslin, s.v. "Magnentius," RE 14' (1928) 445-52
with citations of our primary sources for the revolt. A fine historical sketch prefaces
P. Bastien, Le monnayage de Magnence (350-353), (Numismatique Romaine, 1 ;
Wetteren 1964) 7ff.
3
For chief actors associated with the revolt, see PLRE, s.v. "Anicetus" 1,
"Aurelius Celsinus" 4, "Oodkis Celsinus" 6, "Magnus Decentius" 3, "Gaiso."
"Magnentius," "MarceHit>us" 8, 9, "Nunechius," "Cettus Probatus," "L. Aradius
Valerius Proculus" 11.
 215
the assassination committed of the western emperor, brother of the
powerful eastern emperor Constantius II.
This brief sketch of the beginnings of the revolt not only supplies
specific details of the early career of Magnentius but, possibly more
important for our present purposes, also suggests their place in a
relatively elaborate institutional framework that was Magnentius'
court, apparently in position from the first days of the uprising. Most
students with a basic knowledge of Roman imperial history know to
associate revolts and usurpations of the throne—whether successful
or unsuccessful — with rebellious generals and armies. But two
legions, however elite, must be supplemented by additional troops.
Operations, jurisdictions, normally associated with civil authorities
must be maintained. And armies must be clothed, fed, and, perhaps
most critically, paid. This is hardly news to historians, but it is at this
juncture that art historians and more generally defined students of
material culture often lack a logical and clearly articulated model
that might explain the steps in the historical development between
open rebellion and those artifacts of institutional existence that
follow in its wake. For the successful usurpers, there are triumphal
arches, great public buildings, and statues. And for both successful
and many unsuccessful challengers, there are coins.
This is certainly the case for Magnentius who, although ultimately
unsuccessful, held the field against two rival usurpers and against the
eastern emperor Constantius II for three and one-half years.
Magnentius' coins appear to begin almost simultaneously with his
declaration in the winter of 350 and to run continuously (although
not in all mints at all times) to his suicide in the summer of 353.
Magnentius is not celebrated in extant public monuments; the
handful of inscriptions which refer to him appear to do so
incidentally; he figures briefly in contemporary and later historical
writings. But his coins survive in relatively large numbers. Their
legends and some details of their representations allow a fairly
nuanced chronology to be built up, and students of his coinage are
able to chart the growth and shrinkage of his domains as various
mints begin or cease to strike in his name. As such, the numismatic
evidence serves to complement the extant written record.
Fundamental questions remain, however. Chief among them:
How does a usurper strike coins and what messages does such a
216
coinage carry? There are brief-lived usurpers who figure in the
written record but who never issue coin. There appears to be a
hierarchy of those who do and those who do not; perhaps, those who
can and those who cannot. The coin fabrics and mint marks of
Magnentian coinage are precisely those of the official imperial mints
that predate the revoit. There is no hypothesis of an itinerant band of
engravers, die-sinkers, die-placers, and hammerers, traveling the
western empire, in search of furnaces and sites in which to set up
mints for the usurper. The mint marks of Magnentian coinage match
in detail those used in the years before the revolt, even to indications
of individual shops within a single mint. Magnentius, therefore, or
his deputies in his stead, are working within the established
institutional structures of the imperial mints and, in some cases such
as Trier, Lyons, and Aries, issue coin in his name within the month of
his proclamation at Autun. How is this possible?
The fundamental research on the coinage of Magnentius is that of
the French numismatist, Pierre Bastien.4 Organized by mint and by
successive periods of issue-within each mint, the coinage is ordered
and abundantly illustrated. Bastien charts the metrology, the
apparent monetary systems, the chronology of the mints, and the
division of labor among workshops at single mints. Following the
standards of modern numismatic scholarship, Bastien catalogues the
over five hundred separate coin types known for Magnentius and
thus prepares the ground for all future research. Reverse types are
succinctly described in a catalogue and enumerated in chronological
order in the text. Bastien briefly discusses portrait types and
contributes the observation that the earliest coins of Magnentius
carry inscriptions that celebrate the usurper but do so above portraits
that strongly resemble the likenesses of the deposed and recently
deceased emperor Constans. 5 Bastien's chief concern is a proper
catalogue for the coinage by mint and by date, and he therefore
adopts a simple explanation for the questions raised by these coins.
When Magnentius' portraits become more Magnentian, Bastien
concludes that the usurper, or the usurper's portrait, must have made

4
Bastien, Magnetice, with references to previous scholarship.
5
Ibid. 45-46
 217
a tour of the mint cities.
The evidence of these early portraits, with Constans' features but
Magnentius* inscriptions, is arresting and worthy of note. The coins
clearly suggest that orders are being issued and obeyed without
requiring Magnentius' presence at the mints, despite the desire of
historians and numismatists to see the usurper making for Trier
immediately after Autun in order to confiscate the imperial treasury
located there. As to the nature of Magnentius' actions in Trier, if he
then actually was in Trier, Magnentius is consistently described as
"occupying the mint." The phrase unquestionably implies a military
takeover. But there is evidence which suggests a relatively peaceful
transition and therefore encourages an alternate conception of the
relations that existed between the mint officials and Magnentius. If
heads rolled, they were not the heads of the engravers whose work
can be seen both before and after the so-called occupation of any one
mint. Nor were they the heads of the chiefs of the workshops,
officials signed by the workshop tags incorporated into the various
mint marks.
Any changes of officials must have occurred at higher levels, and
even our limited knowledge of the identities of the supporters of
Magnentius allows a hypothesis of a peaceful origin for the usurper's
coinage. In the persons of Marcellinus and Fabius Titianus are
represented two of the three chief financial officials of the western
empire at the mid-fourth century. To complete the triad, in addition
to Marcellinus, the comes rei privatae, and Titianus, the praetorian
prefect, we seek the conies sacrarum largitionum, the official
charged with oversight of the imperial mints and treasuries.
Unfortunately, no name is attested for that position in the West after
the year 349 and before the year 355, precisely the years in
question." That the office nevertheless existed in some form during
those years and in Magnentius' court is strongly suggested by the
essential uniformity of types witnessed in Magnentian coinage from
the six important mints under his control (first Trier, Lyons, Aries;
soon after, Aquileia, Amiens, and Rome). It is through the office of

ή
See PLREl, 1064. After AD 355, Constantius Ilunited the halves of the empire
under a single comes sacrarum largitionum: sec "Vrsutas" L
218
the comes sacrarum largitionum that orders that result in such
uniformity would be relayed to the procurators of the separate mints.
Whether Constans' comes became Magnentius' comes or whether he
held a different high office in Magnentius' administration (as did
Marcellinus and Titianus) cannot be known. What is known is that
major mints and imperial treasuries in Gaul and Italy were
controlled by Magnentius within a few months of his proclamation.
The defection of Constans' comes largitionum, or perhaps other
highly placed officers from within that same financial system, would
explain the easy opening of those mints and treasuries to the usurper
through the cooperation of the local procurators who were, after all,
the subordinates of the comes: This, in turn, would explain the clear
continuity of fabric, style, and imagery that we see in the production
of any one mint in the years before, during, and after the revolt.
Types once struck for the deposed emperor and for his brother
Constantius II continued to be struck in the West during the revolt,
then by Magnentius, both for himself and for Constantius II, from
whom he hoped to gain official recognition. To be sure, a few new
types were introduced as well, types that called up the ideal of
Libertas, for example, a numismatic statement appropriate for a
usurper who, like previous usurpers, styled himself a just successor
to a tyrant. 7 But even the few new types in their broader context
show Magnentian coin imagery to be conciliatory, while always
personally flattering, and best understood as rooted in the
numismatic traditions of the immediately preceding and contem­
porary rulers from the house of Constantine. An investigation
focussing on those types thought to record, to proclaim, the specific
events of Magnentius' revolt show them in fact to do otherwise.
Magnentius, although a usurper, struck coin from existing imperial
mints, worked within bureaucratic and technical structures within
these institutions that antecede his revolt, and issued coins which
carried images that spoke of his legitimacy, of his integration into an
established imperial system. To demonstrate this, some coins,
specifically those thought to carry the particular imagery of his
usurpation, should be examined.

7
See W. Kellner, Libertas und Christogram (Karlsruhe 1968).
 219
The first and perhaps most important coin type under
consideration is found on large gold multiples, each equivalent to
three solidi, weighing approximately a half ounce (13.42 fo 13.54
gm".} and measuring 1 J/8 inches (3.5~cm.) in diameter (figs. 1 and 2}.
For many years, this coin type was known only from a single
specimen housed in the Cabinet des Médailles of the Bibliothèque
Nationale. It was stolen in the great theft of 1831 and presumably
melted down; in the years since the theft, it has been studied from a
cast of the original coin. The apparent rarity of this specimen,
highlighted by its somewhat romantic end, had the effect of
relegating the coin, in a sense, apart from normal issues, as though it
were a limited, commemorative medallion. The rarity, however, was
abruptly shown to be false by the chance discovery of several
additional, nearly identical pieces found in 1956 in the Yugoslavian
town of Ljubljana, ancient Emona. 8 As is the case with many
accidental finds in modern times, the excavation was conducted by
steam shovel. The find at Ljubljana was further complicated by
numerous mishaps, snarled bureaucracy, and petty theft. The
sequence of events is the stuff of black comedy but for the unpleasant
truth that a cache of over twenty gold multiples — probably all of
them fourth century, possibly most of them Magnentian — is now
known through only thirteen surviving coins scattered in various
public and private collections.
Of the thirteen, twelve are gold coins of Ivlagnentius. The
thirteenth is a triple solidus of Constans minted at Thessalonica with
a familiar type struck in celebration of Constans' decennatia in

8
For the find, see A. Jetočnik, "Le trésor ď Emona," RN6 ser., 9 (1967) 209-35.
For brief descriptions of individual pieces, see W. E. Metcalf, Age ofSpirituality,zd.
K. Weitzmann (New York 1979) no. 4 1 ; J. M. Fagerlie, "Roman and Byzantine
Medallions in the Collection of the American Numismatic Society", ANSMN
15(1969) 77-91, no. 36; P. Franke Römische Kaiserporträts im Münzbild, ed. P.
Franke and M. Hirmer (Munich 1972) no. 51 ; Β. Overbeck in Die römische Münze,
ed. J. P. C. Kent, Β. Overbeck, and A. Stylow (Munich 1973) no. 689; J.P.C. Kent,
Roman Coins (New York 1978) no. 669. For the multiple formerly in the
Bibliothèque Nationale, see J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Medallions (Numismatic
Studies, 5; New York, American Numismatic Society 1944) 187, pi. 24. 9; arso F.
Gnecchi, / medaglioni romani, 3 vols. (Milan 1912) I, Magnentius no. 1.
220
342/343." It is the earliest of the known coins in the hoard. A
possible fourteenth gold coin, a double solidus of the Caesar
Constantius Gallus, surfaced in 1958 with an appropriately Slavic:
provenance. If it is to be associated with the Ljubljana find, this gold
piece would suggest a closing date of 354 for the treasure as it is
presently constituted.'" Of the remaining twelve gold pieces, two are
double solidi, ten are triples, all are Magnentiaiv, and all are from the
imperial mint at Aquileia. Further, the ten triple solidi all carry the
same coin type and legend on the reverse (fig. 2), while their obverse
portraits and legends differ from one another in significant respects.
The consistent reverse type is a match for the now lost piece from the
Cabinet des Médailles, and the ten triple solidi taken together and
carefully analyzed suggest that the type, far from being rare, may
have been relatively common.
The reverse type depicts the emperor on horseback moving to the
right, his mount at a slow trot. He is dressed in a long-sleeved tunic
with a decorative circular badge on his right shoulder. He wears soft
shoes and a cloak which blows behind him, fastened on his right with
a circular fibula. His head is nimbed, and his right arm is represented
as extended from the elbow, his hand open in a simple gesture of
witness or recognition. He does not hold the reins of his horse which
are shown draped over the mane. The -emperor's mount carries a
saddle cloth and elaborate parade decorations across the chest and
buttocks. Before thisgrand horse and rider, a female figure bows and
gestures with her right palm open, trailing a swag of drapery. u She
does not stand upright, nor does she kneel, although in one of the
dies attested in the Ljubljana hoard, her legs are slightly
differentiated and the figure thus appears to be in the process of

* Jelocnik, ** Emona." no. I, pi. 35.1. The piece is now in the national museum in
Ljubljana.
'* Ibid., 213, η. 2. The solidus of Gallus was struck at the imperial mint at A n t ioch ; it
is now held by the national museum m Belgrade. Jetocmk does not regard this coin
as part of the treasure, suggesting a dat« in the fall of 352 for the burial of the hoard;
for his argument, 226ÍÍ.
1
' Kent, Roman Coins, no. 669, wonders if she "presents the emperor with a
?scroll." In all ten. plus Paris, the object is clearly a fold of drapery.
 221
12
genuflecting. The posture is visually awkward but rhetorically
explicit: the figure is paying homage to the equestrian emperor. She
wears a sleeveless tunic, girdled beneath the breasts with an overfold
at the hip. Her skirt flies behind her and her mantle billows up over
her shoulders, both details indicative of rapid forward motion (as is
the emperor's fluttering cloak). She wears bracelets on both arms, a
turreted crown on her head, and carries a cornucopia with sheaves of
grain in the crook of her left arm.
Both figures are identified and their relationship — or rather her
gratitude — explained by the legend that circles the coin reverse and
names Magnentius as the LIBERATOR REI PVBLICAE.He is the
bringer of a new order or the restorer of an older and better one and
receives the homage of Respublica in thanks. This is the classic type
of the adven tus of an emperor without the military attendants and
Victory figures that are sometimes represented. u He is here
welcomed by the personification of Respublica or the Empire, the
State, a personification of ever increasing importance in the imagery
of the later empire. Due in part to the easy recognition of the
adventus motif and to an erroneous, if unexpressed, expectation of
an individual geographical personification in the role of the figure
who welcomes the emperor, several numismatists identify the
turreted female as the Tyche or personification of the city of
Aquileia.14 This particular identification is in fact deduced from the
mint mark below the groundline of the scene. But in the exergue we
read S[acra] M[oneta] AQfuUeiensis], a phrase which refers not t o
the image but to the mint at Aquileia and specifically to the sourceof
the gold for this coin strike from the bullion reserves of the imperial

12
Jeločnik, "Emona." no. 12, pi. 36.5, now in the Ljubljana national museum.
" G . Koeppel, "Profectio und Adventus," BonnJbb 169 (1969) 130-94 with
extensive citation of previous literature. More recently (and more generally), O.
Nussbaum, "Geleit." RAC 9 (1976) 908-1048, esp. 968ff.
14
Jelocnik, "Enrona," 220-2 i, 224-25 ; also Bastien, Magnence. p. 11 and no. 303 ;
Metcalf, Age of Spirituality, no. 4 1 ; and Overbeck, Römische Münze, no. 689.
(Kent, Roman Coins, no. 669, Franke, Kaiserporträts, no. 51, and Toynbee,
Roman Medallions, p. 187, identify Respublica although no argumentation is given
by the three.)
2^2
comitatus.** The acronym below the image is far from a label for the
female figure; it is, in one sense, the mark of the comes largitionum.
To be sure, city personifications are known in the late empire, but
they are characteristically labeled (e.g. SISCIA, KARTHAGO) in
the legends on the coins. Further, these legends are independent of
the mint marks which may be carried in the exergues of the same
strikes (e.g. SIS, K).1* The most famous adventus from the period,
that of the equestrian Constantius Chloros, shows htm approaching a
kneeling figure clearly labeled LONfdinium], while the coin perse is
identified by its mint mark to be the product of the imperial mint at
Trier, PfercussaJ TR[everorumJ (fig. 3). An identification of
Aquiteia for the female figure on the Magnentian gold multiples
derives from an anachronistic association of fourth century coins
with second century adventus types. (It should be pointed out,
however, that even in the second century adventus coins, the
geographical personifications are also consistently labeled.17) In
clear contrast, the coin type adventusot the late empire seldom has a
specified goal and seems, instead, to become a triumphal procession
of equestrian emperor, sometimes alone or with an assortment of
soldiers, Victory figures, and captives. Destinations, when sought in
the scholarly literature, are infamously difficult to fix. Webb,
attempting to sort out the many adventus scenes of the third century
emperor Probus, concluded with some frustration that they occur
"so frequently and in so many mints, that it is difficult to consider
[the adventus typel as always referring to a particular visit of the

15
Sutherland. RIC 6, 90-92, 299. This usage appears related to the late fouth
century mark COMfitatus] OB[ryzttmJ% see J. P. C. Kent, "Gold Coinage in the
Later Roman Empire," Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly
(Oxford J 956) 190-204, esp. 202-204.
16
See K. J. Shelton. "Imperial Tyehes," Gesta 18 (Î979) 32-33, with notes for
further reference.
17
One thinks first of the Hadrtanic series; see J. M. C. Toynbee, Tne Hadrianic
School (Cambridge 1934) 24-140, with references to associated second century
types.
 223
,K
emperor" and, we might add, to a particular place.
The failure to recognize the personification of Respub/ica in the
Magnentian multiples and the related anachronistic reference to
types that might be associated with specific historical events is, in
part, a reflection of the importance of second century coinage in
fixing the modern definition of the nature of Roman coins and the
visual language of their imagery. Whether Mattingly, in his
enthusiasm, was prudent to recommend the study of Roman coins as
"official bulletins" issued by the government, the ideal of specificity
implicit in such a view cannot survive the test of the late coinage.19
And an eye trained on the coinage of the earlier empire easily misses
the rise of new, albeit generic imagery such as Respubtica and her
sisters.
Students of Magnentian coinage have a particular interest in
establishing the triple solidus type as the allegorical rendering of the
adventus or entry of Magnentius into the city of Aquileia. The event«
following the proclamation of January 350 are not known with
precision. Trier, Lyon, and Aries began to strike for Magnentius
almost immediately; by the end of February, Gaul, Spain, Britain,
and Italy were in his camp; and the triple solidus when read as a
singular adven tus would allow numismatists to place Magnentius at a
specific site in late February/early March of the same year. Aquileia,

18
P. H. Webb, RIC 5: Valerian to the Reform of Diocletian, 2 vols. (London
1927-33), 5', 19. See R. Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art (New Haven
1963) 173ff for discussion of transformations in late advenius iconography; and S.
MacCormack, "Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of
Adventus," Historia 21 (1972) 721-52. Also K. G. Holum and G. Vikan, "The
Trier Ivory, Adventus Ceremonial, and the Relics of Saint Stephen," f>OPapers33
(1979) 113-35; 1 thank these authors for allowing me to see their article in
typescript.
19
H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, 140. For sharp debate on the utility of mrmismafic
studies for historians, see A. H. M. Jones "Numismatics and History," in Essays in
Roman Coinage (supra n. 15), 13-33; response by C. H. V. Sutherland, "The
Intelligibility of Roman Imperial Coin Types," JRS 49 (1959) 46-55, also his
address as president of the Royal Numismatic Society, 21 June 1951, in ProcRNS
1950-51, 6-19, in reply to a paper delivered by H. Last. Mattingly did perceive
changes in the late coins but simply characterized them as savage and boastful,
Roman Coins, 223ff.
224

near the border between Italy and lllyricum, was Magnentius* base
of operations for some time. If was from Aojwileia that he marched to
meet Constantius II and back to Aquileia that he retreated after the
severe check of the battle of Mursa (28 September 351). M But the
imagery of the triple solidus does not depict Magnentius' entry into
the city. Stressing the image as a record of a single historical event
unfortunately allows the more important contribution of the coin
type to pass without sufficient emphasis. The mint mark, referring as
it does to the presence of Magnentius* treasury in Aquileia, can most
probably be taken to indicate the presence of his traveling court in
that north Italian city as well, white it simultaneously releases the
coin image from too restrictive a reading.11
The scene of Magnentius receiving the homage of Empire was
struck not once, as an adventm interpretation might imply, but
several times in the course of his brief imperial career. The ten solidi
from Ljubljana (plus Paris) carry two distinct portrait types of
Magnentius and two different legends. In combination, these four
variables — two portraits, two legends — produce three separate
obverse types that can be securely assigned to the first three years of
his rule, possibly indicating a role for this coin type as an annual issue
from the imperial treasury. The portrait type for the year 350 (fig. 1)
shows a profile bust of Magnentius wearing a cuirass and a
paludamentum fastened with a jeweled fibula; he is hailed
IMPferatorJ CAES[ar} MAGNENTIVS A VG[mtusJ. The type for
the year 351 clearly indicates the office of consul ordinarios that
Magnentius held that year, representing him in elaborately
ornamented consular robes; his legend then names him Dfominus]
NfosterJ MAGfnus] MAGNENTIVS P[ms] Ffeh'xJ AVGfustus].
This more elaborate legend is continued for the portrait type for the
year 352 which returns to the conventional military bust first seen in

70
Bastici!, Magnence, 11 ff.
21
The triple solidus is actually preceded by a single solidus type struck at Aquileia
bearing the mint mark SM A Qand the múltiple is therefore not the earliest evidence
for Magnentius' presence (or, rather, the presence of his court) in the city. Other
mints (Trier. Lyons. Aries, and Rome) strike gold for Magnentius. but none sign
with the mark SM.
 225
22
the type for 350.
Careful analysis of visual details in these representations indicates
that at least five different dies were used in the execution of the
obverse portraits of Magnentius on the extant triple solidi.
Differences between any two dies for the reverse equestrian scene
are far less subtle. (Compare figs. 2 and 4.) Figures are larger or
smaller relative to the circular surface of the coin which remains
invariable; the emperor sometimes rides a stallion (fig. 2),
sometimes a mare (fig. 4); horses' tails arch or droop; manes are
braided or loose; and the cloaks, skirts, and mantles of the human
figures billow more or less vigorously. From the seven triple solidi
available for comparison, seven separate reverse dies can be
deduced. Roman coin dies are not inherently fragile objects, with
single die pairs capable of striking thousands of coins.23 (Although
when speaking of gold coinage, perhaps the treasury rather than the
dies set the limits.) The gold multiples in question, therefore,
represent a major issue of Magnentius which continued over a three
year period. The triple solidus is, in fact, the heaviest gold coin issued
by Magnentius' mints24 and as such should be understood as a coin
distributed, probably through pay, to the highest ranks of his civilian
and military office holders.
This-image of the emperor and his grateful empire has no parallel
in the single solidus pieces of Magnentius, nor in his silver or bronze.
This apparent hierarchy of image and metal is a familiar aspect of
late coinage. Another type, however, seen in bronze medallions of
Magnentius, ' pieces for honorific presentation not commercial
circulation, does allow the observation of another, related
iconographie statement. The bronze medallions were struck in
Rome in the early months of 350 with obverse portraits showing

22
Jelocnik, "Emona," the year 350: nos. 2-8, pis. 35.2-4, 36.1. The year 351: no.
10, pi. 36.3 The year 352: nos. 12,13, pi. 36.5. The Cabinet des Médailles multiple
was a type for the year 350.
23
See D. Sellwood, "Minting," Roman Crafts, ed. D. Strong and D. Brown
(London 1976) 62-73.
24
Only one other triple solidus type of Magnentius is known, struck to mark fhe
elevation of his brother Decentius as Caesar: Bastien, Magnence, no. 36.
226
either Magnenttus or Constantius II. This medallion type, along with
contemporary coin strikes, thus documents an early stage in the
revolt when Magnentius hoped to win official recognition of his
position as western ruler from the eastern emperor. Although
surviving pieces are badly worn, their reverse type shows an^
enthroned emperor (read either Magnentius or Constantius) seated,
wearing civilian dress, holding a scroll in his left hand, and attended
by two female figures (fig. 5). The figure to the right in helmet,
Amazonian tunic with right breast bared, wearing boots and carrying
a staff, extends her right arm behind the emperor in a gesture that
speaks of support andencouragement. To his right, a female figure in
a 4ong tunic and a *urreted crown approaches, bowing from the hip,
left foot forward, half walking, half kneeling. She wears a mantle that
billows away from her back and holds a loop of it forward to catch
coins given her hy the seated emperor.
On the medallions, a barely legible inscription identifies the scene
as a LARGITIOor largesse. The figure at the right might be Roma
or Virtus — although personified Virtus is rare by the mid-fourth
century. The figure at the left (but the emperor's right and that is an
important distinction) must be Respubiica. Some scholars,
accustomed to pairs of Roma and Constantinopolis in this time
period, identify the bowing, genuflecting figure as the personifica­
tion of the «astern capital.2S Pairs of Roma and Constantinopolis
enthroned as equals are in fact important types in the coinage of
Constantius H.26 But the equality stressed by Constantius is all the
more reason to understand that the explicit statement of inequality
found on the Magnentian medallion, issued in the names of both
eastern and western rulers with no small interest in conciliating the
two parties, represents somethings distinct: a rote that was shared by
them both. The bronze medallions celebrate the Augusti as the

25
Ibid-, no. 448. Gnecchi, MedaglioniII: Constantius II no. 10; Magnentius nos. 2,
3; Overbeck, Römische Münze, no. 673. AU three authors read Constantinopolis.
Kent, Roman Coins no. 670, considers both Constantinopolis and Respubiica,
although he decides for Constantinopolis.
26
See J. M. C. Toynbee, "Roma and Constantinopolis in Late Antique Art from
312 t o 365," JRS 37 (1947) 135-44.
 227

generous benefactors of the personified empire. To read the

Magnentian scene of largesse as a patronizing statement in which the
superior western ruler and western capital aid the humbled eastern
capital is to forget the joint nature of the coin strike, to see pointed,
rather risky political statements in the usurper's coinage, and
therefore to interpret coin propaganda running absolutely counter to
the diplomatic missions we know Magnentius to have sponsored in
the early months of his revolt, the date of these bronze medallions.
This parallel coinage of Magnentius and Constantius is better
appreciated and integrated into a broader context when a sol idus
type of Constantius II is considered (fig. 6). Dating from roughly the
same period, Constantius' coin was issued from the imperial mint at
Antioch. Struck in at least two workshops of that mint, the type is
clearly a variation of the type seen in the Magnentian gold multiples
from Aquileia.27 (Compare figs. 2, 4, and 6.) Constantius wears a
diadem, where Magnentius is nimbed; Magnentius gestures, while
Constantius holds his reins; RespubUca greets Magnentius with a
cornucopia and Constantius with a torch. Saluted GLORIA REI
PVBLICAE, Constantius is represented, as is Magnentius, as the
worthy recipient of the gratitude of the empire. Questions of relative
chronology — Which is first, Magnentius' type or Constantius' type?
— cannot be answered, for while Magnentius' issue dates of 350,
351, and 352 are known, precise dates for Constantius' strikes are
not. And questions of relative chronology are potentially
misleading: they imply a competitive war of coin types, perhaps
appropriate^ for Renaissance medals but of questionable relevance
for Roman imperial coins.
It seems far more important to understand both types as testifying
to the same broad definition of who and what the Roman emperor
was or should be in the mid-fourth century: a military figure with

27
Kent, Roman Coins, no. 684. The British Museum specimen is an issue of officina
I of the Antioch mint (SMANI). An example published by Jelocnik was struck in
officina Β: "Emona," pi. 37.6. Overbeck, Römische Münze, no. 689, understands
the type to refer to a specific adventusof Constantius II into Antioch. In addition to
the arguments given above with regard to the RespubUca of the Magnentian
multiple, the established type of the Tyche of Antioch would argue against this
identification.
22.K

charge and beneficent care for the cities and peoples of the empire.
Within that definition is a concept of the empire as a unit potentially
expressible within the language of the Greco-Roman visual arts by a
single personification which these coin types render as Respublica.
She is clearly related to Tyche figures or city personifications as her
turreted crown makes apparent. In the refined language of coin
types, in which complex scenes and allegories are most commonly
reduced to unequivocal two-figure compositions, Respublica for
both Magnentius and Constantius may, in fact, stand for
differentiated groups of city personifications such as those which
crowd the lowest register of the south face of the base of the
triumphal column of Arcadius of the early fifth century AD (fig. 7).
This scene, recorded in the sixteenth century sepia drawings of the
Freshfield codex, is peopled with city personifications who stand,
process, and rush symmetrically towards the center, carrying
torches, paterae, and crowns.214 The figures, clothed in garments and
turreted crowns like those of Respublica (or is the relationship the
reverse?), there pay homage to the emperors Arcadius and
Honorius. An immediate association between monumental
sculptural programs and coin types should not be inferred. Rather,
the visual linkages between the multiple city personifications and the
singular Respublica, plus the fixed relationship of homage to the
imperial figure common to them both, serve to locate Respublica in a
relatively elaborate Late Antique symbol system of governors and
governed.
One of the difficulties that results in the misreadingsof Respublica
in the coinage of both Magnentius and Constantius is her relatively
recent emergence within imperial imagery in the Late Antique
period. To be sure, the concept, both juridical and rhetorical, was
well established long before, but the appearance of the personified
image is late. For the modern observer, her arrival is perhaps further
complicated by numerous other, contemporary shifts in official
iconography, many of which mark the demise of familiar, relatively

2S
S. R. Zwirn in Aire of Spirituality (supra n. 8), no. 68. For more complete
illustration, sec E. H. Freshfield. '"Notes on a Vellum Album," Archeologia 72
(1922) 87-104. pis. 15-23.
 229
specific symbols rather than the rise of new and more generalized
images that will characterize many Late Antique and early
Byzantine programs. Similar simple attributes of costume and
turreted crown and comparable deferential attitudes towards the
imperial person suggest an association between Respubiica and an
earlier imperial personification of Orbis Terrarwn.2" The probable
connection of the two offers a perspective whereby the rise of
Respubiica can be more clearly grasped and the genesis of a late
imperial type better appreciated. The visual links are relatively
obvious, although the chronology and development of the Orbis
Terrarum types must be followed with some care. Both Respubiica
and Orbis Terrarum have their origins in the imagery of city
goddesses, but their interrelations may be more complex. First seen
in the coins of the first century emperor Vespasian, Orbis Terrarum
reappears in Hadrianic coinage where the emperor is shown in the
act of pulling the kneeling personification to her feet. The coin is
dedicated by the Senate to Hadrian as the RESTITVTORI ORBIS
W
TERRAR VM. In the context of first and second century coinage,
such a broad reference is unusual, although the type of the emperor
as the restorer of specific provinces and single cities is a
commonplace of the time.31 Legends that style the emperor as the
RECTOR ORBIS are employed by the Seveřan emperors, 32 but
while the resti tutor type continues, Orbis Terrarum ceases after

29
J. M. C. Toynbee, "Britannia on Roman Coins of the Second Century A.D.,** JRS
14 (1924) 154.
30
H. Mattingly and E. A. Sydenham, RIC2: Vespasian to Hadrian (London 1926).
Vespasian nos. 116(?), 317, 318, 324, 327, 334, 338,343, 350, 356 (?). Hadrian
nos. 594, 603.
31
For Hadrian as restitutor see Toynbee, Hadrianic School, 24-140 passim; an
earlier Augustan type is discussed by C. C. Vermeule, "Un aureo augusteo del
magistrato monetale Cossus Lentulus," Numismatica n.s. 1 (1960) 5-11. See also
A. Alföldi, "Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen
Kaiserhofe,** repr. in Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche
(Darmstadt 1970) 52-53; Brilliant, Gesture and Rank, passim (indexed under
"restitution-restoration*').
32
Most easily referenced through the index of legends, H. Mattingly and E. A,
Sydenham, RIC4*: Perfinax to Gera (London 1936).
230
Hadrian to appear as the recipient of this imperial effort. Nearly one
hundred and forty years after the Hadriantc types, Orbis Terrarum,
now simplified to Orbis, returns to the coinage as before, shown
"being restored by the emperor (fig. 8). The issues in gold, base silveF
{bilion) and brass were common during the mid-third century joint
rule of Valerian and GaHienus.33
The mechanics of such a revival are unclear, although the
persistence of a general restitutor type during the intervening years
does simplify the inquiry. The hiatus between even the Seveřan
Orbis legends and images of Valerian, however, is over forty years,
interestingly, the revived Valerian legends celebrating the
RESTITVTOR ORBIS have a certain independence from the
restitutor image as such and are found linked with reverse types of
the^mperor standing, seated, or sacrificing at an altar.34 The gradual
disassociation of coin types and legends is a characteristic of the late
coinage, and emperors following Valerian are styled RESTITVTOR
ORBIS {and PACATOR ORBIS) while depicted simply standing
alone, receiving palms from Victory figures, accepting globes from
the gods Mars, Jupiter, and Sol Helios, or standing amidst barbarian
captives. And an early fourth century coin salutes Constantine as
RECTOR TOTIVS ORBIS with a type of the emperor seated,
holding a ring inscribed with zodiacal symbols.35 It is a variant on a
then familiar legend and simultaneously a verbal-visual pun on orbis.
One of the types new to the late empire, associated with the
RESTITVTOR ORBIS legend, stands out for its consistency and
the sheer frequency with which it is struck throughout the late third
century. It is a simple scene in which the emperor, dressed in military
costume, stands to the right while a conventionally garbed female
figure approaches from the left, proffering a wreath. 36 The familiar
33
Webb, RIC5\ Valerian nos. 50, H6-18,149,171;GaiUenus(jointrule)nos.91,
164, 165, 234-36.
34
Ibid., Valerian nos. 119, 172; Salonina no. 83.
35
Again, most easily referenced through the indices of legends: Webb, R/C5 1 and
2
5 ; Sutherland, RIC6, and Bruun, R1C7. The coin of Constantine with zodiacal
ring, RtC 7, Ticinum no. 54.
36
Webb, RIC5\ Aurelia« nos. 53, 139, 287-306, 347, 348, 386, 389, 403. Idem.
RIC52. Probos nos. 731-36. 925; Carus nos. 106, 107.
 231
legend suggests an identification of the female figure as Orbis, but in
a time of wandering legends perhaps caution is appropriate when
faced with a new coin type. The image is also noteworthy for it is the
last time that Orbis (if it is Orbis) appears in the coinage. And it is in
clearly related scenes of figures offering wreaths that we encounter
Respublica in the early fouth century.
There is one step of some importance, however, prior to the
Constantinian material. Bronze medallions struck during the one
year reign of the emperor Tacitus (275-76) allow a hypothesis of
further connections between Orbis and Respublica (fig. 9 ) . " The
medallions bear the legend RESTITVT[or] REIPVBL1CAE and
represent the emperor pulling a kneeling female figure to her feet. It
is the first appearance of the phrase Respublica in a coin legend and
it is here firmly associated with a turreted figure whose mantle even
has the good grace to billow. Struck fifteen years after the last
restitutor type with Orbis (fig. 8), the medallion seems to signal a
transition. Taken together, the two demonstrate that both figures —
Orbis and Respublica — were conceived with identical attributes
and understood as equivalent beneficiaries of imperial actions. The
heroic achievements of the emperors are measured quite clearly by
the enormity of the institutions and concepts restored.
The phrasé Respublica begins to figure in the coin legends with
increasing frequency from the late third century on. It is possible that
the personified Respublica appears unnamed on a gold coin of
Maxentius where a turreted figure crouches in obeisance between
the figures of Mars and the emperor.*8 Far more important is her
securely attested appearance in coins of Constantine and his sons.
Respublica is represented in that coinage in numerous contexts. She

"Gnecchi, Medaglioni U, Tacitus no. 7, Toynbee, Roman Medallions, 163.

* Sutherland, R / C 6 , Ostia no. 6. The legend, VICTOR OMNIVM GENTIVM
A[ustus] NfosterJ reflects a sentiment appropriately vast. M. R. Alföldi, Die
Constantinische Goldprägung (Mainz 1963) no. 661. The classic reference on
proskynesis is A. Alföldi, "Zeremoniells." esp. 8 ff, 46 ff. 59ff. See H. Stern
"Remarks on the 'Adorario' under Diocletian," JWarb 17 (1954) 184-89, for a
differing view of the chronology of developments in court ceremony.
232
receives a statuette of Victory from the personified Seeuritas.™ In
company with Pax she offers the emperor a wreath and Victory
statuette.4« On bronze medallions inscribed RESTITVTOR
REIP{ubJieae], Constantine repeats an old theme and raises up the
kneeling Empire. 41 And on gold multiples, the emperor, crowned by
Victory and seated on a military trophy, receives the homage of
Respubtica (fig. 10). She approaches the emperor with mantle
billowing behind her and, bowing from the hip, offers a Victory
statuette. The emperor and perhaps a military victory are saluted
SALVS ETSPES REIPVBLICAE/2
At the mid-fouth century, Respublica is an established figure in
the coinage as these strikes and numerous others would indicate.
While the third century bronze medallions of Tacitus mark her first
appearance, the devek>pment of the image takes place primarily
within Constantinian coinage. In addition, it seems significant that at
the mid-century Respublica is one of only a handful of
personifications that survive the radical changes of Diocletian in the
late third century and, following a period of relaxation in the early

w
Bruun, RIC7, Trier no. 2. The type has an interesting history briefly summarized
by Overbeek, Römische Münze, no. 635, although his closing argument is followed
with difficulty.
40
Bruun RIC7, Trier nos. 16, 17, 889-91 ; Ticinum nos. 29,59; Nicomedia nos. 66,
67; Sirmium nos. 44, 45.
41
ibid., Rome no. 297,. In a clearly related type (Sirmium no. 46), struck by
Constantine before his victory over Licinius at Chrysopolis, the emperor raises upa
kneeling turreted female in the presence of a Roman soldier. The figure is most
likely Respublica; the coin legend is a general one, PERPETVA FELICITAS. A
similar image, dating after Chrysopolis, shows the emperor raising a turreted female
in the presence of Roma/V/rrus and a Victory figure; the legend, PIETAS
AVGVSTI NOSTRI. Bruun identifies the second, slightly later, turreted figure as
Byzantion (p. 592, Nicomedia no. 69). Toynbee ("Roma and Constantinopolis,"
137 n. 18) and M. Alfökli (Goldprägung, nos. 295, 296) identify Constantinopolis;
A. Alföldi {"On the Foundation of Constan tinopole: A few Notes," JRS37 (1947)
12 n. 16) suggests a "symbol for any city of the Empire." Considering the date of the
issue. AD 324-25, relative to activities at the site of the future Constantinople, A.
Alfökii's reading seems best and is easily harmonized with Respublica.
42
Bruun, R1C1, Constantinople no. 43; Heraclea no. 99. M. Alföldi, Goldprägung,
nos. 435, 436.
 233
fourth century, an apparent second redefinition or refinement of
coin types that begins in the period of Constantine's sole rule.41
Respublica's company is limited. After 324, we meet only Roma,
Constantinopolis, Victoria, and Securitas. Occasional strikes record
victories over Francia, Sarmatia, and Alemannia, while traditional
values of Salus and Spes are called up in coin legends but are now
apparently represented with the images of living empresses. Even
among the few surviving personifications, Respublica is distinct.
Unlike figures such as Victoria and Securitas, Respublica has no
independent image or existence: she is always defined as a visual
type in fixed relation to an emperor and that relationship is one of
deference if not dependence.
The gold multiples and bronze medallions of Magnentius (figs. 2,
4, and 5) are thus easily understood to participate in a development
firmly associated with the house of Constantine. Magnentius does
not humble Constan ti nopolis with the blessings of Roma; he offers
largesse to the citizens of the realm in both his name and that of
Constantius II (fig. 5). He does not polemically proclaim the
capitulation of a single city to the cause of his revolt; he celebrates a
larger role of a legitimate ruler charged with the protection of the
empire (figs. 2 and 4). To be sure, the Magnentian equestrian type
introduces a variation on the theme, but the essential relationship of
emperor and grateful Respublica remains unchanged. The evidence
of the solidus of Constantius II (fig. 6) might even be interpreted to
suggest that the equestrian image is perhaps Constantinian, shared
by Magnentius. The equestrian type goes on to be repeated in the
coinage of Valentinian I and Valens (fig. II), 4 4 and the image of
Respublica genuflecting before a standing emperor is a prominent

43
For the Diocletianic reform types, see C. H. V. Sutherland, "Flexibility in the
'Reformed' Coinage of Diocletian," Essays in Roman Coinage (supra n. 15)
174-89. The Constantinian shift is most commonly discussed in relation to the
elimination of pagan divinities from the coins; see, for example, P. Bruun, "The
Disappearance of Sol from the Coins of Constantine." Arctos. n.s. 2 (1962) 15-37.
44
The types are known through barbarian copies. See Kent, Roman Coins, no. 707;
Overbeck, Römische Münze, no. 712; H. von Heintze, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte.
2: Das römische Weltreich, ed. T. Kraus (Berlin 1967) no. 389d; J. W. E. Pearce.
RIC9: Valentinian I to Theodosius /(London 1951) Antioch nos. 37, 38.
234
type for both the house of Valentinian and the house of
Theodosius. 45 In this context, the modest Magnentian type of
Victoria and Libertas sounds an independent note, although fhe
Libertas type itself has a fourth century reference in ConstantineV
coinage in the years following that successful ruler's triumph over
Maxentius/* Even so, the type is isolated within the corpus of
Magnentian coinage, which seems more Constantinian than
specifically Magnentian.
From comparisons with strikes of Constans and Constantius II, a
sense develops of the close relattonship of Magnentian issues to
existing types, close in date and clearly still in circulation.
Magnentius, although or perhaps because he is a usurper,
consistently represents himself, his deeds, and the allegories of his
rule in the very same imagery employed by the princes of the house
of Constantine. Large numbers of his coins, like theirs, celebrate a
double vota suscepta (VOT[aJ V MVLftaJ X) undertaken at the
beginning of his reign and do so with the familiar formulae of
confronted Victories and inscribed shields. Single Victory figures,
popular motifs for generations if not centuries, appear in his coinage.
By far the vast majority of his coin images, like those of every other
fourth century ruler, are military, with types representing the
emperor spearing barbarians from a galloping horse, dragging
captives by the hair, standing on, or kicking seated prisoners. In
tamer scenes, he stands amidst seated captives or stands alone in
military gear, displaying spears, standards, trophies, globes,
scepters, and that attribute of a specifically Christian victory, the
tabarum. Magnentius was in fact an illustrious general with claims of
victories against barbarians that could have thus been appropriately
celebrated. The iconographie types, however, are all of them
conventions that precede him and can each be matched at earlier

45
Indexed in Pearce, RIC 9, under REPARATIO REIPVB[Iicae] and
RESTrrVTOR REIPVBLICAE.
*" VICTORIA AVGfusti] UBfertasJ ROMANORfumJ:Vietoria and Libertas
holding a trophy between them. For the type, Bastien, Magnetice 45-46. and his
catalogue, passim. For the Constantinian reference, see Kellner, Libertas: Kellner
interprets Magnentius* Libertas as an ideal of religious freedom. The perspective
seems more modern than Roman.
 235
dates with strikes for Constans, Constantius II, Constantine II, and
before them Constantine the Great. 47
In August of 350, eight months after his revolt began, Magnentius
ceased to strike coin for Constantius II in the mints under his control,
and the type of Constantius, victor over the Persians, was not issued
from western mints until the revolt was ended and the empire
reunited.48 This action of Magnentius is understood as an outward
sign of the end of his diplomatic efforts to win recognition for his rule
in the West.49 Magnentius' own coinage, however, continued for
three more years, issuing from the same imperial mints, carrying the
same legends and the same coin types. The individual office holders
who staffed his court had nearly all of them changed many times, and
most had died in the prolonged struggle. But the offices per se
remained. The institutions of the mints, once open to the usurper,
continued to strike in his name, although the coins grew lighter as the
campaign dragged on and the treasuries were depleted. The coin
imagery, firmly fixed in the imagery of the house of Constantine,
persisted unchanged. They are, to be sure, the coins of a usurper, but
they speak with a voice and in a visual language at once familiar and
authoritative in the mid-fourth century.

47
The types are followed in Bruun, RIC7 and R. A. G. Carson, P. V. Hill and J. P.
C. Kent, Late Roman Bronze Coinage (London I960).
48
For Constantius' type, see K. Kraft, "Die Taten der Kaiser Constans und
Constantius II," JfNG 9 (1958) 141-86.
Bastien, Magnence, 15-16, 56-57.
 K. SH LTO , Usurpers' oin PLATE XXV

Fig. 1. Triple solidus of Magnentius (obverse). Struck at Aquileia,

AD 350.

Fig. 2. Triple S lidus of Magn ntiu (reverse of coin in fig. 1).

 P L A T E XXVI

Fig. 3. Gold medallion of Constantius Chlorus (reverse). Struck at

Trier, A D 296.

Fig. 4. Triple solidus of Magnentius (reverse). Struck at Aquilcia,

A D 350.
(Courtesy American Numismatic Society, New York.)
 P L A T E XXVII

Fig. 5. Bronze medallion (reverse). Struck at Rome, A D 350, by

Magnentius for Constantius II.

Fig. 6. Solidus of Constantius II (reverse). Struck at Antioch,

mid-fourth century.
 PLATE XXVIII

K^¡fe^SfaoÍ0o5dá5aa^

¥ —ι·" -JM.

Fig. 7. South face, column base of Arcadius. Constantinople, early

fifth century. Drawing from Freshfield codex. (Courtesy
Trinity College, Cambridge.)
 P L A T E XXIX

Fig. 8. Sestertius of Gallienus (reverse). Struck at R o m e , ca. A D

260.

Fig. 9. Bronze medallion of Tacitus (reverse). Struck at R o m e , A D

275. (Courtesy Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothèque
Nationale, Paris.)
 PLATEXXX

^ y £ ^
ig. IO. Gold multiple of Constantine I (reverse). Struck at
Heraclea, ca. A D 324. (Courtesy Bundessamiung von
Münzen und Medaillen, Kunsthistorisches Museum,
Vienna.)

Fig. 11. Barbarian gold medallion (reverse) after an issue of

Valentinian I and Valens. Original apparently struck at
Antioch, ca. A D 370.
T H E U N P U B L I S H E D SAINT'S LIFE O F T H E E M P R E S S
IRENE
(BHG 2205)

WARREN T. TREADGOLD / STANFORD. CAL.

The claim of the Empress Irene (780-802) to be regarded as a

saint has always been somewhat shaky. It rests almost entirety on her
part in condemning iconoclasm by calling the Second Council of
Nicaea in 787, and on the favor she showed during her reign to
iconophiles, especially to monks. On the other hand, her political
ruthlessness in deposing and blinding her son Constantine VI, the
legitimate ruler and also an iconophile, shocked even her partisans at
the time, and has clouded her memory ever since. Irene's dubious
sanctity is doubtless the reason for her being commemorated only
briefly and fitfully in synaxaria, and by only one known saint's life,
which survives in only one manuscript.1 This text, entitled Life of the
Holy Empress Irene the Athenian, is preserved with seven other
texts of a hagiographical character in Vaticanus Graecus 2014, a
manuscript apparently of the mid-twelfth century.2 The Life has
never been published or even analyzed, and it has only infrequently
been mentioned by modern scholars. In a recent review, Francois
Halkin has criticized Paul Speck for neglecting it in his otherwise

1
See Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca III {Brussels, 1957), 38, no. 2205, and
references. This article, a shorter form of which was presented as a communication
at the Fourteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies at Birmingham, England
in April 1980, was written with the support of a Research Fellowship from the
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. I would like to thank Professor Ihor
Sevîfenko for looking over my translation of the last portion of the Life of Irene and
professor A. R. Littlewood for looking over both text and translation; of course they
bear no responsibility for any errors.
2
This is the dating suggested to me by Professor Sevccnko. In the BHG François
Halkin dates it to the eleventh century, while Gervais Dumeige, Nicaea /J^Pariis,
1979). 262, dates it to the thirteenth. On its contents, see Analecta Botlandiana 21
(1902), 146.
23S
comprehensive study of the reign of Constantine VI.'
There are few periods of Byzantine history for which a new source
would seem to be so wefcome as for the reign of Irene.Apart from
this Ü/Ye, practically the only early source for the whole reign is the
Chronographia of Theophanes Confessor. The Life of St. Philaretus
the Almsgiver, the Acta of the Second Council of Nicaea, a few
letters of Theodore of Studium, and a handful of very minor sources
provide only a little more information about contemporary political
history; the later Byzantine chronicles are derived from
Theophanes. 4 This unique biography of the reigning sovereign,
comprising twenty-seven manuscript pages, would therefore appear
to rival Theophanes as a source of great importance.
In fact, however, neglect of the Life of Irene is not a serious defect
in Professor Speck's book. The first twenty-four pages of the Life'¿tre
derived from Theophanes and the Life of Philaretus, so that only the
last three pages can be considered as an independent historical
source. The bulk of the Life of frenéis a close paraphrase of the parts
of Theophanes' chronicle that mention Irene. The parts of
Theophanes that do not mention Irene are usually omitted. The Life
also omits one event discreditable to Irene, her advising Constantine
VI to blind Alexius Muselé, but apparently Irene's own blinding of
Constantine was too well known to be suppressed, because the Life
includes it. When Irene's name appears in Theophanes* text, the Life
sometimes adds an epithet like "famous" or "pious", or an
explanatory phrase like "who is the subject of our work".
Occasionally the Life has put a sentence or two of Theophanes into a
different order for no apparent reason. It also omits nearly all the
dates given by Theophanes, though it generally includes his
subsequent phrase "in this year", leaving the erroneous impression
that the events of many years occurred in one. Otherwise
Theophanes' text is practically transcribed.
Comparing the beginning of the Life with its corresponding
passage in Theophanes (the first in which Irene is mentioned) is

' Analects Boltandiana 97 (1979), 2 0 1 .

4
On Irene's reign and the other sources for it. see Paul Speck. Kaiser Konstantin VI
(Munich. 1978).
 239

sufficient t o show the relationship between the two. After the title,
the redactor of the L/fedoes not provide any preface o r introduction,
or even a d a t e , but begins abruptly, "In those times Irene c a m e frora
Athens to the imperial city"; to find out what times " t h o s e " were,
one must consult T h e o p h a n e s . T h e texts are as follows.

Theophanes, A.M. 6261, ed. Carl

Vat. Gr. 2014, fol. 123r, lines 1-8. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), 444. 15-25.
Έ ν τοις καιροϊς έκείνοις Τη δε α' τοΰ Νοεμβρίου μηνός
είσηλθεν Ειρήνη έξ 'Αθηνών της η ' ίνδικτιώνος είσηλθεν
έν τη βασιλευούση πόλει. Ειρήνη έξ 'Αθηνών έλθοΰσα α π ό
Κ<χί του πατριάρχου Νικήτα της Ίερείας έν τη βασιλευούση
έλθόντος έν τω παλατίω έν τη πόλει... Και τη γ' τοΰ αύτοΰ
εκκλησία τοΰ Φάρου έγένετο Νοεμβρίου μηνός τοΰ πατριάρχου
τα προς την αυτήν Είρήνην έλθόντος έν τω παλατύρ έν τη
τοΰ βασιλέως Λέοντος σπόνσα· εκκλησία τοΰ Φάρου έγένετο τα
καΐ μετ' ολίγας ημέρας προς τήν αυτήν Είρήνην τοΰ
έστέφθη έν τω τρικλινίω τοΰ βασιλέως Λέοντος σπόνζα · και
Αύγουστέως, και απελθούσα τη ιζ' τοΰ Δεκεμβρίου μηνός
έν τω εύκτηρίω τοΰ αγίου έστέφθη έν τώ τρικλινίω τοΰ
πρωτομάρτυρος Στε(ράνου έν τη Αύγουστέως ή βασίλισσα Ειρήνη,
Δάφνη έλαβε τα τοΰ γάμου και απελθούσα έν τω εύκτηρίφ
στέφανα συν τω υίω τοΰ αγίου Στεφάνου έν τη
Κωνσταντίνου τοΰ Καβαλλίνου Δάφνη έλαβε τα τοΰ γάμου
Λέοντι τω βασιλεΐ. στέφανα συν τω τοΰ Κωνσταντίνου
υίω Λέοντι τω βασιλεΐ.

H e r e the redactor has not added a single piece of significant

information that is not in Theophanes, though he has inserted the
n a m e of the Patriarch Nicetas from other portions of T h e o p h a n e s '
chronicle.
This passage is fairly typical of the method of paraphrasing used in
the Life. T h e following table of passages in the Life that are
paraphrased from T h e o p h a n e s shows how t h e m e t h o d was applied.
T h e table d o e s not n o t e the few cases in which the redactor
transposed a sentence or two within a passage.
240

Life of Irene (Vat. Gr. 20Î4) Theopbanes (ed. de Boor)

fol. !23r. 1-8 A.M. 6261, 444. 15-25
123r. 8-10 A.M. 6262, 445. 12-14
123r. 10-123V.6 A.M. 6267, 448. 12-28
123v.6-124v.2 A.M. 6268, 449. 11-450. 23
124V.2-9 A.M. 6272, 453. 4-10
124V.9-16 A.M. 6272, 453. 25-30
I24v. 17-23 A.M. 6273, 454. 6-12
124v. 23-125r. 11 A.M. 6273, 455. 8-17
125r. 11-19 A.M. 6274, 455. 19-25
125r. 19-125V. 4 A.M. 6276, 457. 6-11
125v. 4-126r. 7 A.M. 6276, 457. 13-458. 6
126r. 7-127v. 19 A.M. 6277, 458. 10-460. 17
127v. 20-128r. 12 A.M. 6277, 460. 23-461. 6
128r. 12-128V. 8 A.M. 6278, 461. 12-462. 3
128v. 8-12 A.M. 6279, 462. 18-22
128v. 12-129r. 5 A.M. 6280, 462. 27-463. 13
129r. 6-9, 12-16, <for 9-12, A.M. 6281, 463. 21-28
see below)
129r. 16-130r. 3 A.M. 6282, 464. 10-465. 11
130r. 3-130v. 10 A.M. 6283, 466. 10-467. 6
130v. 10-14 A.M. 6284, 467. 17-21
130v. 14-16 A.M. 6284, 467. 27-28
130v. 16-131r. 6 A.M. 6284, 468. 7-21
13Ir. 7-11 A.M. 6287, 469. 23-26
131r. 11-13 A.M. 6287, 470. 1-3
131r. 13-131V. 6 A.M. 6288, 470. 10-21
131v. 6-15 A.M. 6289, 471. 8-18
131v. 16-132V. 8 A.M. 6289, 471. 20-472. 22
132v. 8-12 A.M. 6291, 474. 6-11
132v. 12-15 A.M. 6293, 475. 15-18
132v. 15-133r. 21 A.M. 6295, 476. 4-29
133r. 21-134V. 19 A.M. 6295, 477. 11-479. 4
134v. 19-22 ! A.M. 6295, 480. 3-6
134v. 22-135r. 6 A.M. 6295, 479. 4-10
135v. 6-7 A.M. 6295, 479. 9-10
136r. 6-7 A.M. 6295, 480. 6-7
 241
Thus every passage in the Life as far as Î 3 5 recto, line 6 has a parallel
in Theophanes.
These close parallels make the text of the Life of Irene a secondary
witness to the text of Theophanes. In most cases, however,
differences between the two texts seem likely to be the result of the
redactor's paraphrasing and not of a variant in his manuscript of the
Chronographia. In some other cases, it is difficult to be sure whether
a difference is due to paraphrasing or to a variant. On the whole,
however, the Life seems to have been based on a manuscript of
Theophanes with very few corruptions. At folio I23v. 9, for
example, corresponding to Theophanes 449. 13-14, they Life
confirms de Boor's conjecture of τους èv τέλει for the τους εν τχ\
πόλει which is the reading of all surviving manuscripts of
Theophanes. Here the Life and de Boor are surely right, since
Anastasius Bibliothecarius' early translation of Theophanes has
optimates. At folio 126r. 16, the Life describes Tarasius, before he
became Patriarch of Constantinople, as πρωταδσικρήτην, though de
Boor's text (458. 17-18) reads simply άσηκρήτην. Other
manuscripts of Theophanes have άδσικρήτην or άσηκρήτην, and
Anastasius has a secretis. Here the Life's reading appears preferable,
because α' άδσικρήτην (=πρ*οταδσικρήτην) is more likely to have
been corrupted into άδσικρήτην than the reverse, while, as Paul
Lemerle has noted, the Life of St. Tarasius Clearly implies that
Tarasius had been protasecretis, head of the imperial chancery, and
not merely one of the imperial secretaries. 5 Though I have not found
any other variants of much interest, some might appear from a more
thorough study of the Life and a complete edition, which could
determine the archetype's exact place in the stemma of manuscripts
of Theophanes. 6
5
Le premier humanisme byzantin (Paris, 1971), 129 and n. 76. On the office of
protasecretis, see N.Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe
siècles (Paris, 1972), 310-11.
6
Also perhaps worth noting is 134r.4-5, where the L/fereadsf|Yo{Htaio^XXrptT«>g<i
και έκοοατην and our manuscripts of Theophanes (478.5) read simply ηγούμαι.
Since this is a speech by Irene, the Lifewas probably following its archetype closely,
and the extra three words probably go back to Theophanes. For another witness to
the text of Theophanes not used by de Boor, see Nigel Wilson, "A Manuscript of
Theophanes at Oxford," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972), 357-60.
242
The o n e passage in which the Life has added informations rom the
Life of Philaretus concerns Constantino VI's marriage to Maria of
Amnia in 788. Here the redactor has both reworked and
interpolated T h e o p h a n e s ' text.
Vat. Gr. 2014, 129r. 6-12 Theophanes, A.M. 6281, 463. 21-24
Τούτω τφ ετει λύσασα ή Λύσασα οέ ή βασίλισσα Ειρήνη
fkioíXtocxx Ειρήνη την προς την προς τους Φράγγους
τους Φράγγους συναλλαγήν συναλλαγήν απέλυσε Θεοφάνην
απέλυσε θεοφάνην τον τον πρωτοσπαθάριον, και
πρωτοσπαθάριον, και ήγαγε ήγαγε κόρην εκ των Άρμενιάκων
κόρην έκ της των Παφλαγόνων ονόματι Μαρίαν από Άμνίας,
επαρχίας από χωρίου Άμνείας και εζευξεν αυτήν Κωνσταντίνω
ονόματι Motoíav, ης ó πάππος τω βασιλεϊ καί υίω αυτής...
έκαλεΐτο Φιλάρετος, όστις
καί ελεήμων υπήρχε καθ' ύπερβολήν · και ταύτης προσαχθήσης τη
βασιλίδι ¿δών το πεοίον -(περί δν cod.) αύτη κάλλος της τε ψυχής
καί του σώματος εζευξεν αυτήν Κωνσταντίνω τφ βασιλεϊ (τω) καί
υίω αυτής...
The passage in the Life may be translated, " I n this year, having
abrogated the treaty with the Franks, the Empress Irene sent out
T h e o p h a n e s t h e Protospatharius, and he brought a girl from the
Province of the Paphlagonians, from the village of Amneia, Maria by
name, whose grandfather was named Philaretus, a man who was also
exceedingly charitable; and when she was brought to the imperial
city, seeing -her surpassing beauty of both soul and body, he
(Theophanes] married her to Constantine, t h e e m p e r o r and her
[Irene's] son..." Evidently t h e redactor of the Life misunderstood
T h e o p h a n e s ' text at this point, because in the Chronographie Irene
must b e the one who married Maria t o C o n s t a n t i n e , while in the Life
it is T h e o p h a n e s the Protospatharius, to whom the masculine
participle ίΟών must refer.
The facts that the redactor has added to T h e o p h a n e s ' account are
that A m n i a ( o r Amneia, a spelling also found in some manuscripts of
Theophanes) was located in the T h e m e of Paphlagonia, that Maria
was the granddaughter of Philaretus the Almsgiver, and that she was
chosen t o b e Constantine's wife because of her moral and physical
beauty. T h e second and third facts could conceivably have been
learned from hearsay, which was probably the source of a scholion in
 243

one manuscript of Theophanes that calls Maria *'The daughter (sic)

of Philaretus, celebrated for his almsgiving."7 But no such error in
the Life of Irene betrays an oral source, and the fact that the obscure
village of Amnia was in Paphlagonia does not seem likely to have
been recorded in another place than the Life of Philaretus." Without
this information, the redactor would naturally have assumed that
Amnia, which had been in the Armeniac Theme when Theophanes
wrote before 815, was still a part of it, though between 815 and 826
Paphlagonia had been detached from the Armeniacs (not, as has
often been said, from the Bucellarians) and made a separate theme. 9
The Life of Irene was evidently written after Paphlagonia became a
theme and after the Life of Philaretus was composed in 821/822.'"
This brings us to the part of the Life of Irene that apparently has no
parallels elsewhere. It begins after a paraphrase of Theophanes'
account of how the Emperor Nicephorus I, who had just overthrown
Irene, first broke his promise to allow her to live in Constantinople
and exiled her to a convent that she had founded on the island of
Prinkipo, and then changed the place of her exile to Lesbos. The
following text and translation retain the folio and line numbers of the
manuscript. Abbreviations are expanded and orthographic errors
corrected without mention in the apparatus unless they might
possibly affect the maning or the form of the words.

7
του Φιλάρετου θυγάτριον του επί ελεημοσύνης περιβόητου. Theophanes, ed. de
Boor, apparatus to 463.23.
8
On the location of Amnia, see M. -H. Fourmy and M. Leroy, "La vie de Saint
Philarète," Byzantion 9 (1934), 135.
9
See Treadgold, "Notes on the Numbers and Organization of the Ninth-Century
Byzantine Army," Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 21 (1980) 286-87.
10
On the date of the Life of Philaretus. see Fourmy and Leroy (cited n. 8). 96.
244

Vat. Or. 2044, fois. Î35r. 6-136r. 23

Τ
Ω της -βίας. 'Ω της αντιμισθίας. ΤΩ ποία άντιποί/ων άνταπέδωκεν
αύτη ó επίορκος και δολερός βασιλεύς.
/Μελλούσης δε άπαίρειν προς την έξορίαν της άοιδίμου εν
βασι/λεύσιν Ειρήνης, κράξασα την Άβραμιαίαν και πανεύφημον
{10] του θεού άνθρωπον την και πρωτίστη ν ύπάρχουσαν των
ευλαβέστατων /εκείνων γυναικών, ούτωσί ελεγεν · «Δέξαι τουτονί
τον οίκίσκον, /ω φίλη μήτηρ, τού σού τιμίου σώματος καί τών συν
σοι μελλόντων ά/ποτάσσεσθαι τώ κοσμώ σμικρότατον καταγώ-
γιον. Δέξαι τούτον /τον οίκίσκον έμοΰ τε καί πολλών έσόμενον
Ιλαστήριον εί γαρ {15] καί ξένον προκέκλησαι καί οχήμα καί
όνομα, αλλ' οιδας τους /εγχώριους ψυχωφελώς ύποδέχεσθαι.
Δέξαι της εμής βακτη/ρίας το ποίμνιον - ράβδος γαρ ταύτην ού
πημανεΐ της συν/τρίψεως. Συ της έμης μάνδρας γενού
προεξάρχουσα · παν /ευ οιδα ύπείκει σοι πειθηνίως το ποίμνιον ■
οίδα τών έμών /θρεμμάτων την επί τα κρείττω έπίδοσιν.
Έκθρεψον ταύτα [20] καί όδήγησον έπί πηγήν αναπαύσεως, καί
επί τόπον χλόης /κατάσκιον. Συ λοιπόν καί έπαύξησον καί
όδήγησον καί είς την {135ν] άνω μάνδραν συν τούτω είσέλασον
από γαρ τού νύν ούχ εξ«ις με /σαρκικώς σοι προσμένουσαν · έξεις
δε με πνευματικώς συμποιμαίνου/σαν.» Ταύτα προς αυτήν
έξειπούσα τα ρήματα καί πάντα /τα της μονής εύθυβόλως
διασκέψασα πράγματα, προς τήν της {5] εξορίας όδόν ήπείγετο
(λέγω δή της Λέσβου νήσου) σύν πολλώ /πλήθει καί οιμωγή
οακρύων, μάλιστα προστάξαντος τού άσε/βούς άνακτος τού παρά
τίνος μή όρασθαι το σύνολον.
Νύν /καιρός ευπρόσδεκτος μετά τού πνευματοφόρου Δαυίδ
ειπείν · /«'Εγγύς κύριος τοις συντετριμμένοις τή καρδία, καί τους
ταπεινούς {10] τω πνεύματι σώσει.» Καί πάλιν· «'Εγγύς κύριος
τοις έπικαλουμένοις /αυτόν εν άληθεία · θέλημα τών φοβούμενων
αυτόν ποιήσει· /και της δεήσεωςαυτών είσακούσεται, καί σώσει
αυτούς.» Καί / π ά λ ι ν «Ένεδρεύσωμεν τον δίκαιον, οτι
δύσχρηστος ήμϊν εστί /καί βαρύς,» φησίν, «καί βλεπόμενος.»
«Μακάριος γάρ,» φησίν, «δς υπομένει [15] πειρασμόν.»
Έπεί όέ τήν είς Χριστον έπόθει άνάλυσιν καί τήν /της φθοράς
έκροήν μεταθέασθαι, προς άφθαρσίαν δι' άθανα/σίας κατέσ-
πευδεν. Προσκαλεσαμένη τους συνόντας αυτή, /τοιαύτα πως, καί
 245
τ« έσχατα πνέουσα, ώς εκ πνει>ματος εφασκεν- /«'Εγώ μέν, ω
σεμνή νεωλαία και της έμής φοιτείας κατάκαρπα [20] κλήματα,
των ανθρωπίνων, ώς ή της θείας προνοίας ροπή /ταλαντειτει. το
χρέος τετέλευκα· και της φθαρτής ζωής το έπίκηρον /
ύπεξέρχομαι. "Αραντες ούν το λείψανόν μου, άπόθεσθε αυτό
f 136r] εν τω ναω της πανάγνου θεοτόκου εν τω εύωνύμω μέρει έν
τω /σήκω του άγιου Νικολάου έν τή θεοφυλάκτω νήσω της
Πριγκίπου, /έν τή μονή ην αυτή εξ επιπόνου και οδυνηράς μου
καρδίας ωκο/δόμησα.» Ταύτα τά ευκταία ρήματα προς τους
έκείσε έξειπούσα [5] τάς της ψνχτ\ς ήνίας έν χερσί τού σοφώς
κυβερνώντος τα σύμπαντα /έναπέθετο θεού, μήνι Αύγουστω θ '
ίνδικτίωνος ta' ετει στια' έν τή εξορία /της Αέσβου νήσου.
Πάσης δε τιμής επιταφίου το θεοείκελον εκείνο /σώμα προς της
θείας απόλαυσαν όμηγύρεως προπεμπεται /μετά της ένθένδε
ψαλμικής ύπηχήσεως προς την έκεΐ μετ' ήχου [10} καθαρού τών
έορταζόντων κατοίκησιν- και άποτίθεται το τίψιιον /αυτής και
άγίον λείψανον έν τή θεοφυλάκτω της Πριγκίπου νήσω έξ
εύ/ωνύμου μέρους τού πανσέπτου ναοΰ της θεομήτορος έν
καινοτάτω /λάρνακι, ένθα το ιερόν εκείνο συναθροιζόμενον
πόίμνισν / κατ' έτος της θείας μνήμης αυτής ύμνολογικώς
έπιθειάζεται [15] το εύφρόσυνον, και ταύτην πρεσβευτήν και
φύλακα και στηριγμον /ασφαλή και κραταίωμα κέκτηται. Αύτη
ούν τήν εαυτής ποί/μνην έρείδουσα και στηρίζουσα πάσης τηρεί
διαβολικής επήρειας /άλώβητον· ταύτη τειχιζομένη πασαν
έπικειμένην παρά/ταξιν δαιμονικήν άπεκρούεται· ταύτην και
προς τήν ούρανίαν [20] βασιλείαν προπέμψασα, δι' αυτής
αναμένει και τήν έκεΐ κατασκή/νωσιν έν Χριστώ Ιησού τω κυρύυ
ημών, ω πρέπει συν τω παντοκράτορι /πατρί και τω ζωοποιω
πνεύματι δόξα, κράτος, τιμή και προσκύνησις, νυν και άεί /και εις
τους αιώνας τών αιώνων. 'Αμήν.

,.,, _ ,, .«.Λ - . 135ν. 4. διασκιτψασα cod.

I35r. 7. αυτή cod. οολερως cod.
17. ποιμανει cod. Α-7. fùaefk>0ç cod.
19. τ''7τήκνι cod. 21. επίκριρον cod.
24<>
I3<>r. 2 χ ο ι κ κ ί π ο ν CXKJ.

3. ή αΐ'τη cod.

1 I. π ρ ι γ γ ί π ο υ cod.

Translation

[135r. 6] What violence! What a requital! Returning such things

did the perjured and treacherous Emperor repay her!
When the illustrious Empress Irene was about to depart into exile,
calling upon the Abraham-like and all-praiseworthy woman of God
who was the first of those most pious women, she spoke thus:
"Receive this little house, dear mother, the most humble abode of
your own worthy body and of those who intend to take leave of the
world together with you. Receive this little house, which will be my
place of propitiation and that of many; for even though you have
been called [here] as a foreigner in both appearance and name, still
you know how to receive natives to profit their souls. Receive the
flock of my staff; for the rod of destruction will not afflict it. You be
the leader of my fold; for I know very well the flock submits to you
obediently. I know the progress of my lambs toward higher things.
Rear them, and teací them to a spring of repose, and to a shady spot of
grass. You, then, both increase and lead them, and [135v] at the
same time drive them into the fold above; for from now on you will
not have me cleaving to you in the flesh, but you will have me as your
fellow-shepherdess in the spirit." Saying these words to her, and
having carefully considered all the affairs of the convent, she
hastened to the way of exile (I mean of the island of Lesbos), with a
great abundance and lamentation of tears, because the impious
Emperor had especially ordered that the whole business should not
be seen by anyone.
Now is the appropriate time to say with the inspired David: "The
Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as
be of a contrite spirit" (Ps. 35:19).- And again: "The Lord is nigh
unto... them... that call upon him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of
 247
them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them"
(Ps. 145:18-19). And again: "... Let us He in wait for the righteous;
because he is not for our turn, and... is grievous," he says, "... even to
behold" (Wis. 2:12, 14). For "Blessed," he says, "is the man who
endureth temptation" (Jas. 1:12).
But when she was anxious to pursue her departure to Christ and
her release from corruption, she hastened toward mcorruptibility
through immortality. Having summoned those who were with her,
she spoke as if from the Spirit, even when breathing her last, more or
less such words as these: " O holy band of maidens and fruitful grafts
of my teaching, I have fulfilled the obligation of mortals, as the
balance of divine providence weighs it out, and I am withdrawing
from the mortality of this corruptible life. Therefore, taking my
corpse, lay it [136rJ in the church of the all-pure Theotokos, in the
left part, in the chapel of St. Nicholas, in the God-guarded island of
Prinkipo, in the convent which I myself built with my suffering and
painful heart." Saying these words of supplication to those who were
there, she put the reins of her soul into the hands of God Who guides
everything wisely, on the ninth of August of the twelfth indiction in
the year 6311 [803] in her exile of the island of Lesbos.
That godlike body» having enjoyed every funeral honor at the
house of the godly congregation [on Lesbos}, was sent forth with the
prompting of psalms in that place to the other place f Prinkipo], with
the pure voice of the celebrants. And her venerable and holy corpse
was laid in the God-guarded island of Prinkipo, in the left part of the
all-holy church of the Mother of God in a brand-new tomb.
Gathering there, that holy flock invokes the delight of her holy
memory every year in hymns, and has acquired her as intercessor,
guardian, sure support, and strength. Thus she, supporting and
upholding her own flock, keeps it safe from every insult of the Devil.
Protected by her as by a wall, it drives off every attacking vanguard of
demons. Having also sent her forth to the kingdom of heaven,
through her it too awaits its camp there in Christ Jesus our Lord, to
Whom, with the all-ruling Father and the life-giving Spirit, glory,
power, honor, and worship are fitting, now and forever, and unto the
ages of the ages. Amen.
24K

The style of this portion of the Life is best described as an attempt

to write in fairly high style by an author without enough education to
do so. At least some of the frequent orthographic errors appear to
have been made by the author. The pun at 135r. 17 on
ποίμνιον/πημχχνει suggests that the author thought ποιμανεΐ was the
correct spelling; the fact that the Life's first two pages include only
five misspellings while the last two pages include twenty-two
suggests that the author could copy the correct spelling of
Theophanes bet had trouble avoiding spelling errors when deprived
of a model. The Scriptural quotations are not well chosen or
presented, showing a negligence (or at least reticence) also evident in
the author's adding no preface to the Life. The account of the
translation of Irene's body from Lesbos to Prinkipo is confusingly
worded, and what sort of establishment Irene had on Lesbos is not
explained. The name of the nun to whom Irene entrusted her
convent on Prinkipo is not mentioned, making the reference to her as
"a foreigner in both appearance and name" obscure.
Part of the Life's obscurity is evidently due to the author's
ignorance of what had happened. The characterization of Irene's
dying words as "more or less such words as these" is an implied
admission that they were not recorded as such in a source. The
author knew from Theophanes that Irene had been exiled first to
Prinkipo and then to Lesbos, that Nicephorus had ordered her
second deportation to take place in secret, and that Irene had died on
August 9, 8 0 3 " In this case, the date was so important that the
author took the trouble to convert it from the Alexandrian Era used
by Theophanes to the Byzantine Era; in other cases, the Life's
aversion to repeating Theophanes' dates seems to show a reluctance
to take that trouble.
It would be strange if the author had known that the nun who
succeeded Irene as abbess on Prinkipo had a foreign name but had
not known what the name was. Perhaps the author left her name out
inadvertently, or found it too barbaric to suit the desired high style;
or conceivably her name was Xena and the reference to her being "a
foreigner in both appearance and name" is a pun. At any rate, the

11
Theophanes, 479.4-10 and 480.6-9.
 249
author does seem to have had some independent information on
Irene's last days and place of burial, perhaps from a combination of
oral tradition at Irene's convent and actually seeing her tomb there.
The Life's last three pages definitely show a special interest in the
convent founded by Irene on Prinkipo. Irene's successor as abbess is
praised, and Irene's instructions to her are reported carefully. Irene's
dying wish is said to be for burial in the convent in a precise place,
and the Life notes not only that she was buried there but that her cult
is continued by the nuns, who gather about her tomb to
commemorate her yearly (presumably on August 9, her feast day)
and regard her as their particular protector. The tone of the account
points naturally to the conclusion that the Life was composed
specifically for the convent, perhaps even by one of the nuns.
Whether or not Irene had specified her burial place as precisely as
the Lifesays she did, the author knew that at the time of writing, her
tomb was in the chapel of St. Nicholas in the left part of the Church of
the Theotokos on Prinkipo.
This fact is interesting for two reasons. First, though Theophanes
confirms (without giving details) that Irene was buried on Prinkipo,
the catalogue of imperial tombs in the De Caeremoniis records that
by the tenth century she was buried in the Mausoleum of Justinian in
the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. Philip Grierson
has proposed to explain this discrepancy by noting that the tomb of
Constantine V was removed from the Mausoleum of Justinian and
destroyed under Michael III, probably between 861 and 864, and
conjecturing that Michael had the vacant place filled by transferring
Irene's body from Prinkipo. As Grierson observed, honoring the
body of Irene, the restorer of the icons, would have been a
complementary gesture to dishonoring that of Constantine V, the
arch-iconoclast; and it is hard to see how else Irene could have been
accommodated in the mausoleum, which was apparently full after
Theophilus' burial there in 842.' 2 Though the conjecture that Irene
was transferred between 861 and 864 is not quite certain, if it is

12
Philip Grierson, "The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337-1042),'*
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962), 33-34, 53-54, and 55.
254)

correct o u r Life must have been composed before then. W e have

already seen that it was composed after 8 2 1 / 2 2 , a n d as an obviously
iconophile document it can hardly have been composed before the
second restoration of the icons in 8 4 3 . It may even have been written
as an attempt by t h e nuns to forestall a proposal to deprive them of
the body of the«· patroness in 8 6 1 / 8 6 4 , by appearing to Irene's
alleged dying wishes and stressing her status as the convent's
p r o t e c t o r . " Seemingly by the reign of Michael III the author had
difficulty finding sources for I r e n e ' s life a p a r t from T h e o p h a n e s ; but
after aM the search for sources may not h a v e b e e n a very diligent o n e .
T h e second interesting feature of the Life's account of Irene's
burial is its mentioning that t h e church of the convent o n Prinkipo
was dedicated to the T h e o t o k o s . This convent was a place of
considerable historical importance. Besides I r e n e , its nuns included
Mégalo, the wife of T h e o p h a n e s Confessor, probably the E m p r e s s
Maria of A m n i a , first wife of Constantine V I ; the Empress
Euphrosyne, d a u g h t e r of Constantine VI a n d second wife of Michael
II; temporarily the Empress Z o e , daughter of Constantine VIII and
wife of R o m a n u s III, Michael IV, and Constantine IX; a n d , also
temporarily, A n n a Dalassena, m o t h e r of Alexius I. But in n o n e of
the sources that m e n t i o n these figures is t h e convent named, and in
R a y m o n d Janin's listing of c h u r c h e s and monasteries it is left
nameless.* 4 O n the p r o b a b l e assumption that the convent had the
same dedication as its church, w e m a y now call it the C o n v e n t of the
Theotokos.
T h e Life of Irene is not a major historical source, and a complete
edition of it is not a m o n g t h e most pressing needs of Byzantine
studies. Still, it does contain s o m e independent material, and can
contribute something to o u r knowledge of the text of T h e o p h a n e s ,
the Patriarch Tarasiws' career, Irene's last days, and her convent and

13
I am indebted to Professor Averi! Cameron for this suggestion.

14
Les églises et les monastères des grands centres byzantins^Paris, 1975), 69, with
bibliography on the convent's history.
 251
tomb. It is also an unusual literary specimen, because though saints"
lives are often drawn mostly from a single source they are seldom
drawn mostly from a chronicle.
 ICONOCLASM AND LEIPSANOCLASM:
L E O III, C O N S T A N T I N E V A N D T H E R E L I C S

JOHN WORTLEY / WINNIPEG, MANITOBA

It is at least rather surprising that so little attention had been paid

to the question of the iconoclasts' attitude towards the holy relics
until Stephen Gero opened up the matter in his recent books on
Byzantine Iconoclasm.1 Icons and relicsvor rather the quality of the
devotion paid to each, are obviously closely related matters, linked
by the previous question of the role accorded to the saints whom
both in their peculiar way are held to represent. Insofar as that role is
diminished, so must the validity of both icon and relic be called into
question. Now iconoclasm as we know of it was something which
emanated from the Capital: it was there, no matter where the
original idea sprung from, that the idea was translated into action,
and from there that directives emanated to give that action force. Yet
it was not for its icons that Constantinople was chiefly famous. Icons
there undoubtedly were in the City, some quite famous ones, but at
no point in its long history were these ever so numerous or famous as
her relics.2 By dint of steady acquisition, the Queen of Cities had by

1
Stephen Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo ill, with Particular
Attention to the Oriental Sources, CSCO 346; Subsidia, 41 {Louvain, 1973), and
Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Constantine V, with Particular Attention
to the Oriental Sources, CSCO 348; Subsidia, 52 (Louvain, 1977) - hereinafter BI 1
and BI 2 respectively.
2
It is noticeable in this respect that Fulcher of Chartres mentions the relics, but
says nothing of icons in his exclamation over the city: " O quanta civitas nobilis et
decora! quot monastena, quot palatia sunt in ea, opere miro fabrefacta! quot etiam
in plateis vel vtcis opera ad spectandum mirabilia! Taedium est magnum recitare
quanta sit ibi bonorum omnium opulentia, auri scilicet, argenti, palliorum
multiformium, sanctorumque reliquiarum." (Historia Hiersolymitanac. 9) Some of
the foreign pilgrims to the Capital do mention some of the icons (e.g. Anon.
Mercati, Anthony of Novgorod,) but it is in the relics that their interest chiefly lies.
254
the eighth century provided herself with an array of holy relics
greater (both in number and in variety) than any other city in
Christendom, 3 crowned by the importation of the Wood of the True
Cross, the most important of all relics, by Heraclius in 629 or 634.*
The Byzantines certainly did not treat their City's relics merely as
mirabilia nor limit their devotion to them to interest and wonder.
They used them as sources of dynamis in sickness, in danger and in
any other kind of adversity; and they credited them with an
extraordinary variety of miracula, both public and private. 5 One can
be sure that if there were excesses in the devotion of the people to
their icons, there would be more (and possibly even more
extravagant) excesses, more widely spread, amongst the devotees of

- v There are approximately twenty-five cases of alleged relic-acquisition by the

Capital during the period 350-450 alone, not all of which can be accepted without
reservation, but then nor is it to be expected that all acquisitions during that period
have been recorded either. The true number may have been considerably higher.
4
Nkephorus Patriarcnês, Breviariem ed. De Boor, p. 29; Theophanes.
Chronographia, ed. De Boor, 1:337, 8-10.
5
Although relics were frequently used in defence of the City after the eighth
century, and were frequently then said so to have been used in former times, it is by
no means certain that the latter statement is true. The remarks of later historians
notwithstanding, relics do not appear to have played a significant role in any of the
three first great sieges of Constantinople (but see the following note.) In 626, it was
a copy of the Acheiropoiêtos Icon that Serghis paraded around the City walls (see
Jan Louis van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I bis Johannes VI,
{Amsterdam, 1972J, Exkars I: "Welches Bild trug Patriarch Sergios am 29 Juli
626?" pp. 174-178.) There is no mention in any respectable source of either icon or
relic being used to put the foe to flight either in 674-678 or in 717-718. Greek fire
produced the required miracle m both those situations.
 255
6
the holy relics. And devotion to the relics was institutionalised in a
way that devotion to the icons was not, or only rarely so. Many a
saint's sypaxis (though not all) was held in the presence and in
honour of his/her mortal remains. It is to be expected, if the object of
the exercise was primarily to root out undesirable excesses of
devotion at the Capital, or to downgrade the role of the saints in the
order of things, that any movement towards either of those ends (or
both, for they are closely related) would have singled out the relics,
rather than the icons as the first object of attack.
That this was not perceived to have been the case by later

6
A clear case of what must have seemed to some an alarming trend in
relic-devotion is provided by an address to the personified Girdle of the Holy
Mother (conserved at Chalcoprateia) written by the Patriarch Germanus I
(715-730). It should perhaps be pointed out to those who suspect that these are
really the words of Germanus II ( 1222-1240) that they arc scarcely compatible with
a post-1204 situation:
"Oh august girdle, surrounding thy [the Virgin's] City and caressing it, and
preserving it from being overthrown by the onslaught of the Barbarian...
Preserve thine inheritence and thy people, oh all-pure girdle of the all-pure one;be
to us strength and help, a wall and a battlement, a haven and a safe refuge".
(Germani Patriarchae, Oratio in encaenia venerandae aedis Sanctissimae Dominae
nostrae Dei Genetricis, inque sanctas Faseias Domini nostri Jesu Christi aut in
Sanctae Mariae Zonam, PG 98: 372-384; 377B.D.
This should be compared with Constantine Porphyrogenitus' famous address to the
personified Mandylion of Edessa:
"Oh, divine likeness of the likeness of the invariable Father! Oh, figure of Him who
is the figure of the Person of the Father! Oh venerable and all-honourable
signification of the archetype, the glorious Christ of our God! (Iaddress thee in faith
as a living thing).
Do thou save and protect for ever him who piously and humbly reigns, who
celebrates magnificently the memorial of thine immigration, whom by thy presence
thou hast elevated to the throne of his father and grandfather;
preserve his successors from generation to generation in possession of imperial rule!
Grant to the state peaceful tranquility!
Keep this imperial City free of siege!
And grant that we who delight in your archetype, Christ our God.
may be received into His heavenly kingdom,
glorifying and praising Him,
for to Thee are due glory and
worship, for ever and ever. Amen."
Narratio de Imagine Edessena (PG 113:424-453,) c.31.

I
256
generations is cfear from the fact that we speak of the purgation of
the eighth and ninth centuries not as leipsanoclasm but as
¡conoclasm. Yet, if we are to take the extant records at face value, the
relics did not aîtogether escape the refining fire of the earlier
iconoclast emperors, Leo III and Constan tine V.7 Can those records
be taken at face value though? If we were to go by sheer weight of
numbers, it would be almost impossible to resist the deafening roar
of tenth century writers claiming that Leo and Constan tine
perpetuated dreadful atrocities upon the holy relics and their
devotees. Yet it is hardly necessary to point out that all those writers
wrote at least one generation (and mostly more than one) removed
from the end of the first phase of kxwioctasm; that some of them
smarted from the lash of iconoclast wrath in one way or another, and
that all probably shared Theophanes* conviction that Constantine V
was Antichrist, Leo his precursor. In order to arrive at a meaningful
estimate of the situation, it might be advantageous to set aside for a
moment the ninth century chorus and to concentrate on the very
much smaller dossier of evidence originating within or close to the
period from the accession of Leo (717) to the death of Constantine in
775.
So far as the reign of Leo is concerned (717-40), evidence is
notoriously scarce. Fa&t de mieux, this is what Theophanes said of
him well over half-a-century later:
[Leo] not only erred concering the customary reverence of the holy
icons, but also in the matter of the intercessions of the all-holy
God-bearer and of all the saints. And the all-abominable one made
loathsome (έβδελνττετο) their relics, as did the Arabs, his teachers.8
Inevitably the suspicion exists that Theophanes may here be
visiting the sins of the son upon the father, but it may not be so. The
restraint of the allegations gives them credence, for he does not
allege any more (and he alleges considerably more of Constantine)
than that Leo spoke disparagingly of the intercessions of saints and

7
It is only of the first two Iconoclast emperors that antipathy to the holy relics is
alleged. Never was such an accusation brought against the ninth-century emperors,
even against Theophilus. For the main accusations, see Gero, BP pp. 97-102; BP p.
153 and p. 161, n. 53.
"Theophanes 1:406,22-25.
 257
of their relics. It is known that between 726 and 730, Leo pursued a
propaganda campaign against the icons, seeking to win people over
to his point of view; it is possible, and even likely, if his antipathy to
the relics derived from a conviction that the saints were too high
exalted, that he would also speak against the relics. Sed et quod
prìncipi plaçait, legis habet vigorem^ Leo's disparagements would
have far-reaching effects, and it may be possible to detect some of
those effects, even to learn something from them of Leo's rationale.
It was during the years 726-730 that Mansur, Saint John of
Damascus, composed his three treatises De Imaginibusin defence of
the icons.9 Although primarily concerned with images, the treatises
(especially I and III) have something to say about saints, and at one
point provide a very striking and rather audacious defence of their
cult.*0 This merits attention because it probably provides a hint that
the cult was being questioned and a clue as to why. Leo's aversion to
icons is well known to have derived from a conviction that an icon
constituted a graven image, and was therefore in default of the
second commandment of the Mosaic Decalogue. Now Leo had a
profound respect for the Judaic Law: so much so that he caused a
summary of it, in terms of Old Testament quotations, to be appended
to his new law-book of 726, the Écloga, From John's defence of the
saints^ one wonders if Leo's antipathy to them arose from a
conviction that they were as much in default of the first
commandement as were the icons of the second. ' T h o u shalt have no
other gods but me" is a thoroughly categorical imperative which
might well seem to have been transgressed by excessive devotions
paid (primarily) to the Holy Mother, and then to all the saints. John
meets this charge head on by conceding the point and then redefining
it: (ot άγιοι) και θεοί λέγονται αληθώς... ού φύσει, άλλα θέσει" —

9
PG 94: 1227-1420
10
P G 9 4 : 1264ff
1
' Concerning the saints and the honour which is due to them and their relics, John
argues that they are children and friends of God, so if God is King of Kings and Lord
of Lords etc., πάντως και οι άγιοι θεοί τε και κύριοι και βασιλείς... ου φύσει αλλ'
ώς των παθέων βασιλεύσαντες ..., and having thus preserved their divine image
intact. De Fide Orthodoxe 4.15: PG 94:1164ff.
258
in a passage which seems to have been calculated to.neutralise a
charge of polytheism against the cult of saints.
John has quite a lot to say in these treatises about relics; he
obviously realised that, if k had not already happened, the way his
opponents' minds were working, the logic of their dialectic would
sooner or later drive them to^uestion the validity of relics, but he is
not so much concerned with the physical relics of the saints (of which
he says very little) as with secondary relics, such as the instruments of
the passion, and these even Constantine V is never said to have
impugned. From the way in which John argues from devotion to the
relics (both primary and secondary) to devotion to the icons,
however, he does not seem to have felt that the relics were in any
immediate danger.12 From this one would suspect that the last part of
Theophanes' allegation is either untrue or (which is unlikely) that
John knew nothing of it.
After 730, things changed rapidly, though perhaps not so rapidly
as one might think. As Professor Mango has pointed out, "apart
from the removal of the Chatkê image, no specific cases of
image-breaking are recorded during (the reign of Leo) nor are there
any authenticated cases of persecution."' 3 This is not quite true,
because in 730 the Patriarch Germanus was forced into retirement
for failingto agree with-Leo's icon-policy. Germanus resigned on 17
Jan. 730 in protest also against Leo's attempt to arrogate what
Germanus adjudged to be the prerogative of an oecumenical
council. Theophanes indicates that he was exiled to his private
estate.' 4 In retirement he composed a treatise De haeresibus et
synodis which is of considerable importance for the purposes of this
study because it contains (so far as I am aware) the one and only
allegation of action against the icons emanating from within the first
period of iconodasm:
Those who have become puffed up with arrogance do not desist from

12
PG 94: 1264-1265.
tx
Cyril Mango, "Historical Introduction", p. 3, in Iconoclasm.ed. Anthony Bryer
and Judith Herrin (Birmingham, 1975.)

l4
Theophanes 1:409, 7-11: 362. 27; 408, 27.
 259
arousing dissensions amongst the people. Separating themselves off
in companies of like-minded people, they voluntarily err in their
knowledge of the truth; they dare to lay their hands on sacred things
which have been dedicated to God. Wherefore, by the ruler himself,
and by every official charged with authority in a subordinate capacity,
a furious anger has been contrived against those who have
determined to lead a devout life. Because of this, danger and
destruction threatens the whole oikoumenê since most of the priests
and laity, and especially the God-fearing men who live under the
monastic rule, have been driven from their homes to wander at large
like indigent aliens; they have had their limbs cut off and been driven
into exile and solitude. Those who ostensibly interpret the
proclamation [of 726?] are no longer satisfied with merely
overthrowing the images of saints which (according to the law) were
to be removed. They scrape off the paintings which rival the statues,
the finest adornments of the most honourable churches. Moreover*
when they had indiscriminately removed the figured coverings of the
holy tables within the sacred sanctuaries, covers embroidered all over
with figures in gold and purple, they put them in their own houses,
because likenesses of the saints have been found on them. In addition
to these things, they were not ashamed to commit a deed which is
replete with all unholiness (το πάσης άνοσιουργίας άνάμεστον). The
relics of the blessed and ever-memorable martyrs, gathered op by the
teachers of the church, were denuded of the precious containers in
which they were kept and consigned to the flames. [These men) were
diligent to trample down and to dishonour the championsof the faith.
But the Lord will not send forth the rod of sinners upon the portion of
the just, for after the distress and violent disorder of the present I
know well that the brightness of his great goodness will shine forth
more clearly, and the blessed and sole Ruler will deliver his people,
tossed about in this storm; for wickedness will not become so deeply
rooted that it will prevail over the power of good. 15
A s G e r m a n u s died in 7 3 3 , this passage, if it is authentic, can only
refer to the reign of Leo III. Much therefore depends on whether or
not it is authentic. From his remark quoted above, Professor Mango
clearly thinks it is not. J. Gouillard has also expressed the opinion
(though without giving reasons) that it is an interpolation.** Stephen

|S
Germani Patriarchae CPoleos, De haeresibus et synodis c. 42; PG 98:80.
16
Travaux et Mémoires l (1965). 306. ri. 59.
260

<}ero, drawing attention to its bareness and lack of detail, at first

inclines to a similar conclusion, but goes on to say that in the absence
of any anachronisms "we shall assume the passage comes from
Germanus".' 7 Frankly, I do not think we can assume any such thing.
In addition to the points already raised by Gero, there are others
which cast strong doubts on its authenticity. There is its strong
resemblance to charges made against Constantine V (especially by
Theophanes) decades later; there is its incompatability with what
little we know of the cautious way in which Leo (unlike Constantine)
went about everything he undertook; there is the total lack of any
corroborating evidence from even near-contemporary authorities
that Leo permitted the rtfiing of churches and the persecution of
monks mentioned here, or even that he ever expressed any disfavour
towards the monks. AH the indications seem to point to the
iconoclastic movement having only cautiously passed into its second
stage during the years 730-733, and yet this passage portrays that
movement as having already reached the full flower of its fury,
characteristic {pace the ninth-century writers) of the later 760s.
The most suspicious part of the Germanus-passage however, is at
the very end, in the confident prediction of better times ahead. Here
one seems to detect the distinctive allure of Byzantine apocalyptic
writings in which, with the conviction of hindsight, that which has
already come to pass is predicted by one who poses as some noted
person long time dead. In short, whatever might be thought of the
rest of De haeresibus, c. 34 is hardly likely to have been written by
Germanus, but more likely by somebody to whom Germanus'
carefully concealed manuscript had passed, when he felt that the
time was ripe for publishing it, a time possibly to be identified with
the virtual accession of Irene (ή αίθρια της αύτοΰ άγαΦότητος, ?) '*
in September of 780.
This does not by any means invalidate c.34 for the purposes of this
study. Whilst rejecting it as valid testimony of conditions in 730-733,
one can allow that it might well provide near-contemporary evidence
of the latter half of Constantine's reign. It may provide a cogent

17
Bt p. 89, n. 27.
,s
De haeresibus c. 42; PG 98:HOC.
 26!
indication that at that time the relics, or at least some relics, were
destroyed. But it is worth noting that nothing is said in c.34 of
dishonouring the Holy Mother and all the saints. It was not to
achieve that end (though it was accidentally attained) "Germanus"
implies, that relics were burned. It was rather to disencumber
precious and covetable reliquaries of their grisly contents, prior to
their joining the sanctuary-hangings in rich men's houses. In a word,
there is no suggestion here of a systematic relic-persecution with its
own raison d'être; only of their incidental destruction in the course of
common sacrilege. The likelihood of imperial authority having
countenanced such lawlessness is not great, as we shall see.
Leo III died on 18 June 740 and was succeeded by Constantine his
son, co-emperor de jure since 720, de facto possibly for seven or
eight years prior to 740. Given the different natures of the two
Isaurians, it is to be anticipated that there should be some shift in
imperial polky under the young emperor which (so far as religious
matters were concerned) it might have been possible to anticipate
already in the years immediately prior to 740.
Saint John of Damascus lived well into the first decade of the new
reign, possibly to 749, but certainly not beyond 753. It was at the end
of his life (if Jugie is correct) 19 that he added a fourth book to his
treatise De Fide Orthodoxa. By its lack of system, so characteristic of
Books I-III, and by its apparently haphazard treatment,
indiscriminately of matters which had or had not been dealt with in
the earlier books, Book IV suggests that it was a latter-day appendix
undertaken to set out what John considered to be the orthodox
position in areas which had probably remained undisputed twenty
years earlier, but which were now, in the 740s coming under attack
from certain quarters.
The one important difference (for the purposes of this study) is
that John now felt obliged to come to the defense of the holy relics.
He had, as we have seen, defended the honour due to such secondary
relics as the instruments of the passion in 726-730, not so much
against attack (so far as we can see) but rather to provide grounds on
which to base his arguments in favour of icons. Now he feels

19
DTC 8/1:698.
262
compelled to assert the validity of the physical relics, not as a means
to an end, but as a necessary consequence of the honour due to the
saints, which he previously defends with vigour in the same chapter.
"The Lord Christ endowed us with the relics of the saints as salutary
springs, pouring forth a diversity of benefits, flowing with
sweet-smelling myrrh". How can this be doubted, he asks, when God
caused water to spring out of a hard rock, and gave Samson to drink
from the jaw-bone of an ass?20
Since we know of almost nobody who had ever doubted the
validity of the holy relics up to his time, the presence of this passage
may well indicate that by the 740s there were those who doubted it,
as there were those who questioned the honour customarily
accorded to the saints. Moreover, it may be possible to detect in what
John writes here one of the arguments then being advanced against
the physical relics. Immediately after his defence of the relics he
continues (the break in the Migne text here conceals the
connection): "In the Law [of Moses] every-one who touches a dead
body is unclean" [Numbers 19). Now physical contact was a very
important component of relic-devotion, for it was often by contact
that the essential dynamis of the relic was held to be communicated
to the devotee, and use of the myrrh which exuded from certain relics
(which he has emphasised in the previous passage) was a form of
extended physical contact. From the way in which the
first-generation iconoclasts have already been seen to have argued
from the Law of Moses against the saints and against their icons, is it
not possible that those of the second generation may have used
simHar arguments against relics, i.e., that they were corpses, and
therefore defiled a man? This would explain why John goes to such
lengths to expalin (as he ought not to have had to for Christians) that
the saints are not dead in the usual sense of the word, and therefore
their bodies do not defile.
There may be another clue to the way in which thinking was
turning against the saints and their relics in John's words. He
concludes the section on these matters, rather unnecessarily one
might feel, by listing the saints for his readers; first the Holy Mother,

De Fide Orthodoxe IV. PG 94: 1164, 1165A

 263
then John the Baptist followed by the Apostles, the Martyrs,
imprimis Stephen the protomartyr, "Our holy fathers the
God-bearing ascetics" (quoting Hebrews 11 " ) , and finally, the
patriarchs, prophets and righteous men "who lived before grace,"
i.e., the Old Testament heroes. 2 ' One of the marked differences
between the eastern and western churches is the way in which the
former did (and the latter did not) grant those heroes a place
amongst the saints and all that this entails (shrines, commemora­
tions, relics etc.). The main, though not the only, reason for the
eastern church's partiality for those of the old covenant was that in
the fifth century the capital of the east came into possession of the
relics of many Old Testament heroes and cherished them within her
walls.22 John's insistance on including those heroes amongst the
saints may indicate that the honours addressed to them at their
shrines were particularly obnoxious to the opposition; it is a matter
to which reference will have to be made again.
Who were "the opposition!" If one is to believe the Patriarch
Nicephorus, writing in the second decade of the ninth century * the
Emperor Constantrne V himself, the "Mammon" of Nicephorirs'
Arttirrheticu2* was bitterly opposed not only to icons, but to the curt
of saints and of their reiks. It is generally conceded that the
Antirrhetici do contain some material which originated from the
emperor himself, possibly even the actual text of those peuse/swhich
he placed before the council of Hiereia. As Nicephorus may have
had the advantege over us of having the actual minutes of that
council before his eyes, his testimony merits careful attention. The
difficulty lies in distinguishing exactly what "Mammon" was saying
in 754 from what he is supposed to have done in later years.
Lombard came to the conclusion that "Mammon", or at least those

21
ibid.. PG94: Π68Α.
22
The best known instances are those of the relics of Samuel acquired in 406
(Jerome, Contra Vigilantiumc 5, PL 23:343) and of Joseph and Zachariah ten years
later (Marcellini Comitis Chronicon ρ 72; Chronicon Paschale 572, 15-573, 2.)
There are many other examples, eg. relics of Isaiah, Daniel, Ananias, Azaria« &
Misael, - all in the fifth century.
23
PG 100: 206-373.
264
who advised him, held views almost identical with {hose alleged of
Leo HÍ by Theophanes: {hat he would deprive the Holy Mother of
the title Theotokos, forbid prayers to her and to the saints and seek
the abolkion of their relics.24 Stephen Gero, working on the basis of
Ostrogorsky's isolation of the peuseis from the Antirrhetici,25 has
pointed OH* that Lombard's conclusion is ill-founded, and that the
peuseis in fact say nothing at all about relics, very little about the
saints.2* Nor is that other document which seis out Constantine's
position in 754 much help either, the Nouthesia by which he is
supposed to have projected his pre-cortciliar propaganda-campaign
into the provinces, for this too says not a word about relics, and not
much more about saints. One night conclude from this that these
were not matters to which the Council of Hiereia was invited to
address its attention. 27
Yet, curiously enough, when the Council came to formulate its
decisions, it said something of both, in a passage the importance of
which has not {I think) been fully appreciated. The seventeenth of
the appended anathemata reads thus:
If any one does not confess that all the saints (those from the
beginning to the present time, those from before the Law and those
who lived during the Law, as well as those who by grace have been
pleasing to God) are honourable in his sight in soul and body, and if
he does not entreat their prayers as having audience, according to the
tradition of the Church, to intercede for the sake of the world — let
himi>e anathema.2*
The purpose of this anathema (which should be read in
conjunction with anathema 15, re-affirming the traditional position
of the Theotokos) is two-fold. It is to vindicate the intercessions of
saints, but it is also to endorse the validity of their relics. This

24
Alfred Lombard, Etudes d'histoire byzantine; Constantin V, Empereur des
Romains 740-775<Paris, 1902), pp. 114-119.
25
Georg Ostrogorsky, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites
(Breslau, i929).
26
BP, eh. 3.
27
BP, pp. 24ff.
* Mansi 13: 348DE
 265
presumably was the intent of adding the words "and body" to the
phrase "honourable in his sight", but it may also be the sous-en tendu
of "those from before the Law and those who lived during the Law",
for, as noted above, Constantinople was particularly rich in relics of
those who lived "before grace", and may well have been by the
eighth century the principal lieu of their cult within the Empire.
It will of course have been noted that what the Council affirmed in
Anathemata 15 & 17 is almost identical with what John of Damascus
affirmed in De Fide Orthodoxa 4.15, the very same John who was
anathematised by that council, by name, at one and the same time!
Against whom then were Anathemata 15 & 17 directed? Lombard
thought it was against the emperor himself. Constantine appears to
have declared before the council that he would be ruled by its
decisions, even if they went against his personal inclinations;2** it is
therefore not impossible that the assembled fathers might have
disagreed with him in some matters, but was this one of them? As we
have seen, there is little indication that Constant-ine had expressed
strong opinions on these matters prior to and/or at the Council. If he
had done so, it is conceivable that the Council might have tactfully
passed them over in silence, but it is surely unlikely that tne known
views of the emperor would have been confronted with the iron wall
of anathema; unlikely, dangerous and possibly unnecessary. The
very existence of Anathemata 15 & 17 (likewise of De Fide
Orthodoxa 4.15) indicates that there were people abroad who held
these erroneous views, but the existence of the former suggests that
the'emperor was not {at least publicly) one of them.
Was he in fact keeping his views to himself, biding his time until he
could put them into practice as Lombard (following Nicephorus)
believed? It is possible that to a certain extent he was, for the
seventeenth anathema of 754 was said (in 787) subsequently to have
been somewhat dHuted into a less forceful form.™ There is also the
near-contemporary evidence of the Oratio ad Constantinum
CabeWnum.3* Once falsely attributed to John of Damascus, this

29
BP, p. 38; Ostrogorsky, op. cit., fragment 23; Antirrheticus2.3, PG100: 340 C
30
BP p. 147
31
PG 95: 338ff
266
document can now be dated with some confidence to the period 775
to 787, for on the o n e hand it shows that Constantine 's alleged
decrees against the invocation of saints a r e n o longer in force and
that this e m p e r o r has already died, whilst on the other hand the
writer betrays no knowledge of the Council of 787 having yet taken
place. Its accusations against Constantine are not light:

Once he acceeded to empire his arrogance was revealed to all. He

sent out a proclamation to every province in his sway that everybody
was to subscribe to a for-swearing and rejection of the proskynesisof
holy images. And as we today say 'Let us go to the All-holy
Theotokos" to pray' or 'to Holy Apostles" or 'to the Holy Forty
martyrs'" or 'to the Holy Protomartyr Stephen's", this guileful man
would not bear to hear such a thing, but took away the name of 'saint'
from the saints. Panagia he called Theotokos, and said she could offer
no aid after her death, and that neither the holy apostles nor any of
the blessed ones could offer intercessions on our behalf, for they had
profitted none but themselves by their sufferings, to the extent of
saving their own souls from hell. Thus they were of no benefit to those
who called upon them and went running to them. 32
it has to be b o r n e in mind that we are dealing-here with the oldest
extant complete document (other than the Horosof 753) relevant to
the reign of C o n s t a n t i n e ; "mais les renseignements que nous y
trouvons ont un caractère fortement légendaire" opined L o m b a r d .
AH to the good for present purposes; it is less than strictly accurate,
strongly antagonistic tó Constantine, and therefore can be fairly
relied upon to say the worst that was then believed of him, which is
presumably what the passage quoted above d o e s . But it does it
without saying a word about relics, which should surely not have
been the case if the writer had heard any such word. Therefore, n o
matter how far Constantine might have gone in disparaging the
saints, he appears not to have publicly inpugned nor to have
damaged their relics.
This is perhaps rather flimsy evidence, but there is much stronger.
The near-proof of Constantine's innocence concerning relic-
confiscations and so forth is to be found in the actual proceedings of

" PG 95: 337CD.

 267
the Council of 787. When the horos of 753 was being read out and
commented on clause by clause by Epiphanius the Deacon,
Constantine V was 13 years dead, the iconoclasts were firmly in
power, so he had nothing to fear. Fear he does not; without actually
naming names, he catalogues the evils which had been perpetrated in
the wake of 753. It is an awesome list of atrocities and sacrilege, and
a long one (almost a whole column in Mansi) in which Epiphanius
visibly warms to his theme:
What language is able to narrate these tragedies? Where and how
shall I begin describing every one of these? Agitation and fear,
persecutions, confinement of the monks in every city, flogging of
them and the imprisonment for many years with their legs tied up in
chains; destruction of holy utensils, burning of books, turning of holy
churches into places of common utility and profane alteration of
chaste monasteries to worldly hovels "
He continues this Jeremiad at some length, leaving (it seems) no
stone unturned, and yet, for all that, not a single charge does he make
concerning the holy" relics, which are never even mentioned.
Now we are not here dealing with something " d e caractère
fortement légendaire", but with the official documents of a high
council under imperial patronage. It is scarcely conceivable that, had
there been any assault on the relics in former times either by word or
by deed, it would not have been mentioned here, for (see below) it
would have provided a veritable pièce de résistance and climax for
the charge sheet, as something yet more terrible than all the other
irregularities. Admittedly, the silence of Epiphanius the Deacon in
787 does not establish the innocence of Constantine V and his
sympathisers in the matter of the relics beyond all reasonable doubt.
Silence cannot d o that, and en revanche it must be noted that in the
ninth century Passio Sancii Andreae in Crisi, " t h e paradigm of
iconophile monk pitted against iconoclastic emperor, 3 4 " there is a
catalogue of iconoclast crimes similar to Epiphanius' which also
omits any reference t o relics. It does however open up the possibility
that Constantine may have been innocent on this count. T h e next

"Mansi 13: 328E-329D

34
AASS Oct. viii, 135-142. cc. 4,5; Bf p. 128
26<S

step must be to examine the bases on which the ninth-century

charges of leipsanoclasm against him rested.
It might however be useful first to ask whether he is likely to have
been guilty of those charges. There is after att, a world of difference
between icons and relics. Of the icons, it could be saki that there was
a time when they were not, and that they were an innovation made by
human hands. The holy relics, on the other hand, dated from the
earliest Christian times (e.g. the Wood of the True Cross) and even
way back into the old dispensation, for many relks of Oíd Testament
heroes were revered at Constantinople. Nor could the mortal
remains of man, God's ultimate creation, by any stretch of the
imagination be said to have been the work of human hands. Church
fathers of impeccable orthodoxy had taught that the healing dynamis
of saints lived on in their bones" and generations of Christians had
proved this to their own satisfaction by the many miraculous cures
which the relics had wrought for them. The validity of the holy relics
was never at any time (with the possible exception of the reigns of
Leo and Constantine) questioned in the Eastern Church,36 nor, Leo
and Constantine not withstanding, was it ever the teaching of that
church that things were otherwise.
Many of the holy relics, of which the imperial capital was the chief
repository, had been endowed upon that City by imperial
munificence, and some of the most outstanding ones amongst them

35
e.g. John Chrysostotn, Laudation magnae et sanctae martyris Drosidis (PG
50:686), and Cyri» of Jerusalem, Cataeheses 18.16 (PG 33: 1036B - 1037A),
referring to 2/4 Kings 13.20-21. There is a similar exegesis of the same passage in
Constitutiones Apostolicae 6.30 (PG 5: 988-989.)
36
"Nut n'a songé a mettre en doute leur authenticité [cà.d des reliques.) La
littérature byzantine n'a jamais produit un ouvrage comparable au De pignortbus
sanctorum de Guibert de Nogent ..." Louis Bréhier, La Civilisation byzantine
(Paris, 1950, 1970) p. 226. Yet the Emperor Maurice seems to have been somewhat
sceptical concerning the healing properties of the celebrated relics of Saint
Euphemia, until he was won over by their beneficial effects upon his arthritis
(Theophylact of Simocatta, 8.14). See also Henri Grégoire in Mélanges Lefort, Le
Muséon 59 (1946), 295-302.
 269
were actually housed within the imperial palace." To have impugned
the relics would have been to denigrate the imperial patrimony. To
have harmed them would have been to commit an act of sacrilege too
awful to contemplate. This is illustrated by a passage in the Andrew
Salos Apocalypse. This document, composed at the end of the ninth
century or early in the tenth, looks to the end of this creation, and
describes the seven reigns which will herald in the consummation of
the aeon. The seventh ruler will be the wickedest of them all, a
female from Pontus called Mondion; her atrocities are colourfully
described in mounting degree of severity. Her first atrocity will be
the defilement of altars, i.e. desecration of the consecrated buildings.
Her second will be the confiscation of the vessels, chalices and other
equipment used in the divine services. Thirdly, she will take down
the icons and crosses {thus she will outreach the wickedness of the
iconoclastic emperors, who at least reverenced the holy cross).
Fourthly, she will burn the holy books, even including the Gospels,
Only after and beyond that will she proceed to her fifth and yet worse
atrocity; significantly, the only one in which she will be frustrated:
she will search for the relics of the saints with intent to destroy them.
But these, presumably because they are more precious than anything
that has been destroyed so far, the "invisible power of God" will
have conveyed to a secret place beyond her reach, and will be saved.
In her frustration, she will proceed to one yet more terrible
abomination; she will throw down the altar of the Great Church of
the Divine Wisdom (the writer leaves one free to infer a seventh and

31
The Palatine church of the Theotokos at the Lighthouse which was to house the
most illustrious collection of relics in the Capital was not built until the reign of
Constantine V it seems, but prior to the [saurian epoch, what later came to be
known as the Oratory of Saint Stephen at Daphne (i.e. in the oldest part of the
Sacred Palace) was the repository of some significant relics and sacred memorabilia.
It was probably there that the Wood of the True Cross, the Sponge and the Lance,
relics which arrived in the time of Heraclius, were originally conserved. The belief
that the right hand of Saint Stephen was housed there prior to the eighth century is
probably erroneous. See John Wortley, "The Trier Ivory reconsidered," GRBS
270
unspeakable evtl).™ Admittedly this is evidence drawn from a
popular and unsophisticated literature, and only representative of
popular devotion, but John of Damascus draws up an hierarchy of
sanctity in De Imaginibus ΠI of a rather different kind, and here too
the relics occupy a more exalted place than icons. In reverse order to
that in which he gives them, the seven degrees of those
things/persons which command honour are: 7) benefactors of those
in need; 6) authorities and powers; 5) our neighbours; 4) icons;
3)the holy gospels; 2) all holy places, material and physical relics (ött
θείας ενεργείας είσί δοχεία,) and 1) the saints themselves, as
partakers of the nature of God. w by this scheme sacrilege against the
relics would be yet more wicked even than that against the holy
gospels.
In view of their sanctity and their imperial character, it seems
rather unlikely that the relics would have been assaulted. There is
however some external indication that relics may have been rather in
disfavour at Constantinople under the Isaurian emperors. There is
on the one hand not a single alleged case of relic-importation to the
capital during their reigns, whilst on the other hand, the same period
(717-775) saw a temporary cessation of the customary
dissemination of relics from the capital.41" The former point is not
very serious, for even h* Constamine and/orLeo had performed the
good work of endowing the city with relics, the hostility of the
chroniclers would probably have concealed the fact. Also, the
cessation in relic-importation covers a wider period than that of the
Isaurians. Heraclius was the last in the tradition started by

■w Vita Sancii Andreae Salic 220. P G 1 1 1 : 864 B-Đ. There are obvious echoes of
the iconoclast emperors here of coarse, b**t also of some earlier ones too e.g. of
Julian the Apostate, who "commanded that the holy ornaments should be taken to
the imperial treasury, and ordered the spacious church buitt by Constantine [the
Great] to be closed." and who also "committed an act of indecency by the holy
altar;" Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.2. Note also that "Germanus" describes
sacrilege against the holy relies as το πάσης άνοσιονογίας άνάμεστον (De
haeresibus e. 42. PG 98.80C)
w
De fmaginitws 3. 33-39; PG 94: 1352ff.
40
A. Frolow. La relique de la vraie Croix: recherches sur le développement d'an
cuite (Paris, 1961). p. 87.
 271
Constantius (not Constantine) of providing relics, 41 and it was not
revived until the advent of the Macedonian E m p e r o r s , whence it
continued to 1204. As for the dissemination of relics from
Constantinople, these were mostly fragments of the Holy Wood, a
relic which Constantine is known to have employed for his own
purposes, 4 2 and could hardly therefore be said to have been in
disfavour. H o w then did the Isaurian emperors gain the reputation of
having h a r m e d the relics? or perhaps one should put the question
this way: how did the legend of Constantine's ¡eipsanomachycome
into existence? 4 3
Just as there is no smoke without fire, there is no legend without a
grain, or several grains of truth contained within it. Perhaps the first
grain of truth to consider is this: that there is certain indication that
there were persons abroad, significant persons, who, down to 7 8 7 ,
were known to be antipathetic to relics. T h e proceedings of the
Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) reflect no major concern with the
relics, but m a k e it clear that they were an important secondary issue.
At the first session, the three iconoclast bishops who were
re-instated m a d e specific statements on this matter in their
recantations, of which that by Theodosius of Armorium was the most
thorough:
Likewise also I venerate and honour and salute the relics of the saints
as of those who fought for Christ and who have received grace from
him, for the healing of diseases and the curing of sickness and the
casting out of devils, as the Christian Church has received from the

41
It is likely that some relics were transferred to the City for safety as-the Saracens
advanced, but no specific instance has come to my notice.
42
Constantine required oaths to be taken on the Wood of the True Cross;
Theophanes 1: 437, 11-15; Nicephorus Patriarches, Breviaríum p. 73, 6-11; Vita
Sancii Stephani junioris PG 100: 1112AB.
45
Lombard (op. cit., ch.2) detected and exposed a considerable amount of
legendary material whkrh had collected around the name of Constantine V. It is
curious the way in which some emperors did attract legendary accretions to their
memories whilst others did not. Few emperors, if any, attracted more than
Constantine, which should make one all the more suspicious of anything, especially
of anything derogatory, which is alleged of him, hence my initial scepticism
concerning the allegation of leipsanoclasm.
272
holy Apostles and Fathers even down to its today.44
Basil of Ancyra and Theodore of Myra made identical statements:
I ask for the intercessions of our spotless Lady the Holy Mother of
God, and those of the holy and heavenly powers, and those of all the
saints. And receiving their holy and honourable relics with all honour
(τ*ψιή.ς) I salute and venerate these with honour (τιμητικώς
προσκυνεί) hoping to have a share in their holiness.45
However, the worst these persons seems to have done by way of
translating their former antipathy into action seems to have been to
have "discontinued certain traditions which ought to be revived",
namely, they had omitted the customary implantation of relics in
consecrating new churches. The Council ruled that this fault should
be mended and never be repeated in the future.46 There is no
indication of where or how often the fault had been perpetrated, but
whether the emperor was aware of such errors or not, it was he who
was ultimately responsible for them.
The second grain of truth to bear in mind is the vicious dissolution
of some monasteries which took place in the later 760s, of which
Theophanes gives a representative sample in the activities of
Michael Lachanodraco. 47 There is no cause to suspect that what
Theophanes says here is not substantially true. For reasons which
cannot be precisely formulated, Constantine V hated monks, and,
feeling perhaps that he had sufficient support for his action, set about
laicising them, secularising their houses and no doubt expropriating
their property. As the focal building of every monastery was its
church, the destruction or misappropriation of consecrated buildings
inevitably occurred. As every church contained at least some, and

44
Mansi 12: 1014C
45
Mansi 12: 1010
46
Canon 7 of 787; Mansi 13: 427C. cf. Nkephorus, Antirrhetìcas 2.5, PG 100:
344 A; "He [Constantine] instructed that no such thing [as relics] should be set in the
foundation of the holy tables of the venerable sanctuaries used in Christian
worship." This is the earliest suggestion that Constarrtine was responsible for the
omission of relics. Note that Canon 7 of 787 neither says nor implies that the
omission had been universal in recent consecrations.
Theophanes I: 445, 3-446, 15
 273
some many relics, it ts to be anticipated that when the imperiaf agents
took over those churches, over-zelous or careless servants of the
crown, knowingly or otherwise, probably did on more than one
occasion- trampteor born or bory o r drowireertahr reftcs; forft was
axiomatic amongst their devotees that no matter how small a
fragment might be, it possessed no less ' dyn amis than the full corpse
itself had done. 4 " We have seen relics so small in our own time that
they can scarcely be detected without spectacles; such one could
destroy without knowing it. Although the process of fragmentation
may not have yet gone so far in the eighth century, it had certainly
progressed to a certain degree. An undiscerning officer might easily
have borne off a fine reliquary to the imperial treasury without
realizing that it still contained its relic, or have removed it under the
impression that he was merely cleaning the container.49 As it was on
imperial orders that these monasteries were disaffected, so it must
have been the emperor who was held responsible for the loss of any
relics, which, as we have seen, was held in certain circles to be more
severe than the loss of land, buildings, icons, chalices or even
gospel-books.

48
"The bodies [of the martyrs] are not contained each one in a single grave, but
cities and villages having shared them out amongst themselves, cal! them savers of
souls and the healers of bodies, honouring them as preservers of cities and
guardians. By making intercessions to the Lord of all, they obtain divine gifts
through them. Although the body has been divided up, the grace remains
undivided; the smallest and most tenuous relic has the same power as the complete
and undivided martyr. The grace which flourishes within it distributes the gifts,
measuring the appropriate rewards in accordance with the faith of those who
approach." Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Graecarum affectionum curado 8, PG 8 3 :
1012B.
49
It is interesting to compare the alleged behaviour of the Latin conquerors over
four centuries later, who certainly had no antipathy to the relics: "cum capta est
Constantinopolis, exultabant victores Latini capta praeda, sicut qui invenerunt
spolia multa, sed caeca cupiditas, quae facile persuadet, ita manus eorum victrices
victas tenuit. ut non solum ecclesias violarent, immo etiam vascula in quibus
sanctorum reliquiae qutescebant, impudentereffringerent. aurumindeetargentum
et gemmas turpiter evellentes, ipsas vero reliquias pro nihilo reputabant." (Anon.,
Historia translationis reliquiarurn Sancii Mamentis, AASS Aug. Ill, 444). caeca
cupiditas is rarely absent from the dissolutions of monasteries, it seems.
274
Bearing these 'grains of truth' in mind, we may now proceed to
examine what Gero has correctly identified as the principal, most
persistent and oldest specific charge of leipsanoclasm against the
•Isaurians: the despoliation of the relics of Saint Euphemia of
Chalcedon. 50 If this charge can be refuted, little or nothing of
substance remains with which to reproach those emperors in this
matter. It should be noted that there is another, and not dissimilar,
charge, equally widely made against Leo in particular: that of having
imrned the buildings, library and teachers of an educational
establishment at Constantinople in 726. This having been now
exposed to be a fiction (in the opinion of most scholars)51 it may be
possible likewise to shake the credibility of the Saint Euphemia
charge.
Its earliest extant form is in the History of the relics of Saint
Euphemia, written by one Constantine of Tíos (on the Black sea,)
probably (on the basis of internal evidence) between 796 and 806."
If the dating is correct, Constantine is the earliest of many writers
who claimed that Constantine V was guilty of "burning and
scattering the relics of the saints, discontinuing the vigils held for the
glory of God and of the saints, deriding the sanctifying streams
gushing-forth in accordance with God's provision for mankind,
mocking those who made use of them as 'hydrolaters'"." But it is
Leo III whom he accuses of despoiling the relics of Saint Euphemia,
saying that he first removed them to the palace and then cast them
into the sea, whence they were brought to safety on the island of
Lemnos. The empty shrine was adapted to various secular uses.54

50
BP eh. VII
51
For the exposure of this vieux canard, see Louis Bréhier, "La légende de Léon
risaurien, incendiaire de l'Université de Constantinople," Byzantton 4 (1927-28)
13-28.
52
éd. François Halkin, Euphémie de Chalcédoine: Légendes byzantines (Brussels,
1965), pp. 8Î-106.
53
c. 10. The extraordinary similarity of language here (p. 96,4-14) and in an early
passage in which Leo is accused (86-1-5) should be noted, and should enjoin
caution.
54
cc. 4,5
 275
Substantially the story is the same in all subsequent recensions, but
with one important difference: that they all attribute the sacrilege
against Saint Euphemia to Constantine, not to his father, if they
were right and Constantine of Tios mistaken in this respect, one
might look for thé origins of this story in the monastic dissolutions of
the late 760s, except that nowhere is Saint Euphemia's spoken of as a
monastery; but neither was it an ordinary parish church. As its
hexagonal shape and lay-out demonstrate, it was essentially a
martyriem, whose raison d'être was the relics which it housed. It was
also a martyrion of considerable importance, not only on account of
the decisive role which Saint Euphemia's relics had played in the
Fourth Oecumenical Council, but also because a sweet-smelling
blood-like liquor flowed from her tomb (located beneath the altar)
whose healing effects gained her great popularity, enhanced perhaps
by her relatively recent arrival in the city, early in the seventh
century.55
The purpose of Constantine of Tíos* Historyis fairly clear. In 796,
the Empress Irene restored the martyrion of Saint Euphemia (which
implies yet another 'grain of truth ', that prior to 796 this building was
in a dilapidated condition,) and Constantine claims to have been
present at the re-dedication.5* There could be no restoration of a
martyrion without the recovery of the relics it was meant to house,
and their recovery was most probably that which occasioned the
restoration. The History is clearly a pièce jitsticative intended to
establish the authenticity of the recovered relics, taking up the
familiar topos of relics which float to their intended destination and /
or safety over the sea. In order to explain how they came to be cast
into the sea he has conflated the 'grains of truth' mentioned above
into the legend of a relic-hating emperor who maliciously desecrated
the shrine, a legend which was widely accepted in the ninth century,

55
Raymond Janin, La Géographie Ecclésiastique de l'Empire byzantin I.iii, Les
Eglises et Monastères, second edition (Paris, 1969) pp 120-124. (n.b. there was also
a church, or oratory, of Saint Euphemia within the Palace, en tei Daphei, which may
in some way be connected with Constantine of Tios" allegation that Leo III first took
the relics into the Palace.)
^Theophanes 1:440, 1-10
276
but which should be prudently rejected in the twentieth, for the
following reasons.
First we may note (as Bréhier did of the alleged burning of the
"University of Constantinople")
.... que cette anecdote est en contradiction formelle avec tout ce que
nous savons des premières mesures iconoclastes de Léon l'Isaurien.
Ce fut avec une certaine prudence qu'il opéra d'abord, et les révoltes
qui éclatèrent en Grèce, dans les îles, en Italie après la publication de
l'édit de 726, rendirent cette prudence encore plus nécessaire. Avant
sa mort (740) il y eut sans doute quelques conflits sanglants, mais la
persécution systématique des partisans des icones ne date réellement
que de Constantin V.57
If, as subsequent writers claim, it were Constantine who
desecrated Saint E u p h e m i a ' s and (as all imply) this was his most
flagrant crime against the relics, why d o we have to wait until a
quarter of a century (or m o r e ) after his death until we hear of it,
when many lesser crimes of his were well-known much earlier?
Secondly, what credence can b e placed in the testimony of a man
like Constantine of Tk>s who so readily believes the story of the
saving of the relics? Admittedly, this is to question the greater part of
mid-Byzantine authorities; perhaps o n e should rather ask, allowing
for a measure of difference between the two that most people would
allow, is Constantine to be reckoned amongst the chroniclers, or
amongst the hagiographers? Clearly, the second, which absolves him
of all bat o n e obligation: to glorify his saint or, in this case, her relics.
As the saint is glorified by a narration of the trials he has endured and
the enemies h e has withstood, so are the relics. Automatically, the
emperor Leo/Constantine becomes a second Decius, a new
Diocletian, t h e complete adversary. T h e 'facts' of the matter are
irrelevant.
Lastly, there is a much simpler and more likely explanation of how
Saint E u p h e m i a ' s came to be dilapidated prior to 796. At the very
end of Leo's reign, a particularly severe series of earthquakes hit
Constantinople, which otherwise seems to have been spared this
fléau between 611 & 790. G r e a t damage was d o n e and many
churches and monasteries fell down, and Saint Irene's was at least

Bréhier. art. cit.. p. 21.

 277
partially ruined.58 Is it not possible that the martyrion of Saint
Euphemia was also badly damaged at that time? The collapse of the
central roof over the hexagon would still leave surrounding areas
which could afford some protection to those who sought it, the many
whose homes had been rendered uninhabitable, for instance.
Nicephorus Patriarches says that most of the Byzantines fled the city
and camped outside the walls whilst the earthquake lasted; it is
possible that very few people actually saw Saint Euphemia's shaken
down, thus leaving a fertile field for legend to sprout in. Also, if the
disturbances did continue for twelve months, though the chronology
is a little confused, that period could have included the death of Leo
III on 18 June 740, thus creating the confusion as to which emperor
was responsible for the damage at Saint Euphemia's. It is clear from
the sources that the rebuilding of churches was not top-priority when
the earthquakes ceased: the city-walls were. If the ancient and
venerable Saint Irene's had to wait long into the reign of Constantine
V before it was restored, 59 Saint Euphemia's may well have remained
a ruin throughout and beyond that reign, in which case the saint's
clients would naturally hold that emperor responsible for the state of
her shrine near the Hippodrome.
Such then are the reasons for relegating the story of the
desecration of Saint Euphemia's to the category of pious fiction. I am
not suggesting, that Constantine of Tios invented it; indeed, the
variations in the extant versions suggest that he was merely retailing
something which had become common knowledge, something which
may very well first have been published in a sermon at the
rededication-ceremonies at Saint Euphemia's in 796. For it is
subsequent to that dedication that the legend of leipsanoclasm
suddenly makes its existence clearly felt. The principal perpetrators
of that legend are the following.
Stephen the Deacon, who wrote a Life ofSaint Stephen-the-tess
ca 808, says very little about relics, and nothing of any general policy
concerning the relics on the part of Constantine V. But he tells a

5X
Theophanes 1:412. 6-16; Nicephorus, Breviarium p. 59, 2-14; Synaxaria at 26
October.
59
Janin, op. cit. p. 104
278
story of how that emperor reacted angrily to the news that a relic of
Saint Stephen (his victim) was being privately revered, and sought
(in vain) to apprehend it. It is a good tale, probably with more to tell
us about the way iconodoules* relics were honoured in the ninth
century than of Constantine V's attitudes in the eighth.6*
Theophanes Confessor (closely followed by George the Monk) is
the first, and most influential, of many who charge that Constantine
would confiscate and bury the rëftes of the samts if it came to his
attention that some relic of particular importance was efficacious for
the healing of body or soul and was held in high esteem by devout
people as is the custom. Likewise, he would threaten such people with
death, as though they were guilty of impiety, with confiscation of their
property, with exile and torture. The most God-beloved relic,
cherished by those who possessed it as a treasure, he would remove,
to be no more seen again.*'
Clearly, Theophanes was thinking of the case of Saint Euphemía,
for he goes on immediately to give his version ofthat story as though
it were the outstanding example of Constantine's teipsanomachy. If
he knew of other examples, he wrote nothing of them.
Nicephorus Patriarches says nothing of the Saint Euphemia-affair
in the Brevîarium, which adds a further doubt to the authenticity of
the story, nor in the Antirrhetici^ which is surprising for he does there
say that Constantine "even consumed their [the saint's] very holy
and venerable relics with fire," and singled out for despoliation
churches distinguished by icons and relics of the saints; he could have
had Saint Euphemia's in mind, but if so, he says nothing of it.*2
The worst that Theosterictos, abbot of Medicius' monastery (ob.
824) has to say of Constantine's attitude to the relics is that "he was
utterly scornful of them and reckoned them as worthless", not that
he took any action against them Λ1
It seems therefore that not even after the legend of the
despoliation of Saint Euphemia's had gone into circulation had the

Mt
PG 100: 1180C-1182C
61
Theophanes 1:439, 15-27
w
Antirrhetkus 2.4,5: PG 100: 3 4 I D . 344A.
** Vita Nicetae c. 28, AASS Api i. xxiv.
 279
idea of Constantine as an active persecutor of the relics gained
universal acceptance, even amongst those who were most definitely
of the iconodoule persuasion. The present writer is of the opinion
that this was for the simple reason that there was not a single
well-authenticated case of either Leo or Constantine ever having set
his hand against the relics; and since it is impossible to know what
was going on in their heads, that is probably all that can be said of the
matter.