ByzSt 04 (1977)

EDITORIAL BOARD/COMITE DE REDACTION
Editor-in-Chief/Rédacteur-en-chef: CHARLES SCHLACKS, J R -

Arizona State University
Editor/Rédacteur: WALTER К. HANAK-Department of History, Shepherd
College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia 25443
Book Review Editor/Rédacteur des comptes rendus: DALE KINNEY—
Department of History, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
Associate Editors/'Rédacteurs adjoints:

ANASTASIOS С. BANDY-University of California, Riverside
JOHN W. BARKER-University of Wisconsin-Madison
ANTHONY A. M. BRYER-The University of Birmingham
ANTONIN DOSTAL-Brown University
IVAN DUJČEV-Sofiiski Universitet "Kliment Okhridski" and Bułgarska
Akademiia na Haukite
DAVID B. EVANS-St. John's University, New York
GEORGE GALAVARIS-McGill University
ANTONIO GARZYA-Università degli studi di Napoli
ANDRE GUILLOU-L'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Sixième Section,
Paris
NORMAN W. INGHAM-University of Chicago
DOULA MOURIKI-National Technical University of Athens
NICOLAS OIKONOMIDES-Université de Montréal
MARCELL RESTLE-Universität München
MILOŠ VELIMIROVIC-University of Virginia
BYZANTINE STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES is published as one volume

with two to four parts annually. Subscription rates are: Institutions-$20.00;
Faculty-$15.00; full-time Students—$12.00. Discounts are given if two or
more journals in the Russian and East European Publications series are
ordered (see the inside back cover for titles and rates). Subscriptions should
be sent to: Arizona State University, Russian and East European Publications,
120B McAllister Street, Tempe, Arizona 85281. Articles submitted for
possible publication should be sent to the Editor; book reviews should be
sent to the Book Review Editor. Contributions will be returned only if
accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Format should follow
the Modern Language Association Style Sheet.
© 1977, Charles Schlacks, Jr.

and
All Rights Reserved
Published Simultaneously in Canada
Neither the Editor-in-Chief nor the publisher accept responsibility for state-
ments or opinions appearing in the journal.
VOL. 4, PARTİ 1977
VOL. 4, FASC. 1 1977
STUDIES *%
ARTICLES
The Literature of Catastrophe 1

John Wortley
Mary at the Cross: St. Romanos'Kontakion for Holy Friday 18
Eva Catafygiotu Topping
The Praetorian Prefect Anthemms: Position and Policies 38
William Bayless
The Origin of the Term Saracen and the Rawwâfa Inscriptions 52
David F. Graf and M. O'Connor
TRANSLATION/TRADUCTION
Medieval European Society As Seen in Two Eleventh-Century Texts

of Michael Psellos (Part II) 67
Michael J. Kyriakis
REVIEW ARTICLE/CRITIQUE EXHAUSTIF
Manifestations and Perceptions of the Transcendent in History 81

Gregory T. Armstrong
BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS
Hélène Ahrweiler. Byzance: les pays et les territories (Frank E. Wozniak) 89

Hélène Ahrwefler. L'idéologie politique de l'Empire byzantin (John W. Barker) . . . . 90
Alice-Mary Talbot. The Correspondence of Athanasius I Patriarch of Constanti
nople. Leiters to the Emperor Andronicus II. Members of the Imperial
Family, and Officials. An Edition, Translation, and Commentary
(Nomikos M. Vaporis) 91
Donald M. Nicol. Meteora: The Rock Monasteries of Thessaly. Revised Edition
(Dorothy de F. Abrahamse) 93
Maciej Salamon. Rozwój idei Rzymu-Konstantynopola od IV do pierwszej połowy
Viwieku (Walter K. Hanak) 93
Kenneth M. Setton. Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311-1388. Revised edition;
Kenneth M. Setton. Athens in the Middle Ages (D. A. Miller) 95
Kurt Weitzmann, William C. Loerke, Ernst Kitzinger, and Hugo Buchthal. The
Place of Book Illumination in Byzantine Art (George Galavaris) 97
-Ioannis E. Karayiannopoulos. H BVÇCWTLVTI Лоторіа ano тая Щуая •
(Demetrios J. Constantelos) 99
Theodore S. Nikolaou. Аіттері ІІоХѵтеіая каі Aucatov Ібеси тоѵГХгідиѵоя Геџштои.
BvţavTwá Kefaeva каі МеХетai, 13. (Byron С. P. Tsangadas) 100
The ЛОГОІ ДІА AKTIKOI of Marinos Phalieros. Critical Edition by W. F. Bakker
and A. F. van Gemert. (Roberto Romano) 102
Хріотоѵ Ѳ. Kpcxt6i7. STNArttrH IlATEPiW EIE TO KATA AOTKAN
ETAITEAION' VTTQ NIKHT А ИРАК ЛЕІА2, ката тбѵ ксббсха IBHPiîN 371.
(Miltiades В. Efthimiou) 103
Stylianos Pelekanides and Panayiota I. Atzaka. Súwcryfxa тСЬѵ ПаХаддхрштіаѵіктѵ
V т?<ріба>та>і> батгебсЈУ ті\я ЕЛЛабос, I. Nr\ovtjjTiKr\ 'EÄAcfc. (Marie Spiros) . . . . 104
PROFESSIONAL NEWS/NOUVELLES DE LA PROFESSION 105

BOOKS RECEIVED/LIVRES REÇUS 107
INDEX TO VOLUME 3/INDEX DU VOLUME 3 109
SUMMARY/SOMMAIRE . . . . . * r
CONTRIBUTORS/LES AUTEURS ü
CONTRIBUTORS/LES AUTEURS
GREGORY T. ARMSTRONG is Assistant Professor of Religion at Sweet Briar College.

Recent publications include Die Genisis in der Alten Kirche (Tübingen, 1962), as well as
articles in Church History, , Greek Orthodox Theological Review, and Studia Patristica.
WILLIAM BAYLESS was until recently Assistant Professor of History at Douglass Col-
lege of Rutgers University. Recent publications include articles in Bulletin of the Ameri-
can Society of Papyrologists, American Journal of Philology, and Classical Journal.
DAVID F. GRAF is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.
MICHAEL J. KYRIAKIS is currently completing a revision of his doctoral dissertation
"Theodore Prodrome et le mileu intellectual à Constantinople au douzième siècle." Re-
cent publications include articles in Byzantion and Byzantina.
M. O'CONNOR is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.
EVA CATAFYGIOTU TOPPING is Lecturer in Greek at the University of Cincinnati.
Recent publications include Sacred Stories from Byzantium (Cincinnati, 1977), as well
as articles in Byzantion and Byzantinische Zeitschrift.
JOHN WORTLEY is the editor of Mosaic, published by the University of Manitoba. Re-
cent publications include articles in Byzantion and Analecta Bollandiana. Current re-
search centers on a study of the cult of relics in the Byzantine Empire.
и
BYZANTINE STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES, 4, Part 1 (1977), 1-17.
ARTICLES
JOHN WORTLEY (Winnipeg, Canada)
The Literature of Catastrophe
Fascinating though the study of the Later Roman Empire might be, lurk-
ing in the background there is always the disquieting knowledge that in the
end, it all fell apart; that no matter what greatness might be discovered, this
cannot conceal the fatal decime, the entropy of which the seeds are already
visible in the "Imperial Centuries," and the inevitable catastrophe of 1453.
For us, with our hindsight, this is inescapable. The remarkable thing is that
the later Romans themselves, or some of them some of the time, also shared
this sense of impending doom, and over the centuries even evolved an apoca-
lyptic literary tradition which tried to probe the mystery of the final catastro-
phe.
It is perhaps surprising at first sight that this should have been so, when it
obviously was not so in the old Western Roman Empire. Given the degree of
continuity between Old Rome and New Rome, one might have expected
some of the optimistic confidence in Eternal Rome to have carried over to
the East, and indeed the Emperor Constantine the Great, who spared no ex-
pense to recreate Rome on the Bosphorus, is even said to have purloined the
sacred pallium (secretly, so as to anger neither his pagan subjects in the Old,
nor his Christians in the New Rome) which Aeneas allegedly brought from
Troy to the Tiber, and to have secreted it beneath the great porphyry column
in the forum of the New City.1 Whether the story is true or not is irrelevant;
the important point is that many of the late Romans believed that it was
true, and still did not rise to the optimistic belief of their Latin-speaking pre-
decessors in the indestructability of their city.
The reason is not hard to find; unlike their predecessors, these New
Romans were Christians, and as such, their optimism was of a different order:
they looked for a golden age, not in this world, but in the next; and as Christ -
1. Procopius, De Bello Gothico, ìnProcopii Caesariensis opera omnia, ed. J. Haury, 3

vols, in 4 (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1905-13), I, 15; Ioannis Malalas, Chronographia, ed.
L. Dindorf, Corpus scriptorura historiae Byzantinae (Волп: E. Weber, 1831), p. 320;
Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, 2 vols.
(Bonn: E. Weber, 1832), II, 528. 14, Параатааеіс ovvroßOL Xpovucai, с. 23, ed.
T. Preger, Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, 7 vols. (Leipzig: J. С Hinrich,
1901-07), 1,33; and VII, 161.
2 BYZANTINE STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES
ians, they were fully prepared to see the visible creation dissolve away at the
end of time. Furthermore, they believed theirs to be the last and greatest of
the four world empires, and as such, esteemed it as an important—but dis-
pensable—element of the divine dispensation. Consequently, they simply did
not share the Old Romans' faith in the permanence of their city, in spite of
its superior walls and magnificent strategic location; praise they might heap
upon Constantinople, New Rome and New Jerusalem in one, rj ßaoiXevouoa
TCÙV nökecjv, r¡ Ѳесхрѵкактоя каі ßaotkri and so forth, but they never
called her eternal, for if "heaven and earth shall pass away", so too must the
City of Constantine.
However, if the East Romans failed to inherit the earthly optimism of
their Latin predecessors, they certainly possessed something of the intellec-
tual curiosity which was their Greek heritage. If heaven and earth were to
pass away, then they wanted to know how and when the catastrophe would
come about. Jesus himself had spoken of disasters which would precede the
final dissolution,2 and on the basis of one of his sayings, it seemed possible
to know still more about these matters: " 'It is given to you to know the mys-
teries of the kingdom of heaven,'—how much more so, then, the mysteries of
the world?"3 So the apocalyprists (whose work spans the entire Byzantine
millenium) should probably be seen as the Christian end of a spectrum of
prophets (diviners, soothsayers, dream-interpreters, astrologers, fortunetellers,
even necromancers) all of whom the Later Empire seems somehow to have ac-
comodated (and valued) and all of whom sought to probe "the mysteries of
the world." Of these, only the оѵеірокрѵгах and the apocalyptists have
made any contribution to the literary heritage of the empire, the latter by far
the greater, and it is with theirs that this paper is concerned.
Anybody who occupies himself in any way with mediaeval Greek manu
scripts will have come across several examples of apocalyptic literature, and if
he has paid any attention to them will realise that they constitute a vast, tan
gled undergrowth of material which has been very little studied and even less
understood; predictably, the confusion intensifies as time advances. In fact it
is necessary to retreat some centuries in order to reach a point where the apo
calyptic tradition presents a problem of manageable proportions. That point
is probably conveniently marked by the appearance of what is perhaps the
most impressive of the Byzantine apocalypses, and one which was to have a
2. The eschatological passages in the Gospels, Mark xiii. 1-3 7, Matthew xxiv. 1-51 and
Luke xxi.5-36, provided a considerable amount of basic material for the apocalyptists;
likewise certain Pauline passages, e.g., the concluding chapters of I Corinthians, and of
course most of Apocalypsis Iohannis (Revelations).
3. Vita Sancii Andreae Sali (ut subter) с. 208, quoting Matthew xiii. 11 : <m vßh> б è-
ботаіуѵпѵаі тацѵотцріа rfjç /ЗааіХеіасTQVovpavcovUóo^jџаХХоибетатоѵкоацоѵ....
THE LITERATURE OF CATASTROPHE 3
marked influence on subsequent ebcimtological speculation, the Andrew Salos

Apocalypse, so called because it is found embedded in the tenth-century Vita
Sancii Andreae Sali, the (fictitious) saint who allegedly uttered its prophecies,
though in fact the Apocalypse can probably be dated to the last decades of
the ninth century.4 With its seven eschatological rulers, this is probably
the most comprehensive of the Byzantine apocalypses, in that it both shows
the influence of many (if not all) pre-existant Byzantine prose apocalyptic in
varying measure (as this essay attempts to show), and can be seen to have
made a significant contribution to most of what came after.
The Bollandists include a number of apocalypses under the heading of
Hagiographica Graeca. This is somewhat misleading, for such writings really
constitute a separate literary genre. Whilst the vitae ostensibly record the
past, the apocalypses claim to foretell the future, and in fact, the Vita Sancii
Andreae Sali provides the only known instance of an apocalypse embodied
in a vita. Generally speaking, apocalyptists and hagiographers wrote in res-
ponse to very different circumstances and for different reasons. The hagio-
grapher wrote to educate his readers and to excite them to greater piety; the
apocalyptist wrote to warn and to alarm or to console and comfort them in
times of disillusionment or affliction. By holding up noble examples, the
hagiographer tried to demonstrate that this present life could be enriched and
4. See F. Halkin, Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, Subsidia hagiographica, no. 8a, 3

voh., 3rd ed. (Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1957), item 117. The Vita Sancii An-
dreae Sali is cited in this study by reference to the paragraph numbers (cc.) of the edi-
tion of С Janning, Acta sanctorum, 1st ed., a tomo Ilanuarii (Antwerp: Ioannes Meur-
sius, 1643); ad tomum IVNovembris (Bruxelles: apud Socios Bollandians, 1925) [Maii t.
Vi (Antwerp: M. Cnobarus, 1688), pp. 4*-lll*; 3rd ed., ibid., pp. 4*-102*]. This text is
reproduced (not without errors) in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series
graeca, 161 vols. (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1857-66), CXI, cols. 627-888 (hereafterPG). The
Apocalypse is cc. 208-29 of this text. There is another edition of the Vita, based on
Codex Sinaiticus 543 (anno 1630) by the Jordanite monk Augoustinos Polyetopoulos,
ßioc каі ітокітеіл тоѵ òoiov nárpoq ¥цли)ѵ 'Аѵбреоѵ тоѵбіа Хрютоѵ ааХоѵ (Athen
and Jerusalem, 1912, identical editions).
This book is fully described by L. Petit, Bibliographie des Acolouthies Grecques, Sub
sidia hagiographica, no. 16 (Bruxelles: Société des Bollandistes, 1926), p. 8. Ois. 32, 33,
40, 49, and parts of 50 and 51 of Polyetopoulos' text are not found in Janning's. On the
date of the Vita, see С Janning, Commentarius praevius to the edition of the Vita Sancii
Andreae Sali cited above, PG, CXI, cols. 621-28. Sara Murray, A Study of the Life of
Andreas, the Fool for the Sake of Christ (Borna-Leipzig: R. Noske, 1910), pp. 23-30,
passim; J. Wortley, "A Note on the Sate of the Vita Sancti Andreae Sali," Byzantion,
39 (1969), 204-08; and idem, "The Relationship between the Vita and the Cult of Saint
Andrew Salos," Analecta Bollandiana, 90 (1972), 137-41. On the date of the Apoca
lypse, see J. Wortely, "The Pohtical Significance of the Andrew-Salos Apocalypse,"
Byzantion, 43 (1973), 248-63.
ennobled; the apocalyptist tended to despair of this world and to look for its
replacement by another.
It is therefore necessary to study the literature of the apocalypses in the
context of the tradition to which it belongs; but the study of the Byzantine
apocalyptic tradition is beset by a difficulty peculiar to apocalyptic litera-
ture in general. All documents suffer a certain degree of modification at the
hands of their copyists and editors, vitae perhaps a little more than other
works, but apocalypses tend to undergo a veritable transformation as succeed-
ing generations of would-be prophets rewrite, revise and augment them, or
conflate them with each other, in an attempt to make them relevant to the
contemporary situation. Sometimes it is impossible to find two even nearly
identical texts of the same work.5 This constant revision would be no major
problem had all, or even a representative selection of the documents survived;
it would then be possible to construct a stemma showing the origins and de-
velopment of the apocalyptic tradition; but unfortunately this is not the case.
The fact that revised versions of the texts were produced in itself suggests
that their predecessor had ceased to be relevant; consequently it is hardly sur-
prising if they ceased to be recopied. Nearly all the surviving Greek docu-
ments are late, dating from the Palaeologian age and later, with only a few
earlier examples, amongst which the Andrew Salos Apocalypse is outstanding.
This paucity of documents originating in the early and middle Byzantine
periods must not be allowed to create the illusion that apocalyptic writing
was stagnant between the rise of Constantine and the fall of his city to the
Franks. There are three kinds of evidence the cumulative effect of which is
to suggest that it was a period during which a marked development took
place. In the first place, there is sufficient extant material to give a clear pic-
ture of the apocalyptic tradition which the Byzantines inherited. Secondly,
the very disparity of the extant Greek documents is useful; on the basis that
augmentation was more common than omission or abbreviation, it can be as-
sumed that the most widely attested features may be the oldest ones, but this
method has to be applied with caution. Thirdly, there have survived in orien-
tal versions certain apocalyptic texts of which there is good reason to believe
there once also existed Greek versions which have since perished. With the
5. This is illustrated in the edition of Sinaiticus 543 (anno. 1630). See above, n. 4,
Polyetopoulos. With the exception of a number of block interpolations, this text of the
Vita is tolerably similar to the twelfth-century Vaticanus Graec. 1574 (Janning's Vati-
canus), except in the apocalyptic section, which shows signs of considerable modifica-
tion in the hght of both the Latin and Turkish conquests of Constantinople, with some
indication of a growing Russian power, e.g., p. 163: "There is a story that the race of
Hagarenes will enter in and will slaughter a sufficient number with their sword; but I say
that the white race will come in whose name is summarized in the seventeenth and
twenty-fourth letters" [i.e., rô(s)\.
help of these three sets of evidence a tentative pattern of the devolopment of

the Greek tradition can be inferred.
There are two different kinds of Byzantine apocalyptic literature, which
may conveniently be denominated prose and poetry, though the distinction
goes very much deeper than that. The poetical works, which are very few, de
rive from the Sibylline tradition, a product of the Judaeo-Hellenistic world of
Alexandria which formed part of the Christian heritage. Though Judaeo-
Christian in content, the Oracula Sibylline are HeUenistic in concept, and
derive ultimately from a pagan origin. The last books (eleven through four
teen), produced in the fifth century, show that the tradition was already de
clining; it appears to have come to an end with the occupation of Egypt in
the seventh century.7
To what extent the Sibyllines influenced or contributed to the Byzantine
prose tradition it is very difficult to say, partly on account of the extremely
nebulous nature of their prophecies, and partly because of the great disparity
between them and the extant prose works in both form and style. The Sibyl-
lines inspired a small number of imitations (of which the best known is the
so-called Oracles of Leo the Wise)? but these in tum have very few common
properties with the prose works. The Sibyllines demand a much higher level
(and type) of education on the part of the reader than do the prose works;
the medieval apocalyptists were rarely distinguished in scholarship or style,
and it is open to question whether most of them would even be capable of
reading the Sibyllines, Nevertheless, points do occur at which they may have
exerted some influence, though it is rarely very pronounced. There appears
to be no positive evidence of continuity between the Sibyllines and the prose
apocalypses.
To a very large extent, Byzantine prose apocalyptic literature derives ulti
mately and directly from a single document, the latter part of the canonical
Book of Daniel? Written during the time of the persecution of the Jews by
Antiochus Epiphanes (168-65 B.C.), this document contains Daniel's vision of
the four beasts and the ten homs, and looks to the coming of "one like unto
the Son of Man" who will establish a "kingdom of saints"; it is thought to
preserve an oral tradition going back to the time of Alexander the Great. This
is the first of a long series of Jewish apocalyptic works (largely associated
6. Die Oracula Sibyllina, ed. J. Geffcken, Џгг Kirchenvater-ßMdssdpm d e r Königl.

preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902).
7. H. C. O. Lanchester, "Sibyllines," in Encyclopaedia of Religion, ed. J. Hastings et
al., 13 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & F. dark, 1908-26), IX, 496-500.
8. PG, CVII, col. 1129 ff.; these oracles represent a complex literary tradition which
finally mingled with the prose apocalyptic tradition; see C. Mango, "The Legend of Leo
the Wise," Recuil des travaux de l'Académie Serbe des Sciences, 6 (1960), 59-93 + 4
plates.
9. Daniel chs. vii-xii; viii-xii are a commentary on vii.
with the sect of the Pharisees) which continued to proliferate and diversify
until the wars of 70 and 134 A.D. seemed finally and irreparably to destroy
the nationalistic aspirations which they expressed.10 Certain constant fea-
tures of the Jewish writing may be discerned: it was prophesied that there
would be signs, such as a recognizable succession of kings or empires, preced-
ing a "day of Yahweh" when the Messiah would appear. In the earliest phase,
the messianic figure was interpreted as a personification of the Jewish people,
but as foreign domination of their country continued unabated, this gave
way, at least at popular level, to the hope for a more immediate deliverer, a
second David or a Judas Maccabaeus, a superhuman warrior who would usher
in the age of gold.
The frustration of Jewish hopes almost exactly coincided with the rise of
the Christian religion, which suffered persecution from an early date, and
turned to apocalyptic writing for consolation just as the Jews had done. At
first Christians seem to have followed the earlier Jewish tradition of-a non-
political messianic expectation. Jesus had been at some pains to dissociate
himself from the image of a warrior-king, in spite of having apparently chosen
for himself from the messianic title "Son of Man."11 He had indicated that,
far from fighting battles in this world, he would return in glory, not in time,
but at the end of time, to judge, and to establish a kingdom "not of this
world." The Gospels contain an apocalypse attributed to Jesus (but showing
signs of having been composed after the destruction of the temple at Jerusa-
lem in 70 A.D.) which largely consists of the nonpolitical signs by which men
might be able to tell that the end was near, and the heavenly Messiah about to
return.12 Subsequent Christian apocalyptic, following the lead of ihe Apoca-
lypse of St. John the Divine (the canonical Revelation) proceeded to devolop
this emphasis, introducing certain political factors (such as the beast in Reve-
lation) as evil portents of the approaching consummation. Drawing on mate-
rial in the New Testament and the canonical Daniel, a complete eschatological
cycle was evolved, into which a certain amount of legendary matter also
found its way at an early date, and thus, the "Antichrist legend" was born,
which occurs more or less entirely in every early Christian apocalypse. It is a
misleading title, for the climax of the story is not the coming of Antichrist,
10. II/IV Esdras chs. iii-xiv provides a collection of Jewish apocalyptic writings; the
canonical books of Zepheniah and Malachi also fall within this category.
11. Cf. Mark viii. 29-31 ; Peter's confession, "Thou art the Chrsit" is not rebuked, but
reinterpreted. So also, before the high priest, when asked: "Art thou the Christ?", Jesus
said, "I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and
coming in the clouds of heaven." Mark xiv.61-2.
12. Mark xiii.5-37; cf. Luke xxi.7-36.
but the return of Jesus in glory, of which the other is a forewarning.13

The Antichrist legend is the first and most constant factor in Byzantine
apocalyptic, but it underwent one major modification at the beginning of the
Byzantine era. In spite of Jesus' attempts to spiritualize the messianic con
cept, the hope of an earthly warrior-savior had not perished, and, nourished
perhaps by the Graeco-Roman concept of the deified emperor and legends
such as that of the sleeping Alexander, the hope of a warrior-king began to re
appear in apocalyptic writing. Precisely how the figure of the warrior-king,
which was to dominate apocalyptical writing for nearly a thousand years,
found its way into the Christian apocalyptic tradition has not yet been satis
factorily explained. Norman Cohn has suggested that thisfigurewas inherited
from the Oracuia Sibyllina}* but he did not indicate where he found that
righteous warrior-emperor figure is in fact a transformed wicked emperor-
figure. The beast of Revelation is obviously meant to represent the per
secuting Roman emperor; a similar figure is to be found in some other
(but by no means all) pre-Nicene apocalypses; for example in the Testa
mentum Domini, с 5:
There shall arise in the west a great king of foreign

race, a prince of great craft, godless, a homicide,
a deceiver, a lover of gold, great at devices, a
hater of the faithful and a persecutor.
However, when the Roman emperor ceased to be the persecutor and became
the protector of Christians, the apocalyptic figure which represented him
underwent a similar transformation, and as the wicked emperor-figure to a
certam extent prefigured the supernatural Antichrist, so the transformed war
rior-emperor inevitably attracted certain messianic elements and his reign
eventually came to be portrayed almost as an anticipation of the
13. This cycle was studied and explained at length by W. Bousset, trans., The Anti
christ Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore (London: Hutchinson and
Co., 1896). Early Christian apocalyptic is typified by such works as the Shepherd of
Hermas and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs , there is a useful collection of
minor works in С Von Tischendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae Mosis Esdrae Pauli Johan-
nis item Mariae Dormitio (Leipzig, 1866). Hippolytus' Demonstratio de Christo et Anti
Christo, in PG, X, cols. 725-88 (a development of Daniel vii) was known and quoted by
the Andrew Salos apocalyptist (c. 222 = PG, X, col. 77ЗА); he probably also used the
Pseudo-ffippolytean De consummatio mundi, in PG, X, cols. 903-52. These works are
typical of pre-Byzantine apolitical eschatology; see also Ephraem Syrus, Opera omnia,
ed. G. S. Assemani, 6 vols. (Roma: Ex Typographia Vaticana, apud J. M. H. Salvioni,
1732^6), II, 192-209, 222-30 and 247-58.
14. N. R. С Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millenium (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1957),
p. 13. An embryo series of reigns can probably be discerned in Oracuia Sibyllina, III,
1-96.
napovoía.
It is probably significant that the earliest portrayal of a pro-Christian em-
peror which I can find appears to refer to Constantine and Helen; the follow-
ing quotation is from a document belonging to the "Tiburtine" tradition
which can be definitely stated to have originated before 500 A.D.:
Dans le septième âge un roi viendra de Byzance et une

femme de Constantinople; ils iront dans la ville de
Jerusalem; ils tueront beaucoup de gens à cause de
celui qui a été mis en croix; ils rassembleront une
foule considérable qui adorait les démons et les
ramèneront à lui. 15
This emperor is still a persecutor, but his efforts are now directed on behalf
of, not against, the Christians. Two features, his going to Jerusalem and his
pro-Christian violence, became constant features of subsequent apocalyptic.
It would appear that in some instances the transformed figure of the beast -
become-warrior replaced the beast figure (for example in the Pseudo-Metho-
dius tradition), but that in others it was added to the beast figure (for exam-
ple in the Tiburtine tradition), thus forming the basis of a series of reigns. The
Wicked Woman of Revelation provided a climax to that series and a transition
to the Antichrist legend. Such is the basic pattern of the prose apocalypses.
There are three groups of documents (two of which have already been
mentioned) which represent apocalyptic traditions which can be said with
any certainty to be older than the Andrew Salos Apocalypse. These traditions
can most conveniently be designated by the names which some of their docu-
ments bear: first the Daniel tradition; secondly the [Pseudo-] Methodius tra-
dition; and thirdly the Tiburtine tradition.
There exists a Greek Visions of Daniel which has been edited three times
from different MSS all of which display a most unusual similarity.16 It is a
15. R. M. J. Basset, "La Sagesse de Sibylle," Les Apocryphes Ethiopiens, 14 vols.

(Paris: E. Leroux, 1896-1909), X, 32. See below on the Tiburtine documents.
16, A. Vasil'ev, Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, pt. 1 (Moscow: Sumptibus et typis Uni-
versitatis Caesareae, 1893), 43-47; V. M. Istrin, OtkrovenieMethodik Patarskago i Apo-
kriphicheskiia videniia Daniila (Moscow, 1897), pp. 135 ff.; E. Klostermann, Analecta
zur Septuaginta, Hexapla und Patristïk (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1895), pp. 115-21. Also in
Tischendorf, pp. xxx-xxxiii. This work tells of a series of woes which will overtake the
"city of seven hills," in the course of which it will be captured by the "white race" for a
period of six and five years (Klostermann, П., 40 and 41), shortly after which the Tar
tars are mentioned by name (Tataroi).
tiny work of only some 120 lines, bearing some similarity to the Andrew
Salos Apocalypse, but it also unmistakably reflects conditions at Constanti-
nople in the thirteenth century. It might be assumed that this is an amended
version of a document which existed in the ninth century, but it bears very
little resemblance to the Visions of Daniel which Liutprand cynically des-
cribed in 968:
The Greeks and Saracens have certain writings which

they call the Visions of Daniel; I should call them
Sibylline books. In them is found written how many
years each emperor shall live; what crises will occur
during his reign; whether he shall have peace or war,
and whether fortune will smile on the Saracens or not.
According to these prophecies, the Assyrians in the
time of the present Emperor Nicephorus [Phocas] will
not be able to resist the Greeks, but Nicephorus himself
will only live for seven years. After his death an
emperor will arise worse than he (only I fear that none
such can be found) and more unwarlike, in whose times
the Assyrians shall so prevail that they will bring
under their rule all the country as far as Chalcedon,
which is not far from Constantinople. Both peoples pay
serious heed to these dates, and so now for one and the
same reason the Greeks are pressing vigorously forward,
and the Saracens, in despair, offer no resistance, awaiting
the time when they will attack, and the Greeks in turn
not resist.17
17. Liutprand, Legatio xxxviii, in Die Werke Liudprands von Cremona, ed. J. Becker,
Scriptores rerum germanicarum in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae historiéis
separatim editi, 3rd ed. (Hanover and Leipzig: Hahnschebuchhandlung, 1915). This quo-
tation is from The Works of Liudprand of Cremona, trans. F. A. Wright (London: G.
Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1930), pp. 257-58 (slightly emended).
I can find no evidence that the Saracens had such books, but it is not impossible con-
sidering the wide distribution and adaptability of the interpolated Danieli vii (see imme-
diately below). However, they certainly knew of such literature; Tabari tells that Parwiz
was once recognized (though incognito) and told how long he and the succeeding kings
of Persia would rule, by a hermit at Raqqa, which was under the domination du roi de
Roum. When asked how he knew such things he replied: "Des durée du règne de chacun
en particulier, et l'époque ou il vivra." Chronique de Abou-Djafar-Mohammed-ben-
Djarirben-Yezid Tabari, trans. H. Zoten berg, 4 vols. (rpt. Paris: G. P. Maisonneune, 1867-
74), II, 288-89.
There have survived, however, three oriental versions of the interpolated

Daniel chapter seven; the Persian-Jewish and Coptic versions (of the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries respectively) each depict a long line of rulers, mainly
Moslem, down to the tune of the Crusades, but the Armenian version is a
much older document which appears to have originated са. 500. 1 8 In it are
depicted the emperors of the East from Constantine to Zeno, after which the
succession becomes unidentifiable, and finally gives way to a brief narration
of the Antichrist legend. Macler thought that the text shows marked signs of
having been translated from a Greek original, which is hardly surprising since
the main burden of the narrative is to demonstrate the abiding qualities of
"the city of seven hills." The work seems to agree with Liutprand's descrip
tion except in one vital particular; it contains no mention of the Saracens or
of Islam, having been written before either were known; but it does contain
passages which are reminiscent of the Andrew Salos Apocalypse, though at
times only very remotely so. It is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that
between 50Ö and 880 this work was subject to continuous revision (and per
haps even abbreviation, since the line of reigns was inordinately long), and
that some later version of it was used by the Andrew Salos apocalyptist.
* * *
The Armenian text contains no mention of a messianic warrior-king; to

find that figure it is necessary to turn to another early Byzantine apocalyp
tic tradition, the so-called Revelations of Methodius, which is of the greatest
importance. "During the middle ages," wrote Ernst Sackur, "the influence of
Pseudo-Methodius was second only to that of the canon [of scripture] and the
church fathers."19 It has survived in a very wide variety of MSS in Greek,
Latin and Slavonic (not to mention the oriental versions), mostly dating from
18. All three versions were translated and commented on by F. Macler, "Les apoca
lypses apocryohes de Daniel," Revue de l'histoire des religions, 33 (1896), 37-53, 163-
76, and 288-319. The Persian-Je wish version (Qissahi Daniel) had previously been stu
died by J. Darmesteter, "L'apocalypse persane de Daniel," in Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des
Hautes Etudes, fase. 73 (Paris: H. Champion, 1869-), 405-20. The Coptic version has
been recently re-examined by О. Maindarus, "A Commentary on the XlVth Vision of
Daniel," Orientalm Christiana Periodica, 32 (1966), 394-449, and an article on these
documents as sources of Jewish history by A. Sharf is promised soon, but not yet avail
able. There appears to be no other literature on the subject. The Armenian text was
edited by G. Kalemkiar in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 6/2
(1892), 109 ff.; for a French translation, see Macler, pp. 291-309. Macler notes, pp. 41
and 290, that both Patriarch Nicephorus ("dans sa Stichométrie") and Pseudo-Athanas-
ius mention the existence of apocryphal books of Daniel.
19. E. Sackur, Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen Pseudomethodius, Adso und die
Tïburtinische Sybylle (Hall: A. S. M. Niemeyer, 1898), p. 6.
the later middle ages, and differing widely from each other in content. All
the available western and Slavonic texts were collected and edited by V. Istruì
in 1897, together with a long study of them in Russian.20 He discerned four
major recensions, of which the last two increasingly abounded in interpola-
tions and divergences. Unfortunately, reviewing Istrin's work over thirty years
later, Michael Kmosko was forced to conclude that it had achieved no posi-
tive results, as most of the MSS he used went no further back than the fif-
teenth century.21
Meanwhile Ernest Sackur had gone a great way towards establishing the
original text by editing the early Latin translation of Pseudo-Methodius from
four MSS of the late eighth century.22 He believed that the original author
was a Syrian who wrote in Greek in the last quarter of the seventh century,23
and this conclusion was generally accepted until F. Nau published a French
translation of what he believed to be the Syriac original of Pseudo-Methodius,
but his text varied too widely from Sackur's to be convincing;24 nevertheless,
it gave rise to the suspicion of a Syriac original and this led Kmosko to study
Codex Vaticanas Syriacus 58. Although he found the text to be in a very bad
condition, he became convinced that this was the Syriac Urtext oi Pseudo-
Methodius. He sought to relate it to a historical situation and this served to
confirm Nau's dating of the original composition in the seventh century.25
Pseudo-Methodius is a most remarkable mélange of legend, history, scrip-
ture, and ethnic megalomania. Its most striking feature is its division of world
history into seven aeons, of which this present is the seventh and last one.
This system of seven aeons (which is the basis of Byzantine chronology and
eschatology) originated with a literal reading of a verse in the Psalms: "In
thine eyes a thousand years are as a day"26 and an allegorical application of
the seven days of creation to the process of recreation. Man appeared on
earth in the midst of the sixth day of creation; therefore the New Man, that
is, Christ, must have appeared on earth in the midst of the sixth world-day,
20. Istrin.
21. M. Kmosko, "Das Rätsel des Pseudomethodius," Byzantion, 6 (1931), 273-96;
see p. 275.
22. Sackur, pp. 60-96 ; the Latin text generally agrees with the Greek of Istrin's "first
recension," pp. 5-55.
23. Sackur, pp. 53-56; there is thus no connection-whatsoever between Pseudo-
Methodius and that St. Methodius who in the third century was successively Bishop of
Olympus, Patara, and Tyre, the author of De Autexousia and the Convivium x Virginum.
24. F. Nau, "Pseudomethodius," Journal Asiatique, llth series, 9 (1917), 415-52,
reviewed by P. Peters in Analecta Bollandiana, 46 (1926), 173.
25. Kmosko, p. 276.
26. Psalms lxxxix.4 (LXX).
that is, in the sixth millenium, ca. A.M. 5500. 27 By this token the sixth aeon
together with this present creation should have drawn to a close ca. A.D. 500,
and given way to the seventh aeon, the "sabbath of rest."28 When this in fact
did not happen, a revised system was adopted which postponed the "sabbath
of rest" until the eighth aeon; hence the two systems found in patristic litera-
ture.2*
The general contents of Pseudo-Methodius may best be described by
noting the seven constituent documents which Bousset claimed to have dis-
cerned, though without accepting his theory that they were separate in ori-
gin:
1. A survey of early world history from Adam onwards.
2. Gideon's victory over the Ishmaelites; a promise of their return, and also
of the ultimate victory of the Romans over them.
3. The exclusion of Gog and Magog by Alexander the Great, and a predic-
tion of their return. Then follows the curious legend that on the death of
Philip of Macedón, his widow, Chuseth, returned to her father, Phol, King of
Ethiopia. He in turn sent her to marry Byzas, the King of Byzantium, to
whom she bore the fair Byzantia. When the child grew up, she married
Armaelius of Rome, who was none other than Romulus. They had three sons,
Armaelius-Romulus junior, Urbanus, and Claudius, to whom it was assigned
respectively to rule at Rome, Byzantium, and Alexandria.30
4. A study of II Thessalonians ii, 2 and I Corinthians xv, 24 designed to
show that the empire of the Romans will be the last empire upon earth.
5. The Islamic reign of terror.
27. Hippolytus {In Danielem IV. 24) is thoughtfirstto have suggested A.M. 5500 for
the birth of Jesus; V. Grumel, "Les premières ères mondiales," Revue des Etudes Byzan-
tines, 10 (1952), 93-108; and idem, La chronologie, Bibliothèque byzantine. Traité
d'études byzantines, 1 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958), p. 6.
28. See Hebrews iii.l-iv.l.
29. There does however seem to be a certain amount of evidence that the Pseudo-
Methodius system was not unknown before A.D. 500. In the Sibyllines, it is the eighth
of a total of ten aeons which will herald in the golden age, the "new heaven and new
earth" of Revelation xxxi. 1 :
But in the third lot of revolving years

Eight the first, shall another world appear.
\Oracula Sibyllina VII. 191-92J. Like so much else in the Sibyllines, this is too vague to
bear much weight, but the so-called Slavonic Enoch is more explicit: "Let there be at the
beginning of the eighth thousand a time when there is no computation and no end,
neither years nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours." The Book of the Secrets of
Enoch, ed. R. H. Charles (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1896), ch. 32, w. 1, 2.
30. Sackur, pp. 75-78.
6. A prophecy that "the King of the Greeks and Romans will spring up
against them [the Moslems] with great wrath, and will awake like a man from
the sleep of wine, a man whom men thought was dead and of no use."31 He
will completely defeat the Ishmaelites and oppress them; the Romans will
enjoy peace and prosperity; then the "unclean nations" will break out again
and ravage the whole earth. "Then the King of the Romans will go to Jeru
salem and remain there ten and a half years," where he will surrender his
empire on the holy cross.
7. The final consummation.
The connecting link between these items, or more specifically, between
items three and six, is a verse from the Psalms: "Ethiopia will stretch out her
hands to God."3 2 It is in fulfilment of this prophecy that the "Emperor of
the Romans" will go to Jerusalem and, resigning his diadem, "stretch out his
hands to heaven," for this emperor will be the last representative of the
descendants of Chuseth, daughter of Phol, King of Ethiopia. Thus it can be
said that in the person of the last emperor of the "Kingdom of the Chris
tians," the last and greatest of all empires, "Ethiopia will stretch out her
hands to God." It is thus difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Pseudo-
Methodius argument contains a strong element of ethnic megalomania, the
former prerogative of the Jewish apocalypses. Michael Kmosko wrote:
Pseudo-Methodius was a keen, even a fanatical supporter of the Byzan

tine Kaiseridee. His Apocalypse is nothing more than a political pamph
let put out in the interest of the Byzantines, on the idea of membership
of the Empire for the countries occupied by the Arabs, to keep them
on the alert, and to prevent the Christian population of Syria from
giving in to circumstances too easily. . . . We may suppose that Pseudo-
Methodius, as a supporter of the Byzantine Kaiseridee, and also a con
vinced supporter of the state church, was a Melchite.33
31. ЉШ., p. 89 = Istrin, p. 40.

32. Psalm.lxvii.32(LXX).
33. Kmosko, p. 291. Melchite is a term (derived from the Syriac malkaya, imperial)
used to denote the Christians of Egypt and Syria who refused to accept monophysitism,
and did accept the Chalcedonian definition. They therefore remained in communion
with Constantinople, and were known as "Emperor's men."
Did the Andrew Salos apocalyptist use Pseudo-Methodius as a source for

his work? There is no conclusive evidence that he did, but it seems very likely
that he at least knew the work. Unfortunately at the one point of close simi
larity, the text of the Vita is particularly bad:
Pseudo-Methodius Andrew Salos

каі èrràp кращ ò viòs гђс arroAeias, 'ЕКеѵоетас yàp окщтрор етерор то
àvafiqoeTai ò ßaoCXevc ТСЪР Рсо- àrrò Apaßiac coq ipaoi xpópop. Kat
раілор apeo ek ГоХусхра, evòa erri 777c jSaatXetaç aùrov ерсо&грегас
èrrdyqp то %vkov rov отаѵроѵ, ek тоѵ таііоѵ каі Ссоопоюѵ %ѵ\оѵ та
ТОР ТОПОР, Örrov ггроотјХсо&ц ò ăyva тџгјџата, ek eprwevow тоѵ
кѵрик ГЩСОР 'Irçaoûç Xptaroç каі аоратоѵ Ѳеоѵ, каі Ьо&аоетаі тф
ueoç ђџсор каі ТОР екоѵоіоѵ irnèp ßaoCkeL Kal abro yepôpepoç ер
ђџсор brrépewe UUPCLTOP. каі àpei о ЧерЪѵоакпр èp тф тоггф ov еатт?-
ßaoiXevc ТСОР Fcopaicop то отеџра оар oi ггобея lr¡oov Хрштоѵ тоѵ
aùrov каі èm&qoei avrò èp тф отаѵ- a\r\ůvPov Ѳеоѵ ђџсор, oüceías
pco каі екггетаоая тая xîpaç аѵтоѵXepol то rrçç ßaoiXeiaq діабрра
ek TOP oùpapòp каі парабсооеі тар KvpUp тф Ѳеф ГЈЦСЗР èmòek
ßaoiXeiap аѵтоѵ тф ůeto каі патрі- erri то TÍfÁiOP ţvXop, аца бе каі
каі [параб cooeí то rrpevpa ò ТЬУР ТГЈР фѵхпр аѵтоѵ? 5
Pcopaicop ßaotXevc Öre] аракџр-
оцоетаі о отаѵрос ek TOP oòpapòp,
apa тф отеџрап той ßaatXecjc. 3 4
It seems likely that the Andrew Salos apocalyptist knew a version of

Pseudo-Methodius, but probably a more developed version than that of the
Latin text, probably one which, under the influence of the interpolated
Daniel chapter seven, had already divided the reign of the one emperor into
two reigns, perhaps of thirty-two and twelve years respectively. I have not
been able to find such a version, but Polyetopoulos knew of one, for he adds
a quotation from it as a note on the fifth reign of the Andrew Salos Apoca
lypse: " 'After the death of [the emperor from poverty] there will rule for
twelve years the one from Arabia. '(Vision of St. Methodius)." 36 At first one
is inclined to think that Polyetopoulos was quoting from one of those late
documents in which Pseudo-Methodius and the Greek Visions of Daniel were
34. Istrin, pp. 45-46 = Sackur, p. 93. On the departure of the last emperor to resign
his empire at Jerusalem, cf. Тіатріа Кь>ротаѵтіРоѵпо\еи><; III, 170; and variant in
Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, VII, 268.10-269.2.
35. Vita Sancii Andreae Sali, с. 215. Thefinalsentence contains no main verb; npoa-
oiaei would seem to be implied.
36. Polyetopoulos, ch. II, p. 52, n. 37. Italics mine.
conflated, but, so far as I can discover, this is the only use of the title "from
Arabia" other than in the Andrew Salos Apocalypse. It is conceivable, of
course, that Polyetopoulos was quoting a late document which had been in-
fluenced by the Andrew Salos Apocalypse, of which some can be found in
Istrin, but it is difficult to see why a title which must have become virtually
meaningless should have been copied. On the other hand, the title would be
far from meaningless, and indeed would make complete sense if it had origi-
nated as the title of a second reign in Pseudo-Methodius. Describing the ear-
lier part of the reign of the warrior-king, Pseudo-Methodius says:
OÜTOÇ (= ò ßaoiXetx ЪХХЦРСОР rjrot РыѵаісоѵуеСеХеѵоетаі en avrovç

(= тоос TajLtar?Xtr€ç) ек тт?с ѲаХаоогк AWtonícop каі ßaXXei роџрат>
Kai èprm<jûou> è'coç ЪѲрцфр ттгос etę ТГЦР -патрі&а аіпСоѵ каі асхџаХс
теѵоеі тая ywaùcaç OÒTCÒP каі та текѵа. èm бе roite катоисоиртас тар
уђр rrçç ènayyeXiaç катеХѲсоош ot vioi той /faatXécoç ІР роџралџ каі
еккофоѵоір amove ano 777с ущ}1
When there are two righteous emperors in succession, then it can usually be
assumed that the second will be the son of the first. Here it is implied that the
first emperor sent his sons in after he had conquered the territory as far as
Ethrybum, which is Medina, and Medina is in Arabia. That his eldest son and
heir should remain there as a viceroy seems possible, or that he should be
granted the title Arabiens for his efforts. In either case, he could then be des
cribed as "from Arabia."
It may seem that by using only the part of the Pseudo-Methodius descrip
tion of the reign of the warrior-king which tells of his resignation of the
crown at Jerusalem, the Andrew Salos apocalyptist provides still further evi
dence of having used a version ofthat document which contained two reigns,
but this evidence is invalid on two scores. First, in the original Pseudo-Metho
dius, the one reign is divided by the coming of Antichrist, and secondly, if the
Andrew Sahs apocalyptist is describing Basil the Macedonian under the guise
of the first emperor (as it has been shown that he is 3 8 ), then little or nothing
of the Pseudo-Methodius description of the first part of the one reign was of
any use to him.
* * *
37. Istrin, p. 41 = Sackur, p. 90.

38. Wortley, "Political Significance," pp. 248-63.
The documents belonging the the Tiburtine tradition indicate a more

stable text than the interpolated Daniel chapter seven; there exist a Latin text
(edited by Sackur),39 and Ethiopie text, and two Arabic texts, all of which
have been translated and published by R. Basset.40 Basically they all purport
to contain the explanation given by the 'Tiburtine Sibyl' of an identical vision
seen in their sleep by a hundred philosophers at Rome. In all the extant ver-
sions, that vision is of nine suns, which the Sibyl interprets as the nine ages of
the world; this is probably the unique instance of a nine-aeon system. How-
ever, Basset quotes an Armenian version of the Chronicle of Michael the
Syrian showing that in its original version (which may have been Syriac), the
vision was of seven suns, the sixth of which ("qui ne se couchait pas comme
les autres") the Sibyl explained as the age of Christ.41 If this statement is
true, then the Tiburtine tradition was already extant before ca. 500, for, as
explained above, the seven-aeon system presupposed the dissolution of this
world ca. A.D. 500, and the inauguration of the "sabbath of rest," the eter-
nal seventh aeon. William Bousset claimed that other scholars besides himself
had come to the conclusion that the tradition could be traced back to the
fourth century,42 and it is true that the apparent reference to Constantine
and Helen quoted above is the last item common to all the versions (though
in the Latin text it has been abbreviated: "Exsurgent duo reges et multas
facient persecutiones in terram Hebraeorum propter Deum").43 Bousset also
believed that by a comparative study of the extant versions, the original text
could by reconstructed,44 but this has not yet been done.
In the explanations given of the first seven aeons, the versions are more or
less in agreement; but although they all agree in adding an eighth and a ninth,
in the explanation of these last aeons there is an almost total absence of
agreement. This is a point of some considerable importance for the purposes
of this study as the Latin version contains a description of a "rex Graecorum
cuius nomen Constans"45 which very closely resembles the warrior-emperor
of Pseudo-Methodius who surrenders his crown at Jerusalem. It does not,
however, provide any indication that this feature originated in the fourth cen-
tury, as it is not corroborated in any of the oriental versions, and what is
more, the passage in which it occurs has been heavily interpolated with
39. The Latin text, based on an MS tradition going back to 1047 A.D., is in Sackur,
pp. 180-86.
40. Les Apocryphes Ethiopiens, X.
41. iïid., p. 8.
42. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, I, 580.
43. Sackur, pp. 180-81.
44. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, I, 580.
45. Sackur, pp. 185-86. It was on the basis of this passage that Bousset, The Anti-
christ Legend, p. 62, thought that the figure of the resigning emperor was older than
Pseudo-Methodius.
named German emperors. One can only conclude that Constans is either a
misreading, or that the word is used as an epithet in this context.
The value of the Tiburtine documents for a study of the Andrew Salos
Apocalypse lies mainly in the explanations of the eighth and ninth suns in the
oriental versions. These present a number of features which appear to indicate
that their writers shared a common apocalyptic tradition with the Andrew
Salos apocalyptist, which, like him, they adapted to suit their own purposes.
By studying their work, one learns to recognize the features of the common
tradition, and what is much more important, to identify the unusual and ori-
ginal features of any given apocalypse; a thorough comparative study of the
entire Tiburtine tradition would probably produce the solutions to a number
of the many apocalyptic enigmas yet unsolved.
Of the three apocalyptic traditions to which the Andrew Salos apocalyp-
tist could have had access, the Tiburtine is least likely to have had any direct
influence on him, and indeed as yet there is no reason to suppose that a
Greek text of this tradition ever existed. Of the other two traditions, Pseudo-
Methodius contains a warrior-emperor but no series of reigns; the Daniel tra-
dition consists of a series of reigns, but includes no obvious warrior-emperor.
The Andrew Salos Apocalypse appears to have been the first of several apoca-
lypses in which both the warrior-emperor and a series of reigns are found, but
when the Tiburtine tradition has been fully investigated, it will probably
emerge that these two features had already been united before the Andrew
Salos Apocalypse appeared.
The University of Manitoba

EVA CATAFYGIOTU TOPPING (Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.)
Mary at the Cross:

St. Romanos' Kontakion for Holy Friday
Romanos' sublime kontakion for Holy Friday was first published a cen-
tury ago by Cardinal J. B. Pitra,1 the Benedictine scholar who discovered the
great Byzantine poet and established modern Romanosstudien. Thefirstedi-
tor entitled the kontakion "Mary at the Cross." Although a misnomer,2 this
title has been generally accepted by subsequent editors. Pitra was also the
first to appreciate the literary qualities of this masterpiece of liturgical poetry:
Flebile Virginis iuxta crucem carmen est, amoenum tarnen, haud quadam me-
lodia, ñeque suavi eůpuůixiadestitutum, immo, ut saepe apud Romanům, dra
matica pompa ornátům et eleganti distinctum colloquii varietate.* Since the
editio princeps of 1876 ten editions4 of "Mary at the Cross" have appeared,
as well as translations into several languages.5
In their notes and introductions editors have followed Pitra's lead in com
menting on thé obvious merits of the kontakion. They have referred to the
originality, symmetrical form and dramatic structure6 of what may be Roma
nos' greatest poem. Nevertheless, a hundred years have passed without the
publication of a single study devoted to this kontakion.1 Hie many complexi-
1. Analecta Sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata, ed. J. В. Pitra (Paris: typis Tusculanis,
1876), 1,101-07.
2. See below p. 7.
3. Pitra, 1,101.
4. Listed in Romanos le Melode: Hymnes, ed. and trans. J. Grosdidier de Matons,
[hereafter cited as Grosdidier de Matons], 4 vols. (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1964-67),
ГѴ, 159-60. All numbers and references in essay will be to P. Maas and С A. Trypanis,
Sancii Romani Melodi Cantica: Cantica Genuina [hereafter Maas-Trypañis.) (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1963-).
5. French translations include those by Dom Hesbert, Les Plus beaux textes sur la
Vierge Marie, ed. P. Pie Régamey (Paris: La Colombe, Editions du Vieux Colombier,
1942), pp. 74-82; R. R. Khawam, Romanos le Melode: Le Christ Rédempteur (Paris,
1956), pp. 119-38; and Grosdidier de Matons, pp. 161-87. For translations into Italian,
English, and Modern Greek, see G. Cammelli, Romano il Melode Inni (Firenze: Edizioni
"Testi Cristiani," 1930), pp. 337-59; Marjorie Carpenter, Kontakia of Romanos, Byzan-
tine Melodist, 2 vols. (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1970-73), I, 193-203;
C. A. Trypanis, The Penguin Book of Greek Verse (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books,
1971), pp. 404-14; and P. A. Sinopoulos, Vtjßauov тоѵ MeXojÒov Коитакіа A ( Athin ai :
Tim. Mrivă Мѵрт&оѵ, 1974), pp. 107-19.
6. See for example, Grosdidier de Matons, pp. 143-46; and N. A. Iivadaras in N. B.
Tomadakes, 'Рыддоод тоѵ МеХсобои 'Tßvoi, 3 vols, in 4 (Athinai: Тѵп.МгіѵаМѵртіЬоѵ,
1952-57), II, 143-45. {hereafter Livadaras.l
7. See the useful bibliography of К. Mitsakis, BvÇamuni ^Tßvoyßaîa (Thessaloniki:
Patriarchal Center for Patristic Studies-Christian Literature, 1971-), I, 543.
MARY AT THE CROSS 19
ties and subtleties that are concealed in its deceptively simple design remain
unnoticed. Nor have scholars adequately appreciated the grandeur of Roman-
os' conception of the Crucifixion, the clarity and depth of his vision which en-
compasses both man and God. Recently hailed as "one of the most exciting
achievements of Byzantine literature,"8 "Mary at the Cross" deserves more
attention than it has yet received. In his lyrical drama Romanos, the sacred
poet o( Justinian's golden age, expressed and communicated Byzantine Chris-
tianity's "high dream" of the crucified Christ, the "Divine Physician," who
surrendered his own life that the woiid might live. Along with the truth and
power of Romanos' communication the prominence of the Theotokos in the
poem insured its lasting success in Byzantium. Unlike 20 On the Passion of
Christ, the other kontakion by Romanos for Holy Friday, "Mary at the Cross"
influenced later homilies and liturgical poetry of the Eastern Church.^ Evi-
dence of its popularity is abo to be found in the vernacular threnoi of later
centuries.10 This kontakion survives complete in seven manuscripts.11 Some
of its verses are still sung in Orthodox Churches at the Epitaphios service.12
In Russia it inspired a special ikonographical type of the Passion known as
"Weep not over me, Mother."13
Romanos composed "Mary at the Cross" as a metrical sermon to be chant-
ed at the liturgy of Holy Friday, the day when Christendom annually com-
memorates the Crucifixion. Like the commemoration itself, the kontakion is
based on scriptural texts. Two of these, Luke 23:27-31 and John 19:25, are
specifically related to Romanos' kontakion and its theme, Mary and the Cru-
cifixion. Luke records that when Jesus walked to Golgotha, the appointed
place of execution, a crowd followed him, including some women at ècón-
TWTO каі èòprfpow WĎTÓP (23:27). This evangelist, however, does not identi
fy any of the women. John does not describe the same scene as Luke, but a
later ope. Jesus has been nailed to the cross, and beside it stood three women,
ђ ЦТЈГПР сиЬтоѵ with her sister and Mary Magdalene. John says nothing about a
threnos. In neither text is there any suggestion of a dialogue between Mary
and Jesus. The circumstances described in these two passages were, however,
sufficient to provide Romanos with scriptural authority to sing and interpret
8. Margaret Alexiou, "The Lament of the Virgin in Byzantine Literature and Modern
Greek Folk-Song," Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 2 (1976), 113. This article is a
valuable contribution to the subject.
9. Ibid., pp. 116-20.
10. Ibid., p. 115, n. 11.
11. Listed by Grosdidier de Matons, p. 159.
12. The proem and first strophe are preserved in the Triodion, the liturgical service
book of the ten weeks preceding Easter.
13. Georgiana Goddard King, "Iconographical Notes on the Passion," Art Bulletin,
16 (1934), 296-97.
the Crucifixion through a sensitively imagined dialogue between mother and

son.
Atfeady in the fourth and fifth centuries the sorrowing Mother of God had
become a subject discussed by the Greek Church Fathers. Among others, Ba
sil the Great14 and Cyril of Alexandria15 had interpreted Mary's grief at the
cross as the fulfillment of the prophecy made by Symeon in Luke 2:35. When
Mary carried the infant Jesus to the temple for theritualpurification,16 Sym
eon had predicted that one day a pofjupaia would pierce the mother's heart.
There is, however, nothing extant in patristic writings that can be consid
ered a source for this kontakion by Romanos.17 His conception of the mater
dolorosa apparently does not depend on earlier sermons.
Nor does it depend on earlier laments of the Virgin. In the fourth century
Ephrem Syrus, a compatriot and precursor of Romanos, had composed a po
etic lament for the Virgin.18 Unlike Romanos' threnos of the nineteenth
kontakion the earlier one lacked dramatic dialogue. It consisted entirely of
lamentations spoken by the Virgin at the foot of the cross.
Thus Romanos' composition falls within a well-established scriptural and
liturgical tradition. Yet at the same time the poet's genius enabled him to cre
ate a new poem and lament for the Theotokos. It is the eariiest Virgin's la
ment in Greek which can be dated.19 Romanos' imagination, intuition, and
mastery of form combine to make the nineteenth kontakion unique in the
long unbroken history of the "Virgin's Lament" in Greek literature.20
In formal structure "Mary at the Cross" follows the conventional pattern
of the other kontakia of Romanos.21 It begins with a brief proem or kou-
14. At the end of the long letter, written about 377, he interprets the meaning of
Symeon's words. In Patrologiae cursus computus. Series graeco-Iatina, [hereafter PG. \
ed. J. P. Migne, 161 vols in 166 (Paris: Lutetiae, 1857-1866), XXXII, cols. 964-68.
15. Ibid., LXXIV, cols. 661B-64A.
16. The subject of one of Romanos' masterpieces, 4 On the Presentation in the Tem
ple, See the study by Eva С Topping, "A Byzantine Song for Symeon: The Fourth Kon
takion of St. Romanos," Traditio, [hereafter Л 24 (1968), 409-20.
17. The conclusion of R. J. Schork, 'The Biblical and Patristic Sources of the Chris-
tological Hymns of Romanos the Melodist," unpublished diss. University of Oxford,
1957, p. 303.
18. See Livadaras in Tomadakes, ii, 152-54; Grosdidier de Matons, pp. 144-45. Alex-
iou, p. 115, n. 10, lists the parallels between the two laments. All these scholars stress
the differences between Ephrem and Romanos.
19. The poem was written sometime in the first half of the sixth century. As in the
case of most of Romanos' kontakia, it is difficult to support a specific date of composi
tion. Cf. Grosdidier de Matons, p. 155.
20. See the exhaustive study by B. Bouvier, Le Mirologue de la Vierge: Chansons et
poèmes grecs sur la Passion du Christ. I. La Chanson populaire du Vendredi Saint, Bibli-
otheca Helvetica Romana XVI (Roma: Institut Suisse de Rome, 1976-).
21. See the.pioneering study of Paul Maas, "Das Kontakion," Byzantinische Zeit-
schrift, [hereafter BZ] 19 (1910), 285-306. A shorter account of this hybrid genre may
be found in E. Wellesz, A History of Byzantine Music and Hymnography, 2nd ed. (Ox-
ford:The Clarendon Press, 1961), pp. 179-82.
koulion of four verses, which are composed in a different meter from that of
the main body of the kontakion. Casting the proem in the form of a liturgical
summons or exhortation,22 the deacon-poet states in the opening line his
grand theme and the purpose of the kontakion:
Tòv SC r¡ ¡Jâç OTavpcjůévra б evre шѵтес ѵііѵгрсоцеѵ
Romanos clearly states that his poem is ahymnos, an ode praising God.23 The
kontakion begins with a threnos by. Mary,24 but the lament is subordinated
to the poet's hymnie intent.
The koukoulion serves the poet as a prologue to the sacred drama25 which
occupies most of the kontakion. In it Romanos introduces the two protagon
ists, and defines the relationship that exists between them. In three brief ver
ses Romanos prepares the poetic stage for the ensuing agon between Mary
and Jesus.
The refrain, with which every strophe will conclude, appears as the termi
nal verse of the koukoulion, ô vioç каі eck џои. Repeated eighteen times,
this refrain expresses the paradox of the relationship that simultaneously
binds and separates Mary and Jesus. From the dual relationship springs the
tragic tension between mother and son, and the two divergent views and ex
periences of the Crucifixion, which Romanos explores in this poem. The re
frain, like that of 1 On the Nativity I, also proclaims the Incarnation, the mys
tery on which Christian faith is founded.
Mary speaks the refrain seven tunes. With these five words she addresses
her divine son, acknowledging his humanity as well as his divinity. With the
same words she declares her love for her child, and cries out in pain against his
cruel death. By placing vióq before eoçç Romanos indicates that in her dual
relationship to Jesus it is the physical one of maternity that determines her
character in this kontakion for Holy Friday. The physical bond proves strong-
er than the spiritual, and decides Mary's reaction to the Crucifixion.
During the dramatic action Jesus speaks the refrain nine times. Pronounced
22. A recurrent protreptic element of the metrical sermon. Similar exhortations ap-
pear in the proemia of Cantica 4,16, 27.
23. Margaret Alexiou, The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (Cambridge: University
Press, 1974), p. 142, incorrectly states that the proem is a summons to praise the Mother
of God. This important work on the Greek lament will henceforth be cited as Alexiou,
Ritual Lament
24. In addition to this kontakion Maryfiguresprominently in Cantica 2, 4, 7, 35,
36, and 37, reflecting Romanos' special veneration for the Theotokos. He served as dea-
con in a church dedicated to her in Constantinople. In the well-known hagiographical
legend, Mary appears as the sacred poet's heavenly muse. See Eva C. Topping, "St. Ro-
manos the Melodos and His First Nativity Kontakion," Greek Orthodox Theological Re-
view, [hereafter GOTR) 21 (1976), 233-34, and 242-46.
25. This term does not imply that the kontakion was theatrically performed. It mere-
ly describes the highly dramatic character of "Mary at the Cross."
by him the words have another emotional coloring. Close to the consumma
tion of his destiny, Jesus rejoices. Both Mary's son and the triumphant Savior
of mankind, Jesus speaks the refrain joyfully.
The refrain of the nineteenth kontakion is never perfunctory. The skillful
integration of the refrain into the strophes, the variety of forms that it takes-
statements, questions, appeals—and the gamut of feelings that it conveys dem
onstrate Romanos' technical mastery. Nor does the refrain interrupt the
poem's movement. Rather, by the constant restatement of the paradox that
Jesus is Mary's son and her God, the poet intensifies the reader's awareness of
Mary's dilemma.
Seventeen26 identical strophes, written in another meter, each consisting
of ten verses, follow the proem. The initial letters of these strophes form the
acrostic ТОТ ТАПЕШОТ TííMANOT.
hi the first sixteen strophes (a-tç ') the poet presents а sacred drama of
the Crucifixión. Romanos is barely visible, appearing only to give minimal
stage directions. In the opening verses (a' 1-3) he names the two personae
dramatis, and gives the physical and psychological setting. He then appears
three more times to identify the speakers (б ' 1-3, VOL 1-2, ф' 1-2).
Divided into four pairs of speeches, the sixteen strophes of dialogue are
distributed unequally. The divine son has nine strophes, two more than his
human mother. The first speech is Mary's threnos (а Ч-7 ' 10) to which Jesus
responds in a speech of consolation of precisely the same length (б ' 4-ç ' 10).
The dramatic action advances in the second syzygy in which Mary (f '-77 ') and
Jesus (t) ' ч') have two strophes each in which to argue the necessity of the
Crucifixion. In the third syzygy Mary speaks only eight verses («a' 3-10),
while Jesus in three strophes (ф '2чб ' 10) hails his death as a victory.The de
nouement follows immediately in the fourth pair of speeches equally divided
between Mary (ve ') and Jesus (tę ').
The symmetry of this dramatic dialogue and the intensity of the fateful
confrontation between mother and son recall the agon21 of ancient Greek
tragedy. The drama exists in the characters of Mary and the God-man, Jesus.
Within one hundred and sixty verses the Byzantine poet unfolds Christianity's
highest drama, the Crucifixion, from two opposite perspectives, the human
and the divine. Always the dialogue is vivid, swift and realistic, revealing the
emotions and ethos of the two protagonists. Recurring echoes of scriptural
26. Another strophe was later inserted between ç 'and £ 'in order to correct the
ramvov of the acrostic by the addition of the letter e. The problem is discussed by Gros-
didier de Matons, IV, 151-55, who correctly rejects the interpolation. For a contrary
conclusion, see Livadaras, II, 148-51.
27. For the history and structure of this essentially Greek form, see Jacqueline
Duchemin, L'ArftN dans la tragédie grecque, 2nd ed. rev., Collection des études an-
ciennes (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1968), pp. 145-59, and 229-34, and the conclusion,
235-38.
language and imagery28 lend dignity and amplitude to the dialogue.

At the conclusion of the sacred drama Romanos reappears to speak an
epilogue, performing the last of his liturgical functions in the kontakion.29 In
the proem, he had addressed his congregation, urging them to join him in a
hymn to the crucified Jesus. The hymn was cast into the shape of a lyrical
drama,30 which now requires a lyric finale. Although Romanos' kontakia us
ually епЛ with a liturgical prayer pronounced by the poet,31 the nineteenth
kontakion concludes with a hymn Of'). 3 2 To the last verse the deacon-poet
carries out the hymnie purpose which he had announced in the first verse of
the proem. The larger hymno s ends with a smaller one, a lyric intensification
of the preceding sixteen strophes of dialogue. In it Romanos addresses the di
vine hero of his drama. Antitheses, alliteration, anaphora and elevated diction
create the hieratic magnificence of the final strophe:
Tie ТГІЯ napůévov, ůee rrçç napůévov

каі тоѵ KOoßov тгоеттта, oòv то náůos,
aòv то ßauos Trs сихріая •
av тая щлартіая гцхоэѵ r\pa< coç àpvót

ov таѵтас ѵекрсЬоас ту оуауђ аоѵ,
ò осотгір, ëaoûoaç паѵтас*
it' 1-2, 5-6
Romanos lends his inspired voice to the church to sing the praises of Mary's
son, the crucified Savior. Thus the poet-priest completes his leitourgia in the
celebration of the Crucifixion.
Romanos prefaces Mary's threnos with three brief verses (a' 1-3) in which
he describes the physical and emotional ambience of the encounter between
Mary and her son. Contrary to the title of the kontakion, the scene is not at
28. Schork, pp. 304-07, has identified the sources in both the Old and New Testa
ments.
29. The deacon-poet sings God's praises and interprets His ways. For a discussion of
the sacred poet's mediation between man and God, consult Eva С Topping, "The Poet-
Priest in Byzantium," GOTR, 14 (1969), 3141.
30. By the dramatic dialogue Romanos conveys the kerygma of this metrical sermon.
Polemics are entirely lacking, and theology is inconspicuous. Here Romanos is a poet,
not a preacher.
31. See for example thefinalstrophes of Cantica 4, 7, 8, and 16.
32. Because the hymnie conclusion is the exception, Mitsakis, p. 223, and Schork,
p. 303, failed to recognize if 'as a hymn. On the other hand, Alexiou, Ritual Lament,
p. 143, and Livadaras, II, 147, identify it as praise and encomium.
the cross.33 The encounter occurs on the way to the cross. Mary and Jesus
talk as they walk, as the repetition of "road" and "walking" images makes
clear. Prominent in the first strophe, (a' 4-8), these words are scattered
throughout the kontakion to sustain the image of physical movement that
was introduced by Í]KOXOVŮ€L {a'2) in the poet'sfirststage direction, owép
XOßat, occurs in the first and last speeches (a 'l, tę ' 1). In addition, verbs like
трехы 0?' 8, сб ' 7) and отгеибсо (a' 6, tò 2) quicken the external move-
ment34 which parallels the agon conducted by mother and son. The poem,
the dramatic tension and the dromos to the cross share one quick pace. When
the conflict between Mary and Jesus reaches the climax, the road becomes
shorter, the speeches briefer, and the poem ends. To read this kontakion is
to join the walk to the cross and to overhear the tense dialogue.
To describe the pathos of Mary's situation Romanos borrowed the sacrifi-
cial imagery of Isaiah 53:7. A mother helplessly watches while her son, meek
and unresisting as a lamb, is dragged to his death. A medical term,rpuxojLtéi>7?,35
suggests that Mary is already on the point of collapse. The initial position of
i'òtov, the assonance and juxtaposition of the emotive words apva à/zraç ac-
centuate the intimate bond that ties the mourner to the victim. From the
same prophet comes the brutal word снрауп* commonly used in Scriptures of
the slaughter of sheep. Repeated36 again along with another noun of violent
death, yóvot (7 ' 1), it emphasizes the inhuman violence of the death which
Jesus faces,37 and which causes Mary's unbearable pain. With these images
Romanos prepares the reader for the passion of Mary's threnos and her unsuc-
cessful attempt to save her son from his fate.
Mary expresses her anguish in the lament of a'4^y' 10. Carefully struc-
tured after the triadic pattern of the traditional lament for the dead,38 her
threnos contains the conventional images of "journey" and "light",39 and the
topoi of apostrophe40 and the contrast between the present and the past.41
33. A discrepancy within the text is responsible for the error. In the proem Mary is
described standing èm È-uXou, whereas in the kontakion proper it is clear that Mary and
Jesus are walking to the cross.
34. In addition to this horizontal movement there is reference also to vertical move-
ment: Jesus's descent from heaven to earth, катђХОои 2, to '2 and his descent from
earth into Hades, iy ' 2.
35. Borrowed from medical vocabulary, this verb introduces the major metaphorical
pattern of this kontakion. See H. G. Liddle and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Ox
ford: At the Clarendon Press, 1968), s.v.
36. Tî'8,1?'6.
37. Romanos nowhere mitigates the pain suffered by Jesus on the cross: see ndoxtj
(б'5, 9, ç'7, Tî'3, і т ' 9 , t o ' 6 , 8, tf'4, 7);тг<£Яос £ ' l , 9, Г 5 , ťy'9, tf' 2); and refer
ences to the cross (Pr. 1, 2, ß '9, б '7, су '7, te ' 2, 8).
38. See the analysis and diagram of Alexiou, Ritual Lament, pp. 142-45,
39. Ibid., pp. 187-90.
40. Ibid., pp. 133-34, and 142-45.
AI. Ibid., pp. 165-71.
In each of the three sections of the lament the sorrowing mother addresses
Jesus, repeatedly calling himréfcô^(a'4,7,0'1,7 1, 8). Although with each
repetition of the refrain she acknowledges that her child is also her God, Mary
reacts solely as a mother as she faces the imminent death of Jesus.
Utterly bewildered by what is happening, Mary begins her lament with a
series of questions (a '4-7) filledwith her pain. She cannot understand why Je-
sus has been condemned to death on the cross. Nor can she understand why
he does not resist. In desperation she asks first,42
Пои порещ текѵоѵ; тѵоя xápw ròv тахѵѵ

б роџор reXéetç ; а'А
The mother finds the dromos too short, no longer than the short words of her
questions. With the repeated "t" sounds the poet suggests Mary's throbbing
pain and fears as she walks beside her silent son.43
Into the second part of the lament (0' 1-7) is incorporated the topos, the
contrast between past happiness and present sorrow. Mary's distraught mind
recalls an earlier odos (ß' 5) strewn with palms for her son's recent triumphant
arrival in Jerusalem. Still hearing the acclamations that had greeted Jesus, she
is stunned by the sudden reversal from the royal welcome to the criminal's
death awaiting Jesus at the end of the dromos. She had never imagined that
rejection would soon replace the acceptance of Palm Sunday:44
où б èmorevov поте ëcoç тоѵтоѵ тоѵя ävoßovc екџхигђрси.

каі ектеѵѵаі eni oè xeïpaç абікоэя
ß' 2-3
The second section of the threnos ends with a piercing cry from the stricken
mother. Romanos employs traditional imagery for Mary's sorrow:
yvùpai ůékco, ITĞJÇ то ıpcbç ¡iov oßevvwcu,
ß'S
42. Grosdidier de Matons, p. 160, . 3, sees here an allusion to II Timothy 4.7.

43. With a pun Mary asks Jesus to speak to her: бос доі Xóyov, Aóye (a'8). Similar
puns occur in 4 to '6,16 /3'3,and 20 f 'l.
44. The subject of Romanos' lyrical sixteenth kontakion. See my article "Romanos,
On the Entry into Jerusalem: A Basilikos Logos, "Byzantion, 47 (1977), 65-91.
The loss of her child means darkness for the mother.45

In the final third (7 ') of the threnos Mary returns once more to the pres
ent, the ЬЬікоѵ ipópov (7 ' 1) of her son. With a mother's intuition she concen-
trates on Jesus' loneliness. To her loving heart this seems the crudest aspect
of his undeserved suffering. Because even his disciples have deserted him, Je-
sus walks to his death alone. Negative words and mournful "o" and "ou"
sounds echo Mary's grief.46 She bitterly quotes the disciples who had sworn
fideHty to their teacher:
каі оѵбек owaXyeï- où awèpxerai 00ı
île трос ò emùv oor
OÙK àpPOVlUU Oè ЋОТе, KOP ďnÓUVTJOKO) '
У 2-3
At the end of the lament Mary weeps for her son, abandoned by his friends to
die alone, оігдокек, текѵоѵ, ЏОРОС (y '8).
Structured and formal though it is, Romanos' lament for Mary expresses
genuine maternal grief. The poet imposes artistic form on Mary's uncontrolled
weeping and sorrow.47 To appreciate fully Romanos' deeply moving composi
tion one may compare it with the frigidly rhetorical threnos written by Sym-
eon Metaphrastes48 in the tenth century. Always interested in the personali
ty and inner experience of his characters,49 Romanos establishes in the thre
nos the complete humanity of God's mother. Mary is an ordinary woman50
lamenting the harsh unjust fate of a beloved child. First she weeps. Then she
dries her tears and tries to save her child. Although in several other kontakta51
Romanos represents Mary as a luminous, almost divine figure, raised above
common humanity because she is the Theotokos, in the nineteenth kontakion
he depicts her simply as a woman, a mother overwhelmed by grief. In her
words, too, the universal human heart protests ingratitude, injustice, violence.
45. The same light imagery is used by Sarah in her lament for Issac, 41 t' 4-5.
46. 7 ' 1-5, 7-8.
47. Described in б '1-2, e '3, f'1-2.
48. PG, CXIV, cok. 209-17. See the comments of Alexiou, Ritual Lament, p. 65.
49. In 10 б ' 1 Romanos confesses his typically Byzantine interest in character:
rAv sppèva TT?Ç bpevvr\baii¡ve\ov. For perceptive comments on the fascination
of ethos for the Byzantine mind, see G. L. Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, Ana-
lecta Blatadon, 17 ( Thessaloniki, 1973), pp. 44-56.
50. Livadaras, II, 44, remarks on the laïkos character of the Theotokos. Mary appears
also as a plain woman of the people in 1 кб '6-7.
51. See particularly the hymns for the Nativity and Annunciation, 1, 2, 36, and 37.
Above all, she expresses man's fear of death.

Jesus answers Mary's threnos with a speech (б '4чс ' 10) of consolation,
paramythia. It corresponds to hers in length and triadic structure. 52 It too
is prefaced (б ' 1-3) by Romanos. Introducing the second speaker, he reem-
phasizes the mother-son relationship between the two protagonists:
етгеотрсирп
7грос axrrfy ò et avrf¡<; OVTCJ ßorfaac •
б ' 2-3
Throughout Jesus shows filial tenderness for the weeping woman. He repeat
edly calls her prtrqp (б 4, 8, e 1, ç 8), thereby recognizing the physical
bonds which the poet made explicit in his introduction. The son understands
his mother's grief, and admits the injustice of his death. But at the same time,
being God, he views his suffering and death as the culmination of his redemp-
tive mission on earth.
With Jesus' first speech the agon begins between Mary and her son. Parallel
in function to the threnos, it establishes Jesus' ethos. Romanos transmutes in-
to poetry orthodox Christological dogma. Mary's son is perfect God and man,
spirit and flesh. It is his divinity which creates the tension between himself
and his mother.
Like Mary in her lament, 53 Jesus begins with a series of questions:
"Tí ба/cpueıç, pvrnp , ri таі cftÀaiç yvvaiţi owaïuxpéPV
џг\ náůcj; џг\ uávco; nûç ov v acòaco TÒV 'Абад;"
б'4-5
With gentle irony he uses some of Mary's own words: 54 ) repeats her
еосооая (у 8). The difference in tense symbolizes theiï opposing perspectives.
Mary's vision is finite, limited to the past and the particular. Looking back-
ward she believes that Jesus has already accomplished his soteriological desti-
ny. He, however, looks ahead in the knowledge that only by his death can he
save all of creation. Likewise, he repeats (б 'l) Mary's абйссос (0'3), immedi-
52. Cf. Alexiou, Ritual Lament, p. 143.

53. Her first four verses (a '4-7) contain four questions.
54. This device, familiar from ancient tragedy, recurs throughout the dialogue. E.g.,
7 ' 8 #1>тјак€1С, б 5 ôdvLj;ß'9 атаѵрт, б 7 отаѵроѵцац e 8 трехыѵ, r\ 8 rp&etc; e '7
боѵКоѵя, Tj 'l боѵХеѵеі; а '4 теХёея, іб 3 ектеХеоеі.
ately qualifying it with the explanation that his willingness to die 55 trans
forms the injustice into a redemptive act. Mary therefore should not weep
but rather proclaim
Ört '#еХан> ënaiïev,
о ѵшя Kat Ѳео\ џои. б ' 9-10
The counterpoint between the first two speeches continues into the sec
ond section of Jesus'speech. Now Jesus, too, looks back to the past. In Strophe
e he tries to banish his mother's grief by reminding her of the most joyful
event in her own past, the Annunciation. When the archangel Gabriel addressed
her with a ргцю, xapàç (37, f ' 1), she had consented to become the mother of
God. Reminding her of her singular role in the Incarnation, Jesus therefore
urges Mary to transcend her selfish human grief which is incompatible with
her exalted position as the Mother of God:
où yap npenei upriveïv, on кехариоЈџерц (Ьѵоцаоащ •
e' 2
When he describes Maiy's glorious motherhood, Jesus addresses her not as

"mother" but with hieratic titles, корт? (б '4) and oepvA {e '8, я'5).
In her lament Mary had recalled the joyfilloccasion of the wedding at Ca
na (a ' 5-6). Now Jesus uses nuptial imagery (e '4-6) in his response. With this
imagery Romanos indicates the mystic joy which the divine son offers his hu
man mother. In place of ephemeral joys and sorrows Jesus offers Mary eter
nal happiness with the divine bridegroom,56 who is her own son. Her sense
less grief, he argues, demeans Mary and prevents her from realizing her radiant
destiny as the queen of the universe, and the spirit of Christian joy. 57
In the final strophe (ç ') Jesus returns to the subject of his imminent death.
Unlike Mary who finds the day of the Crucifixion irucpap (ç ' 1)—the first
word of this strophe—Jesus regards it with joy:
55. This theme is continued in c'9, (б '4, tf'4. See also 16 0'3,6, 7, and 2 ifr'l, щ'
2.
56. Nuptial imagery is associated with Holy Week which in the Orthodox Chruch
opens with the Ao\ovVía TovNvfjupíov.
57. So the Theotokos appears in 1 ç'3-s* 'lOand 2 ^'7-11, t'7-11, ca'7-11.
St аѵтіір yàp о уХѵкіх; ovpavoůev vûv KarřiXůov
cbç то ßdvva. 58
Ç 2
God became man in Mary's womb in order to save mankind. Because this sac-
rificial death, the supreme act of divine love oxphilanthropia, completes God's
life on earth, this day is one of rejoicing for Jesus. The first exchange between
Mary and Jesus which began with a lament thus concludes with Jesus' ode of
exaltation:
èycò yàp vnápxco, Xóyoq Còv èv ooi
oàpt еуероџгр •
èv тосту ouv iráoxto, èv таѵгц кси ac¿fco*
¿и? ovv KXaùrjç, ßfjrep • ßaXkov кра%оѵ èv хо- °
ué\oûv nàiïoç бехетаі
ò viòs каідеоя ßov.
ç'6-10
By the end of the first syzygy the poet has adroitly initiated the dramatic
tension that inevitably results from the conflicting claims of human and di-
vine love. The antagonists are united by the strongest possible earthly bonds,
and divided by the absolute demands of divinity. Mary and Jesus belong to
two different realms of reality. Hence the /bofjapata in the mother's heart.
The second syzygy (f 4 ') follows without interruption. Mary's impassioned
speech (f -77 ') shows that although she has heard her son's words, she has not
understood them. The mother cannot accept the fact that her child's divine
destiny requires his suffering and death. Far from assuaging her grief, Jesus'
words have aroused new fears and pain. Mary no longer weeps. Wiping away
her tears (f ' 1-2), she argues desperately in an effort to persuade Jesus to
spare his life. Here she is the human mother even more intensely than in her
threnos. Heightened terms of endearment—onXdyxvov (f ' 4), and f сот) дои
58. Through "Exodus" typology Romanos draws a parallel between the salvation of
Israel in the old dispensation and that of the whole world in the new. The falling of the
manna in the desert (Exodus 16:16-19) foreshadows God's descent in the flesh.
(т? '2)-measure the depths of her maternal anguish and love.

In twenty-two verses Romanos now portrays a mother's valiant battle for
the life of her child. That Mary's opponent is her child and her God makes
her unequal struggle all the more poignant. She begins her argument by chal
lenging directly Jesus' major premise:
ri ßOL Xé-yetç, опХаухуоѵ • el џт\ ůdvco, ó Аба/х
ovx vyiabei ; ţ'4
From the past—Mary's anguished mind is always seeking comfort in yester

days—she finds evidence to disprove Jesus' contentions. She recalls specifical
ly cases of miraculous cures which Jesus had performed without any suffering
on his part. The repeated negatives 59 in these verses carry the weight of her
frantic insistence that he can now heal Adam without pain to himself:
Xénpov yàp кадграс кси оѵк tfXyrjoaç oòòèt, àXX
napáXvTW oiplytax où катеігоѵц&г^ •
Г 6-7
When he had healed the leper, the blind and the lame, his word and will had
sufficed. By these examples Mary seeks to convince Jesus that Adam's cure
does not necessitate his pathos.
In the next strophe (т? ') Mary advances to the subject of death, the real
terror striking her heart. ѵекрос(1, bis.), тсироя (2,5,6), даѵатос (9) evoke her
dread of Jesus' death. Again, Mary's argument and hopes are based on a repe
tition of the past. She insists that Adam, like Lazaros,60 can be rateed from
the dead without Jesus dying:
et бе кси èv Tcupc¡) катехыодц ò 'Абад,
coç Лс#ароі> тароѵ е?а^еаті?аас <рал>д, oìhox каітоѵтор
òovXevei ooi тгсЫта cbç пХаотѵ тьэѵ -паѵтьэѵ
5-7
59. 3-7, 9, TÍ ' 1-3. Mary seeks to impose her own negative view of the Crucifixion
on her son.
60. The raising of Lazaros is the subject of two kontakta by Romanos, 14 and 15.
The figure of Christus medicus appears in 14 y ' 2.
Intent on saving her son's life, Mary in effect asks Jesus to renounce his divin
ity, to act like a man, motivated solely by self-interest. God should use his
power to save himself, the mother pleads. God's human mother comprehends
her son's omnipotence,61 but not his phiknthropm. Even as Mary tries to
prevent Jesus from becoming the savior of the world, she ironically calls him
асотф (т?'4). Mary's love, Romanos implies, is the last temptation of the
God-man. Had Jesus yielded to his mother on the way to the cross, he would
have denied his godhead, foreclosing the full revelation of divine love, and the
reconciliation of heaven and earth.
Romanos' sustained imagination carries the reader even further into Mary's
agony. Before she has finished her argument, she senses that she has failed to
persuade Jesus. Suddenly a new terrifying suspicion enters Mary's mind. She
expresses it directly, almost as an accusation, in thefinalwords of this speech:
TÍ ow трехеіх текѵоѵ\ pr¡ èireiyov npoç снрауф
pr¡ tpiXfjç ròv ůávarov,
офѵгіѵкаі Ѳеоя роѵ.
r¡' 8-10
Confronting the reality that Jesus accepts his death, Mary utters the brutal
word оуауц with which Romanos had introduced her first speech (a ' 2).
Were Romanos the "mediocre psychologue"62 he has been described, he
could not have written either the threnos or this second speech of Mary's. On
ly a sensitive poet with sympathy for the human heart and condition could
have created this portrait of Mary on the way to the cross with her son. Bet
ter than the Evangelist Luke Romanos understood the pathos and tragic irony
of Mary's fate. No poet has written more profoundly and more poetically
about Mary's experience, when the роџарала predicted by Symeon pierced her
heart on the day of her son's Crucifixion. On that day grief banished the joy
of the Annunciation and the Nativity, when Mary first encountered God.
The agon is continued by Jesus' second speech -t'), his second attempt
to communicate to Mary the meaning of divine love. He begins patiently, Où к
оібая, co дтјтер, оѵк cibaţ ri Xéyco (ů 1). In contrast to the despair of Mary's
preceding speech, serenity marks Jesus' response. Keeping the medical image-
61. Using words from Jesus's speech in which he reminded her that she is the queen
of the universe (e'7-8), Mary ironically reminds her son that he is the all powerful
universal lord.
62. The opinion of Grosdidier de Matons, p. 59, in his introduction to 17 Ow Judas.
ry of Mary's speech, he explains why he is willing to die on the cross. The rea-
son is not, as she fears, love of death. Rather, it is love of ailing mankind.
Mother and son use identical words and mean different things. While
Mary speaks exclusively of curing bodily ills, Jesus the tarpoç from heaven is
more concerned with man's spiritual ailments. Adam is ill каі тффтсф (ů '5).
From # ' 4 to i'6 medical imagery is sustained, when Jesus reviews the case
history of man's spiritual sickness. Man's vóoos began with the first disobedi
ence in the Garden of Eden.63 Consequently Adam and Eve became ill, died
and now mourn together in Hades ròv rrçç фѵхпя ПОРОР^ (СЗ).
Here again Jesus' speech is in counterpoint to Mary's. She had cited the
ills of three persons who were healed by Jesus in the past. Jesus' vision, how
ever, goes back to the beginning of creation and embraces the illness of all hu
manity. Mary's grief restricts her concern to her son and herself, to the pres
ent and the immediate past. In contrast, Jesus' love and self-giving open his
spirit to all time and to the universe.
In conclusion (t ' 7-10) Jesus expresses again the hope that his mother has
at last understood him. Again, he reminds her of her true vocation as the
mother of God. Liberated from her personal sorrow, Mary would assume her
high role of intercession, mediating in behalf of mankind before the throne of
God.65 Jesus extends to his grieving mother a joyous alternative, which she,
however, rejects.
At the conclusion of the second syzygy, there is a slight pause in the dra
matic action, as the poet reappears to introduce the next persona dramatis.
With the sacrificial imagery of a' 1 Romanos reiterates Mary's helplessness;
f¡ адсоді?70С адгас,66 апекрі&г} npòs ròv apra.
ta'2
The pause also symbolizes the impasse in which mother and son find them-
selves. Spiritually isolated from each other, they continue to walk and talk on
the way to the cross. Mary's human sorrow bars her from sharing the fulfill-
ment of her divine son; divine love precludes Jesus from yielding to human
selfishness.
63. In ô '4-6. Thus Romanos expands the perspective of the kontakion beyond the
immediate dramatic action.
64. Repeated by Jesus in his third' speech (iß ' 4), this word is the standard technical
term for "pain" in the Hippocratic corpus. See Liddell and Scott, s.v.
65. Mary's grief interrupts her role of intercession. For Romanos' conception of
Mary 's presbeia, see 1 '-£ ', ů ', к0 -кб ', and 2 t ' 8, iß 5-11.
66. Already in the fifth century a part of Marian imagery. See for example, Proclus
of Constantinople, mPG, XXXII, col. 712A.
The third syzygy (va '-іб ') opens with the briefest speech in the entire dia
logue. It belongs to Mary. Emotionally and physically exhausted by her sor
row and failure to convince Jesus, she is able to speak only a few words(ta'3-
10). This time she makes no comment or argument. From her formal, hieratic
address, Kvpießov (ta 2), the first words, the reader learns that Mary knows
she has lost her battle to save Jesus' life. Knowing her son's death is now cer-
tain, she asks one hesitant question, ßXeipoj oe ndkw (ta'6).She has no inter-
est in the healing of Adam and Eve, only in her own bereavement. To convey
Mary's total absorption in her anguish67 Romanos crowds into this speech of
eight verses ten verbs and four pronouns in the first person singular.
To preserve the symmetry of form Romanos again introduces the next per-
sona dramatis. In this introduction (ф ' 1-2) he juxtapose s Mary and Jesus, wo
man and God. A spacious hymnie phrase—о парта уанЬ оксоѵ прш yeuéoeojç
aincûv—identifies Jesus; a single word—Uapiav—identifies her. Although they
still walk and talk together, Mary and Jesus are irrevocably estranged. The son
reaches towards heaven, while the .mother remains fixed in her sorrow to the
earth. Romanos further indicates the estrangement between mother and son
by the asymmetry of the syzygy. In contrast to the other three syzygies in
which the speeches are of equal length, here Mary is assigned one strophe,
Jesus three (ф -іб ).-,
Jesus responds to Mary's request with filial tenderness. He assures her that
she will be the first to see him after his resurrection. Although this speech,
like the others, is addressed to her,68 it is almost a soliloquy, so intense is Je
sus' absorption now in his death and resurrection. This speech shows that Je
sus' soul is already far removed from Mary. Already the "Divine Physician"69
has descended into the land of the dead to restore Adam and Eve to new
health and life. Like the Good Shepherd70 of the parable, the "Divine Physi
cian" lays down his own life to save his patients. In technical medical lan
guage71 Jesus describes his descent into Hades. In the hands of the iatros
67. My interpretation differs from that of Grosdidier de Matons, p. 154, and Alex-
iou, Ritual Lament, pp. 63 and 143, who believe that Mary gradually and painfully ac
cepts the necessity of the Crucifixion.
68. He repeatedly addresses hei as mother, ф ' 2, 7, vy ' 1, 8, іб ' 1, 7, in each of the
three strophes of his speech.
69. For bibliography on this familiar and beloved figure consult R. Arbesmann, "The
Concept of 'Christus Medicus' in St. Augustine," T, 10 (1954), 1-28. This figure appears
in many of Romanos' kontakia. Cf. R. J. Schork, "The Medical Motif in the Kontakia
of Romanos the Melodist," ibid., 16 (1960), 353-63.
70. In a speech, 16 иа'-ф ', parallel to this, Jesus speaks as the Good Shepherd and
describes his sacrificial death.
71. A comparable passage, 54 ф\ has led D. G. Demetrainas, in Tomadakes (see
above, fn. 6), I, 104, to the conclusion that Romanos possessed professional medical
knowledge. It is, however, more likely that Romanos was a typical, educated Byzantine
of his time and was conversant with medical terminology. For the practice of medicine
at that period, see H. J. Magoulias, "The Lives of the Saints as Sources of Data for the
History of Byzantine Medicine in the Sixth and Seventh Centuries, ÄZ, 57 (1964), 127-
50.
from heaven the implements of pain and death—the nails, spear and cross—are
transformed into instruments of healing. On the threshold of death, Jesus an
ticipates the joy 72 of the resurrection, the healing of Adam and Eve.
This exultant speech ends on a note of triumph. Final victory lies in the
Crucifixion. By his death on the cross the "Divine Physician'7 crushes death,
man's old enemy. Love triumphs over hate and selfishness, the spirit over the
flesh. What is an ordeal for Mary is victory for her son. For the last time now
Jesus tries to associate his mother with the joy of his fulfillment:
ЬрщіоѵоаРЗ ovv9 џђтер, àvàyy eCKov rtàotp
Ön naoxœp -пХгртеі ròv ршоѵѵта TÒV АОаџ
каі vucrjoaç1* \€
ò vioç кои Ѳеос роѵ. сб ' 7-10
Manifestly, Jesus now has moved to a world beyond his mother's reach and
comprehension. The agon is over and Jesus is eager to complete his chosen
dromos. Borrowing onetâcj from Mary's first (a '6) speech, he tells her:
каі nopevov èv харџ • èyù yàp бі* ó'катЩХ^оѵ
т)бт7 опеѵбсо
ектеХеоси ттји ßovXriv rov пеііфаѵтоя ре
à' 2-3
But Магу, lost in her grief, stands apart, untouched by Jesus' Paschal vision.
In her lament Mary had cried out that she wanted to kao^z-yvcòvat ůéXco
(ß ' 8)—why her son had to die on the .cross. In his first three speeches Jesus
tried to communicate that gnosis to her. Gnosis is Jesus' purpose in the agon.
In his first speech Jesus calls Mary ndvocxpe (e '4), and begs her not to mourn
like the aoweroic (e ' 4). The theme is most prominent in his second speech:
tipoiAov TÒV vow ( ' 2); vòei (ů ' 3); yvoıpiteıç (u' 7); оѵѵщая and ènéypcoq
72. Repeated from ç ' 8 in Jesus's first speech, xapd occurs twice in this speech,
£0'3,t6'2.
73. Jesus repeats this from va. '8 in Mary's preceding speech.
74. This paschal theme also appears in 16 a ' 1-2, 20fr' 1-4, 25 к ' 8.
(t 8). In his third speech Jesus tells Mary he wishes her to sing owercôç75
(cr'8).
Mary, however, fails to achieve understanding of her divine son, and thus
becomes a tragicfigure.She cannot sing; she can only lament. Blinded by ma
ternal love, she could not "open her spirit" to the gnosis which would have
united her with her son, and resurrected her from fear of death into eternal
life and joy.
The dénouement of the sacred drama comes in strophes te -tç '. Mary speaks
first. Her last speech (tę ') is as desolate as her first. She seems not to have
heard any of Jesus' long speech, except for the last sentence where he pro
claims himself WKTjoaç (tô '9). With conscious irony she uses the same verb of
herself, repeating it twice in the opening sentence of her reply:
* 'NtKcöjLiat, (Ь текѵоѵ, vucupat тф поѲсо.
ve' 1
To the end of their dialogue mother and son use the same words but with un
reconciled differences in meaning. Claiming victory over death, Jesus uses
vucàco in the active voice. Confessing herself defeated by her love for Jesus,
Mary uses it in the passive voice. By this contrast Romanos symbolizes the
tragic consequences of Mary's dual relationship to Jesus. Because of his phil-
anthropia1** Jesus triumphs over suffering and death. Because of maternal
love Mary is condemned to sorrow and separation from her son and her God.
Themes and words from the lament reappear in Mary's last speech, evi-
dence that the agon between her and Jesus had not changed her. Again, she
attacks those responsible for Jesus' death (ß ' 2-6, te ' 5-8). Her last request of
Jesus is identical to the first. She uses the same verb (a ' 7). Mary wishes to
accompany Jesus on his dromos. She clings tenaciously to his physical pres-
ence:
#<peç oòv owéXòcj • ůepaneikL ydp еде то ůeoopeip oè.
te' 4
ovvéXùcû expresses the essence of Mary's tragedy. She walks with her son and
yet is not with him. In her lament Mary had condemned the disciples who
75. Found also in 59 ç ' 1, this phrase comes from Psalm 46:8. It perfectly expresses
Romanos' purpose in the nineteenth kontakion.
76. This noun and its related epithet are missing from this hymn to Christ philanthro
pos, in which Romanos presents him dramatically instead of descriptively.
had abandoned Jesus to suffer and die alone. Now she too abandons him,
since she cannot accept his sacrificial death. In the end, the words of her la-
ment come tragically true:
UVX¡OK€ÍC, текрор, ЏОРОС, OPŮ ¿OP návrat ëoojoaç.
7 8
She who loved Jesus most also failed him.

In the final strophe (tę') Jesus tells his mother to come with him, but she
must not weep. The agon is finished and Jesus makes no further attempt to
win Mary's understanding. Instead Jesus describes to her how nature will re
act to the death of its Creator:77
то yap тоХџгцха bovel năoav TT\P KTÍOCP •
ттоХоя ектххрКоѵтаі каі оѵк ávoíyei apuakßop,
è'coç av ëmco*
r¡ 777 ovp ůdkáoor} то те onevoovoí ipvyeip •
vaoç TOP х*х&ш Pr?£eı тоте ката ТСОР таюта ТОХЏСОРТСЈР
та орт? бороѵртас, oi Tcupot кеѵоѵртаі.
iç ' 3-7
With these apocalyptic images of universal upheaval Romanos magnifies the

Crucifixion. In the sacred drama the poet-priest had viewed it from the per-
spective of Mary and Jesus. Now Romanos implicates the whole universe in
the death of Mary's son and God. Earth, sun, sea and mountains add cosmic
grandeur78 to the crucified Jesus.
The sacred drama concludes with a final address by the son to his mother.
From his apocalyptic vision Jesus turns once more to Mary. With sympathy
he speaks to the grieving woman walking beside him:
77. See 17' 7, ' 2.

78. See also 20 Pr. I, a'1-8, 17 a'4-8, 28 t'1-6. Nature's sympathetic response is а
topos of the ritual lament for heroes and gods. Cf. Alexiou, Ritual Lament, p. 60. It is
interesting to note that the philanthropos Titan in Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound,
1080-93, also describes in his last words nature's reaction to his suffering.
orav 'й>т?с rama, èàv 7гя?£т?с cbç yvvr¡,
Kpátov кроя џе ůéioai дои,
ó vioç кае 0eoç дои.' tę ' 8-10
So ends the dialogue that had begun with Mary's threnos. The last words be
long to the "Divine Physician", her son.
From "Mary at the Cross" emerge two ikons, one of a woman, the other
of God. Throughout this kontakion Romanos juxtaposes Mary and Jesus in
contrast to each other. Because death frightens Mary, she mourns; Jesus ac
cepts death and rejoices. She finds comfort in the past; he anticipates change
and renewal in the future. Mary confines love to her son; Jesus' love embraces
the universe. With this antinomy Romanos creates two images of love in the
persons of the philanthropos Creator and his human mother. The cross chal
lenges both. Jesus accepts its pain and attains heaven; Mary by rejecting it
remains rooted to the earth.
In the agon Mary and Jesus demand of each other a renunciation. Jesus
attempts to persuade Mary to renounce her narrow maternity, to extend her
love to all mankind. Clinging to the child of her womb, Mary, in turn, seeks
to persuade Jesus to renounce his divinity, to narrow his love to self. Neither
persuades the other. Mary continues to grieve, and Jesus dies on the cross and
triumphs over death. In Jesus, то>бс'т?дас отаѵроідеѵта,Romanos, Byzan
tium's genius poet, reveals the majesty and power of divine love.
University of Cincinnati
WILLIAM N. BAYLESS (Rocky River, Oh., U.S.A.).
The Preatorian Prefect Anthemius:

Position and Policies
I. Introduction
In comparing the reigns of Arcadius and Theodosius II, Bury has pointed
out that to an objective observer in the reign of Arcadius it must have ap-
peared that the Eastern Roman Empire was destined to decline rapidly.1 Yet
Constantinople was to survive the storm of the fifth century while Rome did
not. The reasons for this, of course, are quite complicated; but it is interesting
to note that as distinguished a historian as Bury maintained that the ministers
of Theodosius II were largely responsible for this unexpected phenomenon.
Although Theodosius himself was undistinguished, the prudent guidance of
his ministers, beginning with Anthemius, reversed the trend of the preceding
years. If, then, the competent government of this period is attributed to his
ministers rather than Theodosius, substantial credit must be given, as Bury
does, to Anthemius as the source of this tradition.
A number of problems about this crucial period remain unsolved. Socrates
is the only source to mention that Anthemius served as regent.2 Many of the
chroniclers dealing with these years do not even mention him at all. For this
reason some scholars have suggested that a group, rather than Anthemius
alone, governed the empire.
Gibbon has advanced the most interesting theory in this connection. He
declares that the regency was collégial in nature with Anthemius presiding as
the head of a council of regency. In his view the government during these
years was more akin to a republic than a monarchy. According to Gibbon the
chief ministers of Arcadius continued to hold power during the early years of
Theodosius' reign.3 Since all were equal, Gibbon thought that it was possible
that the idea of a free republic might have emerged. According to this inter-
pretation the regency was shared, with Anthemius in the leading role because
of his talent rather than his legal position.
1. J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I
to the Death of Justinian, 2 vols. (New York: Dover, 1958), I, 215.
2. Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, 7.1.10-16, in J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus com
pletus, series graeca, 161 vols. (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1857-66), LXVII (hereafter PG).
Bury, I, 212, n. 2, declares: "We do not know by what legal form this was arranged or
whether others were associated in the regency."
3. E. Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. J. B. Bury,
5th ed., 7 vols. (London: Methuen & Co. 1912), III, 383.
THE PRAETORIAN PREFECT ANTHEMIUS 39
The manner in which the regency ended is equally uncertain. Bury states
that, after Pulcheria was created Augusta, "Anthemius soon disappeared from
the scene."4 Gibbon once again engages in a characteristic speculation, assert-
ing that the Romans had become too conditioned to monarchy to accept the
change. When Pulcheria came of age, she was allowed to assume direction of
the empire even though she was a woman.5
But by far the most important topic that needs to be studied in connec-
tion with Anthemius is his foreign and domestic policies. This would contri-
bute to an understanding of why the East enjoyed a relatively tranquil era
under Theodosius while the Western Empire was falling apart. The regency of
Anthemius is a vital link in the chain of events during the Late Empire, so
that an analysis of his policies would be helpful in forming a correct perspec-
tive on the history of the entire period. This essay attempts to fill the gap in
our knowledge by studying Anthemius' career to determine the policies of his
regency during this critical period.
II. Anthemius*Rise to Power

Before becoming praetorian prefect in 405, Anthemius had served in sev-
eral positions which gave him the experience necessary for assuming this
heavy responsibility. In 399 he served as ambassador to Persia.6 He became
comes sacrarum largitionum in 400, 7 then magister officiorum in 404, 8 and
finally consul in 405. 9 His successive promotions, as well as his elevation to
the praetorian prefecture, indicate that he was quite successful in discharging
the duties of these offices.
Eutychian served as praetorian prefect for Arcadius immediately before
Anthemius. The last extant decree issued to Eutychian is dated 11 June
405. 10 The first entry for Anthemius in the Theodosian Code is 10 July
4 0 5 . n There are no sources that tell us directly why this transfer of power
occurred.
Fortunately, however, a letter of John Chrysostom to Anthemius has sur-
vived which can be useful in solving this problem. The letter, written from
Cucusus in 405, congratulates Anthemius for his assumption of the praetorian
4. Bury, I, 214.
5. Gibbon, III, 384.
6. Theodoret, Historia Religiosa 8, inPG, LXXII.
7. Codex Theodosianus 1.10.5, in Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sir-
mondianis et Leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, ed. T. Mommsen, 2 vols, in
3 (Berlin: Weidmann, 1905), I.
8. Ibid., 16.4.4.
9. A. Degrassi, Fasti consulares et triumphales (Roma: Lalibrera dello stato, 1947),
no. 1158.
10. Codex Justinianus, ed. P. Krueger (Berlin: Weidmann, 1877).
11. Codex Theodosianus 7.10.1.
prefecture, declaring that he has given honor to his offices rather than the of
fices giving honor to him.
This brief letter mentions no events specifically, but it does allude rather
cryptically to some event—a reference which must have been clear to Anthe-
mius. Chrysostom thanks Anthemius for restoring the safety of persons who
had suffered injustice:
Kat rotę cLOucovßevoic TTÒOL оирфоџева, TOP TÎXCLTW OOV Xqièva тг£
фѵхф ôpcâ^reç, jívpía bwäßevov Xvoai vaváyta, каі rovç étç ëoxarov
кХѵбыѵІоѵ катеиехѲеѵтея ітараокеѵаоаі ètovpiaç nXeïv, did таѵта
GKLpTÙfiev, Ьѵі rama xo-ipoßev, тф or¡v àpxw коіѵаѵ еорщѵ тСл>
еЋЦреаСоџерсор etrat voßuovrts.12
This Statement suggests that Anthemius corrected an injustice that had ex-
isted under his predecessors. The laudatory tone of this letter also suggests
that the injustice was connected with Chrysostom's own adversities.
Chrysostom had been deposed from his position of patriarch of Constanti-
nople by the Synod of the Oak. This synod—which had little regard either for
justice or legality—was directed by Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria
and a bitter opponent of Chrysostom. After the deposition Arcadius banished
Chrysostom to Cucusus in Armenia.
Meanwhile tension between the two halves of the empire had been increas-
ing for some time. Stilicho had been intriguing with Alaric to seize the Pre-
fecture of Illyricum.13 On the death of Arcadius Honorius was to claim that
he was the lawful regent for the young Theodosius II, and was prevented
from proceedmg to the East only by the necessity of crushing the usurper
Constantine.14
The rift between the East and the West reached a climax at the time of the
Chrysostom controversy.15 Although Innocent and the Western church were
interested only in the restoration of Chrysostom, the crisis came at an oppor-
12. Joannes Chrysostom, Epistulae 147, in Opera omnia, 13 vols, in 18 (Paris: J.P.
Migne, 1858-60).
13. Olympiodorus of Thebes, fragmenta 3, in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum,
ed. К. Müller, 5 vols. (Paris: A. F. Didot, 1874-8.5), IV. Zosimus, Historia Nova: The De-
cline of Rome 5.26.2, trans. J. J. Buchanan and H. T. Davis (San Antonio: Trinity Uni-
versity Press, 1967).
14. Zosimus 5.31. Sozomen, Histórica Ecclesiastica, 9.4., ed. J. Bidez& G. С. Hansen,
in Der Griechischen Christiischen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Der Kir-
chenväter-Commission der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band L (Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1960). Zosimus makes it clear that Stilicho was behind the move and
that he later planned to go himself to the East.
15. The indignant reaction of the Western church and government to the deposition
of Chrysostom is summarized by Bury, I, 158-59.
tune time for Stilicho. Innocent wrote to Honorius asking him to intervene
on behalf of Chrysostom. Honorius was only too happy to come to the
pope's assistance. He wrote a letter to his brother demanding a new synod
and rebuking Arcadius for ignoring repeated requests for justice for Chrysos-
tom. 16 This letter was entrusted to the five bishops from an Italian synod
who were considered state ambassadors and paid at public expense.17 When
this delegation was roughly treated, the matter was thus not merely an eccle-
siastical offense but an insult to the Western government as well.
The inept policy of the Eastern government in its relations with the West
was matched by an equally intransigeant domestic policy. At the time of the
crisis the government was deprived on the capable guidance of the emperor's
wife Eudoxia. Unassisted by the lethargic Arcadius, Eutychian as praetorian
prefect embarked on a policy of persecution of Chrysostom's followers. A
decree of 18 November 404 ordered the closing of all churches and the expul-
sion of all persons who refused to accept Arcadius as the legitimate patri-
arch.18 Optatus, prefect of the city of Constantinople, fined or imprisoned
those who refused to recognize Arcadius.19
There is some reason to believe that Eutychian's mismanagement of the
Chrysostom affair led to his downfall and replacement by Anthemius. His
thoughtless policy had led to the alienation of the entire Western church. The
reckless persecution of Chrysostom's followers—and there were many—only
made the situation worse. The crisis provoked by Stilicho may also have been
a contributing factor. Eutychian had succeeded in antagonizing a large num-
ber of his own people at a time when Constantinople faced a serious military
challenge.
At any rate Anthemius immediately reversed Eutychian's policies toward
Chrysostom's followers. Optatus, who had so vigorously persecuted them,
was dismissed from office.20 Synesius, in a passing reference, mentions this
more conciliatory policy.21 This reconciliation, then, is almost certainly what
Chrysostom was referring to in his letter to Anthemius. By reversing Euty-
chian's policy, he had corrected an injustice and brought about a detente for
which Chrysostom and his followers were grateful. The conflict may have
been the cause of Anthemius' elevation to the praetorian prefecture.
16. Palladius, Dialogus de vita S. Joannis Chrysostomi 3, ed. P. R. Coleman-Norton

(Cambridge: The University Press, 1928): "This is the third time that I write to Your
Gentleness, begging you to take measures for redress in regard to the plot against John,
Bishop of Constantinople, and so far as it appears, nothing has been done." Quote from:
The Dialogue of Palladius Concerning the Life of Chrysostom, trans. H. Moore (New
York: The Macmillan Company, 1921). p. 27.
17. Palladius, Dialogus 4.
19. Palladius, Dialogus 3.
20. Codex Theodosianus 16.4.6, and 15.1.44.
21. Synesius, Epistulae 66, in PG, LXVI.
III. Extent of Anthemius* Power

There are two problems that deserve attention in trying to understand An-
themius' position: were others associated with him in governing; and by what
legal form did he become regent for Theodosius II?
Socrates, the only source to declare explicitly that Anthemius was regent,
might seem to indicate that the direction of the government was shared with
others. He asserts that Anthemius never acted without counsel (сфоѵХсоя),
but acted in concert with a group of notables (7roXXotç тСоѵ yvcopaxcûv) espe-
cially the philosopher Troilus whom he practically always consulted.22
Theodoret does not mention Anthemius at all; neither do Sozomen and
Philostorgius, who do mention the regency of Pulcheria.23 Neither John
Malalas nor Eunapius mention Anthemius, although the latter notes the re-
gency of Pulcheria.24 Since Anthemius does not seem to have made a very
strong impression of any of these writers, their silence may indicate that the
powers of the government were shared as Socrates at first might seem to sug-
gest. Zosimus imphes this is the cause when he uses the phrase TOVÇ TT\V
кркаЬшѵ ßaotXeuw оікороцоѵѵтея to describe the Eastern government at the
time of the Illyrian crisis.25
But if Socrates does seem to be saying that others were associated in the
regency, there can be no doubt that he is also saying that Anthemius directed
state affairs. Moreover, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Philostorgius were primari
ly interested in religious history; so their silence about Anthemius is not as
strong an objection as it at first appears. Although Sozomen mentions Pul-
cheria's regency, the reference is only passing. Sozomen's main purpose is a
pious eulogy of her virtues. Eunapius is too fragmentary to draw any certain
conclusions about his understanding of the period of regency. Zosimus, it is
true, refers to the Eastern government as being ruled by Arcadius' ministers,
but this reference is to the Illyrian situation at the time Stilicho began hostili
ties, before the time of the government of Anthemius. Since Zosimus there
fore has in mind the cabinet of Eutychian, any application to the situation
under Anthemius would be of doubtful value.
Any conclusions from these sources about the extent of Anthemius'
powers are tenuous. The letters of Chrysostom and Synesius, however, give
us more of an insight into this situation. Chrysostom's letter provides some
evidence that Anthemius had primary responsibility for the governing of the
state. Certainly Chrysostom implies that the decision to revoke the policy of
22. Socrates 7.1.20-26.

23. Sozomen 9.1. Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica 12.7, ed. J. Bidez, in Der
Griechischen Christiischen Schriftsteller, Band XXI (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913).
24. Eunapius of Sardis,fragmentae70, in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, IV.
25. Zosimus, 5.26.2.
persecution was Anthemius' alone. The tone of the letter suggests that Anthe
mius as praetorian prefect now made decisions of importance in the state. But
by itself the letter is not sufficiently informative to establish the conclusion
that Anthemius controlled the government.
The correspondence of Synesius fills this gap. His correspondence includes
several letters to friends of Anthemius that give a more precise picture of his
role than any other source does. In two letters he appeals to his friends to
intervene with Anthemius for the political advancement of his relatives. In a
letter of 405 to Nicander, a friend of his and an assistant to Anthemius,
Synesius requests his assistance on behalf of his nephew. He does not ask
Nicander to act directly but rather to intercede with Anthemius on his neph
ew's behalf.26 In a letter of 406 to Troilus, whom Socrates mentioned as
the counselor of Anthemius, Synesius appeals to Troilus to request Anthe
mius to promote a cousin.27 Synesius writes to request the intercession of
these men, not their decision. This strongly implies that Anthemius had an
ascendancy over those associated with him in the government.
Synesius' letters dealing with public affairs establish the fact that Anthe
mius was the actual ruler of the empire. In another letter to Troilus in 409,
Synesius begs for help to save Libya from corrupt government. He asserts that
Anthemius has both the power and the ability to save Libya from its dis
tress.28 Synesius appeals to Troilus to tell Anthemius that his responsibility
for the safety of the empire demands action. He asks Troilus to remind An
themius that the conduct of governors and the enforcement of the laws is his
responsibility. This letter can leave no doubt but that the appointment of of
ficials, the execution of the laws, and the governance of the state were the
responsibility of Anthemius. Synesius closes his letter by pointing out that
he is asking nothing more of Anthemius than his duty, for Anthemius is
guardian of the laws (TCOP РОЏСЈР TOP TOŮTCŮP фѵкака). The responsibility for
the guidance of the empire, then, was Anthemius'.
In 411 Synesius wrote to Theotimus, a philosopher and poet who was a
friend of Troilus, asking his intervention and that of Troilus with Anthemius
for the removal of an incompetent governor.29 Synesius thus recognized that
,the appointment of governors was Anthemius' responsibility. This letter,
then, reinforces the previous conclusion that Anthemius and not a council
directed affairs of state. Finally, Synesius in the same year makes a passing
26. Synesius, Epistulae 75.

27./Ш. 118.
28. Ѣіа. 73.
29. ЉШ. 47.
reference in which he explicitly declares that Anthemius is first in state af-

fairs.30
The cumulative effect of these letters makes it clear that Anthemius alone
had primarily responsibility for the empire. By his appeals to them, Synesius
suggests that Troilus, Theotimus, and others served Anthemius as counselors;
but Anthemius made the decisions so that their function was only advisory.
Synesius' letters show that others were associated with Anthemius in the
government, but not as equals. Others assisted him, but in a subordinate and
advisory capacity.
As the previous section has shown, Anthemius came to power while Arca-
dius was still living. Since Eudoxia was now dead, Anthemius in reality
headed the government. The regency of Anthemius, then, did not constitute
an innovation but rather a continuation of the situation that had existed
under Arcadius. Theodosius had been created Augustus while his father was
still living.31 There was then no need for any special arrangements. On the
death of Arcadius the government continued as it had before with a nominal
Augustus and a praetorian prefect who actually directed affairs and was con-
sequently a de facto regent.
IV. Foreign Affairs

In foreign affairs there were three areas that demanded attention. When
Anthemius came to power, relations with the West were only one step from
open conflict. To the east the Persian Empire was, as usual, a cause for con-
cern. Finally, Anthemius had to deal with an invasion of the Huns.
The invasion of Italy by Radagaisus had prevented Stilicho from occupy-
ing niyricum and had thus saved the East from a military engagement it prob-
ably would have lost. The subsequent barbarian invasion of Gaul and the
usurpation of Constantine restrained Stilicho from undertaking any Eastern
adventures for the next few years. In 408 Stilicho gave evidence that he in-
tended to reassert his Eastern claims by appointing Jovius praetorian prefect
of Illyricum.32 When Arcadius died, the pretext was presented that Honorius
was the legal guardian of Theodosius. Stilicho planned a journey to Constanti-
nople, but he had to delay it in order to deal with the revolt of the usurper
30. Synesius, Catástasis 2.1, in PG, LXVI. Cf. also his Epistulae 79 and 49 for other
references to Anthemius which, however, are not as helpful in ascertaining Anthemius'
position as are the above letters. In his Epistulae 49 he tells Theotimus that just as An-
themius has deserved fame for his prudent government, so Theotimus has deserved fame
by immortalizing the name of Anthemius in poetry.
31. Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae
(Bonn: E. Weber, 1832), sub a. 402.
32. Sozomen 8.25.
Constantine at Aries and other difficulties in the West.33

The situation in the East, however, had changed substantially since 405.
Chrysostom had died in 407. Chrysostom's followers, who were by now more
disposed to accept the government because of its policy of toleration, at least
tacitly accepted Atticus as patriarch.34 The Western bishops insisted only on
the inscription of Chrysostom's name among the list of patriarchs.35 The
smooth transition from Arcadius to Theodosius II indicates that the East was
much more united in 408 than it had been at the height of the controversy
over Chrysostom.
On 22 August 408 Stilicho was executed. The East must have been greatly
relieved by the death of a man who for more than a decade had been a poten-
tial enemy. What was to prove a disaster for the West was a gain for the East.
There is evidence that relations between East and West improved there-
after. Certainly the death of Stilicho had made such a rapprochement easier.
By 409 the positions of the two governments were reversed. The East was
safe, Hornorius now found himself besieged in Ravenna. Attalus, the stage-
prop candidate of Alaric, now claimed the Western throne.36 Honorius had
lost hope and was about to flee by ship to Constantinople when four thou-
sand troops arrived from the East to help him. Honorius took courage and de-
cided to resist. He used the reinforcements from Anthemius to guard the city
since he deeply distrusted his own troops. Events in Africa turned the tide so
that Honorius remained in control of the empire.37
The troops that Anthemius sent not only indicated that good relations
were being restored but also ensured that they would continue to remain so.
Honorius was now indebted to the East for its help. Thus within a very short
time Anthemius had reversed the relations between East and West. Although
this was in part due to his own diplomacy, he was aided by good fortune. Dis-
turbances in the West prevented Stilicho from invading the East. His later exe-
cution set the stage for reconcilation.
Socrates and Sozomen record a period of good relations between Persia
and the Eastern Empire beginning with the accession of Theodosius II. 38 Ac-
cording to Sozomen the Persians were about to take up arms but decided on
peace instead. He gives no details on this sudden change of policy.
33. Zosimus 5.31. Sozomen 9.4.

34. Emilienne Demougeot, De l'unité à la division de l'Empire romain, 395-410; essai
sur le gouvernement impérial (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1951), p. 349.
35. Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica 5.34, ed. L. Parmentier, in Der Griechischen
Christiischen Schriftsteller, band XIX (Leipzig: J. С Hinrichs, 1911).
36. Olympiodorus 13. Zosimus 6.6-6.8.2.
37. Zosimus 6.8.2-6.12.3. Sozomen 9.8.12.
38. Socrates 7.8. Sozomen 9.4.
A story mentioned by later writers provides a clue to understanding this

change. According to Procopius and a later chronicle,39 Arcadius shortly be
fore his death was worried that enemies both internal and external would
take advantage of the youth of Theodosius. Persia might use this opportunity
to seize Roman territory, or ambitious persons might try to overthrow the
dynasty. So in drawing up his will Arcadius made the Persian king Yezdegerd
guardian of his son and protector of the empire to forestall both possibilities.
Yezdegerd accepted and threatened war against anyone who attempted to
overthrow the young emperor.
The legendary nature of this story is unmistakable, for the Romans would
never have accepted an arrangement that gave a Persian a protectorate over
their' emperor and state. Gibbon correctly rejected the account as unprece
dented.40 Yet most legends, especially if they are recent, have some founda
tion in fact.
How much validity is there in this story of Yezdegerd's guardianship? To
the extent that it is true, it may simply have been a diplomatic gesture by An
themius to flatter the Persian monarch and ensure peace. The guardianship, of
course, would be wholly nominal. Anthemius was doubtless familiar with Per
sian policies and the steps that could be taken to win the king's favor from his
tenure as ambassador to that court. His knowledge of Persia and Yezdegerd
could have suggested some step like this to secure peace. However this may
be, it is certain that Persia and the Roman Empire agreed to peace under An
themius. This peace was not simply a temporary pause in hostilities since it
lasted as long as Yezdegerd lived.
The arrangement seems to have had both commercial and religious aspects.
A law of the year 409 regulated commerce between the two empires. The law
declares in part that Roman merchants in conducting their business are not to
go beyond those cities which were designated for trading by the treaty with
Persia.41 This law was designed, then, to implement commercial arrange
ments which had already been decided upon in the treaty with Persia. The
treaty also led to toleration for Christians in the Persian dominion. This was
accomplished through a series of legations begmning with that of Anthemius
39. Procopius, Bellum Persicum 1.2, in Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, ed. J.
Haury, 3 vols, in 4 (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1905-13). Theophanes, Chronographm, ed.
С. de Boor (Leipzig: В. G. Teubner, 1883), sub a. 407.
40. Gibbon, III, 382-83.
41. Codex Justinianus 4.63.4: "Mercatores tam imperio nostro quam Persarum regi
subjecto ultra ea loca in quibus foederis tempore cum morata natione nobis convenit,
nundinas exercere minime opertet, ne alieni regni, quod non convenit, scrutentur ar-
in 399. 4 2 This provision also lasted as long as Yezdegerd lived.43 Anthemius'

diplomacy proved successful in relations with Persia. The peace he established
lasted longer than his lifetime, ending only with the accession of Varanes to
the persian throne in 420.
Anthemius had to face one serious barbarian incursion during his term in
office. Uldin, chief of the Scyrri, a Hunnic tribe, led his troops across the
Danube to attack Moesia. The Huns occupied Castra Martis in Moesia and
used it as a base to launch raids into Thrace. The government proposed peace
terms but without success.
Sozomen makes it clear that the government's situation appeared hopeless
at first: "But while Uldin was uttering menaces of this description [his refusal
of peace terms] and was ordering as large a tribute as he pleased . .. when af-
fairs were so helpless, God gave manifest proofs of special favor toward the
present reign."44 This "special favor" of God is described by Sozomen in a
euphemistic circumlocation: "The immediate attendants and leaders of the
tribes of Uldin were discussing the Roman forms of government, the philan-
thropy of the emperor, and his promptitude and liberality in rewarding the
best and good men. It was not without God that they turned to the love of
the points so discussed and seceded to the Romans, to whose camp they
joined themselves, together with the troops ranged under themselves."45
Once this statement is stripped of its pious rhetoric, what really happened
was that a good number of the Huns deserted to the Romans in return for a
bribe. This reversed the strength of the two beligerents so that the Romans
were now able to drive the Huns back across the Danube with heavy losses.
Those taken prisoner were sold as colonica
Thus what the weak Roman army could not achieve was accomplished by
diplomacy. This is perhaps the most characteristic note of Anthemius' foreign
policy. He brought about peace for the East by adroit political diplomacy
rather than by war. His ability in this area may be measured by his successful
use of it to reconcile the West, appease Persia, and defeat the Huns.
V. Domestic Policies
Much of Anthemius' energies in internal affairs was taken up with prob-
lems of defense. Among his more important achievements were the construc-
42. J. Labourt, Le christianisme dans l'empire Perse sous la dynastie Sassanide (224-
632) (Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1904), p. 87.
43. Socrates 7.8.
44. Sozomen 9.5. Also in A Select Library ofNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers ofthe
Christian Church, 2nd ser., 14 vols. (New York: The Christian Literature Company,
1890-1900), 11,422.
45. Ibid.
tion of a new wall for Constantinople, the restoration and fortification of the
cities of lUyricum, and the establishment of a permanent fleet on the Danube.
Under Anthemius' direction Constantinople was surrounded with a new wall
running about a mile to the west of the old wall. Need for such a wall had
existed for some time. Zosimus records that Constantinople had outgrown
the wall of its founder shortly after his death.47 The city extended even fur-
ther by the time of Julian.4 8 This successive growth certainly made an exten-
sion of the walls desirable.
There is some evidence to indicate that fear of attack stimulated construc-
tion at this precise moment. The Theodosian Code declares that the new wall
of Constantinople was constructed for the fortification of the city. 49 More-
over, the wall was so planned as to take advantage of the fortification around
the sixth hill. 50 The difficulties with Stilicho and later with the Huns had
demonstrated the military weakness of the empire. Only luck and skillful
diplomacy had prevented disaster. Knowledge of this may have impressed
upon the government the desirability of enlarging the city with a well-forti-
fied wall.
To strengthen the empire further, in 412 Anthemius ordered a fleet of two
hundred and fifty ships to be maintained on the Danube.51 The decree regu-
lated in careful detail how many ships were to be new, and how many could
be old. Old ones were to be repaired according to a fixed schedule. Provision
was also made for the weapons and supplies that were to be stored on the ves-
sels, with strict penalties for negligence by those responsible for enforcement.
The purpose of this law was to strengthen the Danubian frontier and prevent
further incursions by the Huns or other barbarians. The meticulous attention
to detail in this law shows how anxious Anthemius was about the situation
on the frontier. His recent experience with Uldin probably caused this con-
cern.
Anthemius was especially concerned with the prefecture of Illyricumsince
that area had been severely devastated by the armies of Alaric and Stilicho,
and was menaced by the Huns. In 408 he ordered that everyone throughout
the empire, regardless of privilege, should be compelled to provide for the
construction of walls and the transportation of supplies into fllyricum.5 2 In
413 Anthemius relaxed the burden for the cuñales of Illyricumin return for
47. Zosimus 2.35.1.

48. Himerius, Declamations et orationes cum deperditarum fragmentis 1.1.71-73, ed.
A. Colonna (Roma: Typis Publicae Officinae Polygraphicae, 1951).
49. Codex Theodosianus. 15.51.1: "Ad munitionem splendidissimae urbis exstructa
est"
50. J. B. Bury, I, 70.
51. Codex Theodosmnus 7.17.1.
52. Ibid. 11.17.4: "universi sine uUo privilegio."
other services that contributed to the reconstruction of the territory.53 Illyri-

cum was the only area singled out for such attention.
There was only one sudden domestic crisis during Anthemius' rule. In 409
Constantinople was hit by a famine when the grain ships from Alexandria
failed to arrive.5.4 The situation became serious when a mob attacked the
house of Monaxius, prefect of the city, whose responsibility it was to manage
supplies from Egypt.55 Anthemius collected five hundred pounds of gold to
purchase grain for the interim.56
Shortly thereafter Anthemius issued an edict reforming the merchant ma-
rine. The opening phrases of this law suggest that the famine resulted from
corrupt shipmasters who sold their cargo in remote islands at higher prices.57
Anthemius declared that henceforth the guild of shipmasters was to pay for
all cargo, even if "lost at sea" (dicatur tempestate maris deperisse). The island
of Carpathia was established as a half-way station, presumably so captains
could no longer seek out other islands on the pretense that they had lost the
other ships of their fleet. At Alexandria the handling of grain was transferred
from the hands of the curiales to the guild of shipmasters, ut curialibus
praedae auferatur occasion Anthemius also issued a law against autopragy,
the practice whereby great landowners remitted amounts "of their own free
will" rather than through the ordinary apparatus for tax collection.59 He was
probably unsuccessful in halting the practice since the law had to be repeated
later.60
Anthemius does not seem to have been concerned with religious matters
except in so far as they affected affairs of state. According to Socraties, his
most trusted adviser was the pagan sophist Troilus.61 Yet Socrates had an ex-
tremely high opinion of Anthemius, referring to him as the most prudent man
of his time. 62 Anthemius had relaxed the persecution of Chrysostom's fol-
lowers for political reasons. Presumably, however, he was responsible for later
ordering Chrysostom to be sent to a more remote spot. Anthemius required
Priscillianists and Montanists to perform government service even though they

54. Marcellinus comes, Chronicon, in Monumenta Germaniae Histórica, Auctorum
antiquissimorum, 15 vols. (Berlin: Weidmann, 1877-1919), XI, suba. 409.
55. Chronicon Paschale sub a. 409.
57. Ibid. 13.5.32: "Cum navarchorum coetus circiter provincias Orientis inopia navi-
um titubaret, et investigandae classis obtentus insularum secessus obiret...."
58./Ш. 14.26.1.
59. Bid. 11.22.4.
60. E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire (284-476). De l'état romain à l'état byzantin, 2
vols, in 3 (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1949-59), I, 278.
61. Socrates 7.1.22-23.
62. Ѣт. 7.1.20.
had been forbidden to hold office in the West.63 This move became necessary
since office-holding had become a burden that many tried to avoid. In general
Anthemius' policies in religion seem to have been determined by his policies
of state.
Anthemius launched no radical innovations in domestic matters during his
rule. His policies were simply a response to problems as they arose. If his poli
cies were cautious, they were effective. The relatively tranquil reign of Theo-
dosius II is partly explained by the peaceful order he inherited from Anthe
mius.
VI. Transfer of Power to Pulcheria

The last law addressed to Anthemius in the Theodosian Code is dated 17
February 415. 64 He was succeeded by Aurelian as praetorian prefect. But
Pulcheria became de facto regent for her younger brother. She had already
been created Augusta on 4 July 414 while Anthemius was still in power.65
Bury is almost certainly right in conjecturing that death removed Anthe
mius from the scene.66 It is scarcely imaginable that a sixteen-year old girl
could have overthrown a man who had so effectively resolved previous crises.
Pulcheria, moreover, had been created Augusta in 414 when it is known that
Anthemius was still alive and in power. Finally, there is a strong continuity
between the two regencies. Pulcheria continued to work for improvement of
relations with Honorius.67 Persia and the Roman Empire continued to re
main friendly.68 Thus, even if some reason other than death caused Anthe
mius' retirement, the transition was certainly peaceful and maintained conti
nuity.
VII. Conclusion
The examination of Anthemius' position shows that he came to power by
force of circumstances under Arcadius before the reign of Theodosius II. His
regency for the young Theodosius was therefore a continuation of his previ
ous rule. For this reason it is probably a mistake to look for legal forms by
which Anthemius became regent. The unanimous silence of the sources on
this subject suggests that there were no legal forms, but rather a smooth tran
sition that preserved the previously existing mode of government.

64. 3id, 8.4.26. According to the Chronicon Paschale Aurelian was praetorian pre
fect before 30 December 414. Unless the date is correct, the Theodosian Code is a more
reliable source. Whichever date is accepted, the argument is not affected.
65. Marcellinus comes sub a. 414.
66. Bury, I, 214.
67. Chronicon Paschale sub л. 415.
68. Labourt, pp. 89-90.
Although others were associated with Anthemius in the regency, they did
not share his power. The uncertainty on this subject probably arose from So-
crates' statement that Anthemius never acted without advice and that he
always acted in concert with Troilus. Synesius' correspondence with Troilus
and other members of Anthemius' cabinet asks not for their own direct help,
but for their intercession with Anthemius. Synesius' letters show that the
powers Anthemius possessed were definitely those nominally held by the em-
peror. Consequently it is a mistake to see any inclination toward republican
government during the period of regency. This theory is based upon the con-
viction that imperial power was shared among "the great officers of the state
and army,"69 a conviction which is no longer tenable if Synesius'letters are
regarded as trustworthy evidence.
In analyzing Anthemius' poHcies one of the most striking features is his
lack of interest in military adventures and desire for conciliation. Apparently
recognizing the weakness of the empire and its need for reconstruction, he
avoided military actions of any sort. Anthemius worked in harmony with the
West in spite of Stilicho's previous attitude to the East. Anthemius granted
Persia a favorable economic treaty and a nominal guardianship over the em-
peror to appease Persia and guarantee peace on the eastern frontier. In dealing
with the Scyrri, Anthemius preferred bribery to all-out war.
Anthemius appears to have recognized that the empire could not risk a
major war in its present condition. Consequently he sought peace in order to
strengthen the empire internally. Within the empire Anthemius concentrated
his efforts on defense and reconstruction. With the money saved from in-
terminable and costly wars, Anthemius could afford projects of a large scale.
Constantinople was fortified with a more extensive wall, the Danube frontier
was strengthened by a powerful fleet, and Ulyricum was fortified and rehabili-
tated. Anthemius must have recognized that peace in such an era could hardly
be enduring, so much of his energy was devoted to problems of defense.
Anthemius' capable administration was long remembered. When the wall
of Constantinople was repaired at a much later date, a cornerstone was in-
serted with the following inscription:
Portarum validofirmavitlimine muros

Pusaeus magno non minor Anthemio.70
69. Gibbon, III, 383.

70. Dessau. Inscriptions latinae selectae, éd. H. Dessau, 2nd. ed., 3 vols, in 5 (Berlin:
Weidmann, 1954-62), no. 5339.
DAVID F. GRAF and M. O'CONNOR (Ann Arbor, Mich., U.S.A.)
The Origin of the Term Saracen

and the Rawwăfă Inscriptions
Despite the desuetude into which the use of the term Saracen has fallen in
the last three centuries, it was the chief European designation of speakers of
Arabic over the course of a dozen centuries. Indeed, the word has been used
in English for the whole history of the language; in contrast, derivatives of the
modern term Arab do not appear in English until Chaucer, five centuries after
the first use of Saracen.1 In a larger European perspective, the development is
even more striking: from late antiquity well into the modern period, the larg
est language group in Southwestern Asia was known as the Saracens, a term
of obscure etymology and sense, even in Arabic.
We are knowingly anachronistic in referring to the Arabs as a language
group: such "pure" designations are strictly modem and it is not always clear
even now that the linguistic reference of the term is generally recognized. In
pre-modem times, all population designations were based on a broad spec
trum of criteria, ranging from language and geography, through features of
culture determined by them, to plain fantasies perpetuated to maintain the
status of out-groups. Etymologies based on all these criteria—save the first-
have been proposed for saraceni by readers from the Fathers to the moderns.
All are defective in their failure to take account of the peculiar situation of
the Imperial frontier with the Arabian Shield during the period in which the
term first appears.
On the basis of recent epigraphic and archaeological research into this situ
ation, we wish to propose that saraceni is derived from a technical term in the
political vocabulary of the inhabitants of North Arabia, Ìarìkat "federation,
company." This is the only linguistically plausible etymology which takes ser-
1. The first OED date for Saracen is с 893, for arabiens (sic) and arabic, с. 1391: see
The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press,
1971), pp. 106, 2639. Standard modern treatments of saraceni include J. H. Mordtmann,
"Saracens," in The Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. M. T. Houtsma, et ai, 1st ed. (Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1934) IV, 155-56; and В. Moritz, "Saraka," in Pauly 's RealEncyclopädie der
classischenAltertumswissenschaft, ed.G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, et. al, 2nd series, (Stuttgart:
J. B. Metzler, 1896 ), I, pt. 2, cols. 2387-90. Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Grae
caAatina, ed. J. P. Migne, 161 vols, in 166 (Paris: Seu Petit-Montrouge, 1857-66); and
Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina, ed. J. P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris: J. P. Migne,
1844-64) are cited as PG and PL; Scriptores Historiae Augustae is abbreviated SHA.
THE TERM SARACEN AND THE RAWWÄFÄ INSCRIPTIONS 53
ious account of the historical context of the term's earliest uses.2 The exis
tence of the word in the pre-Islamic Arabic dialects was first appreciated by
the distinguished French historian and epigrapher, J. T. Milik, O. P. 3 Its rele
vance as the best etymon of saraceni has not been recognized in recent study.4
In setting out to discuss the etymology, we will begin by looking at Ro
man relations with the peoples bordering on Provincia Arabia in the period of
the term's earliest uses. After reviewing other etymologies, the relevance of
the language of the Rawwăfă Bilingual Inscription, the major new document
in the study of those relations, will be patent.5
Roman Relations with North Arabia

The earliest archaeological investigations of the defensive system of the
Roman eastern frontier proceeded from Mommsen's hypothesis of a duplex
limesý Brünnow and Domaszewski, in their fundamental survey of the Ara
bian province, were able to distinguish clearly between the external military
road along the desert edge between cAmman and Macan and the internal for
tified Trajanic trade route between Bostra and Aila, designating them as the
2. A note on the languages to be discussed below may be provided. The three major
branches of the Semitic family provide relevant evidence. East Semitic, represented by
Akkadian, offers only cognate evidence. Northwest Semitic, divided into the Aramaic
and Canaanite groups, offers cognate data from the latter (Hebrew) and direct evidence
from several dialects of the Aramaic group, Nabatean, Palmyrene and Hatran, used by the
urban populations of southern Palestine, Syria and upper Iraq for writing purposes only.
South Semitic offers the evidence of the North Arabian (or Arabic) dialects, Thamudic,
Safaitic and Classical Arabic (often cited below as Arabic simply). Classical Arabic forms
are cited with the ta'marbutä for ease of comparison across writing systems.
3. J. T. Milik, O. P., "Inscriptions grecques et nabatéennes de Rawwâfah," in Prelimi
nary Survey ofN. W. Arabia, 1968, ed. P. J. Parr, G. L. Harding and J. E. Dayton = Uni
versity of London. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, 10 (1971), 54-58. The in
scriptions treated in this paper had been studied, on the basis of poor photographs, by F.
Altheim and Ruth Stiehl, Die Araber in der alten Welt (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), V, pt.
2, 24-25; and J. Teixidor, "Bulletin d'epigraphie sémitique 1970," Syria, 47 (1970), 377-
79. The most recent treatment of them is that of G. W. Bowersock, "The Greek-Naba-
taean Bilingual at Ruwwäfä, Saudi Arabia," in Le monde grec: Hommages à Claire Préaux
(Brussels, 1975), pp. 513-22.
4. It was previously suggested by Aloys Sprenger, Die alte Geographie Arabiens als
Grundlage der Entwicklungsgeschichte des Semitismus (Bern: von Huber, 1875), p. 201,
who understood the term to mean "ally (of Rome)." We will propose that it refers to an
internal organization of North Arabians.
5. For information on the texts, see the bibliography cited apud n. 3. Bowersock con
tends that "the new bilingual inscription . . . puts beyond any doubt that northwestern
Saudi Arabia, precisely that part of the peninsula which had been part of the Nabataean
kingdom until A.D. 106, was after that date a part of the Roman province of Arabia,"
Préaux, p. 516. This is, as we shall see, not the only construction which can be put on
the inscription's text and location.
6. Theodor Mommsen, "Der Begriff des limes," Westdeutsche Zeitschrift, 13 (1894),
134-43 = Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1908), V. sec. 2, 456-64.
outer and inner limes respectively.7 Poidebard's later aerial reconnaissance of

the Syrian fortification system reflected a similar scheme, with outlying de
fensive posts buttressing and insulating interior commercial arteries.8 In sub
sequent research, however, scholars have preferred to speak of an in-depth de
fense of the eastern frontier, proposing a complex infrastructure for a defen
sive system dependent on rapid communication and the cooperation of mobile
troops stationed throughout the militarized zone.9 Nonetheless, there is no
archaeological evidence of any substantial Roman military presence in the re
gion adjacent to the Trajanic via nova east and northeast of Aila, an area of
more than 60 km. Any attempt to explain this gap in the Roman defense of
the province on the basis of the climactic or geographical peculiarities of the
region is belied by Nabatean fortifications in the area. The slight evidence
which does exist for Roman military activity in this problematic sector and
further south in the Arabian peninsula is also not obviously of occupational
character.10
Alois Musil, who recognized the problem of this meagerly defended sector,
suggested that the social organizations of North Arabia served as Roman foe
derati, and were assigned the protection of the southeastern Imperial frontier
after the collapse of the Nabatean buffer state in the second century.11 The
suggestion is essentially plausible. Archaeological evidence points to similar
indigenae forces as guardians of the Roman frontier in North Africa; in the
late pre-Islamic period, North Arabian social organizations based on client
7. R. E. Briinnow and A. von Domaszewski, Die Provincia Arabia, 3 vols. (Strassburg:

K. J. Trübner, 1904-09).
8. A. Poidebard, La trace de Rome dans le désert de Syria. Recherches aériennes
(1925-32), Bibliothèque historique et archéologique 18 (Paris: Geuthner, 1934).
9. As is aigued for southern Palestine by Mordechai Gichon in "The Negev Frontier,"
in Israel and her Vicinity in Roman and Byzantine Periods, ed. S. Applebaum (Tel Aviv:
Tel Aviv Univ., 1967), pp. 35-64; "The Origins of the Iimes Palestinae and the Major
Phases of its Development," in Studien zu den militärgrenzen Roms. Vorträge des 6.
Internationalen Limes-Kongressus in Süddeutschland (Köln: Bohlau, 1967), pp. 175-93;
"Das Verteidigungssystem und die Verteidiger des Flavischen Limes in Judäa," in Provin
cialia. 'Festchrift ßr Rudolf Laur-Behrt, ed. E. Schmid, et al. (Stuttgart/Basel: Schwabe,
1968), pp. 317-34; "The Military Significance of Certain Aspects of the limes Palestinae,"
in Roman Frontier Studies: The Proceedings of the 7th International Congress, ed. S.
Applebaum (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univ., 1971), pp. 191-200. For Arabia, see now G. W.
Bowersock, "Limes Arabicus," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 80 (1976), 219-29,
who suggests that the transformation of the Roman concept of limes from a fortified
line to a whole region was the result of the special conditions of the eastern frontier
where such a defensive system was a necessity.
10. For a more detailed discussion of the material in this section, with full references
and a map, see D. F. Graf, "The Saracens and the Defense of the Arabian Frontier," Bul
letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 229 (1978), 1-26.
11. Alois Musil, The Northern Heğaz (New York: American Geographical Society,
1926), p. 258.
kings were tied to both Byzantine and Parthian dispensations. Continued in
vestigations in what may be the most complex area of Semitic epigraphy, pre-
Islamic texts, as well as other epigraphic developments, make it possible now
to confirm the existence of a relationship between Rome and the federated
social organizations of North Arabia in the Antonine period.
The context of the major development in Roman-North Arabian relations
during the Flavian Era (69-138), the creation of Provincia Arabia in 106, is
provided by graffiti in Safaitic and Thamudic script and dialect.12 There is
at least some evidence to suggest that the northward extension of the domain
these graffiti cover is to be dated to the first and second centuries. Similar
northward movement is hinted at in Latin literary sources, which before the
second century situate the Thamud in the Hejaz in contrast to the writings of
Ptolemy in which they are placed further north. (Unfortunately, both inscrip
ţionai and literary sources are much more reticent about the Safaitic groups.)
The social organizations associated with the Thamudic and Safaitic inscrip
tions, or at least the former, may be regarded as having moved north, out of
Arabia, during this period, and with this movement we may associate the Fla
vian developments and the general unrest in the area.
The unrest continues during the early part of the Antonine period (138-
93); its cessation later in the period is the result of a political development
now well-attested. Early in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, before the death of
Aurelius Ve rus in 169, the Thamudic social organization concluded an alliance
with Rome which is commemorated in a number of inscriptions found at
Rawwăfa.
This site, in the central Hismâ, just south of the midpoint of a line from
Petra to Leuke Kome, the Red Sea port, is the locale of an isolated shrine
containing a number of Greek and Nabatean inscriptions including a Greek-
Nabatean bilingual. Since the shrine itself is of Nabatean construction and the
Semitic language of preference for the texts is Nabatean, there is no external
reason to connect the shrine or the texts with the Thamud; there is only the
evidence of the texts themselves.13 The inscriptions were probably first noted
12. The Thamudic material is abundant but not entirely accessible to scholars who,
like us, lack direct control of the texts. For a general survey, see A. van den Branden,
Histoire de Thamoud, Publications de l'Université Libanaise, Section des études histori
ques VI (Beyrouth: Université Libanaise, 1966). Any impression of good order in the
field, however, can be corrected by looking at A. Jamme, Thamudic Studies (Washington,
D.C., 1967), who devotes particular attention to the weaknesses of van den Branden's
textual publications, which form the basis of his Histoire. On Safaitic texts, see the refer
ences in n. 60.
13. It is not necessary, with Bowersock, Préaux, p. 517, to interpret this an an ex
pression of the former subservient relationship of the Thamud to the Nabateans. Naba
tean was simply the official language of diplomatic interchange for the region, in which
by Musil in 1910 and have been most recently published by J. T. Milik in

1971. The bilingual, apparently a lintel inscription of dedication, is damaged
but read in conjunction with the other texts, provides substantial information.
The shrine was built by a member of the Rubatu group (so Latinice; Ara-
bice, modern Rawwafâ) for the Thamudic deity, üähä. The Greek and Naba-
tean texts, after invoking with suitable honorifics the two emperors, refer to,
in Greek [. . . то TÚ]V &a¡iovorjvcop è'[#wç] "theThamudean people," and in
Nabatean srkt14 tmwdw "the federation of Thamudeans." Later the Naba-
tean text refers to ądmy srkth "the elders of their federation." The restored
Greek phrase occurs complete in the identical context in another, monolin
gual Greek text and may be regarded as assured. The Nabatean text also re
cords that Q. Antistius Adventus, known to have been governor of Provincia
Arabia in 166,15 was accorded (or made) greetings (Nab. hfyt)1^ and that he
made peace among the Thamudeans or between them and the Romans (Nab.
rmshm)}1 The three technical diplomatic terms cited here are worthy of
note because they do not reflect the basic language of the text, which is an
Aramaic dialect, but rather the spoken language of the Thamud, an Arabic
dialect.
Some background for this development should be outlined. The Thamud
are first known from the annals of the Neo-Assyrian ruler Sargon II (721-
05 B.C.) where they appear as a leaderless enemy. The nature of their politi
cal organization is no clearer from later references, but the circumstances of
the Rawwăfâ text do indicate certain facts. The area in which this federation
appears was the home of the Midianite federation of the Late Bronze Age and
the Nabateans had probably only previously shared control with other inhabitants of the
Hejaz; see Philip C. Hammond, The Nabataeans-Their History, Culture and Archaeology,
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 37 (Gothenburg: Paul Aströms, 1973), pp.
29-34.
14. The locus of srkt is missing from the transcription of Altheim and Stiehl. Teixi-
dor working from their photographs read drbt "of Robltu." Milik, however, does not
regard the reading of the word as being in question. The word itself is discussed further
below. In quoting Milik's text, we do not reproduce his markings on uncertain letters,
since our comments cannot hope to replace his edition.
15. For further discussion of the two governors mentioned in the Rawwâfâ texts, and
related problems in the gubernatorial and consular fasti, see Bowersock, Préaux, pp. 516-
17.
16. Nabatean fyfyt "salutations" is the verbal noun of the Thamudic cognate of the
Classical Arabic hafă "to receive kindly and hospitably." A related form of the verb oc
curs in the Paimyrene of a Greek-Palmy rene bilingual, cited by Milik, p. 57. The word is
not known in Aramaic and is, therefore, assumed to be a loan from Thamudic into Naba
tean. On the Greek translation of the term тгротротпі "exhortation, encouragement,'uee
Bowersock, Préaux, p. 515.
17. The referent of the pronominal suffix of Nabatean rmşhm "he made peace among/
between them" is obscure. Both Bowersock and Milik assume that the peace was made
among the Thamud. This term is also a loan into Nabatean from Thamudic Arabic, as
Milik notes on the basis of the Classical Arabic cognate.
THE TERM SARACEN AND THE RAWWÄFA INSCRIPTIONS 57
Early Iron I period, a federation whose history is entangled with that of early
Israel.18 Further, the pattern of using an isolated shrine as a confederation
center, a neutral focal point, though scarcely lacking modern parallels (e.g.,
the use of Switzerland, "the country of a thousand years of peace"), is also
well attested in the Late Bronze and Iron ages.
The subsequent relations between Rome and the Thamud are not totally
clear, but the provincial borders of Arabia seem to have been characterized by
disruption in the immediate post-Antonine period. This regional instability is
later revealed, for example, in the Seveřan strengthening of the frontiers, which
was not designed simply to confront the Parthian threat, but also to counter
act incursions by North Arabians. No genuine order was achieved until some
time after the rise of Islam.19
The Saraceni
The two earliest important uses of the term saraceni refer to the second
century. There are two earlier passages which have been cited in connection
with the word. The first, in Dioscurides of Anazzibus'De Materia Medica (mid-
first century A.D.), may mention the effluence of a bévbpov oapcucqvucov.20
The second, in the Historia Naturalis of Pliny, mentions both Araceni and Ar-
reni.2^ The first of these is textually difficult and the second both textually
and morphologically so (are the two forms distinct or the result of doublet-
ing?). 22 The earliest allusions which command serious attention occur in
Ptolemy's Geographia in the first half of the second century, where the re
ferences may be confused: at one point, Ptolemy locates the saraceni in an
area that would comprehend Rawwäfa; at another, he places them in the Sinai
peninsula near the Egyptian border. 23 The most useful early treatment (al-
18. G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition
(Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1973), pp. 163-73.
19. Developments from the early fourth century on are dealt with most recently by
Bowersock in his treatment of the Imru' 1-Qais inscription of 328, Préaux, pp. 520-22.
20. De Materia Medica 1.60.
21. Historia Naturalis 6.32.157.
22. Contra Moritz, col. 2388 and Mordtmann, p. 155. W. Caskel associates the name
arreni (as he cites one of Pliny's forms) with Arabic rahawt, in "The Bedouinization of
Arabia," in Studies in Islamic Cultural History, ed. G. E. von Grunebaum, American
Anthropological Association Memoirs 76 (Menasha, Wise: American Anthropological
Association, 1954), pp. 36-46, esp. p. 39; this paper was also published as "Zur Beduin-
iserung Arabiens," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 103 (1953),
28-36. If these two texts are associated with saraceni, then the historical context for
the etymology proposed here would have to be reconsidered.
23. Geographia 6.7.21; 5.17.3. On the city Saraka, mentioned in Geographia 6.7.41,
see Moritz, col. 2388.
though only relatively so) is that of Ammianus Marcellinus, who uses the
term saraceni apropos of the second century. While discussing the saracèni,
the historian says he recalls having told of their customs in his history of
Marcus (Aurelius).24 Thus, the appearance of the saraceni in Roman parlance
is best dated to the second century.
Parallel with the rise of the term saraceni is the disappearance of other
terms for inhabitants of the region. The term Thamudeni was in Roman usage
in early Imperial times; after the second century, it virtually disappears. The
only notable references are in the Notitia Dignitatum, which records that the
équités Saraceni Thamudeni served in Egypt and the équités Thamudeni Шу
riciani at Birsama in Palestine.25 Similarly, by the fourth century at the latest,
the term Arabes had fallen out of currency. The term of reference for the
great populations of the Arabian Shield and the groups in Syria and Palestine
asssociated with them was saraceni.26 We wish to suggest that the term sara
ceni became associated with the Thamud as a result of the Aurelian alliance
(and likely, others similar to it) and eventually became synonymous, not only
with Thamud, but with all other designations for the area's population.27
The next historically useful reference to the saraceni is dated about a cen
tury after the consummation of the alliance: they are the focus of Diocletian's
campaign in 290 2 8 Sometimes in later records they are allies of the Romans29
24. Ammianus Marcellinus 14.4.2; see A. A. Vasiliev, "Notes on Some Episodes

Concerning the Relations Between Arabs and the Byzantine Empire from the Fourth
to the Sixth Centuries," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 9-10 (1956), 306-16. In addition,
the SHA refers to a conflict of the saraceni with Rome in the last part of the second
century {Pescennius Niger 7.8).
25. Notitia Dignitatum in partibus Orientis 28.17; 34.22; ed. Otto Seeck (Berlin:
Weidmann, 1876), pp. 59 and 73.
26. Mordtmann, p. 156, gives some rough indications of the ways in which saraceni
was diffused, through late antiquity and into the Early Modern period.
27. See, for example, Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 4.36—PG, LXVII, col. 556B-C;
John Cassian, CoUationes 6.1==PL, XLIX; col. 645A; Procopius, Anecdota I Historia
Arcana 24.12-14; and Cyril of ScythopoHs, Vita Sabas 72,.in E. Schwartz, Kyrillos
von Skythopolis, Texte und Untersuchungen 49.2/4.4.2 (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1939), p. 175.
28. Panegyrici Latini 11 (3).5.4, ed. G. Baehrens (Leipzig: Teubner, 1911), p. 279=
ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964), p. 260=ed. E. Galletier (Paris, 1949),
I, 55. See in general W. Ensslin, Zur Ostpolitik des Kaisers Diokletian, Sitzungsberichte
der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Abteilung,
1942, Heft 1 (München: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1942). On the
fourth century witnesses of Ulpianus and Uranius, which survive only through Steph-
anus Byzantinus, see Mordtmann, p. 155; F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen
Historiker, UIC (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958); and more recently, the Harvard disserta
tion of J. M. I. West, Uranius, abstracted in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 78
(1974), 282-84.
29. SHA, Aurelian 11.3; Probus 4.1. The saraceni continue to serve the Romans
as late as the time of Justinian; see V. Christides, "Arabs as 'Barbaroť Before the Rise of
Islam," Balkan Studies, 10 (1969), 315-24. Contra Christides' contention, barbaros
is a word of Sumerian origin.
and sometimes the Persians and Palmyrenes.30 The collapse of the separate
referents of saraceni and other terms for North Arabians is underway in Am-
mianus Marcellinus, but there are indications that prior to his time, the refer-
ents were, as we assume, distinct. Ammianus himself remarks jejunely that
those once known as scenitas Arabas are now called saracèni; they are else-
where distinguished, albeit imprecisely, from Arabs31 and from the inhabi-
tants of Arabia Felix. 32
The ethnographic details furnished in our fullest early record on the sara-
ceni, that of Ammianus Marcellinus, do not reflect any significant direct
knowledge of the people, despite his service on the eastern frontier. He offers
stock descriptions overlapping in significant particulars with other reports of
those beyond the Roman Pale.33 The origin of the term is beyond Ammianus'
ken, and, as we shall see, beyond that of other writers of late antiquity.
30. SHA, Aurelian 27.4; 28.4; cf. Firmus (The Four Tyrants) 3.3
31. SHA, Aurelian 11.3; The Thirty Tyrants 30.8;Festus, Brevarium 3.16, on which
see J. W. Eadie, The Brevarium ofFestus (London: Athlone Press, 1967), p. 77.
32. SHA, Aurelian 33.4.
33. As was observed by T. Mommsen, "Ammians Geographia," Hermes, 16 (1881),
602-36, at p. 635, who remarked that the historian was "besser geeignet höfische nichts-
würdigkeit zu durchschauen als in die Individualität andersartiger Völker sich hinein-
zudenken." The same point is emphasized in more recent studies: see W. Seyfarth,
"Nomadenvölker an den Grenzen der spätrömischen Reiches: Beobachtungen des Am-
mianus Marcellinus über Hunnen und Sarazenen," in Das Verhältnis von Bodenbauern
und Viehzüchtern in historischer Sicht=Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin Institut ßr Orientforschung, 69 (1969), 207-13. For further details, see R. Syme,
Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford: Garendon, 1968), p. 64; J. F. Gilliam,
"Ammianus and the Historia Augusta: The Lost Books and the Period 117-285," Bonner
Historia Augusta Colloaium 1970, Antiquitas Reihe 4, Beiträge zur Historia Augusta
Forschung 10 (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1972), pp. 125-47, esp. p. 132; A. Chastagnol,
"Sources, themes et procedes de composition dans les *Quadrige Tyrannorum,' " Recher-
ches sur l'Histoire Auguste, Antiquitas Reihe 4, Beiträge zur Historia Augusta Forschung
6 (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 1970), pp. 69-98, esp. p. 81; and W. Richer, "Die Darstellung
der Hunnen bei Ammianus Marcellinus (32.2.1-11)," Historia, 23 (1974), 343-77, esp.
366-68. The theme of "the general Saracen image reflected in most Byzantine writers"
is taken up in connection with Procopius in V. Christides, "Saracens' Prodosia in Byzan-
tine Sources," Byzantion, 40 (1971), 5-13. Christides appreciates the political implica-
tions of ethnographic levelling: "The situation depicted by Procopius is but one rather
glaring example of the catastrophic results created by the Byzantine attitude, and which
a century later were to fling open the door of the whole East to the invading Moslem
army," p. 13. Fixed ethnographical language is not a phenomenon of only the ancient
and mediaeval periods. Rodney Needham, the Oxford anthropologist, has observed that
nowadays "everybody . . . knows that untutored peoples are said to fear the capture of
their souls in the visitor's little black box," be it camera or tape-recorder, "but no one
. . . can tell me where this common idea came from"; he notes that it does not figure
in formal ethnographical description, but only in journalistic commentary of persons
ignorant of the languages in which the beliefs would be expressed; see "Little Black
Boxes," The Times Literary Supplement (28 May 1976).
The Etymological Problem

By the fourth century of the Common Era, saraceni/oapcucnvoi had become
the dominant term to describe the North Arabian populace and congeners.
The emergence of this term, we believe, is to be found in the context of the
historical developments briefly sketched above. Before we go on to ratify this
suggestion, we should review, with an eye to linguistic as well as historical de-
tail, other proposed etymologies. All of them will be seen to be linguistically
improbable or historically unsupported. The late Imperial transformation of
Mediterranean vocabulary for North Arabians is almost certainly related to
the diplomatic encounters between Rome and the North Arabian sphere docu-
mented in the texts of Rawwâfa.
Patristic Etymologies
The most ancient interpretation of the term saracènifirstappears in the
fourth and fifth centuries, when the name was connected with Sarah, the wife
of Abraham.34 This patently polemical suggestion turns on a supposed rhe-
torical trick: the Ishmaelites, with whom the North Arabians were identified,
were supposed to have coined the term saraceni to disguise their descent from
a slave woman, Hagar. The obvious objection, that this only explains half the
name, was ingeniously dealt with by John of Damascus (660-750). He has
Hagar, in her dialogue with the angel at the well, restate Sarah's demand that
her son not share his inheritance with Hagar's in the words odppa кеѵцѵ џе
ànéXvoev "Sarah has sent me away empty."35 Thus, the two halves of sara
ceni are accounted for.36 This explanation was later taken up by Ibn al-Athîr
(A.D. 1160-1239).37 It is chiefly of interest in establishing that the Fathers
felt free to supply the term with a popular etymology and correspondingly
that they felt no pressure from, because they had no knowledge of, the cor
rect etymology.
34. The earliest use seems to be Jerome's, discussed by Mordtmann, p. 156. See also
Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica 6.38=PG> LXVII, col. 1412B; cf. Epiphanius, Adversus
Haereses 1.2.30.33=*>G, XLI, col. 469A.
35. Sarah's demand occurs in Genesis 21.10, the angelic dialogue in Genesis 16.7-14.
On the historical background of the passage in Genesis, see I. Eph c al, " 'Ishmael' and
'Aiab(s)': A Transformation of Ethnological Terms," Journal of Near Eastern Studies,
35 (1976), 225-35, and references.
36. John of Damascus, De Haeresibus 101 = PG, XCIV, col. 764 A-B. The realities
are not entirely unrelated. The Hagarites, mentioned once in the Psalter (Psalm 82.7),
and thrice in I Chronicles (5.10, 19, 20), may be associated with the agraei/àypàioi of
the classical geographers and with the ancient commercial center Hegra, modern Meda'-
in Şâlih; see R. F. Schnell, "Hagrite," Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (New
York: Abingdon Press, 1962), II, 511.
37. According to Anastas Maří al-Kirmilí, "Arabs or Roamers?" aUMachriq 1 (1904)
340-43 (in Arabic).
Ethnic and Geographical Etymologies

Some scholars have attempted to attribute primacy to the use of the term
saraceni as a designation for a unitary social organization, located somewhere
between Egypt, Palestine and Arabia Felix, rather than regarding such usage
as the result of later confusion within the traditions. Mordtmann, following
Moritz, has conjectured that this supposed "tribe" of Saracens rose to promi-
nence in the mid-third century, incorporated surrounding social organizations
and ravaged the Roman frontier, making its name synonymous with outlying
Southwest Asiatic groups. 38
The references to оаракг\ѵоі living in the Hejaz, Midian or the Sinai, adja
cent to the Thamud and the Nabateans, are hardly clear and there seems little
warrant for levelling the distinction between theThamud and saraceni in order
to accommodate these confused traditions, in support of an explanation that
explains precious little. 39 It is true that in references from the fourth century
on, the saraceni are said to be living in the Sinai, 40 notably in accounts of the
raids on Christian monasteries near Mount Sinai, but the relevance of these
and later references depends, of course, on the hypothesis of an early unitary
organization.41 A modern reflex of this supposed ancient social organization
has been found in the Sawărqe tribe of the northern Sinai,42 but there is no
evidence in the medieval Arab tradition for this name and even if the connec
tion with saracèni were to be allowed, the name could well be the result of
feedback from European terminology.
In another attempted etymology, the Arab geographer Yäqüt (1179-1229)
associated the term saraceni with a harbor in South Arabia called sarrafa.43
This is linguistically far-fetched: it is far more likely that ht would be lost in a
loan from a Semitic sound-system to an Indo-European one than it would ap-
pear as A:.44
38. Mordtmann, p. 156; Moritz, col. 2388; cf. С. Р. Grant, The Syrian Desert (New
York: Macmillan, 1938), p. 19.
39. This view also requires levelling variances within Ptolemy's account, as Moritz,
col. 2388, does, with the aid of fatuous notions about Arabian pastoralism.
40. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 6A2=PG, XX, col. 613B, referring to the Decian
persecutions; related material is discussed by Mordtmann, p. 156.
41. E.g., Ammonius, "The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert," a Palestinian Syriac
text translated in The Forty Martyrs of the Sinai Desert and the Story of Eulogios,
ed. A. S. Lewis, Horae Semiticae 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1912), pp. 1-14;
and Nilus of Ancyra, Narrationes 91C= PG, LXXIX, col. 666; for discussion, see P.
Mayerson, "The Desert of Southern Palestine According to Byzantine Sources," Pro
ceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107 (1963), 160-72.
42. Mortiz, col. 2388; this view is rejected in С. С R. Murphy, "Who Were the
Sai&censT Asiatic Review, 41 (1945), 188-90.
43. According to al-Kirmilf, 342, who mentions that Yaqut also associated the term
with the Arabic verb sarafra "to roam freely." The extension of geographical or social
organizational designations to embrace other areas or social groups is not unknown in
Arabia.
44. We ignore some bad ideas adequately rejected by Murphy, p. 189.
Current Linguistic Etymologies

The most widespread opinion about the etymology of saraceni associates
the term with Arabic sarq "east," and thus sarqiyyin "easterners," presum-
ably because the saracèni lived east of Palestine.45 An analogy has been found
in Hebrew benë qedem "easterners," the inhabitants of the Syrian desert be-
tween Haurân and Nemara.46 Moritz has gone so far as to suggest that the
terms are both equivalent in sense and reference.47 Similar terms are found in
the Akkadian of Mari, in the Central Euphrates Valley in the early second
millennium B.C.: banuyamina "southerners" and,less frequently,banu simal
"northerners"; the former term almost certainly belongs with the name of the
Israelite tribe of Benjaminites, although the nature of the link is unclear.48
There is no indication that any designation of this form was used among an-
cient North Arabians. If, as seems likely, the term was originated by people
outside the social group, why was the east the point of reference?49 The ob-
servation that pre-Diocletianic castella and watchtowers in Arabia were ori-
ented toward the east is not likely to provide a reasonable grounding for the
45. Accepted by Alois Musil, Arabia Deserta (New York: American Geographical
Society, 1927), p. 494; Moritz, col. 2388; and by the great Burton, according to Mur-
phy, p. 189; discussed and rejected by Mordtmann, p. 156. The phonological grounds
he uses deserve discussion. The only ancient spelling of a cognate of saraceni in a Semitic
writing system is sarqf, given in the two Talmuds; Syriac materials may be excluded, as
firmly within the Greek sphere. If this were a simple loan from a comparable Semitic
sound system, the etymological question would be closed: the Arabic root behind the
name would have to be srq (see below). It is not. There are three objections to taking
the information from the Talmuds at face value: (1) Talmudic Aramaic sarqf could
as well be a loan from Latin or Greek as from Arabic; the use of Aramaic rather than
Aramaic к for Latin/Greek c/k is exemplified several thousand times over; this objec
tion Mordtmann cites only in passing; (2) sarąt could well reflect a popular etymology
related to Talmudic Aramaic s*râq (see below); (3) the structure of the sibilant system
of Arabic at least up to the time of the Arab grammarians is difficult. So, despite Mord
tmann's wise citation of it, the Talmudic evidence is virtually useless. Moritz's comments
on the phonology are bizarre, col. 2389.
46. O. Eissfeldt, "Das alte Testament im lichte der safatenischen Inschriften,"
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 104 (1954), 88-118, rpt.
in Kleine Schriften, ed. R. Seflheim and F. Maass (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966), III, 289-
317. This essay must be used with caution; see Jamme, Safaitic Notes, p. 1 (cited infra,
sub n. 60).
47. Moritz, col. 2388; his position is strangely nuanced: he takes qedem as an old
proper name, later interpreted as "east" and then rendered into Arabic.
48. G. E. MendenhaU, "Mari," in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, ed. E. F. Camp
bell, Jr. and D. N. Freedman (Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor Books, 1964), pp. 3-20,
esp. pp. 16-18.
49. Al-Kirmilî, p. 342, is wrong in insisting that saracèni must be a designation of
foreign origin, although one symphathizes with this reaction in the face of the etymo-
logical darkness.
etymology.50 The only serious explanation is the one mentioned earlier, re-
ferring to the orientation of Palestine toward the steppe fringe across the Jor-
dan; but, one may well object, that is not where the people came from, and
the area could never have supported a major segment of the population.51
Nonetheless, this etymology retains, in the teeth of the uncertainty of the
situation, some plausibility.
Another etymon favored in modern discussion is Aramaic sßräa "empti-
ness, barrenness," whence would be derived a relational adjective meaning
"those who live in barren land."52 This root is limited to Aramaic which can-
not be regarded as the best field for etymological explanation of what is like-
ly to have been originally a self-designation, but it is otherwise unobjection-
able philologically. The fact, unrealized by Murphy, the etymology's origina-
tor, that the Talmuds may link the two words, would give the explanation a
parallel in the ancient world, which (especially because the linkage is not ex-
ploited for a folk etymology) may be regarded as strong support. The argu-
mentation, however, is so over-determinate that the matter fairly cries out for
a larger historical context, which is not available.
It has,finally,been suggested that saracèni is derived from the Semitic root
found in both Arabic hrăqa and Akkadian saraqu "to steal,"53 and means
"thieves, plunderers." Other designations for outlying population groups do
have such a sense. The cApiru of the Late Bronze Age are, though properly
speaking "transgressors" of political boundaries, often effectively little more
than robbers and brigands.54 The Egyptian name for the inhabitants of south
ernmost Palestine in the second millennium, Shosou, may be related to
Semitic ssh "to pillage, loot." 55 Furthermore, brigandage was a constant
50. E. Kornemann, "Die neueste Limesforschung (1900-1906) im lichte der römisch

kaiserlichen Grenzpohtik," Klio, 7 (1907), 113; W. Seston, Dioctétien et la tétrachie,
Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 62 (Paris: Boccaid, 1946),
p. 154, n. 3.
51. On this difficulty, see Murphy, p. 169 and al-KirmuT, p. 342, who rightly notes
that the stock of Southwestern Asiatic directional usages simply does not include this
one.
52. This opinion apparently originated with С. С. R. Murphy, who cites the root
erroneously as srk; he makes a compensatory enor in citing the Talmudic form of the
name and is thus correct in making the forms agree.
53. Mordtmann, p. 157, says the Arabic part of this etymology dates back to the
humanist Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), who acquired a knowledge of both Arabic and
Hebrew as a young man; it is discussed and rejected by Murphy, p. 189. The Akkadian
word was first invoked by H. Winckler, "Saracenen," in Altorientalische Forschungen,
II, pt. 1 (Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1898), pp. 74-76, who, however, was wrong about the mean
ing of the word; he thought, following Delitzsch, that the root meant "to be alone"
and ïarraqu, "waste-dweller." His lead was followed in part by A. Kammerer, Petra et
laNabatène (Paris: Geuthner, 1929), p. 263.
54. Mendenhall, Tenth Generation, pp. 122-41.
55. R. Giveon, Les Bédouins Shousou des documents égyptiens (Leiden: E. J. Brill
Ltd., 1971), pp. 261-64.
problem for Roman authorities in Arabia and Syria.56 Ancient classical wri-
ters employ the words for brigands, Greek Xgarcu and Latin latrones,51 in
connection with the saraceni, but not as synonymous terms. Despite the as-
sociation between saraceni and raiding activities, it is nowhere clear that the
term saraceni by itself ever meant "robbers."
The Proposal
Although all three of the current etymologies discussed above have some
degree of plausibility, none has a compelling historical justification. The Raw-
wafâ Bilingual provides information which leads to an etymology which has
both historical and phonetic plausibility. The terms used for nation/federation
in the Bilingual are Greek ëuvoç and Nabatean srkt. The latter, as recognized
by Milik, is related to the Classical Arabic verb Ъгіка "to share, participate,
partake; be(come) a partner in a sale, purchase, inheritance or affair; II, to
sell a part or share of what one has purchased for that for which it was pur
chased; IV, to make someone a partner, associate, or colleague," etc. 58 Thus,
in Arabic sank means "sharer, participant, partaker, partner, associate, col
league." The term sarikat "association" shows no political specialization in
Classical Arabic-; in modern usage, it means simply "company, economic cor
poration." The related noun iirk refers to "the sharing of land and its pro
duce, marriage alliance, sharing of control over a slave"; the Yemeni word
sirkat, "a piece of the flesh of a slaughtered camel in which the people share,"
brings to mind the prominent role of animal sacrifice in both Northwest Se
mitic and early Roman covenant formation.59 More technical legal usage oc
curs: 'al-faridatu 1-muŠarrakatu "shared duty" and 'al-mas'alatu l-musarrakatu
"shared affair" are terms for the portions of an inhertance in which the male
children of the mother of a family and their half-brothers, the sons of both
mother and father, are made to share.
The word írkt may also occur in some Safaitic inscriptions among the pre-
Islamic North Arabian texts 60 and it occurs once in a Hat ran text. 61 Proper
56. Dio Cassius 75.2.4; Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus 284; Ammianus Marcellinus
28.2.11-14. See in general R. MacmuUen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1967), pp. 192-241, 255-68.
57. Pliny, Historia Naturalis 6.30.125; Ammianus Marcellinus 24.2.4; Julian, Ora
tiones 1.21B; cf. Jerome, Epistola 126 = PL XXII, col. 1086; John Cassian, Collationes
6,l=PL, XLIX, col. 645A.
58. E. W. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, 1 voi. in 8 (London: Williams and Norgate,
1863-93), bk. i, 1541-43. The religious sense of Form ГѴ, 'aìraka billahi "to set up or
attribute associates to God, i.e., to be a polytheist, idolator" (and at least sometimes a
Christian) is probably not apposite.
59. G. E. Mendenhall, "Puppy and Lettuce in North-West Semitic Covenant Making,"
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 133 (1954), 26-30.
60. The word occurs in the phrase bn İrk "among associates" in Oxtoby Safaitic
Text 58, according to W. G. Oxtoby, Some Inscriptions of the Safaitic Bedouin, Amer
ican Oriental Society Series, vol. 50 (New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society,
names derived from the root are attested.62

The Rawwafa usage is more or less contemporaneous with these occurrences.
It may then be suggested that the term saracèni was derived from a pre-Islamic
Arabic cognate of Classical Arabic srkt which meant "association" in the poli-
tically specialized sense of "federation." This term was loaned into the Naba-
tean lingua diplomatica and thence passed into Latin and Greek usage. Al-
though perhaps initially applied only to the Thamudic confederates of the
Antonine period, the term was generalized, after the collapse ofthat peace,
from the Thamud to include their congeners and neighbors.
The problem of the Semitic etymology of saraceni is more or less distinct
from the morphology of the word. When previous scholars have referred to
word termination -en, they have generally tied it to the Arabic oblique plural
ending after the relational adjective ending (i.e., -ïyyïn). In fact, a much simp-
ler explanation is available: -en is derived from the -an "hypocoristicon," best
known in its Hebrew form -on/-un from the names Simeon and Zebulon.63
This explanation is not tied to the etymology proposed here.
The transference of the term srkt to the Roman world is the result of alli-
ances which could only be established with major political and social units
like the Thamudic confederation. Such diplomatic activity depended on pre-
1968), p. 48. This reading is rejected by A. Jamme who reads sn íbk "making nets" in
his review of Oxtoby, Orientalm, 40 (1971), 274-86, esp. p. 284, in which he notes many
inadequacies in Oxtoby's publication. Jamme himself reads the verbal noun of the simple
stem of the verb ìrk in a text in the Littmann Safaitic corpus discussed in Safaitic Notes
(Commentary ofJaS 44-176) (Washington, D.C., 1970), p. 88, n. 150. It must be noted
that because of the size and complexity of the pre-Islamic Arabic and South Arabian cor-
pora, few generalizations are safe and we do not wish to claim competence in this diffi-
cult area. For an introduction to the state of the field, see A. Jamme, "Un nouvel inven-
taire des noms propres et des textes arabes pre'islamiques," in Misceïlanées d*ancient
arabe II (Washington, D.C., 1971), pp. 93-150.
61. Referred to by Milik, p. 57, but not yet published to the best of our knowledge.
The similar formants discussed in J. T. Milik, "A propos d'un atelier monétaire d'Adia-
béne: Natounia," Revue numismatique, Vie, 4 (1962), 51-58, esp. pp. 56-8, are probably
not relevant.
62. In Palmyrene, Jurgen Kurt Stark cites Hrykw "associate, friend," Vocalized in
Greek oopeixos and in Latin suricus, in Personal Names in Palmyrene Inscriptions
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), p. 116. Seventy-two cases of sr&asaname occur in Safaitic
texts, along with one Qatabanian (South Arabian) case; the related name bhsrkt occurs
in Thamudic texts; these references are drawn from G. Lankester Harding, An Index
and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions, Near and Middle
East Series 8 (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1971), pp. 123 and 347; this volume
is not entirely reliable, and we have not checked the relevant citations. See Jamme's
review of the book, cited in n. 60.
63. The ending has many more functions than as a marker of hypocoristica; for a
general survey, see Frauke Gröndahl, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit, Studia
Pohl 1 (Roma: Pontificium Institutům Biblicum, 1967), pp. 51-53 and the literature
cited in . 216; on the related Arabic broken plural patterns fflân fuclan, see W. Wright,
A Grammar of the Arabic Langwge, 3rd. ed., 2 vols, rpt. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1933-67), I, 216-18.
eise information and must have required informants familiar with the four
languages, Latin, Greek, Nabatean, and Thamudic, involved. The burden that
the bilingual equivalence of srkt and ëuvoç can bear is not clear, and it is un
certain whether other social groupings of the region used the same term and
thus helped popularize it, or whether the Thamudic alliance was crucial. The
other diplomatic language of the Rawwâfa inscriptions, hfy "to receive with
honor" and rmş "to bring peace," may also have been in more general use.
The later obscurity and confusion about the meaning of saraceni, which
continued into the Byzantine period, may have resulted from the general dis
ruption of North Arabian and Syrian poHtical structures which took place in
the third century. If Caskel's overview is correct, a broad development from
the collapse of the Nabatean kingdom in the years after 106 through the fall
of the petty states of Mesopotamia in 227 to the fall of Palmyra in 273, led
to a proliferation of small-scale social organizations along the borders of the
Roman empire in Southwestern Asia. The populace, formerly dependent on
the now degenerate caravan trade, was forced into symbiotic coexistence with
the empire on the terms of brigandage and looting. The result was the disrup
tion of Roman relations with frontier groups almost as soon as they were sta
bilized. The campaigns against the Saracens in the third century and the bol
stering of the defensive system confirms the picture of disorder sketched by
Caskel. The development of the system of client kings and the use of auxil
iary units from these regions are other dimensions of the Roman response to
the crisis.
The reconstruction of a federational state in the history of Roman-North
Arabian relations is not so unlikely as it might seem at first glance. The only
substantially correct information available in later Uterary sources about sar
aceni is the tradition of the Byzantine period, represented in the fifth-century
geographer Marcianus of Heraclea, that they had many names and lived in
North Arabia.64 Classical and Byzantine authors had at best an inadequate
and limited perception of the Arab world; that they inadvertently preserved a
term for an Arabian political organization, even if it does not help in clarify
ing the nature of such organizations, can only encourage the student of an
cient social structure.
The University ofMichigan
64. Periplus Maris Exteri 17a, in Geographia Graeci Minores, ed. C. Müller (Paris:
Finnin Didot, 1855), I, 526.
MICHAEL J. KYRIAKIS (Glifada, Attikis, Greece)
Medieval European Society as Seen in Two

Eleventh-Century Texts of Michael Psellos
[PART II]
The Affiancing of Underage Children and

the Court Case against Elpidios Kenchris
Introduction to the Text

With this second eleventh-century Byzantine work, bearing the date "Aug-
gust 1056," we enter into the upper-class aristocratic and petty nobility en-
vironment of Constantinople. The persons appearing or named herein, from
the author1 to the principles in the litigation, to Constantine IX, the Empress
Theodora, the witnesses, etc., were all part ofthat Byzantine upper-class soci-
ety, whose outlook, traditions and ways of life have filtered down into these
our own time.
The second text presents Michael Psellos in a new and different situation,
for here unlike his role in the above composition, in the "memorandum" nei-
ther he nor any member of his family are directly involved. That commentary
leads to the "controversy" mentioned above2 and discussed at length further
on.3 As to the events in the life of Michael Psellos,4 it appears that following
the loss of his daughter Styliani, he returned to the imperial court. It is likely
that his absence had to do with the events told about in the previous text, for
he mentions in the Chronographia, VI. 196 and 197, that all kinds of adversi-
ties fell upon him, but also that while he was away his influence at court had
been undermined by rivals and courtiers. Therefore because of those condi-
tions ". .. the fickle character of the Emperor [Constantine IX Monomachos]
and probably his own personal grief determined his decision tô quit the court
and Constantinople; for hi points out: ". . . We [the reference is to John
1. Could it have been Michael Psellos?

2. See above introduction to Part I.
3. See below, fn. 53.
4. See below, Part III, G.
Xiphilinos],5 preferred a monk's life to the inferior existence of a court

ier. . . ."6 Finally, after overcoming the emperor's opposition to their de
parture John Xiphilinos first and Michael Psellos sometime later retired to a
monastery on Mount Olympos in Bithynia, Asia Minor.
Soon enough however, the monastic environment began to oppress Mi
chael Psellos and it is known that he had difficulties with the other monks
who envied his erudition and interests in philosophy and learning. Then un
expectedly events took a turn for the better in Constantinople and at the
court they had an indirect effect on Psellos and his monastic existence.
On 11 January 1055, the Emperor Constantine IX died without leaving a
successor; but eventually, out of the confusion, Theodora (last of the Mace
donian dynasty) was placed upon the throne. It may have been soon after her
enthronement that Theodora, worn out by events, courtly functions, adminis
trative problems and annoyances,7 sent for Michael Psellos. Thereupon (and
in spite of the indignation and open reaction8 of his monastic community),
Psellos returned once again to the capital and court.
The second composition examined below, the memorandum for Empress
Theodora, belongs to this later period. It is one of several juridical memoran
da (каотиса) attributed to Michael Psellos.9 The literary style of this work,
its general atmosphere and content are different from those of the oration.
Yet while the memorandum was not intended to be a work of literature, it
possesses nevertheless many of the features of Michael Psellos' art, among
them the careful internal organization, the flowing literary style, the philo
sophical refelctions, the subtle observations and the characterizations of indi
viduals (their judgement behaviour, lack of foresight, etc.). There are also the
notations intended for the special reader (i.e., the Empress Theodora).
The memorandum deals with an ordinary civil lawsuit, but contains wealth
of information about society in eleventh-century Constantinople and also
about individuals, law and juridical procedures in the civil-law courts of Con
stantinople, witnesses, etc. Not only is upper-class medieval society reflected
upon here, but also the place and importance of the emperor in matters con
cerning law. At the same time, the work reflects on the outlook and attitudes
of the author towards a number of existing conditions.
The main issue in the litigation had to do with the dissolution of an en-
5. See below, Part HI, С and G.

6. Chronographia, VI. 300 ff.
7. See below, Part III, G.
8. See the verses satirizing Michael Psellos because of his desire to return to Constan
tinople and the court. Also see Psellos' angry and devastating reply to the monk Iakovos
who had been chosen to compose those verses. Both texts are found in L. Sternback,
"Ein schmägedict des Michael Psellos," Wiener Studien, 25 (1903), 10-39.
9. See Sathas.
TWO ELEVENTH-CENTURY TEXTS OF MICHAEL PSELLOS 69
gagement contract, concluded between the plaintiff Vestarchis1 ° Michael,

who was acting for his underage daughter, and the defendant Elpidios Ken-
chris. The case would have been easily settled if it had been restricted to the
main issue, but it will be seen that the Vestarchis raised additional questions,
thus extending the trial and introducing complications.
Michael Psellos' "prologue" (or introduction) to this work is a philosophi-
cal reflection on the individuals and issues in the case. He refers to Foresight
and wonders whether the lawsuit would have been necessary "if the indivi-
duals involved had the foresight of events to come; also, "if they had an
understanding of human character. Reflections of this kind are an interesting
and characteristic feature of Psellos' compositions, and are intended not only
as an attractive "ornament," enriching the work and ushering the reader into
the philosophical aspects of the matter under consideration.
In view of the complications introduced into the court case by Vestarchis
Michael, the memorandum explains that there were actually two trials (and
two decisions). The first trial took place in the imperial palace, probably in
some special room or hall in the presence of Empress Theodora. One of the
Vestarchis' requests was examined, while a second trial was held in the civil
court of Velum,11 where possibly Michael Psellos may have sat as one of the
judges.
This second text consists of the following sections:
1. A philosophical prologue or introduction.
2. A presentation of the principles involved in the litigation. In this section it
explains how Vestarchis Michael's concerns for his adopted daughter led to
her having been engaged to a young man named Elpidios Kenchris. There
are also some details about the engagement contract, and the "gifts" given
to the young man. The author comments on the vestarchis' liberality, and
the "importance of placing emphasis on the soul, instead of material
things". For it was shown soon enough that all these things made not the
least impression on Elpidios, who revealed his actual character by bringing
trouble to the vestarchis.
10. A court title or official of the palace equivalent in rank to a chamberlin who was
in charge of the imperial wardrobe, the eleventh century, however, it had become
merely an honorary title of the Byzantine court.
11. In eleventh-century Constantinople, there were two civil courts: one was the
court of Velum, housed in the area of the former hippodrome; and the other was known
as the Court of the Hippodrome. Bothe courts were located within the grounds of the
palace. Their association with the word hippodrome has caused considerable confusion
among historians. For information about the two courts, see L. Bréhier, Le mond byzan-
tin, II, 186, where he writes: ". . . dans une galerie du palais . . . " there was a covered
hippodrome where judges (pi крітаС rfjç ßrfXov) would try cases. In the other civil court,
there were the judges of the Hippodrome (ol крітаі rov І7Г7гобр<$дои). Some judges like
John Xiphilinos and Later Michael Attaleiates served in both courts. See below, Part III,
r
3. This section deals with the troubles that befell the vestarchis, but also his
efforts to resolve them. We are told how he attempted to help the young
man improve his mind, but also to bare him seek out better and more vir-
tuous companions, and this in order to improve his behaviour and way of
living. But, it was explained, all those concerns and efforts on the vestar-
chis' side were useless, for Elpidios became increasingly worse. Then as a
result of those futile efforts, and because of his despair, the vestarchis
turned to the "highest authority," to the Empress Theodora. It is related
that his supplication and the sympathetic response of the empress, who
"knew" of his problems, led to the first trial and a decision against the
young man. This resulted in stripping him of his highest dignities and posts
that had been acquired for him by the vestarchis.
4. This is one of the most interesting sections of the memorandum, telling
about the second trial where the vestarchis, Elpidios and his defense law-
yer (along with many others) appear in the courtroom, where we are able
to follow the proceedings of a Byzantine civil court.
5. In this section, it is explained that with the acceptance of Vestarchis Mi-
chael to pay a fine (as had been stipulated in the engagement contract),
the trial and its main issue were resolved. But thereupon, the vestarchis in-
troduced a newer issue, justified by the empress's decision, and set forth in
her writ, thus bringing complications and extending the trial.
6. In the concluding section of the "memorandum," the "newer" demands
and the entire trial are resolved and all ends to the satisfaction of plaintiff
and defendant. The closing lines of the work explain why and for whom it
was composed along with the date "August 1056. "
II
The Affiancing of Underage Children and
the Court Case against Elpidios Kenchris12
1. To be able to foresee the Future, to utilize this [ability] in the Present, and
to act perspicaciously is a sign of Wisdom and in the nature of the Divine. Yet
human beings that we are, we cannot avoid committing errors [in judgment]
since our lack of knowledge about forthcoming developments plunges us into
involuntary situations. Frequently therefore, when we considered our judg-
ments to be 'correct,' the unforeseen future contradicted this, because hap-
penings that were to come could not have been anticipated. . . . This argu-
ment set forth in our introduction [to the present "memorandum"] will be-
come explicit in the following exposition of the case.
12. See below, fn. 53.

2. The most reverent monk Michael, who had been appointed vestarchis13 by
the emperor [i.e., Constantine IX] and Dean of Philosophers ("Тэтатос riòv
0tXoaò0coo), had also enriched his mind with extensive learning. This person
after having adopted14 a little girl, gave her a good name, and in time changed
his status to that of a natural father; and as he had no other children all his
devotion and affection were concentrated on her. For he was not only con-
cerned with the girl's immediate needs, but also with those of her future. So
it was that without waiting for the time of the girl's puberty when it is the
custom15 to arrange marriages and legal relationships and while she was still an
adolescent . . . she was promised to a young man named Elpidios. He was the
son of John Kenchris,16 the protospatharios,17 and had just passed the age
of adolescence, being twice the girl's age. This custom [of affiancing children]
persisted [from older times] and is continued by many, while the law recog-
nizes such practices. . . . It brings no objections to those [parents, guardians,
relatives, etc.] who arrange such matters; and this because no one is cognizant
of his life's span,18 or whether he will still be alive when his children grow
up. [The vestarchis] therefore sought to resolve these matters beforehand by
bringing future couples together. But also in his case there were additional
reasons prompting him to take care of these matters. . . . At the time he was
close to the emperor "kyr" [an abbreviation for fcuptoç, i.e., sire, or lord] Con-
stantine Monomachos; and he was also prominent in the senate.19 Therefore,
because of his position and influence in the imperial court, it seemed propi-
tuous (as he himself noted and many had pointed out to him) to take care of
the child's future.
Perhaps he feared that he might lose all opportunities if changes would
take place [in the court], then he would be regretful, but in vain. For learned
as he was, he knew well that nothing remains static, as in Nature. This [phe-
nomenon] escapes the attention of many; for things that seem 'immovable'
actually move and turn around! Therefore like a captain, who prior to the
13. See above, fn. 10.

14. The adoption of children in Byzantium was common. It was encouraged by the
church and was facilitated by law. See P. Kalligas, Еѵотгщатоѵ PCJJLUH KOV б ікалоѵ....
'ЕАЛаба, 4 vols. (Athens: Fexi, 1930), ГѴ. See also A. P. Christophilopoulou, Zxéoeis
yop&jjv KO¿T€KVOJV ката то Bvtavrwóv б скало v (Ahtnes: Sakkoulas, 1946), p. 25.
15. See R. Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, Berliner byzantin
ische Arbeiten, 35 (Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert, 1967).
16. He may have been a personal friend of the vestarchis. They belonged to the same
social class.
17. The protospathariate was one of the highest dignities in the Byzantine court, but
like other offices, its importance kept changing. In the eleventh century, it was only an
honorary title of high rank, while in the twelfth century it disappeared to be replaced by
others. See Guilland, Recherches.
18. The average life-span in the middle ages was about twenty-five years.
19. Michael Psellos had been appointed President of the Senate by Constantine IX.
overturning of his ship, hastens to use the oars, so a leader resolves conditions
according to best interests. Therefore one can readily understand [the vestar-
chis'] actions, and not accuse him [of unreasonable behaviour].
Thus, after having refused many [candidates for the maiden's hand], some
of them who were nobles and belonged to illustrious families, Vestarchis Mi-
chael engaged his adopted daughter to Elpidios. But from that time on, his
relationship and his troubles with the young man commenced!
In the meanwhile however, the vestarchis had the young man enlisted
among the protospatharioi2® (and had him placed among the imperial secre-
taries), while at the same time Elpidios was admitted to the group of judges
of the Antiphonetou21 (in the Hippodrome). As to the protospathariate [a
dignity acquired for him by the vestarchis], it was considered part of the girl's
dowry . . . while the other dignities, acquired for him later on, were consid-
ered a gesture of good will.
[According to the engagement contract] Vestarchis Michael promised the
girl's fiancé fifty pieces of 'etched gold'22( Xtrpaç кехараууеѵоѵ xpveíov).
Ten of these had been given to Elpidios in gold coins, twenty in various ob-
jects,23 and the remaining twenty were made up by the value of the proto-
spathariate [dignity]. Furthermore, along with these the vestarchis had previ-
ously given Elpidios a gift of twelve gold coins, and later on added sixty more
to the original sum....
The vestarchis should have been more careful and not given the young man
such a large sum all at one time. Nor [should he have] bestowed on him other
external offerings, and adding further dignities. Instead he should have shown
him affection and good will from the bottom of his heart. Or after having set
up the ship's keel, [he should have] proceeded building up theribs.Yet he, I
know not why, concerned himself with material things instead of dealing with
the soul. Therefore as Elpidios was dazzled by the glitter of those external
offerings, and also because he preferred his seeming glory, he became indif-
ferent to the vestarchis' admonitory words.
For while he attempted to cultivate the young man's soul Elpidios rejected
those concerns; and while the vestarchis would give him books to read and
study the young man would seek out unmanageable horses and the com-
pany24 of entertainers and horsemen (. . . џСџоис and цѵѵохы, i.e., actors and
20. That dignity was acquired for Elpidos by the vestarchis through his influence at
the court. See above, fn. 17.
21. I.e., the Central Bureau of Private Domain. See R. Guilland, "Un compte-rendu
de procès par Psellos," Byzantinoslavica, 20 (1959), 153-70;and 21 (I960), 1-37.
22. A Byzantine gold coin: livre d'or" or "monaie de compte." See Bréhier, Le
monde byzantin, III, p. 164 f.
23. They may have been furniture, utensils, animals, property, and other items.
24. The word used in the text is ovÇrfv, i.e., he lived together with those persons.
charioteers, but referring also to stablegrooms). Thus each one of them (the
vestarchis and Elpidios) [prompted by different personal motivations] sought,
the one to make the young man honorable, while the latter continued to
make himself an object of shame. The struggle was intense, and mor dazzling
was the victory of the young man who revealed thereby his total ignorance
and went off after having defeated completely the vestarchis' efforts.
3. These matters troubled Vestarchis Michael greatly and how could this have
been otherwise? [He regretted having chosen Elpidios as a future son-in-law]
and would heap curses on the suitor. [Yet in spite of these sentiments and re
grets] the vestarchis did not attempt to dissolve the engagement at once; for
he still had hopes that in the near future a change would come over Elpidios
and this through his own, good influence. With the passing of time however,
the youth's character and ways, instead of undergoing a change for the better,
became increasingly worse! Not only did he become more deaf to the vestar
chis' teaching, but [he sought out and] pursued a way of life that was intense
and violent (еттатисоѵ каі OÛVTOTOV). Although those developments discour-
aged greatly Vestarchis Michael, he persisted nevertheless in his attempts to
help and influence the young man to have him drop the company of actors
and buffoons (ЏЦХСОР к ai уеХіаотсоѵ) and to associate instead with persons
who were [modest and] wise (ософроѵеотатос, i.e., most wise), benefitting
thusly from their propriety,
propriety.
Elpidios however was indifferent to the vestarchis' counsels; and as he con
tinued to pursue those pleasures closest to his nature, the latter no longer
cared. Nor did he attempt to hinder him in any manner even though he
nursed hopes of persuading him to follow a better way of life.
He therefore had Elpidios promoted to even higher positions, and at the
same time acquired prominent posts for him. He also petitioned the emperor
[i.e., Constantine IX] to appoint the young man as judge at the court of
Velum;25 while he had him further honored with the title and office of
thesmographos [i.e., imperial secretary occupied with the redaction of law],
and later on with the post of mystographos.2** Furthermore, the vestarchis
also had Elpidios promoted to the grade oí exactor [i.e., an official in the tax
collector's bureau]. Yet all these posts and honors [neither improved, nor]
made the least difference to Elpidios, nor did his attitude towards the vestar-
chis become amiable, while his conduct also remained unchanged.
Later on, Vestarchis Michael fell sick and almost died; and he decided
thereupon to withdraw from the imperial court and his other worldly activi-
25. This appointment, if it does refer to 1055, must seem curious in view of what is
told latex.
26. See below fn. 39.
ties to the monastery. The emperor however refused27 to let him go, but the
vestarchis insisted and even ignored his threats, causing him to relent. He even
showed much concern for the vestarchis' family, and for his relatives and
their needs. Thereupon, Vestarchis Michael discarded his [courtly] tunic along
with his layman's ways, put on a monkish robe (rpißcopa) and entered the
monastic world.
A short while later when his malady had subsided [and was easier to bear]
and the emperor was willing to grant him any favour whatsoever, the vestar-
chis asked for only one thing: that Elpidios be elevated to the high rank of
латрікиоя [in the eleventh century an important title given by the emperor
usually to the highest officials: civil, military, etc.]. The emperor against his
will granted the vestarchis his request because the empress28 had begged him
to do this. When all had been accomplished Vestarchis Michael left hurriedly
for the Holy Mountain (Olympos) in order to join the ascetics there and ga
ther (кцфоџемк) information about monastic life.29 Then, after having availed
[himself] as much as possible from that spiritual source, he returned once
more to the secular world and this in order to arrange his affairs so that his
remaining years might be without cares.
Instead of this however and from then on, an 'Iliad' of calmities beset him;
for [during his absence from the capital] Elpidios had found the opportunity
to carry on as he pleased and this in no hidden manner but openly and the
opposite of virtue.30 As to his fiancée, the young man had frequented her
company as much as the domains of learning and philisophy.3l
At loss and not knowing what to do, the vestarchis, after having turned to
all accessible sources for help, directed himself finally to the last and highest-
I mean the empress of the Romans,32 and of almost all the universe. He
therefore addressed a letter to Theodora reminding her of all the benefices
she had bestowed on Elpidios and, that during the period when she had been
reigning by herself,33 she had conferred on him another gift as a further of-
fering.
The vestarchis mentioned in his letter how he had conducted himself to-
wards Elpidios and how he had responded to this. He had been repaid with
loathing and with disobedience, while at the same time the youth felt hatred
27. Note the resemblance of these details with those told in the Chronographia, VI.
28. The reference here is unclear; nor which empress is meant.
29. The reasons for this "research" are not clear, unless he may have been collecting
material for composing the life of some saint.
30. This implies indecencies not to be mentioned.
31. The meaning here is that he did not care at all for his fiancee or for learning.
32. I.e., Theodora. Note the appelation "Romans" and not the "Greeks" which
persisted down into thefifteenthcentury.
33. Or 1055-56.
for his fìnacée. [Furthermore, the vestarchis pointed out that Elpidios] re-
fused to conduct himself in a proper [social] manner, [in accordance with his
class and status] or according to the vestarchis' guidance. Moreover, the letter
mentioned that the young man had thrown away his books and that instead
of these he preferred the company of the most shameful persons.
It was because of those matters that the vestarchis had repudiated Elpidios
Kenchris and wanted the betrothal dissolved. As to the dignities given him,
the vestarchis explained in his letter of supplication to the empress, that he
did not want them, since his relationship with the young man had been termi-
nated. But, he added, as to the titles bestowed upon him on two occasions,
he would be happy if the best of these [i.e., that of ттатрікт] might be re
served for the occasion when a new betrothal contract [for his daughter]
would be concluded, but he added, if this could not be done, he would be
happy just the same. The most gracious empress, after having taken note of
these matters [and] being aware of the vestarchis' troubles,34 was stirred by
compassion, and granted him what he had requested. Thereupon she handed
down [a writ, or] final binding judgment, whereby the high title and the of
fices were taken away from Elpidios.. . . 3 5
As to the other issue mentioned in the letter or the matter of dissolving
the engagement, this was assigned to the special court of Velum that handled
such [civil] cases. . . . Concerning the first case, we [the judges] did not have
the authority to question what had been already adjudicated by the empress;
instead we were to occupy ourselves with the pros and cons of Vestarchis Mi
chael's request concerning the dissolution of the betrothal. Therefore, we
were called forth and gathered in session, then [we] had the two parties in the
litigation summoned. They were ushered into [the court], on the one side
Monk Michael, the former vestarchis, and on the other [the former] patrikios
with his defense counsel "kyr" [i.e., sire] John Kordakas.
When [the court] called upon the vestarchis to explain the reasons why he
wanted to terminate the engagement [of his daughter to Elpidios], it appeared
that he was reluctant to air publicly his personal affairs. He began, however,
by telling about the benefices he had acquired for the young man, when he
had been able. . . . He also mentioned how he had been treated in turn by
Elpidios and this included manevolence . . . loathing [of the vestarchis] and of
his turing away from learning. . . ; there was also his indescent behaviour.
Nor did Elpidios pay any attention to his suggestions, or try to conduct
himself according to the deportment of the senatorial [i.e., upper] class. [In-
34. It is implied that the empress knew of the vestarchis's difficulties, also of Elpi
dios' vices.
35. The text tells that the belt (ři5w7)-the insignia of his high title (i.e., patrikos) -
was taken away from him.
stead he did the opposite, and] kept seeking out the company of actors
(lifccjç) and other disreputable persons.36 The young man neither cared to
improve himself, nor did entreaties and reprimands have the least effect on
him. His character therefore remained unchanged and inflexible; nor was he
ever willing to apologize for his behaviour, either by words or action. The ves-
tarchis also mentioned that the young man detested his fiancée, and behaved
towards her in an enemy-like manner, and yet it was because of her that he
had acquired great wealth and a number of offices.3 7
It was not only Vestarchis Michael who spoke of these matters, but he also
brought forth indisputable witnesses. There were four of them: the consul
Theodoros Myralides (who was master of ceremonies [in the court], 38 the
two Xiritai brothers (Ephrosynos who was a mystographos}^ and Gabriel
who was a thesmographos and finally there was the Thesmographos Mi-
chael, who was also an overseer of the costumesellers (etapou ribv ßeono
-пратсоѵ) in the capital.
The consul Myralides gave [the court] an account of Elpidios' harshness of
character, of the hatred he bore Vestarchis Michael, and of the aversion he
had for hisfiancée.The Xiritai brothers [in their depositions] supported those
assertions and added that Elpidios did not wish to live according to the vestar-
chis suggestions, but did exactly the opposite. The Thesmographos Michael
repeated what the other witnesses had told the court, but mentioned also the
ingratitude expressed by the young man towards the vestarchis. He told about
the youth's insolence and expressed dislike for being under the salutary gui-
dance of his benefactor.
[The witnesses and their depositions] were in accord with the complaints
set forth by Vestarchis Michael in his letter of entreaty to our great empress
and supported their veracity. And it had been, because of them [i.e., their al-
legations], that the excellent soul (Ѳаѵраоіа фѵхп), moved by an imperial
point of view, gave forth her wise decision. Therein she had referred to Elpi
dios as "a living image of wickedness" (prtfkqv ёілфихоѵ какоА Ѳоѵя фѵхАя).
There remained, however, still another matter to be resolved by the court,
that was the dissolution of the betrothal and its termination according to law.
36. He means the riffraff of Constantinople.

37. This was acquired for Elpidos by the vestarchis through his court influence.
38. Consul фітатос) was a senatorial rank and belonged to the fourth class of digni
ties in the Byzantine court. See the Kletorologion of Philotheus. See further Guilland,
Recherches, pp. 158-60.
39. An imperial secretary who dealt with the secret correspondence of the state and
emperor.
40. A secretary of the Byzantine administration who worked on the writing and
editing of laws and imperial legal documents.
41. Originally, the title of Exarchos was a military and political distinction, but like
other titles in Byzantium, its functions and importance kept changing.
[In consequence] the judges offered Vestarchis Michael one of two choices.42
It meant that he should either provide [specific] evidence, related to the
above mentioned complaints if this existed,43 and settle the lawsuit at once
[in a direct and simple manner] with no actual loss to him [in terms of money
or respect].
Otherwise, if he did not want to do this he should then abide by the [de
fault] clause [set forth in the engagement] contract . . . , pay the 'penalty,'
and terminate the issue in that manner.
After a brief silence, during which the vestarchis appeared struggling with
his thoughts, he replied: 'As for me О laws, judges and all you present here
[in the courtroom], if I ever wanted to be ashamed of these white hairs of
mine, and he pointed to his head, and if I would attempt at this time to ap
pear as one different from the person of my earlier years, why then I may
have given free reign to my tongue and spoken of unbecoming things just for
the sake of fifteen litras of gold.44 First of all I would not humiliate myself
by telling about matters that are hidden and indecent and which [if brought
out into the open] would bring embarassment to many. This is something I
could never do; and all of you here are witness. I therefore consent willingly
to pay the fine, undergoing thereby a personal loss rather than have many
persons suffer injury and be exposed to scandal.45
5. With these words silence fell over the court, as everyone was quiet and the
work of the lawyers and judges came to an end. What further use would it be
to debate "for or against'' [as the litigation had been terminated] since the
plaintiff had agreed to pay the fine and the dissolution of the engagement de
pended on the contract while this in turn was sustained by law.
Furthermore, the resolution of the lawsuit was also in accord with the
penal clause . . . [since the vestarchis had] agreed to pay the fine, while the
deposition of witnesses had brought an end to the engagement. Therefore
both issues had been resolved and the only benefit for Vestarchis Michael was
that he had preserved his honor, even though he had undergone a financial
loss. While at the same time the reputations [of the vestarchis, of Elpidios and
of others] had suffered no damage whatsoever... , 4 6
42. This action of the judges apparently took the vestarchis by surprise. See below,
fn. 53.
43. Or to explain, giving detailed information about Elpidios's actions.
44. The amount was based on the stipulation in the engagement contract; or "double
the sum" (or twice seven and one-half litras) given the girl as surety when the contract
was signed.
45. This decision of Vestarchis Michael was quite decent and showed him in a more
favorable light. These and other impressions, however, are based on what the text sets
forth. See Part III.
46. Here as in the first text a slight alignment of sentence order was necessary in the
English translation for the sake of bringing related subject matter into proper sequence.
Cf. the Greek text.
6. But then something else [another, newer issue] was introduced [into the
court proceedings] as the Vestarchis Michael spoke about the dowry of his
adopted daughter. He informed the court that Elpidios 'owed him twenty
litras of gold' and this was for the "protospathariate" dignity, given to him as
the contract showed as part of the girl's dowry. In his letter of entreaty to
Empress Theodora, the vestarchis' had requested that certain higher dignities
and offices be taken away from Elpidios; but that he be allowed to keep the
protospathariate, as this had been part of the girl's dowry.47 Vestarchis Mi
chael abo showed us 4 8 his letter [and the reply to this from the empress]
wherein all the above details had been set forth. The letter of reply, telling of
Elpidios' disgrace, had been sent to the Bureau of the Imperial Private Do
main (Ъекретоѵ топ 1бисоѵ). The reply [from the empress] began with the
words: *... It will be done according to your petition . . . ' and because of this
[Elpidios was allowed to keep the protospathariate and thus] the girl's dowry
remained intact at the total value of fifty litras....
For if Vestarchis Michael had given Elpidios so many offerings (xdptreç)
and had helped him become wealthy, it was on account of his daughter. But the
highest of those dignities [acquired for him] had been taken away, since he
himself had given cause for this. [The vestarchis also pointed out that his
daughter] had been deprived of her dowry and left to dishonor and penury.49
To all these assertions and complaints Elpidios sought to bring objections
and reply to the vestarchis, while at the same time he attempted to give up
the prospathariate dignity and throughout he gave the impression of speaking
with shame, and mentioned that he realized from what a high rank he had fal
len. At the same time he promised that Vestarchis Michael would suffer no
further loss on his account.
[As to the dignity of protoąyatharios, it was suggested that] if it was not
acceptible to Elpidios, he might try to exchange it for some other one, if this
were possible. But the objection was also raised,50 why should Elpidios be
obliged to [keep the protospathariate, and to] pay the vestarchis "twenty li
tras of gold"? At the same time however it was pointed out: why should we
the judges belabour the issue further, for [actually] the matter had already
been adjudicated along with the above detail by the empress!
It had been in his letter of entreaty to her that the vestarchis requested the
protospathariate to be left to Elpidios as it had been part of the girl's dowry,
and given to him when the betrothal was concluded. Therefore, there was no
47. This commentary like others in the text is not very clear.
48. The word "us" refers to the judges and it appears there was more than one.
49. In view of the vestarchis's obvious means and wealth, this comment must seem
curious.
50. Raised probably by Elpidos' defense lawyer, John Kordakas.
need for any additional words from us. At the same time it had been set forth
[in the empress's decision] that it's value had to be paid to the vestarchis; and
it had been in the special writ she issued that the reasons, why the protospa
thariate had been left to Elpidios, were set forth.
Therefore since judgment on these matters had already been given by that
person of high rank, and already confirmed by law, [the following details re
mained]: Vestarchis Michael was obliged to pay fifteen "litras", representing
the fine set forth in the penal clause [of the contract]. On the other hand,
Elpidios had to pay him "twenty litras" for the protospathariate ; and in this
manner both parties would be compensated and satisfied by the sum received
by each.
Since however the amount of the fine was not the same, or equal in value
to the cost of the protospathariate, or because the fine amounted to fifteen
"litras," while the title's value was twenty, it followed that Elpidios had to
pay the difference of five "litras" [to the vestarchis]. But thereupon the
court, in an expression of compassion for the young man, released him from
that obligation,51 but also specified'that Elpidios should not attempt later on
to аж for "double the sum," given to his fiancée at the time the engagement
contract was signed.
Consequently, in order that these our [deliberations and] decisions in the
above litigation become known to our Lady and Empress [Theodora], the
51. This independent decision of the judges must have shaken the vestarchis again.
See above, fn. 42.
present memorandum (ОПОЏРГЈЏО) was prepared, the month of August52 of

the ninth indiction [1056]. 53
52. The Empress Theodora died in September, 1056.

- S$. The controversy mentioned in the introduction to the first text refers to the
second work, the memorandum, and to the details found in the latter, i.e., the similarity
of names, titles or dignities, events, rulers, semblances, and so forth. These facts for the
years 1042, 1055 and 1056 have induced a number of contemporary scholars to assume
that Vestarchis Michael and Michael Psellos (who used the name Constantine at the time)
were one and the same person. Sathas and others based their assumptions upon the text
published by the former in the Bibliotheca graeca medii aevi. This hypothesis was later
refuted by Guilland in his "Un compte-rendu. . . . " Shortly after the appearance of this
article, P. Lemerle," 'Roga' et rente d'Etat," Revue des Etudes byzantines, 25 (1967),
77-100, attempted to refute the arguments of Guilland. Lemerle's weighty arguments are
closer to the interpretations of Sathas. Others as Alice Leroy-Molinghen in her "Styli
ane," Byzantion, 39 (1969), 155-63; "La descendance adoptive de Psellos," ibid., 39
(1969), 284-317; and "A propos d'un jugement rendu contre Psellos," ibid., 40 (1970),
238-39, has supported the position of Lemerle. After having studied this text and exa
mined its relationship with other works of Michael Psellos, my own impression is that
the plaintiff in the case, Vestarchis Michael, and Michael Psellos are two separate and dis
tinctive persons. This conclusion is based upon the internal and historical evidence and
on linguistic and stylistic details found in this and in Psellos's other compositions.
The assumptions of Sathas and of other later scholars and historians, interesting
though they are, actually rest on insecure foundations, i.e., on the publication of Sath-
as's Parisinus gr. 1182. Furthermore, the title given to the text by Sathas: Дікаапкті
а-пофаоія ката фе\\оѵ [sic] оцџашџа does not exist in the manuscript used by him.
Lemerle, explaining the Sathas title, points out in his article, "Roga et rente d'Etat,"
that ". . . ne signifie pas jugement d'après Psellos [the reference is to Guilland's study]
mais decision contre Psellos. . . . " Alice Leroy-Molinghen sought to explain this impor-
tant detail by noting in her "La descendance adoptive de Psellos," that the title given by
Sathas ".. .dans ce manuscrit le titre . . . est omis" (p. 284, fn. 2).
But even assuming the existence of such a title, it is also worth noting that the inter-
pretation "by" or "against" depends on one letter i.e., on an u, or on an v: ката феХКоѵ
or ката ýeWóv. Also, while Lemerle acknowledges that the memorandum was ". . .
redige par Psellos. . .," also " . . . plus ou moins adroitement comme émanant du tribunal
. . . ." One wonders whether he could compose a decision against himself? Until further
textual and other evidence however is brought forth, the problem cannot be examined
in depth or resolved.
GREGORY T. ARMSTRONG (Sweet Briar, Va., U.S.A.)
Manifestations anďPerceptions
of the Transcendent in History
Jaroslav Pelikan. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). vol. I

of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine.
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1971. xxiii + 394
pp. $4.95 (paperback P644).
Eric Voegelin. The Ecumenic Age. vol. IV of Order and History. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1974. xvii + 340 pp. $15.00.
The two works under review here are similar in that each is from a five-
volume series of vast scope and significance, each is the product of a mature
scholar, each raises issues of fundamental historiographical concern, and each
is grappling with the manifestation of the transcendent in human history.
They are also different. Voegelin is a general historian and philosopher of his
tory; Pelikan is a church historian and theologian. In the one instance, the
whole of man's historical self-consciousness and his search for meaning and
order is the object of analysis; in the other, it is the development of Christian
doctrine. It would appear that the fourth volume of the one series and the
first of the other would not be commensurate, and in one sense they are not.
Yet they do in fact intersect chronologically and thematically, for in The
Ecumenic Age Voegelin addresses the same Christian view of reality and
human existence in eschatological tension which Pelikan describes in terms of
Christian doctrine. I believe the comparison will be fruitful.
The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition reached its fourth impression
(with paper covers at one-third the original price) in 1975 and clearly has
been well received. Pelikan explicitly writes for "students of theology and
church history" and "students of intellecutual history"-the sacred and the
profane, if you will—and he intends that each volume "be a self-contained
unit." Naturally this book has been widely reviewed—I have counted twenty-
nine—and I have taken several of them into account. It should also be re
marked that the volume of most interest to the readers of this journal, vol. II,
The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, appeared in 1974. Additionally, Pelikan
has two monographs which "provide historical background and state metho
dological assumptions of the present work." (Bibliographical note, p. 361)
They are Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena

(New Haven, 1969) zná Historical Theology: Continuity and Change in Chris-
tian Doctrine (New York, 1971).
Pelikan's presentation is clear, straightforward, well-written, and almost
effortless in its sovereignty over the primary source materials. Stephen Benko
writing in Church History (1972), p. 109, likens the author to a giant striding
across the islands of the Aegean Sea, pausing to describe the "appearance of
the land" but with "no time to explore the depths." And indeed Pelikan has
deliberately set clear limits to his work in The Christian Tradition, namely to
present the tradition or the mainstream, and it .is with this delimitation and
its possibility/justification/meaningfulness that most of his critics have con-
cerned themselves. Let us therefore begin with Pelikan's definition of his sub-
ject.
"What the church of Jesus Christ believes, teaches, and confesses on the
basis of the word of God: this is Christian doctrine" (p. 1). Almost every re-
viewer has cited this sentence, and rightly so, but what follows helps put it
into perspective. "Doctrine is not the only, not even the primary, activity of
the church. The church worships God and serves mankind, it works for the
transformation of this world and awaits the consummation of its hope in the
next." "The church is always more than a school. . . But the church cannot
be less than a school." Moreover, "the Christian church would not be the
church as we know it without Christian doctrine." Pelikan then acknowledges
that the definition of doctrine itself is the product of historical development,
and thereby opens himself to criticism from Roman Catholic quarters for not
adhering to a concept of the deposit of faith entrusted by divme revelation to
the church from the beginning. (Reginald Weijenborg, The Catholic Historical
Review [1972-73], pp. 579). On the other hand, several Protestant critics
question whether Pelikan takes adequate account of the process of develop-
ment and of the diversity, including the lack of an agreed upon body of doc-
trine, in the first centuries of the church (usually with references to Walter
Bauer's Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, now trans-
lated, although Pelikan notes its importance in his bibliography; cf. Jack
Forstman, The Journal of Religion [1975], p. 104-an excellent review article
and James S. Preus, Theology Today [1972], p. 226). He also defines doc-
trine as the "saving knowledge" of God, "derived from the word of God"
(p. 2), and distinguishes it from Christian thought or the teachings of indi-
vidual theologians. It is what the church believed "in the modalities of devo-
tion, spirituality, and worship," taught "through proclamation, instruction,
and churchly theology," and confessed or "articulated in polemics and in
apologetics, in creed and in dogma" (p. 4). Doctrine is based throughout on
the Bible, is derived from it, but the history of doctrine is not the history of
biblical interpretation. Moreover, this history does not deal with the doctrinal
content of the New Testament as the "constitutive and normative period" (a
THE TRANSCENDANT IN HISTORY 83
concern to Weijenborg) but begins with the second century (a concern to

Benko because Pelikan could have ably illuminated the first century when
Jewish and Greco-Roman influences had formative impact on Christian doc-
trine).
To take up these last concerns first, Pelikan does recognize the New Testa-
ment as normative for Christian faith and its successive formulations (pp. 6-
7), but he sees practical reasons, along with the fact that Old and New Testa-
ment studies are independent disciplines, for getting on with the story of the
church's doctrine based on the Bible. His decision in this regard is not excep-
tional, but he also explicitly avoids examining the process by which the New
Testament canon was determined (p. 114). By the same token, the conscious
exclusion of the history of biblical interpretation leaves a significant gap in
understanding how doctrine was justified or how it came to take the shape it
did. This seems especially true with respect to Origen whose three senses of
Scripture had a far-reaching impact. On the other hand, the emphasis on the
various forms in which doctrine manifested itself is a great gain since the in-
clusion of liturgy and spirituality guards against the scholar's tendency to
over-intellectualization.
One comes finally to the question, who is the church? For true doctrine-
orthodoxy—depends on the believing, teaching and confessing church. I must
agree with the reviewers who ask for a morerigoroustreatment of this ques-
tion from Pelikan. The story of this era is that of the church defining itself
and its doctrine. There is enough diversity in the New Testament as well as in
early Christianity to make this a fundamental problem. Certainly Pelikan is
aware of the problem, but does his concern, altogether legitimate and valu-
able in itself, to narrate in continuous fashion the lines of development which
were to become the received tradition, his concern to stress the unity of the
faith which derives from the unity of the gospel, does it justify his procedure?
I think another way of putting the issue, which relates it to Voegelin's work,
is to speak of the impingement of the transcendent upon human experience.
How can this ultimate reality be perceived in the empirical reality of Chris-
tianity? Pelikan's stance and all our historical stances on such questions are in
the end confessional ones: "the variety of theologies and the unity of the gos-
pel"; "an acceptance of genuine novelty and change in Christian history" and
"an affirmation of true development and growth." At the same time, I recall
the words of a great teacher of the Old Testament who was also a great man
of faith, the late G. Ernest Wright, to the effect that we must learn to under-
stand the fallibility of the Bible and of Christ as well as the infallibility, for
this is the paradox of historical revelation.
I am sure that this debate may seem all too academic and irrelevant to the
non-theologian, and Pelikan must be given his due for writing an excellent
survey of what became Christian doctrine or the mainstream. However we
might have defined the task, Pelikan is absolutelyrightin setting forth the de-
velopment of doctrine in the way he has after staking out his territory and ex-
plaining his assumptions. The impact of Jewish and classical thought on
emerging doctrine forms a proper first chapter. The subtitle, "The Triumph
of Theology," may be an overstatement of the outcome, for philosophy had a
pervasive influence, but it is equally true that Christian doctrine "could not
live by philosophy alone" (p. 55). The concluding paragraph of chapter 1 is
well worth pondering, especially the unanswered questions.
Chapter 2, "Outside the Mainstream," obviously raises the heresy-ortho-
doxy issue again. It is only fair to hear Pelikan himself: "Nevertheless, this
discovery that heresy may be a result of poor timing has come only as a con-
sequence of modern historical research: the primitive church was not charac-
terized by an explicit unity of doctrine; therefore heresy could sometimes
claim greater antiquity than orthodoxy. But what did characterize primitive
Christianity was a unity of life, of fidelity to the Old Testament, of devotion,
and of loyalty to its Lord, as he was witnessed to in the Old and New Testa-
ment. Heresy was a deviation from that unity" (p. 70). Perhaps the really im-
portant question which this affirmation raises is the practical, churchly one
(which may seem inappropriate in a scholarly review) of whether Christianity
can recapture that sort of unity without explicit unity of doctrine (or of or-
ganization). No special attention is given to the moral and legal aspects of
heresy, and the extraChristian origins and post-Christian developments of
heresy are explicitly excluded from discussion. Maricion is ably summarized,
but Gnosticism has become so varied and vast a field of study that no over-
view is likely to satisfy everyone. Pelikan acknowledges that the Gnostics
were dealing with fundamental issues; indeed they often took them up ahead
of the more orthodox writers. This chapter also examines Montanism and the
definition of apostolic authority or continuity.
In chapter 3, "The Faith of the Church Catholic," Pelikan reminds us that
"we are trying here to listen to the chorus more than to the soloists" and
trying to determine who belongs to the chorus in a historical way which does
not depend on later centuries' determination of what is orthodox in doctrine
(p. 122). Apocalypticism is the first major section, and it is a major topic in
contemporary theological discussions. Voegelin in his work also finds it to be
an important category expressing the tension of the transcendent in human
existence. Although, according to Pelikan, "neither the apocalyptic imagery
nor the more ontological language of the christological dogma avoided or
solved the problem of the relation between the immanent and the transcen-
dent," there is a "decisive shift from the categories of cosmic drama to those
of being, from the Revelation of St. John the Divine to the creed of the
Council of Nicea" (p. 131). The church's belief in a supernatural order is the
topic of a very useful section which considers angels, demons and prayer. The
various understandings of the meaning of salvation are*clearly expounded, es-
pecially the Christus Victor view. A discussion of the church and sacraments
concludes this chapter.

The two major doctrinal issues of the fourth and fifth centuries form the
content of the next two chapters. Both involve the central question of Chris-
tian faith, Who is Jesus? The doctrine of the Trinity declares that he is God,
and the definition of Chalcedon declares that he is the God-Man. "The climax
of the doctrinal development of the early church was the dogma of the Trini-
ty. In this dogma the church vindicated the monotheism that had been at
issue in its conflicts with Judaism, and it came to terms with the concept of
the Logos, over whic^M had disputed with paganism" (p. 172). It becomes
quite clear in these pês that the church believed, e.g., in the liturgy, that
Christ was divine long before it enunciated his divinity in terms of the ho-
momios language of Nicea. The church so believed because its savior had to
be the creator of the universe (p. 203). Soteriology is fundamental for Atha-
nasius and Amphilochius, Hilary and Ambrose, i.e., for East and West. It in-
volved the Holy Spirit and thus the whole Trinity at the point of baptism. In
one sense the dogma of the Trinity was the culmination of the development
of doctrine, and in another sense, the starting point.
For the fifth century, of course, the focus falls on christology, the doc-
trine of the person of Christ. Pelikan is especially strong on the connection
between the person and the work of Christ. Any contradiction here is inad-
missable. Thus the schools of Alexandria and Antioch share certain assump-
tions in soteriology and christology despite decisive differences. Among the
latter was the reading of the Old and New Testaments. Pelikan distinguishes
three theologies of Christ: that of the hypostatic union identified with
Alexandria, that of the indwelling Logos associated with Antioch, and that of
pre-existence, kenosis and exaltation set forth in the Latin West and in the
decree of Chalcedon. But what was Chalcedon? "an agreement to disagree,"
an attempt "to transcend the speculative alternatives by going beyond (or
beneath) them to the truth of the Gospels—pure, clear, and simple. But the
truth, even the truth of the Gospels, is never pure and clear, and rarely sim-
ple" (p. 266). Particularly in the East the ambiguity of the definition led to
controversy and as yet unreconciled divisions. I think I would have put more
emphasis on the inadequacy of language to capture a divine mystery, the in-
tersection of immanent and transcendent.
Chapter 6, "Nature and Grace," brings the reader to the West, reviews the
Christian understanding of man, and explores Saint Augustine, the only theo-
logian to receive extensive individual attention in this volume. As others be-
fore Pelikan have observed, he is the one church father who is unquestionably
still an intellectual force in his own right. For Augustine grace is central, it is
the manifestation of the sovereign God, but it is also a mystery, a paradox.
"Augustine managed to hold together what Augustinians have often tended
to separate. In his piety and preaching, if not always in his theology, the para-
dox of grace as sovereign, as necessary, and as mediated transcended the alter-
natives inherent in iť' (p. 306). The Pelagian controversy illuminated the
paradox or the problem of grace and free will, and we learn of the subsequent
shaping of the Augustinism of the Latin West which does not quite encom
pass all of Augustine himself.
The forking of the road to the East and to the West and correspondingly
to volume 2 and volume 3 of Pelikan's work is indicated in the final chapter
which carries the title-another paradox?-"The Orthodox Consensus." This
consensus rests in the church universal, which despite many tensions and dif
ferences is not yet divided, in its councils, in its Bildband in its tradition of
accepted teachers. The original problematic of the rnBnstream appears again.
Preus in his review raises it in terms of the "everywhere, always, and by every
one" of Vincent of Lérins, which is not an explanation but an assertion, and
he asks, "Did the church confess certain doctrines because they were ortho
dox? Or are some doctrines orthodox because the church confessed them?"
(p. 229). Pelikan seems to prefer the former view, for he proposes, "To
understand what had been believed by all, it was necessary to consult the si
lent in the land and to read off the doctrine which they believed even at a
time when the church had not yet begun to teach it in theology or to confess
it in creed" (p. 339). He is thus faithful to his tripartite definition of doctrine
and consistent in his emphasis on Christian devotion and worship as an ex
pression of doctrine.
Voegelin's study, Order and History, is on an even grander scale, for he is
looking at the meaning of all of human existence, the entire historical pro
cess. The Ecumenic Age is especially critical in the series because in it he dra
matically revises his original plan out of a recognition that the lines of mean
ing in history do not unfold along a simple time line. Also his structure of
five types of order and symoblization turned out to be too limited and the
historical data too vast to remain with the original sequence of six volumes.
This fourth volume is an excellent, perhaps the best, place to begin since it
includes a recapitulation of the entire enterprise and presents the conception
of history with which the project will be concluded. But all the foregoing is
too matter of fact. The conception which has emerged in Voegelin's analysis
of ancient and modern societies and their historiographies is brilliant, original
and inspired. It is profoundly theological in a way that embraces not only the
biblical revelation but also classical philosophy (especially Anaximander,
Plato and Aristotle) and the Orient.
The preceding volumes, which are by no means invalidated by the new
conception of this one, take us back to the foundations of the western intel
lectual tradition: Israel and Revelation; The World of the Polis; Plato and
Aristotle, The locus of each is evident from the title. The Ecumenic Age,
which in some circles might call to mind the twentieth century, "roughly ex
tends from the rise of the Persian to the fall of the Roman Empire." This di
vision of history is acknowledged as unconventional, and its creation is justi-
fìed. "For an epoch in the history of order was marked indeed when the
societies which differentiated the truth of existence through revelation and
philosophy succumbed, to new societies of the imperial type" (p. 114). It is
these new societies which have come to have a new sense of order or of place
in history, the sense of the ecumene. Originally, the term referred simply to
the inhabited world as known by the Greeks, but for the new empires of Per-
sia, Macedón and Rome it was "a power field into which the peoples were
drawn through pragmatic events" (p. 132). The ecumene is not a self-organ-
izing or concrete society as such, but there is a genuine sense of the known
world from the Atlantic to the Indus as the theater of history. The ecumenic
age ends with the dissociation of this world into the Byzantine, Islamic and
Western civilizations.
Parallel to the pragmatic ecumene of the political empires is the spiritual,
for this is also the age in which the great religions, especially Chrsitianity,
appear. Representative figures are Paul, Mani and Mohammed. These religions
express the universality of spiritual order and meaning, but there arises a
problem, namely:
. . . the tension between the universality of spiritual order and the ecu-
mene, which embraces the contemporaneously living. That is a prob-
lem, both theoretical and practical, of the first magnitude indeed. It is
a theoretical problem for every philosophy of history, since the univer-
sal order of mankind can become historically concrete only through
symbottc representation by a community of the spirit with ecumenic
intentions—that is the problem of the Church. And it is a practical
problem in politics and histroy, since the attempt at representing uni-
versal order through a community with ecumenic intentions is obvious-
ly fraught with complications through the possibility that several such
communities will be founded historically and pursue their ecumenic
ambitions with means not altogether spiritual (p. 137).
Earlier Voégelin noted that in both Israel and Greece there was a growing
awareness of "a spectrum of order which required membership in a plurality
of societies as its adequate form" (p. 116). Out of this came the division be-
tween the temporal and spiritual. The concrete societies, Israel and Hellas,
were not suitable vessels for the universality of the spirit, but the new empires
were "not organized societies at all, but organizational shells . . . devoid of
substance" (p. 117).
Another sentence gives us a sense of the peculiar tendency of this era.
"The builders of empties and the founders of religions in the age that we have
called the Ecumenic Age were indeed concerned with the society of all man-
kind that had become visible beyond the confines of the former concrete so-
cieties; they were concerned with the order of a human mass that had been
drawn into the vortex of pragmatic events; and in the symbolism of an ecu-
menie order in the making they both met" (pp. 141-42). Both empire and
church had the goal of embracing all mankind, and this awareness as expe-
rienced and symbolized in human consciousness is the reality of order in his-
tory. It is this dynamic process of consciousness striving to make sense out of
the world which is the heart of Voegelin's enterprise. It forms the dialectic of
history: concrete experiences in a cultural context, questions about the mean-
ing of the experience, and answers. Because "it is the consciousness of a con-
crete man, living in a concrete society, and moving within its historically con-
crete modes of experience and symbolization," none of the answers is "the
ultimate truth" (p. 75). The process goes on and is the meaning of human
existence. To have helped us understand this reality is Voegelin's great contri-
bution.
History and its meaning are open toward the future, ever emerging, and
they are open toward an eschatological fulfillment which can only be under-
stood in terms of a divine reality. "I had to conclude: The process of history
. . . is a mystery in process of revelation" (p. 6). The divine reality is particu-
larly experienced in the modes of the Beyond in the immediate psychological
dimension and of the Beginning in the observation of the structure of things.
Voegelin traces his conception out in the historiographies of Egypt, Sumer
and Israel, in the Greek historians and philosophers, and in Burckhardt not
to mention numerous other writers—and he enlivens his discussion with warn-
ings against Gnosticism for losing the historical balance and against Hegel for
his assumption of finality. I cannot possibly reproduce all the analysis here,
but I would emphasize the centrality of the tension between the transcendent
or divine reality and the concrete experience of human existence. Mankind
lives and moves and has its being (there is an entire chapter on the Pauline
vision of the resurrected) in "the In-Between stratum of reality, the Metaxy."
In this circumstance all it can do is question. "There is no answer to the
Question other than the Mystery as it becomes luminous in the acts of ques-
tioning" (p. 330).
Voegelin believes that we still face today "the problems set by the differ-
entiations of consciousness in the Ecumenic Age. . . . The Question remains
the same, but the modes of asking the Question change" (p. 331). The asking
and the answering, the growing self-awareness, both constitute and generate
history. Yet there is a more, a Whole, which is also in process and of which
human existence in history is only a part. At this point the author comes
close to the so-called process theologians and philosophers, to aspects of
Whitehead, Hartshome, Teilhard de Chardin, and John Cobb. In this and
other respects Voegelin is profoundly theological and deserves to be read by
philosophers, theologians and historians. To take up this volume is like enter-
ing a graduate seminar with the great students of the meaning of existence; to
complete it is to gain a fresh perspective on humanity itself.
Sweet Briar College

Hélène Ahrweiler. Byzance: les pays et les territories. London: Variorum Reprints, 1976.
vii, 338 pp. 1 map. £13.50.
The author's interest in the field of historical geography is the theme which domi-
nates this collection of reprints. Though it is not her earliest article on this topic, "Les
problèmes de la géographie historique byzantine," Professor Ahrweilern contribution to
the Thirteenth International Congress of Byzantine Studies at Oxford in 1967, served to
define both the subject and many of the problems related to the study of historical geo-
graphy. As she points out in this article, Byzantine historical geography, which is sub-
stantially different from that of the Roman and Proto-Byzantine periods, begins in the
seventh century with the inception of the theme system. This periodization comple-
ments the conclusion presented in Professor Ahrweilern L'idéologie politique de l'empire
byzantin (Paris, 1975), that there occurred a substantial shift in the political ideology of
the empire in the mid-seventh century, i.e., from universalism to nationalism. The inter-
relationship of administrative change and ideological reorientation provides a useful
foundation for the study of the history of the empire and of the subject of historical
geography.
Because of the difficulties posed by Byzantine historical geography and particularly
by any attempt to encompass the whole empire, due especiallyjo the fragmented nature
of our sources as well as to their Constantinopolitan focus, Professor Ahrweiler sees the
most fruitful approach to be regional studies, such as Lemerle's on Philippi and eastern
Macedonia, Bon's on the Peloponnesus to 1204, and Zaky thin os' on the Morea. She
should have cited as well her own monograph, "L'histoire et la géographie de la région de
Smyrně entre les deux occupations turques (1081-1317) particulièrement au XIIIe
siècle" {Travaux et Mémoires (1965)), not only because of its separate merits but parti-
cularly because it serves as an excellent example of regional historical geography. Fortu-
nately, this long article is included in the present collection. In it, after discussing the
sources for and the problems related to the historical geography of Byzantine Asia
Minor, especially gaps in regional information, the author describes and delineates the
geography of the region, the ethnic character of its population, and its demographic evo-
lution in the thirteenth century. All of this is by way of introduction, while the bulk of
the monograph-length article is divided into three parts: a study of the history and insti-
tutions of the towns and countryside of the Smyrna region, a description of its ecclesias-
tical administration, and a study of the civil and military administration. In thisTnain
part of the article the author utilizes the wealth of prosopographical information which
she had collected. The domination of this material raises the only serious objection one
might have to this study, that is, the lesser attention given tó social and economic organi-
zation. True, this aspect was not ignored and possibly the sources would not lend them-
selves to any further discussion, yet it seems that a fuller analysis of the society and
economy of Smyrna in the thirteenth century would have been most revealing, particu-
larly in the light of Professor Ahrweilern close familiarity with the sources and the re-
gion. The importance of this substantial article is indicated by the fact that it served as
one of the foundations for Angold's study of Nicaean society {Byzantine Government in
Exile [Oxford, 1975]).
Following a seminal article on Byzantine frontiers in Anatolia and several more gener-
al pieces is the final article in the collection, entitled "Les relations entre les Byzantins et
les Russes au IX e siècle," which appeared in the Bulletin d'Information et de Coordina
tion de l'Association Internationale des Etudes Byzantines (Athens-Paris, 1971). This is
in many ways the most intriguing article of the seven, as Professor Ahrweiler has plunged
into the question of the Rus' which often resembles a morass or a battlefield more than
the subject of intellectual inquiry. Through a deft utilization of the limited sources, Pro-
fessor Ahrweiler has sought to locate the base of the Rus' who raided Constantinople in
860. She concludes that the Rus' launched their expedition from the Crimean coast of
the Sea of Azov, the so-called Tauric Propontide. In this article, the author reopens
once again the question of the possibility of Rus' activities in the Black Sea region before
860, over which there was considerable controversy in the late 1930s due largely to the
refusal of Professor Henri Grégoire to accept the possibility (see particularly the article
of Germaine de Costa-Louillet [Byzantion, 1940-41], which gives thefinalstatement of
the Grégoire school). Whether or not one agrees with Professor Ahrweilern analysis (I am
inclined to be convinced), one must admire not only the boldness but also the internal
logic of her solution. In her analysis, Professor Ahrweiler skillfully weaves together the
various pieces of evidence on the Rus' and the Byzantines in the ninth century while at
the same time taking into account the problems which this evidence presents. On the
crucial question of the dating of posthumous events in the lives of George of Amastris
and Stephen of Sougdaia, the author places the two fragments, which refer to the Rus',
in the period before 860. Because of the fragmentary nature of the sources, and the elu-
sive vagueness of some of them, it seems unlikely that thefinalword will ever be stated
on the subject. However, by locating the base for the Rus' raid of 860 on the northeast-
ern coast of the Crimea, Professor Ahrweiler seems to have overcome some of the contra-
dictions attending the traditional Kievan location without inducing substantial additional
problems.
Frank E. Wozniak Appalachian State University
Helene Ahrweiler. L'idéologie politique de l'Empire byzantin. Collection SUP, 20. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France, 1975.158 pp. 1 map.
This book is so stimulating that it is simultaneously exasperating: it is good enough

to deserve being longer and more fully realized. It is really two publications in one. The
major portion, containing seven numbered chapters, is an attempt to sketch the evolu-
tion of the political viewpoints and motivations of Byzantine society and its leaders
through the course of the empire's history. Appended to it is an eiîteen-page "chapitre
unique," an essay on the Byzantine concepts of "order" (тахк) and "dispensation"
(oLKovoßia) and the problems of understanding their interaction in Byzantine political
thought.
To convey justly the sweep and penetration of the historical survey would require a
systematic summation of the patterns of evolution that Ahrweiler traces. This would be
impossible in any brief compass, sorichly-texturedis her tightly compressed exposition.
Working with the familiar facts of Byzantine history, the author presents many predict-
able conclusions, but also many more unexpected emphases andflashesof fresh insight.
She is very effective in tracing the always central place of Christianity and the Church in
Byzantine consciousness: the focus it repeatedly gave the empire's citizens through a
sense of loyalty to it and of identity within it. The regular redefinition of Orthodoxy
provided the base, in turn, for a defensive policy of survival, for an outlook of expan-
sionism and overconfident superiority, and eventually for an attitude of hatred and hos-
tility toward the Latin world. The anti-Latin sentiment assumed precedence over fear of
the infidel and bred a fatalism that prepared the way for the T ovp кок paría. Another
fascinating theme is the emergence of Constantinople as a symbol in itself of all that the
empire and Byzantine civilization meant. Having assumed this status in the Comnenian
BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS 91
period, the capital became a target of the disillusionment and hatred of disaffected pro-
vincials in the later twelfth century; but it became again a potent positive symbol in the
aftermath of 1204, and it passed thereafter into the context of the Great Idea of post-
Byzantine Hellenism.
In the compressed context of Ahrweilern survery, some generalizations are not suf-
ficiently clarified to escape skepticism, notably her applications of the tags "national-
ism** and "patriotism.*' We find these at the heart of her analyses of the parallel yet
contrasting epochs of "national" rallying and "patriotic'* revitalization under, respec-
tively, the Isaurian and Com nenian emperors. So loaded are these terms with modern
connotations that the author's use of them for distant Byzantine phenomena seems too
casually anachronistic to stand without the clarification she does not have (or take) the
space to provide. Indeed, she could well have made a point of showing how incom-
pletely we know the viewpoints of the diverse regional, ethnic, and social elements of
the empire with regard to their sense of place within it.
Her sketch is also somewhat disproportionate. The greatest number of pages is de-
voted to a brilliantly perceptive dissection of attitudes and trends during the eleventh to
thirteenth centuries, which seems to me the most effective part. With prior periods, the
earlier they are, the smaller-and less satisfactory-is the attention they receive. I am not
so sure, for example, that the two principles she discerns as motivating policies between
the fifth and the seventh centuries (a "realist" concentration on preserving the eastern
segment of the empire above all else, against an idealist" dream of restored or "univer-
salist" empire) were really so diametrically "opposed" as she insists. In some forms,
they could well have been differing manifestations of the same preoccupation with im-
perial continuity. Further, however stimulating is her picture of the Isaurian epoch as a
dramatic phase of creative innovation in the face of the Arab challenge ("... le national-
isme byzantin fut justement la riposte byzantine à la guerre sainte de l'Islam": p. 35),
it is noteworthy that her treatment of the Heraclian Dynasty is skimpy and backhanded.
She seems here to diverge from the historiographie drift of recent decades, in which the
seventh century, rather than the eighth, has been viewed as the pivotal period of trans-
formation and innovation. One wishes, again, that the author had lingered at greater
length in these realms, to resolve questions she raises.
That one can find so much to comment upon and ponder-far beyond what can be
mentioned in this limited space-is testimony to the provocative and often exciting
qualities of Ahrweilern little book. Seemingly intended for a broad readership, it should
nevertheless be of equal (if not greater) interest to the specialist, simply as food for
thought, imaginatively served by a superlative chef. The "chapitre unique" alone is
worth the price of the meal. It opens new possiblities in the familiar debate over "cae-
saropapism" and church-state relations, pointing up how far we still have to go to
achieve understanding of Byzantine patterns of thought. If this book irritates or frus-
trates as much as it satisfies, that is the best measure of it as one of the most thought-
provoking essays on the totality of Byzantine civilization to appear in a long time; it
also testifies to the breadth of Ahrweilern scholarship and to the pungent savor of her
style.
John W. Barker University of Wisconsin, Madison
Alice-Mary Maffry Talbot. The Correspondence of Athanasms I Patriarch of Constanti

nople. Letters to the Emperor Andronicus II, Members of the Imperial Family, and
Officials. An Edition, Translation, and Commentary. Dumbarton Oaks Texts, III.
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1975. 467 pp.,
$35.00.
Professor Talbot has produced a truly first-rate edition of the correspondence of

Patriarch Athanasius I of Constantinople. In addition to 115 letters, presented in their
original Greek with excellent English translations, the author offers us two introduc-
tions: a general one, covering the life of the patriarch, his educational background, and
his literary style, and a critical one in which she expertly reviews the manuscript tradi-
tion and the principal studies on Athanasius's correspondence previous to her own. The
letters are followed by 145 pages of valuable commentary, with indices of proper names,
terms, vocabulary, and incipits. This is a truly scholarly work in the best tradition.
Athanasius I was appointed patriarch twice (1289-93 and 1303-09) by Emperor An-
dronicus II (1282-1328), in whose reign the fortunes of the Byzantine Empire began to
decline rather decisively. Confronted by increasing external dangers represented by the
Ottoman Turks and the Catalans, to cite only two of the empire's enemies, and torn
apart internally by social, political, and ecclesiastical factions, the state was in need of
extraordinary leadership if it were to be saved. Unfortunately the situation proved too
much for emperor and patriarch alike.
It is an interesting indication of the corruption of Byzantine society that Athanasius,
though himself a monk, clergyman, and hierarch, was unable to bring order and reform
to these three important elements of Byzantine society which, by virtue of their voca-
tion and office, were pledged to a selfless life of service, justice, and sacrifice. From the
correspondence we see a situation in which bishops refused to serve in the dioceses for
which they were ordained, while clergymen went on strike over salaries, and monks not
only refused to follow their monastic rule, but vehemently opposed the use of monastic
revenues to alleviate hunger and misery among their fellow Christians.
This reviewer was extremely happy to encounter a Byzantine ecclesiastical figure who
was preoccupied neither with the doctrinal differences between Rome and Constanti-
nople nor with the wisdom of the "ancients," and who, despite his strong monastic
character, was completely involved with the society in which he lived. We are shown a
tenacious and fearless patriarch who was quick to remind the emperor of his duty as one
"anointed" and "appointed" by the Lord to teach by "word and deed to appease God
with piety and justice and truth." He did not spare the emperor, even though he was at
times Athanasius's only supporter except for the relatively powerless common people.
Indeed, any and everyone involved in corruption, injustice, lawlessness, and impiety was
called to task. And on the positive side, Athanasius selflessly championed the common
folk and personally did what he could to eliminate injustice, poverty, and misery among
them.
On a few minor points I would venture to disagree with Professor Talbot. For a
monk, Athanasius's knowledge of the Bible, John Chrysostom, the Cappadocian Fathers
and other sources cited by her, as well as saints' lives and church and civil law, is quite
good. All patriarchs could not be the equals of Photius. Nor would I agree that many of
Athanasius's patristic quotations were learned by listening to them read on feast days.
Anyone familiar with this monastic tradition would find this extraordinary. More likely
the use of such quotes by him is a consequence of his study.
A deposed patriarch is never reduced to the rank of layman. This would be a double
punishment Qoss of office and of priesthood) not permitted by canon law. Therefore,
the view that Athanasius could not lift the anathema of the emperor unless he were rein-
stated as patriarch cannot stand. Moreover, anathema is not dependent upon the holding
of any specific office.
In closing I should like to congratulate Professor Talbot on a truly exemplary study,
and to thank her for bringing to life a very engaging Byzantine patriarch.
NomikosM. Vaporis Hellenic College

Donald M. Nicol. Metoeora: The Rock Monasteries of Thessaly. Rev. ed. London: Vario
rum Reprints, 1975. xiv, 210 pp. 19 black-and-white illustrations, map. £12.00.
When this study was originally published in 1963, it was intended to serve as an intro
duction to the rock monasteries of late medieval Thessaly for a general audience as well
as for Byzantinists. Fourteen years later, Variorum has published a "revised" edition.
Welcome as is the reappearance of a book which has often been difficult to obtain, it is
unfortunate that the format of the reprinting has allowed for only the most minor
changes. Professor Nicol has made additions to the bibliography and minor textual
changes, and he has written a new preface. For the most part, the additions describe the
changes that have taken place in the Meteora since 1963, and reflect the author's sadness
at "seeing the monasteries become, definitively, tourist attractions rather than monastic
centers. Monks have moved to Mt. Athos, and the few who remain are ticket takers and
guides.
The author noted in his original preface that the state of the sources did not yet
allow "the" book about Meteora to be written. The revised bibliography indicates that
the sources for the history of the monasteries-catalogues of manuscripts, lives of the
founders-are gradually appearing, but there is still no other major study of Meteora. A
rereading of Nicol's work enforces one's awareness of the need for such a study. Nicol
chose to treat the history of the monasteries individually, outlining chronology and tying
spiritual development to political events where appropriate. For general readers he added
introductory chapters on Byzantine monasticism and Thessaly in the late middle ages.
But the work nowhere treats the institutional or economic history of the monasteries;
estates and patrons are mentioned but never explored. An analysis of Meteoran spiritual
life in relation to that of Mt. Athos and other centers would also have been helpful as a
separate section. Finally, while the background chapters are devoted to monasticism and
the pohtical history of the late Byzantine period, the golden days of Meteora came af
terward, in the sixteenth century under Turkish rule. Meteora's relationships with the
Phanariots and other outside patrons need explaining to the general reader, and the
phenomenon of a growing Byzantine monument in a post-Byzantine world seems worthy
of further investigation. These complaints, perhaps, constitute a request for "the" book
about Meteora; at the least, they represent a wish that publishers' conventions had al
lowed the incorporation of more recent research on late and post-Byzantine society (e.g.,
Nicol's own prosopographical studies, as well as those of Laiou, Femanjić, Runciman,
and others) into the present study. Nevertheless, this is a valuable reprint, and not only
because it remains the only work on the subject. Professor Nicol's decision to continue
his study down to the present day is an important reminder of the fact that the Byzan
tine heritage must be given moře than lip service. In the history of Meteora he has pre
sented a unique picture of a Byzantine institution which is dying only in our time.
Dorothy de F. Abrahamse California State University, Long Beach
Maciej Salamon, Rozwój idei Rzymu-Konstantynopola od IV do pierwszej połowy VI

wieku [The Development of the Rome-Constantinople Idea from the IVth to the
First Half of the Vlth Century). Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowi
cach, NR 80. Katowice! Uniwersytet Śląski, 1975. 144 pp., 38 black-and-white
plates. Cena zł 9,-.
A revision of his doctoral dissertation, completed at the University of Silesia in

Katowice, Salamon's work, though a small book should merit the attention of Western
scholars, for it is both notable for its incisive understanding of a complex historical prob
lem, one for which the sources are not wholly clear, and commendable for the breadth
and depth of the author's research. Salamon has set out to define the basic concepts of
"sovereign-capital" and "imperial residence-capital" as they pertain to Rome and Con
stantinople and span the reigns of Constantine and Justinian in the East. The author
draws extensively upon the major original sources for the period; the opinions and inter
pretations of modern scholars as F. Dölger, P. J. Alexander, H. G. Beck, L. Bréhier, A.
Alföldi, A. H. M. Jones, O. Seeck, and numerous others; and correlates this body of evi
dence with numismatic inscriptions to support the theory that Constantinople inherited
the full powers of Rome and this theory became the cornerstone of Byzantine political
and religious ideology.
Salamon's study is divided into six chapters, the titles of which are "The Residence
Capital and the Sovereign Capital"; "The Constantinian Idea of Rome-Constantin ople";
"The Capital of Constan tine's Family"; łłThe Maintenance and Consohdation of the
Capitals' Ranks in the Second Half of the IVth Century"; "From the Second Rome to
the Roman Imperium"; and **The Idea of the Tran.slatio Imperio' to Rome-Constanti
nople."
The author at once establishes that Rome, as the "eternal city," was not only the
focal point of Roman tradition, but the city enjoyed certain prerogatives as the represen
tative of state sovereignty. Assuming that the generalization is incontrovertible, although
he might have furnished more documentation than to rely simply upon minor secondary
sources, Salamon then traces the origins of Constantinople and attributes the establish
ment of this Eastern capital to the troubled period of wars and usurpation which ex
tended from the third into the fourth centuries. In chapter II, Salamon rejects the con
clusion of Dölger that the idea of creating a new sovereign capital should be ascribed to
the second half of the fourth century. Salamon holds that the city had its foundation in
324 when Byzantium was rebuilt and renamed Constantinople, although he admits that
intensive construction for this transformation did not begin until a few years later, ca.
326, and continued for the next seven or eight years. Further, he does accept the general
scholarly consensus that the status of Constantinople as a political center was fixed in
330. He shows that numismatic evidence places Constantinople on par with Rome, and
coinage of that year depicts the goddess Tyche, which Salamon believes establishes Con
stantinople as the "Rome" of the East Roman Empire and as a separate political entity.
The city was then modeled after Rome, but Constantine did not detract from Rome's
supremacy and its paramount position. The two capitals did not disrupt the unity of the
Roman Empire, rather Constantine yielded in precedence to the older of the two cities.
Having demonstrated these points by showing that Constantinople had inferior institu
tions, Salamon's work, though narrower in scope, appeared shortly after the publication
of Gilbert Dagrons's Naissance d'une capital Constantinople et ses institutions de S00
à 451 (Paris, 1974), and the Pofish scholar could not avail himself of Dagron's extensive
study of the city's institutional history, consideration of which would have added signi
ficantly to Salamon's own conclusions. A careful comparison of the two works shows
that their respective interpretations lead to almost identical conclusions, namely, the
contention that Constantinople's institutions derive from Rome's, a point which many
scholars challenge because of the inadequacy of the primary sources.
A study of the evolution of Constantinople's institutions leads Salamon to conclude
that Constantius II altered the relationship of Constantinople vis-à-vis Rome by elevating
the standing of his capital's institutions to the same level as Rome's; and this parity was
fully achieved in the reign of Julian the Apostate, who incidently passed away in 363,
not 364 (see p. 75). Unfortunately, Salamon's treatment of the parity question is too
brief (pp. 75-87) to warrant such a conclusion, although the point may be well taken
that with the death of Julian the Apostate, the last descendant of the Constantinian
family, the importance of the Rome-Constantinople idea was arrested. Salamon attri-
butes this to the Procopian rebellion of 356-66. The consequence, he argues, was that
Constantinople was deprived of some of its privileges as the political center of the East
Roman Empire. The Trinitarians, as Salamon has established, also opposed the elevation
of the city on par with Rome, mainly because such parity was sought by the Arians,
their ideological antagonists. Salamon shows as well that support for Constantinople's
elevation came from those intimate with the eastern imperial rulers and in particular
from the pagan supporters of Julian. The source evidence along with the numismatic
supports Salamon's conclusions.
In the two final chapters, with the rise to power of Valens, Salamon demonstrates
that coinage thereafter shows the equality of Constantinople with Rome, and more so in
the fifth century with the accelerated decline of Rome following Alaric's sack of the
western capital. While after 410 Rome no longer challenged Constantinople's claim to
equality, more significant from Salamon's view is the fact that the latter became a main
Christian center, which enhanced its stature and negated what few claims Rome could
make. And when Justinian took the city, Rome's status was reduced to that of another
Byzantine city, ruledfromthe capital in the East.
Salamon's argumentation is well reasoned and the main contentions are substantially
supported with documentation. His contribution to the scholarly literature on this sub-
ject should not be ignored, and if anything this work demonstrates that Polish scholars
have a greater awareness of and demonstrate their utilization of West European and
American source materials than is often the case amongst Western scholars who persist
in being unfamiliar with East European research and publications. One would have
wished, however, that Salamon had consulted Walter Kaegi's Byzantium and the Decline
of Rome (Princeton, 1968), whose significant research and interpretations would have
been of value to the author. True, the language handicap continues to plague Western
scholarship, but perhaps the tide of ignorance should now be reversed with the publica-
tion of this work.
Walter K. Hanák Shepherd College
Kenneth M. Setton. Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311-1388. Revised edition, London:

Variorum Reprints, 1975. xix, 323 pp. £14.50.
Kenneth M. Setton. Athens in the Middle Ages. London: Variorum Reprints, 1975. 279
pp. £14.50.
The traveller in modern Attica, Boeotia and southern Thessaly may notice certain
puzzling architectural remains. With their fragmented walls and square glowering tow-
ers, these structures obviously are not modern, and neither look nor feel classical.
They belong to 'medieval' Greece, and the most eye-catching examples-ab ove Livadia
and Lamia, or sprawled across the citadel of Siderokastron-are the physical relicts of
less than a century of the occupation of this territory by the Companya Grande de
Catalunya. The whys and wherefores of this occupation of what had once been a part of
the Byzantine Empire occupied K. M. Setton in his Catalan Domination of Athens, first
published in 1948. This work has now been reprinted, with additions and emendations,
by Variorum Reprints, thus giving us the opportunity of reassessing Setton's work thirty
years after the initial publication.
As he notes, Setton followed in the footsteps of Hopf, Gregorovius, Lampros, Miller
and, especially, the Catalan scholar Rubio y Uuch, in turning his attention toward this
disputed land, repeatedly divided and fought over after its initial seizure by the "cross-
bearers" who followed de la Roche. To the Franks the area became the Duchy of
Athens, and it was thereafter caught up in the complicated web of feudal obligation, ces-
sion and inheritance, of rival suzerainties and fees. This tangle worsened in 1311, when a
force of Catalan mercenaries annihilated the army of the Duke of Athens, Gautier de
Brienne, killed de Brienne himself, and so became masters of the Duchy.
This small-one is tempted to say insignificant-part of the feudalized and Frankified
Greek land was thus occupied by a small force of freebooting mercenaries from a small
section of northern Spain, Catalan subjects (with special provisos) of the House of Ara-
gon. As rulers over a submerged Greek population, the Catalans set up a system in which
feudal modes were joined to the organizing principles of a "Universität"-a "corpora-
tion" which insisted on the importance of the Customs of Barcelona. Their Vicars-
General governed in the name of the Sicilian-Aragonese throne until 1379, when this line
died out and the House of Aragon took up direct suzerainty. These Vicars-General had
their work cut out for them.
The Catalans maintained themselves in the face of powerful enemies, eventually suc-
cumbing to a combining of their enemies and ferocious internal dissension. The 'Burgun-
dian' house of de Brienne of course had objected to being displaced, and it was sup-
ported by other feudatories and by the Avignonese Papacy, so that the Catalans were
excommunicate for much of their tenure here, and ecclesiastical relationships were deli-
cate. The Venetians, who held a powerful base on Negroponte (Euboea), had to be dealt
with by force or diplomatic maneuver. Finally the key and capital of the Catalan do-
main:, Thebes, was taken by yet another Spanish mercenary force-the Navarrese-and in
1388 the last Catalan stronghold, the Acropolis of Athens, was captured by an ambitious
and successful Florentine adventurer, Nerio di Acciajuoli. From the Florentines this last
segment of Frankish territory passed to Venice, and from the Republic-in 1456-to the
Turk.
It may be asked whether three-quarters of a violent century of Catalan domination
has any historical interest or impact at all, especially since it is clear that the Catalans
ruled over a vestigial population, in an area so economically non-viable as to be almost
worthless. Part of the answer is to be found in Setton's enthusiastic reaction to the in-
dustry, and the filiopietism, of Rubio y Lluch. The very extensive documentation from
the Aragonese archives, brought to the light of scholarship by Rubio, is here criticized
and put into context. If some of the Catalan's romantic nationalism has rubbed off on
Setton, the results are not offensive. Another part of the answer has to do with the pe-
rennial fascination of Athens in oculis aeternitatis, as the accepted birthplace of Western
culture and thought, important no matter to what depths its population had sunk, or
which feudal bully-boys peered out over the ruins of the Agora from the fortified and re-
named Acropolis.
Considered in this light, Setton's task needs no explanation and is even commenda-
ble. A tremendous amount of archival material is reduced to order, and a mass of loyal-
ties, ambitions, triumphs and defeats is made reasonably clear and coherent. There are
imperfections. Laurent, in his review of the first edition in Revue des Etudes Byzantines
(8-9 Ц950-51], 264-65), particularly cited the lack of any significant attention to Cata
lan relations with the Byzantine Empire or with the Anatolian Turks, and also criticized
the disproportionate emphasis on the Catalan occupation contrasted with the forty pages
that take the Duchy, under Florence and Venice, to the Turkish conquest. These gaps
and disproportions remain, for the fact that the great weight of documentation is
Aragonese-Catalan must inevitably skew the results of any study.
There are also insufficient or partial reconstructions (as in the description of "lan
guage and culture") based on information so fragmentary and incomplete as to make a
fully-textured reconstruction impossible. The lack of information, in fact, occasionally
leads Setton to compose in the mode of historical fiction: on page 77 and following we
are given an event which can only be introduced by "conceivably," "we may imagine"
and has a cast of characters who "may have come." Here, and elsewhere, Setton is so
swayed by the temptation of possibilities-projected against insufficient data-that his
sense of historical judgement is overcome.
Athens in the Middle Ages is a coUction of six articles dealing, in a roughly chronolo-
gical cum topical fashion, with various aspects of the history of this once significant city
from the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries. Of these articles the first, "The Archae-
ology of Medieval Athens," is a lucid and graceful overview, rich with specific observa-
tions, of the activities and conclusions of the hordes of archaeologists who have "dug"
this site-usually without having the medieval context in view. "On the Raids of the Mos-
lems" treats briefly of the puzzle of an alleged Arab presence in Athens-in the tenth
century?-leaving us pretty much in a continued quandary as to what form this presence
might have taken.
"Athens in the Later Twelfth Century" deals mainly with the life and local times of
its archbishop (from 1182 to 1204 approximately), the brilliant and learned Byzantine
mandarin Michael Choniates. What emerges from this study, in addition to some fasci-
nating antiquarian footnotes, is the pathos of the archbishop's confrontation with the
contrast between what had been and what now was, and the perception that the tooth of
time had torn away even the faint memory of old glories.
The remaining papers: "The Catalans in Greece," "Catalan Society in Greece" and
"The Catalans and Florentines in Greece," all deal, with updated information and in-
sights, with the focal area of Setton's long monograph on the Catalan Grand Company.
The meticulous research adds valuable interpretative and factual dimensions to the
various problems outlined in the Catalan Domination. The reader's difficulty with these
studies is likely to be with form rather than content. Read in sequence, the Catalan arti-
cles-reproduced by a photo-offset process from the original journal pages-can produce
a kind of echo-chamber effect, for not only is information repeated, but phrases and
word sequences may be repeated as well. The final effect unfortunately, is one of struc-
tural artificiality: of papers put together for convenience rather than connected securely
by either synchronic or diachronic hgatures.
Without doubt Setton's work shows a skillful, broad-ranging, humanistic, and thor-
oughly convincing scholarship. Both the monograph and the collection of articles reveal
the best kind of elucidative prose, mature and graceful and without affectation. More im-
portantly, Setton deals with that aspect of the ruptured empire most Byzantinists (to say
nothing of less specialized medievalists) are poorly prepared to encounter: the compli-
cated mix of Frankish-feudal and other forms after the Fourth Crusade, with its tangle
of social, political, and cultural manifestations. It is a pleasure to follow the course of
Setton's investigations, and his work will remain important for anyone who tries to make
sense out of the pre-Ottoman history of medieval Greece.
D. A. Miller The University of Rochester
Kurt Weitzmann, William C. Loerke, Ernst Kitzinger, Hugo Buchthal. The Place of Book
Illumination in Byzantine Art Princeton: The Art Museum, Princeton University
(distributed by Princeton University Press), 1975. viii, 184 pp., 148 black-and-white
illustrations. $28.50.
This book contains four important papers delivered at a symposium held in Princeton
in April, 1973, in connection with an exhibition of Greek illuminated manuscripts that
was presented as a tribute to Professor Kurt Weitzmann. His own paper, "The Study of
Byzantine Book Illumination, Past, Present, and Future" (pp. 1-60), sets the theme of
the symposium. To show the relation of the various areas of manuscript studies to one
another and the possibilities for expansion, Weitzmann chooses the image of seven cir-
cles. Publications of manuscripts belong to thefirstcircle, the "documentary" evidence.
The reconstruction of fragmentary manuscripts, the relations of illuminations to other
media, and the discovery of originals through the study of copies constitute a group of
circles presenting the "archaeological" evidence. Work done so far has been centered on
these "inner circles." An enormous amount of work is still to be done within them,
before we can proceed towards a better and fuller understanding of larger issues. Weitz-
mann, with unique insight, points the way from matters of pure method to the problems
of the relation of Byzantine illumination to the art of other periods and cultures. His life
work, monumental as it is, has been distilled in these pages in such a way that every sen-
tence, replete with meaning, opens new avenues of thought.
William Loerke discusses 'The Monumental Miniature" (pp. 61-98). a fascinating
essay that reads like a detective story, he provides good guidance for identifying illumi-
nations as copies of monumental originals. He deals principally with the "Communion of
the Apostles" miniatures in the Rossano Gospels, which form a chapter in the archaeolo-
gy of Palestine, and argues convincingly for a monumental prototype of these miniatures
in a mid-sixth-century basilica in Jerusalem. Loerke is not simply in search of a lost
"model." He stresses the role played by Constantinople in the dissemination of imagery
and the impact of the liturgy on art.
The converse problem, "The Role of Miniature Painting in Mural Decoration," is
dealt with by Ernst Kitzinger (pp. 99-142). After a splendid review of the problem of the
relation of the Cotton Genesis manuscript to the S. Marco vestibule mosaics, Kitzinger
proposes a set of working drawings as an intermediary between mosaics and the illus-
trated book, and proceeds to a discussion of the so-called pictorial guides which provide
a link between the work of illuminators and that of moeicists or fresco painters. There
must have been pictorial guides prepared ad hoc for the execution of particular decora-
tions, but there were also generic guides comparable to the Russian podlinnik. The trans-
mission of pictures from book to wall and vice versa raises the question of the influence
upon monumental painting of styles that are characteristic of miniatures. The key monu-
ment to this part of the discussion is the series of mosaics in S. Maria Maggiore, Rome,
the various problems of which have been extensively studied in a recent monograph
(Beat Brenk, DiefrühchristlichenMosaiken in S. Maria Maggiore zu Rom [Wiesbaden,
19751). Kitzingers essay is provocative, and he is aware of other possibilities. For in-
stance, different interpretation can be given to some of the literary sources he adduces.
All the same, Kitzinger makes us aware of the working methods of Byzantine artists and
stresses the interrelationship of the media in matters of iconography and style.
The final essay by Hugo Buchthal, "Towards a History of Palaeologan Illumination"
(pp. 143-77), paves the way for a future writing of such a history. The manuscripts dis-
cussed, principally written and illuminated in Constantinople, are presented in groups
centered around dated codices, and Buchthal draws attention to iconographie innova-
tions and stylistic changes apparent in these manuscripts. Iconographie changes include
the evangelist who sharpens his pen and subjects taken from the liturgy, Hke the Ana
peson. Buchthal also points to the importance of headpieces both for matters of style
and for assigning the manuscripts to scriptoria. Some of these headpieces, together with
portraits of the evangelists, must be counted among the most beautiful products of Con-
stantinopolitan art. Thanks to Buchthal the image of the scriptorium of the monastery
of Hodegon becomes sharper. Because the material of this period remains for the most
part unpublished, this essay is truly seminal.
In 1947 Kurt Weitzmann, as a young scholar with impressive achievements, outlined
the history of Byzantine art and Byzantine studies in America, and the activities and pro-
jects of thenflourishinginstitutes ("Byzantine Art and Scholarship in America," Ameri-
can Journal of Archaeology, 51 11947], 394-418). In this volume, almost forty years
later, he and his eminent colleagues tell us what has been accomplished and direct us to
future research. The reviewer has not done justice to this beautifully printed and illus-
trated book, which contains the essence of all problems related to Byzantine miniature
painting and which is indispensable for students of Byzantine art. Weitzmann tells us
that the time has not yet come for the writing of a history of Byzantine illumination.
This reviewer is convinced that when the time comes, and a new Kondakoff appears to
undertake the task, he will have to return to thefirstessay in this book written by "the
scholar who has done more than anyone else in our time to advance our knowledge and
understanding of the history of book illumination" (p. 99).
George Galavaris McGill University, Montreal
loannis E. Karayiannopoulos. *H BvÇavrwxi Латоріа àiròтас Пігучіс-Thessaloniki: Center

for Byzantine Studies, 1974. 298 pp. $10.00.
As the title indicates, this is a selection of excerpts and passages from Greek sources
bearing on every major aspect of Byzantine history and civilization. Most of the readings
are drawn from the sources of the first seven centuries and represent narrative histories,
chronicles, legislation, imperial chrysobulls, military manuals, Uves of saints, church his
tory, theological treatises, manuals of political theory, and more. It can serve two pur
poses: it can be used as a textbook for graduate students and seminars in Byzantine
history, especially in colleges and universities whose libraries do not have Greek collec
tions, and it can serve as an easily accessible reference book for teachers of Byzantine
and Western medieval history when they wish to illustrate a point by a quick reference
to a Byzantine text. It is with pleasure that I highly recommend it to both students and
instructors with a knowledge of Greek, and to any layman interested in medieval Greek
studies. The selection of texts has been carefully, discriminately, and methodically done.
The book falls into four parts, subdivided into twenty-three chapters. Part one is de
voted to Byzantine imperial theory and includes readings on the origins and the nature
of' imperial authority, the coronation and the functions of the emperor, his relations
with the officers of the administrative machinery, the co-emperor and his responsibili
ties. The second and the third parts include readings bearing on the state and its organi
zation. There are important excerpts illuminating every function of the administrative
organization, such as the senate, the ministers, the provincial governors, the themes, the
army, taxation, diplomacy, church and state relations, and the administration of justice.
The fourth part deals with the economic and social life of the empire and includes ex
cerpts illustrative of the daily and private life of the imperial court, and of the customs
and traditions of the various social classes. Poverty and wealth, estates and slavery, enter
tainment, social unrest and revolts, education, and relations between social classes
emerge as lively issues in Byzantine society.
Each chapter opens with a brief but comprehensive introduction by Professor
Karayiannopoulos on the theme to be illustrated by the sources. The chapter on cities
and urban populations includes wisely selected readings bearing on the social background
and the functions of senators, ministers, city fathers, physicians, and teachers; on salaries
and guilds, commerce and trade, currency, and conflicts among local and foreign mer
chants and traders. The last chapter is devoted to rural populations and to agriculture.
The book closes with a list of the sources it includes, and a select bibliography. The
editor deserves our thanks for providing students and teachers alike with a very useful
volume.
The book was originally devised to serve the needs of Professor Karayiannopoulos*
students and as such it was not meant to be all-encompassing. It also had to be limited to
avoid becoming a difficult and unmanageable tome. Nevertheless, for a second edition, I
propose the inclusion of a few additional excerpts from texts of the later centurier: from
Anna Comnena on By zan tine-Latin relations, for example the Byzantine view of the
Latins who participated in the first Crusade; and from the same author describing the St.
Paul's complex of institutions illustrating the state's philanthropy and concern for social
welfare. I would also recommend excerpts from the typikon of the Pantokrator Monas
tery bearing on medical and hospital care; from Alexios Makrembolites "Dialogue be
tween the Rich and the Poor"; from Nicolas Kabasilas' anti-zealot discourse; and from
patriarchal acts and church canons.
An English translation of the presnt volume should prove very valuable to students
and instructors of medieval and Byzantine history who do not read Greek.
Demetrios J. Constantelos Stockton State College
Theodore S. Nikolaou. At irepi ПоМтеіас каі Aucaíov ib éai тоѵ Г. ПХгідыѵос Геџштод.
BvÇavrivà Keißeva каіМеХеты, 13. Кеѵтроѵ ЪѵСаѵпѵпѵ Epevv<àv, 1974. 138 pp.
Among the perplexing problems confronting students of the last centuries of the By-
zantine Empire is the polarity between the sterility and declining fortunes of the state,
and the relative brilliance and vitality of its literary and artistic accomplishment. Toward
the end, while the center of the empire was rapidly declining because of internal decay
and external pressure, life in the Peloponnesus was flourishing: it was in Mistra that
Hellenism found its expression and the will to survive on the very eve of the collapse of
the empire. We know a great deal about the exponent of the movement, George Gemis-
tos Plethon (1353-1452), who is also an excellent mirror for these later years, as his
writings express ideas central to the decline and fall of the empire. Plethon, who died al-
most a centenarian a few months prior to the fall of Constantinople, was a Neo-Platonist
and humanist, political thinker and social theorist, teacher and jurist in Mistra, advisor
at the court of the Despoiate of Morea, delegate to the Council of Ferrara-Florence,
public lecturer who was in large part the inspiration for the foundation of the Platonic
Academy in Florence, and perhaps the most original thinker Byzantium produced. Yet
many of his views are unknown, or known only in outline, because his last and most im-
portant work on LOWS-of which only fragments survive-was destroyed by the ecclesias-
tical authorities after his death. To the end of its days Byzantium had trouble with its
intellectuals, and Plethon, who challenged the Christian-Aristotelian synthesis and by re-
verting to Platonism constructed a neo-pagan religious and philosophic system, was per-
haps the best example and one of the last. He has been called the first true spokesman of
neo-Hellenism, and even credited with the vision of a Utopia to be created in the Pelo-
ponnesus. Rather than calling him a Utopian, we should consider him a reformer and
revolutionary, in the same sense as Solon the Athenian statesman and poet. The main
difference is that Solon saw the danger to the state and was successful in carrying
through a program of agrarian, legal, and constitutional reforms that left a lasting mark
on the Athenian State, while Plethon saw the approaching menace and repeatedly cried
out, but was unheeded. Though the dangers he foresaw doomed the empire, his ideas
were not implemented because they were too radical for the period, and he lacked the
power to impose them. However, he did not abandon his ideas, and neither did his stu-
dents.
Nikolaou has provided a compact and credible synthesis of the political, social,
economic, and legal ideas and theories of Plethon. He considers his subject in broad
terms, spanning the entire spectrum of Plethon's views in three main chapters. The first
(pp. 33-45) is an overview of the political situation and the intellectual climate during
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, discussing the ideas of the Hesychasts and mysti-
cism, Baarlam, Palamas, and Cydones. Nikolaou convincingly differentiates the various
intellectual trends, showing that Plethon began to break fresh ground toward a new and
different political orientation without following in the intellectual paths of his contem-
poraries. This background is essential to show that Plethon—contrary to his predecessors
who dici not incline to social and political issues-showed a sincere interest in the prob-
lems of contemporary society and politics which is unique in the history of Byzantine
thought. The second chapter (pp. 49-102), the most substantive of the three, concerns
"politics" and discusses the meaning, beginning, and purpose, as well as the types and
function of political systems, including ideal systems, social classes, and the national
character of politics. In this section and the third, Nikolaou discusses Plethon's views
within the context of the ancient authors, with numerous examples indicating the eclec-
tic nature of Plethon's thought, and his role to reveal to those in power the problems
facing the state and possible solutions. In this capacity Plethon does not make theoreti-
cal analyses, but demonstrates measures to be undertaken to achieve practical results.
The third chapter (pp. 105-22), dealing with law and justice, briefly surveys the views of
ancient Greek authors as a background to those of Plethon, and concludes with a discus-
sion of the role of justice in the political system. Plethon gives justice the highest priority
in his Laws, which must guide rulers, so that they-with the advice of judges and law-
givers-will serve the state by correcting wrongs in society. Above all, as Nikolaou indi-
cates in the epilogue (pp. 123-25), his political plan demands a well-structured society
with just advice and superior laws. In contrast to a visionary who dreams of a Utopia,
Plethon is interested in solving the known needs of society; few of his ideas are impracti-
cal, although he does not seem to see the danger in an ideal society based on the "poli-
tics of excellence," where an aristocracy of virtue and knowledge rather than wealth and
ancestry would be in control.
Throughout his study Nikolaou has touched the main aspect of Plethon's political
thought, including his views on regulation of trade, land nationalization and reform of
the economic and agricultural system to offset the power of the landed nobility, simplifi-
cation of taxation and reform of the currency, reform of the army to replace merce-
naries, reform of the penal system, and religious reform. He also discusses Plethon's "Hel-
lenic theology," beginning with his criticism of monks and monasticism. The portrait
that emerges is one of a fervent patriot who strives to reinforce the middle class as the
strength of the state. Of course the picture must remain fragmentary, because of the loss
of the Laws and the scattered nature of Plethon's other works. The critical edition of all
of the works of Plethon suggested by Nikolaou (p. 28, n. 2) would do a great deal to
allay our curiosity, and will be the essential first step toward any attempt at a full under-
standing of the social and intellectual impact of Mistra. Yet even now there are a number
of points that might have been mentioned or discussed. For example: what was the role
of the social and economic upheavals of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (such as
the Zealot Revolt in Thessaloniki, and civil strife elsewhere) in shaping the thought of
Plethon? Was there any correlation between the intellectual activity of Plethon and his
circle, and the dynamic new forms and creative genius represented in the works of the
artists who decorated the churches of Peribleptos and Pantanassa in Mistra? Even more
important would be a consideration of the views of his students, such as Bessarion,
whose letters often reflect the views of Plethon. Even though these and other questions
might be beyond the scope of the present volume, some mention of them would have
been useful. Nikolaou has given us a good synthesis; his study is also blessed with an
exemplary bibliography of Plethon's works and of secondary aids (pp. 15-26), and the
footnotes are especially rich, with valuable references to both primary and secondary
literature not given in the bibliography.
Byron C. P. Tsangadas University of South Florida

The ЮТОІ ДІД АКТІКОІ of Marinos Phalieros. Critical Edition by W. F. Bakker and
A. F. van Gemert. Byzantina Neerlandica, 7. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977.140 pp., index
verborum. 40 guilders.
The Cretan branch of the noble Venetian family of Falier had two persons called
Marinos Phalieros who might be identified with the Greek medieval poet and author,
among other works, of the poem edited with commendable accuracy by two distinguished
Dutch scholars.
According to van Gemert's thesis (see also his Marinos Falleros en zijn beide lief des
dromen [Amsterdam, 19731, pp. 125-61), Marin must be identified with the older
Marin Falier, who was born before 1397 and died in 1474, and not with the second
Marin (1470-1528). A section devoted to this identification, which is based upon per
suasive and consistent arguments, precedes the study of the author's other works and the
structure and contents of the Aóyoi бібактікоі, which are the central and most impor
tant subjects of the book.
The analysis of the various components of the ideology of Phalieros' work-the "road
to virtue," the exhortation to àydirn, to be тгратЈс and практисоя, to renounce the world,
etc.-and its position in Greek literature as a didactic poem in comparison with other
medieval texts (like Znavéaç, Georgillas' Ѳаѵатікоѵ, Pikatoros' ?(џа оргіѵптікіі, etc.)
proves careful and exhaustive, especially impressive in view of the extreme rarity of books
as strict as this one in the field of medieval Greek philology, a branch of our science that
needs to be treated with methodological care and with modern standards.
Also very interesting is the chapter on language and style, with its attentive examina
tion of "the KOWI\ of the vulgar post-byzantine literature suffused with an admixture of
elements of the Cretan dialect, quite a few archaisms in most cases derived from the lan
guage of the Church, and some Italianisms" (p. 40). The authors attract attention to a
number of remarkable and unusual traits of the morphology (for example non-inflected
gen. той атюотага, 1. 52, and rov Таркб/о, 1. 123, both Italianisms; gen. sing, прауџа-
rov, L 1, Пѵеѵратоѵ, 1. 2; accentuation àWov, 1. 24, ігаѵтпѵ, 1.18; pleonastic contamina
tion of the two types of comparatives: xepàrepo< 91. 226, etc.) and syntax (future
with vd + subj., L 223; optative with paydpi vd + imperf., 1. 245; temporal clause denot-
ed by то + aor. inf., 1. 90, etc.). There are noteworthy Italianisms (кортетСгіѵ = "condi
tion", yovvéXa, bi\vèpij ксфаХарСа, nairerdvioq, oo\6¿, \раџеуио<;; see also the old Latin-
isms: Kdorpo, oayiTTuL, oitin, orpdra, yovodro) and Cretan dialectisms (loss of the ч-
after о and p/\, metathesis of p, epenthesis of the intersonantic -y- in the verbal suffix
-€&*>, etc.).
The principles of the ecdotic are well-balanced. The editors have introduced correc
tions only where the Codex unicus Vallicellianus 39 (C 46) shows lacunas or mistakes
affecting the purport of the text, the syntax (with great attention to Phalieros' use of
language and style as knownfromhis other works) and the metre. The apparatus criticus
is negative and includes neither orthographic blunders nor errors made by the previous
editor G. Th. Zoras (see Kp. Xp., II [19481, 213-34); however many of the latter's cor
rections have been introduced together with some of the readings of the Лоуоібібак
TiKoL of Markos Depharanas (a medieval collection of advices that includes all of Phalie
ros' verses). From Depharanas' work in particular is added also (very arbitrarily, in my
opinion) the title of the Greek text Myoi б іб актисоі rov тгатрос irpò сто v vló v before
the manuscript title Ћо1цџа rov evyeveordrov џиоер Март} фаКіероѵ.
The book-unfortunately devoid of an English translation-is supplied with an up-to-
date commentary and an index verborum; the latter includes all words occurring in the
text with the meanings of the rather unknown or unusual ones.
Roberto Romano Università delk Calabria

XploTOV Ѳ. Kptx<¿»*3- ETNATfirH ПАГЕРШЧ EIS TO КАГА AOTKAN ЕТАГГЕ-

AION, Ш NIKHTA НРАКЛЕІА2, ката тбѵ коббіха IBHPÍÍN 371. Thessaloniki:
Кёѵтроѵ BvÇaımvLjv *Epevvc¿v, 1973, 530 pp.
This book was written with the lay scholar in mind. It is written in a simple idiom
though complex style, and deals with one of the most difficult and confusing writers of
the lato Byzantine period. The author indicates that the commentary on Luke by Nikitas,
Metropolitan Bishop of Herakleia in the eleventh century, is the most important of the
many commentaries that he wrote. It is a fascinating compilation which can be found in
Codex 371 at the Monastery of Iviron on Mt. Athos. It wasfirstpublished in the seven
teenth century in a Latin translation by the Jesuit, B. Corderius, which is found in vol
ume nine of A. Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio. Though it has not fared well in
the history of exegesis in the past, the Compilation of the Fathers according to the Gos
pel of Samt Luke deserves more careful study, if for no other reason than its consider
able references to the historical writers of the early Christian Church in the East.
Professor Krikonis' book is an exegetical rather than an historical or mystical study.
Thus the author follows a well known pattern in presenting the theme of Nikitas. He
seems to be conscious of the difficulties encountered by Sickenburger and Karo-Lietz-
mann in attempting to deal with the inner content of the Iviron Codex 371. From Greg
ory of Nyssa to Photios, one hardlyfindsa writer who has attempted to analyze and pre
sent satisfactorily the inner content of the Gospel of Luke which Nikitas does so well.
Professor Krikonis is meticulous and concise. He has studied all of the previous scholars
of Nikitas and shows where they fell short in analyzing his manuscript.
The book falls into two parts, hi the first the author discusses, as one would expect,
the purpose of his study, authorship, canon, codex, etc. He also introduces ways in
which attempts have been made to interpret the manuscript. He then proceeds to the
second part, the commentary proper.
Though this work was intended for scholars, it undoubtedly would have beenricher
had the author included in his research and bibliography the works of ancient exegetes
of the Western Church. Every attempt at such a commentary, even if aimed at a particu
lar group, ought to take into serious consideration ancient and medieval writings of every
persuasion, which Professor Krikonis fails to do. But as he states, his main concern was
to uncover discrepancies found in the original publication, which, as the reader discovers
in the second part, amount to about 2,500 unexamined mistakes. Although the author
attempts to show that Sickenburger, Devreesse and Mai did not adequately compare the
Iviron Codex 371 with that of the Vatican Codex 1611, he does not demonstrate where
his colleagues fell short of the mark.
Nevertheless, this reviewer congratulates the author because his is the best attempt to
date to analyze this often elusive and deceptive writing. One of the most fruitful aspects
of the deepening ecumenical encounter characteristic of contemporary Christianity is the
renewed interest in this kind of research. Together with the remarkable developments in
Biblical research, this turn to the sources of Christian faith, the fathers and the councils
of undivided Christendom, augurs well for disciplined and informed conversation among
scholars. At this time when the understanding of "tradition" and its relation to the early
writings occupies the serious attention of Roman, Protestant, and Orthodox theologians
and historians, Professor Krikonis' compilation and fresh approach to scholarship is sure
to contribute importantly to a broadened appreciation of those who helped to formulate
the apologetic and patristic structure of Christian faith. This patristic anthology will
take its place as a classic source book, providing insight into the formative period of later
Byzantine thought and institutions.
Miltiades B* Efthimiou Avis Research Center

Stylianos Pelekanides and Panayiota I. Atzaka. ^ѵѵтауца т(Ьѵ ПаХаиохРютіаѵікСэѵ

tyrwi6wTU)v dairéôojv rf?ç 'ЕЛЛабос, I. NTjatamKrJ Е\Ыс. Thessaloniki: Кёѵтроѵ
BvÇavTivtbv Ереѵѵпѵ, 1974. 188 pp. 7 maps, 14 dwgs., 141 black and white plates.
This is the first of two publications on Greek mosaic pavements dated between the
fourth and seventh centuries. It and the forthcoming volume on the mosaics of continen
tal Greece will provide valuable material for scholars of early Christian and early Byzan
tine art, more perhaps than the previously published catalogues for France, Italy, Switzer
land, Lebanon, Germany, and Tunisia, which all contain descriptive material largely from
earlier periods.
The catalogue includes over two hundred and fifty published and unpublished mo
saics from twenty-seven islands. It represents an enormous effort because many of the
pavements were never properly recorded or photographed and archaeological data was
wanting. Still, despite this paucity of documentation-a problem belabored by Professor
Pelekanides in the introduction this volume could have been better. It is disappointing
because it lacks an introductory essay on the stylistic, iconographie and chronological
development of the floor mosaics, and because it reflects antiquated procedures and
methods for recording and describing them. As a result, its usefulness as a research tool
is severely limited.
Instead of an analysis of the material from the Islands, which after all is the subject
of the book, the introduction presents some "General Observations" on the figurai, flor
al and geometric pavements throughout Greece. Although this summary of the material
may be worthwhile, it should have come in the second volume so that the reader could
have available a complete photographic documentation of the material under discussion.
As it is, the introduction is not useful except to the few specialists who are already fa
miliar with the pavements on the Greek mainland. Moreover, as a result of the too gener
al nature of the survey, no clear picture emerges of the growth and development of the
pavements on the Islands. This is rather disheartening because the material is very impor
tant and, from many points of view, quite different from the pavements elsewhere in
Greece and throughout the Greek East.
More successful is the inventory of the mosaics which reports the location and condi
tion of the pavements and provides detailed descriptions and photographs, whenever
possible, of the borders and fields as well as transcriptions and emendations of the in
scriptions. But because entry numbers are given to the buildings only, not to the pave
ments, it is often difficult to find the description of a particular pavement and the prob
lem is compounded by the absence of catalogue numbers on the photographic plates.
Missing, also, are detailed color notes and technical information on the fabric and dimen
sions of the tesserae and the foundations. Moreover, there are few ground plans with the
mosaics drawn in and no archaeological data or stylistic criteria are adduced to validate
the datings proposed. These are lacunae which substantially diminish the value of the in
ventory. The fault is all the more regrettable since recent mosaic corpora for Italy and
Tunisia provide models for more modern methods of recording and describing the pave
ments and then architectural contexts. Still, although important documentation for the
pavements is missing, even where it was possible to supply it, the catalogue remains a
useful tool if for no other reason than that it brings together for the first time material
from widely scattered sources. For this alone, we remain grateful to the authors.
Marie Spiro University of Maryland

PROFESSIONAL NEWS/NOUVELLES DE LA PROFESSION
GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS
The Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies offers annually a limited number of
Visiting and Junior Fellowships to qualified scholars and students of Byzantine and re-
lated fields of history, archeology, history of art, philology, theology, and other disci-
plines. Additional information and applications may be requested from the Director of
Studies, The Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1703 Thirty-second Street,
Washington, DC 20007.
The Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at the University of California, Los
Angeles, makes available annually several research assistantships designated for the field
of Byzantine studies. For further information and application forms, write to the Direc-
tor, Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, University of California, Los Angeles,
CA 90025.
RECENT CONVENTIONS
[Editor's Note; The following communication was submitted by David H. Wright of the
University of California, Berkeley.]
An informal working session on "Byzantine Art and the West" was organized for the
annual meeting of the College Art Association in Los Angeles on 4 February 1977, by
Ioli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner (University of California, Los Angeles) and David H. Wright
(University of California, Berkeley). There were six short papers, each followed by ex-
tensive discussion: M. F. Hearn (University of'Pittsburgh), "The Influence of Byzantine
Relief Icons on the Revival of Monumental Stone Sculpture in the West"; Ioli Kalavre-
zou-Maxeiner (University of California, Los Angeles), "Two Unusual Byzantine Steat-
ites"; Ljubica D. Popovich (Vanderbilt University), "Serbian Frescoes and Western Influ-
ences"; Jean Owens Schaefer (Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies), "Two
Issues in the Figure Style in an Manuscript from Norman Sicily"; Anthony Melnikas
(Ohio State University), "The Illuminated Bibles of Italo-Byzantine Style in the Late
Thirteenth Century"; and David H. Wright, (University of California, Berkeley) "The
Three Painters at San Pietro in Otranto." At the end of the session, A. Dean McKenzie
(University of Oregon) showed slides of some recently discovered twelfth-century fres-
coes for an open discussion of their date and significance.
The session was remarkably popular, with as many as seventy people in a standing-
room-only crowd. The active aprticipants in the very lively discussion exploring the im-
plications of the topics presented were mostly specialists in Byzantine or Western medie-
val art, but the audience included a number of specialists in other periods who came
looking for new material for their general teaching. Several of these made a point of
praising this kind of informal session as being more helpful and stimulating than the
usual pattern of prepared papers and prepared comments. The success of this session de-
monstrated a wide awareness of the importance of Byzantine art for the whole history of
European art.
FORTHCOMING CONFERENCES
The Fourth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference will be held at the University of
Michigan in Ann Arbor, 3-5 November 1978. The Conference will provide a forum for
the presentation and discussion of research papers in all areas of Byzantine studies. The
program and local arrangements are under the direction of Professor John Fine, Depart-
ment of History, University of Michigan.
The Fifth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference will be held tentatively 19-21 Octo-
ber 1979 at the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies in Washington, DC. In-
formation on local arrangements and the program will be made available at a later date.
The University of Birmingham has announced that its Twelfth Spring Symposium
will have as its theme "The Byzantine Black Sea." The symposium will meet 18-21
March 1978. The Symposium directors are Anthony Bryer, Odysseus Lampsides, and
Dimitri Obolen sky.
The Second Conference on Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies will meet 31 March-
2 April, 1978, at Ladydiff College, Highland Falls, NY. All correspondence should be
directed to Professor Anthony R. Santoro at Ladydiff College. The 1979 meeting will
take place at Rutgers University.
BOOKS RECEIVED/LIVRES REÇUS
Beyer, Hans-Veit, Nikephorus Gregoras Antirrhetika I. Einleitung, Textausgabe, Über

setzung und Anmerkungen. Wiener Byzantinistische Studien Band XII. Wien: Verlag
der Österreichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976. 493 pp. DM 130.
Cutler, Anthony. Transfigurations: Studies in the Dynamics of Byzantine Iconography.
University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976. xviii + 159
pp. 107 black-and-white illustrations. $22.50
Dem us, Otto. Byzantine Mosaic Decoration. Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium.
New Rochelle, N.Y.: Caratzas Brothers, Publishers, 1976, rpt. of 1948 original edi
tion. xiv + 97 pp. 64 black-and-white plates. $17.50.
Dumbarton Oaks Bibliographies Based on Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Series I: Literature
on Byzantine Art, 1892-1967. Vol. II: By Categories. Edited by Jelisaveta S. Allen,
London: Mansell, 1976. xvii + 586 pp.
Flavius Cresconius Corippus. In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris. Libri IV. Edited and
translated by Averii Cameron. London: University of London, The Athlone Press,
1976. x + 224 pp. 1 map, 1 plan, and 18 plates. $29.25.
Geanakoplos, Deno J. Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in
Middle Ages and Renaissance. Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History, rpt.
1966. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1976. xii + 206 pp. 30 plates, 3 maps, and 4
illustrations. $10.00
Geanakoplos, Deno John. Interaction of the "SibUng" Byzantine and Western Cultures
in the Middle Ages and Italian Renahsance (330-1600). New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1976. xxii+416 pp. 5 maps, 18 black-and-white plates. $27.50.
Grabar, André. Sculptures byzantines du moyen âge. II: (XIe-XIVe siècle). Bibliothèque
des Cahiers Archéologiques, XII. Paris: Editions A. et J. Picard, 1976. xii + 168 pp.
144 black-and-white plates.
Guilland, Rodolphe. Titres et fonctions de l'Empire byzantin. London: Variorum Re
prints, 1976. 528 pp. £18,00.
Head, Constance. Imperial Twilight: The Palaiologos Dynasty and the Decline of Byzan
tium. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1977. viii + 210 pp. 12 plates. $11.00.
Hunger, Herbert, editor. Tabula Imperii Byzantini, Band I: Johannes Koder, Friedrich
Held. HeUas und Thessalw; Beiheft zu Band I: Fritz Kelnhofer. Die Topographische
Bezugsgrundlage der Tabula Imperii Byzantini Men: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976. 316 + 43 pp. 2 maps + 12 tables and 16 illustra
tions. DM 130.00
Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Edited
by Herbert Hunger and Otto Kreşten. Teil 3/1: Codices Theologia 1-100. Museion,
Veröffentlichungen der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Neue Folge. Wien: In
Kommission bei Verlag Brüder Hollinek, 1976. xviii + 219 pp.
Kreşten, Otto. Eine Sammlung von Konzilsakten aus dem Besitze des Kardinals Isidoros
von Kiev, österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische
Klasse Denkschriften, 123. Band. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1976. 126 pp. 12 plates and 6 illustrations. DM 75.
Mathews, Thomas F. The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey. Uni
versity Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976. xx + 405 pp.
Maps, plans, drawings, and 653 black-and-white illustrations. $50.00.
Pelekanidis, Stylianos, and Panayota I. Atzaka, Еѵѵтауца тСзѵ іга\аіл>хріотішпк<аѵ
фгіфібіотыѵ баттеби>ѵ тт?С ЕХХ<ібос. I. NrjaiamKT} EX\aç, BvÇavrwà virarla 1.
Тпеььаюпікі: Кеѵтроѵ BvÇavrwûv Ep€Wúv, 1974. xi + 188 pp. 7 maps, 14 drawings,
and 141 black-and-white plates.
Proclus. Théologie platonicienne. Edited and translated by H. D. Saffrey and L. G. West-

erink. 2 vols. Paris: Société d'Edition 'Les Belles Lettres.' 1968-1974. cxcv + 1 7 3 ,
and xciii + 144 pp.
Restle, Marceli. Istanbul, Bursa, Edirne, iznik, Baudenkmäler und Museen Reclams
Kunstfuhrer. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam Jun, 1976. 632 pp. 184 plates, plans and il-
lustrations. DM 42.80.
Simon, Dieter, editor. Fontes Minores I. Forschungen zur Byzantinischen Rechtsge-
schichte. Band I. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1976-. xi + 196 pp. DM
68.50.
Strunk, Oliver. Essays on Music in the Byzantine World. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 1977.
Vokotopoulos, Panagiotos L. * H еккХгіоіаатікгі архстектснчктЈ eiç тг\ѵ оѵтікгіѵ Итереаѵ
Е \ \ а б а каі тг\ѵ \\\€фОР ano тоѵ те\оѵс rov lov дехРі тоѵ réXovç тоѵ Юоѵ аі&оя.
BvÇavrwà џрг\џе~а 2. Кеѵтроѵ BvÇaımv&v Epevp&v, 1975. xxii + 231 pp. 37 plans
elevations, and 59 plates. 350 pp. $22.95.
Von Grunebaum, Gustave E. Islam and Medieval Hellenism: Social and Cultural Perspec
tives. With a Preface by Speros Vryonis, Jr. London: Variorum Reprints, 1976. 420
pp. £14.50.
INDEX TO VOLUME 3/INDEX DU VOLUME 3
ARTICLES
Annemarie Weyl Carr, "Chicago 2400 and the Byzantine Acts Cycle" 2: 1
Jeremy Cohen, "Roman Imperial Policy toward the Jews from Constantinople
until the End of the Palestinian Patriarchate (ca. 429)" 1: 1
Charles A. Frazee, "Church and State in the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia,
1198-1375" 2: 30
Leighton R. Scott, "Aspar and the Burden of Barbarian Heritage" 2: 59
Norman Tobias, "Basil I and Byzantine Strategy" 1:
NOTES
William N. Bayless, "Anti-Germanism in the Age of Stilicho" 2: 70

Christopher J. С Turner, "An Anomalous Episode in Relations between
Scholarius and Plethon" 1:
Michael J. Kyriakis, translator and editor, "Medieval European Society As Seen

in Two Eleventh-Century Texts of Michael Psellos" 2: 77
Anastasius C. Bandy, "Addenda et Corrigenda to M. Carpenter, Kontakia

of Romanos: Byzantine Melodist, Vol. I (Part 2)" 1:
Michael Angold. A Byzantine Government in Exile: Government and

Society under the Lascarías and Nicaea, 1204-1261 (Angeliki E. Laiou) . . . . 1:
Robert Browning. Byzantium and Bulgaria: A Comparative Study across
the Early Medieval Frontier (John V. A. Fine, Jr.) 1:
Byzantine Books and Bookmen: A Dumbarton Oads Colloquium (Annemarie
Weyl Carr) 2:101
Byzantino-Sicula II. Miscellanea di scritti in memoria di Guiseppe Rossi
Taibbi (Adriana Pignani) 1:
Dictionary Catalog of the Byzantine Collection of the Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library, Harvard University (George P. Maj eska) 2:114
W. H. С. Frend. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the
History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (David B. Evans) . . . . 1 :
Tomas Hägg. Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur. Untersuchungen zur
Teknik des Referierens und Exzerpierens in der Bibliotheke (Elizabeth A.
Fisher) 2:102
Wolfram Hörandner. Theodoros Pródromos. Historische Gedichte (Michael
J. Kyriakis) 1:
David Jacoby. Société et démographie à Byzance et en Roumanie latine
(Angehki E. Laiou) 2:113
по BYZANTINE STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES
Ernst Kitzinger. The Art of Byzantium and the Medieval West: Selected
Studies (Daivd H. Wright) 2:104
John T. A. Koumoulides and Christopher Walter. Byzantine and Post-
Byzantine Monuments at Aghia in Thessaly, Greece: The Art and
Architecture of the Monastery of Saint Panteleimon (John E. Rexine) 2:105
Riccardo Maisano. L'apocalisse apocrifa di Leone di Costantinopoli
(George T. Dennis, SJ.) 2:115
Chrysanthis Mauropoulou-Tsioumi, Oi тоіхоурафіес rov 13 0ü aìCòva arqv
KovßireXiouci TTJÇ Kaaropıâç (John J. Yiannias) 1:
John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes
(Demetrios J. Constantelos) 1:
Ihor Ševčenko. "Ljubomudrejskq Kyr" Agapit Diakon: On a Kiev Edition of
a Byzantine Mirror ofPrinces (George P. Maj eska) 2:115
Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice. Edited by Giles Robertson and
George Henderson (Robin Cormack) 2:106
Demetrios G. Tsamis. H nporoXoyia rov ßeydXov BaaiXeíov (Frank E. Wozniak). 1:
Demetrios G. Tsamis, editor. AaßtS Ашѵтгатоѵ, Абуоъ ката ВарХааџ каі КкшЬ\!>ѵоѵ
ırpoç HucóXaov KaßdovXav, Bvţavrivâ Кеціеѵа каі MeXérai
(John P. Cavarnos) 2:106
Constantine N. Tsirpanlis. Mark Eugenious and the Council of
Florence: A Historical Re-Evaluation of His Personality (Joseph Gül, S.J.). . .2:108
Kurt Weitzmann. The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. The
Icons. Vol. I: From the Sixth to the Tenth Century (Anthony Cutler) 2:109
Denis A. Zaky thinos. Le Despoiat grec de Morée: Histoire politique.
Additions and ocrrections by Chryssa A Maltézou;
Denis A. Zakythinos. Le Despoiat grec de Morée: Vie et institutions.
Additions bibliographiques by Chryssa A. Maltézou (Timothy S. Miller) . . . . 2:111
BYZANTINE STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES
Subscription rates: Institutions—$20.00

Faculty-$ 15.00
Students-$ 12.00
RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PUBLICATIONS
CANADIAN-AMERICAN SLAVIC STUDIES-Fo/ume 11 (quar-

terly)
RUSSIAN HISTORY- Volume 4 (semi-annual)
SOVIET UNION-Kofome 4 (semi-annual)
EAST CENTRAL EUROPE-Fo/wme 4 (semi-annual)
SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE-Kofwme 4 (semi-annual)
BYZANTINE STUDIES-Fofome 4 (semi-annual)
SUBSCRIPTION RATES 1977
Ordering: INSTITUTIONS FACULTY STUDENTS

One Journal Only $20.00 $15.00 $12.00
Any Two Journals $34.00 $28.00 $23.00
Any Three Journals $48.00 $39.00 $33.00
Any Four Journals $60.00 $48.00 $42.00
Any Five Journals $70.00 $55.00 $50.00
Any Six Journals $78.00 $60.00 $57.00
*Agents receive a flat 20 percent discount on the single journal price.
BACK ISSUE RATES
(Includes all available issues through Volume 10,

1976 of CANADIAN-AMERICAN SLAVIC STUDIES, and
through Volume 3,1976' of the otherfivejournals)
INSTITUTIONS INDIVIDUALS
Canadian-American Slavic Studies $6.00 $4.00
Any Other Journal $ 11.00 $8.00
Checks should be made payable to Arizona State University.

EDITORIAL BOARD/COMITE DE REDACTION
Editor-in-Chief I Rédacteur-en-chef: CHARLES SCHLACKS, JR.-Arizona

State University
Editor/Rédacteur: WALTER К. HANAK-Department of History, Shepherd
College, Shepherdstown, West Virginia 25443
Book Review Editor/Rédacteur des comptes rendus: DALE KINNEY-De-
partment of History, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
Associate Editors/Rédacteurs adjoints:

ANASTASIOS С. BANDY-University of California, Riverside
JOHN W. BARKER-University of Wisconsin-Madison
ANTHONY A. M. BRYER-The University of Birmingham
ANTONIN DOSTAL-Brown University
IVAN DUJCEV-Sofiiski Universitet "Klimet Okhridski" and Bułgarska
Akademiia na Naukite
DAVID B. EVANS-St. John's University, New York
GEORGE GALAVARIS-McGiU University
ANTONIO GARZYA-Università degli studi di Napoli
ANDRE GUILLOU-L'Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Sixième Section,
Paris
NORMAN W. INGHAM-University of Chicago
DOULA MOURIKI-National Technical University of Athens
NICOLAS OIKONOMIDES-Université de Montréal
MARCELL RESTLE-Universität München
MILOS VELIMIROVIC-University of Virginia
BYZANTINE STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES is published as one volume

with two to four parts annually. Subscription rates are: Institutions-$20.00;
Faculty-$ 15.00; full-time Students-$12.00. Discounts are given if two or
more journals in the Russian and East European Publications series are ordered
(see the inside back cover for titles and rates). Subscriptions should be sent to:
Arizona State University, Russian and East European Publications, 120B
McAllister Street, Tempe, Arizona 85281. Articles submitted for possible
publication should be sent to the Editor; book reviews should be sent to the
Book Review Editor. Contributions will be returned only if accompanied by a
stamped, self addressed envelope. Format should follow the Modern Language
Association Style Sheet.
© 1977, Charles Schlacks, Jr.

and
All Rights Reserved
Published Simultaneously in Canada
Neither the Editor-in-Chief nor the pubUsher accept responsibility for state-
ments or opinions appearing in the journal.
VOL. 4, PART 2 1977
VOL. 4, FASC. 2 1977
t UMS
ЏаиЧт.ЩгаиЬю
UD1ES
ARTICLES
The Oration of Theodore Syncellus (BHG 1058) and the Siege of 860, . . 1 1 1
John Wortley
The Heraclian Land Tax Reform: Objectives and Consequences 127
Danuta Wojnar Górecki
Synesius ofCyrene: A Study of the Role of the Bishop in Temporal
Affairs 147
William N. Bayless
Medieval European Society as Seen in Two Eleventh-Century Texts of
MichaelPsellos(?art HI) 157
Michael J. Kyriakis
NOTE
Mary 's Descent into Hell: A Note on the Psalter Oxford, Christ Church
Arch. W.Gr.61 189
George Galavaris
A Byzantine Diptych 195

Aristeides Papadakis
Die Byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: Chronica Byzantina Breviora. Edited by

Peter Schreiner (Martin Arbagi) 200
Thomas F. Mathews. The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey
(Cyril Mango) 201
Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Number 28 (W. Eugene Kleinbauer) 203
Robert Browning. The Emperor Julian (J. Rufus Fears) 205
The Orthodox Churches and the West. Edited by Derek Baker (Ludvik Nemec) . . . 206
Doukas. Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. Translated by
Harry J. Magoulias (Pierre A. MacKay) 208
Otto Demus. Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in
Byzantium (Jane Timken Matthews) 210
Marceli Restie. Reclams Kunstführer. Istanbul, Bursa-Edirne-Iznik. Baudenk-
mäler und Museen (Howard Crane) 211
Roberta С. Chestnut. Three Monophysite Christologies: Severus ofAntioch,
Philosenus оfMab bug, and Jocob ofSarug (John H. Erickson) 212
Robert F. Taft, S.J. The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and
other Pre-anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Aidan
Kavanagh) 214
Pseudo-Luciano Timarione. Edited by Roberto Romano (Hugh F. Graham) 215
Deno J. Geanakopios. Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom
in Middle Ages and Renaissance. Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History
(Peter Charanis);
Deno J. Gemakoplos. Interaction of the "Sibling" Byzantine and Western Culture
in the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (300-1600) (Peter Charanis) 216
Byzanz. Edited by Franz George Maier (Thomas S. Brown) 218
Walter Puchner. Das neugriechische Schattentheater Karagiozis (Walter M.
Hayes) ; 219
John Meyendorff. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (W. H. С Frend) 220
Constance Head. Imperial Twilight: The Palaiologos Dynasty and the Decline of
Byzantium (Alice-Mary Talbot) 222
Nikephoros Gregoras. Antirhetika I. Edited by Hans-Veit Beyer (Riccardo
Maisano) 223
PROFESSIONAL NEWS/NOUVELLES DE LA PROFESSION 225

BOOKS RECEIVED/LIVRES REÇUS 227
SUMMAR Y/SOMMAIRE i
CONTRIBUTORS/LES AUTEURS ii
CONTRIBUTORS/LES AUTEURS
WILLIAM N. BAYLESS was until recently Assistant Professor of History at Douglass

College of Rutgers University. Recent publications include articles in Bulletin of the
American Society of Papyrologists, American Journal of Philology, and Classical Journal.
GEORGE GALAVARIS is Professor of Art History at McGill University. Recent publica
tions include Themes of East Christian Civilization (Montreal, 1977).
DANUTA WOJNAR GÓRECKI is a librarian at the University of Illinois Law School Li
brary at Urbana-Champaign. Recent publications include: Roman Law: Bibliography on
Books in English (Urbana, 1977) and Bibliography on Byzantine Law (Urbana, 1977).
Current research centers on a study entitled "Slavic or Byzantine?: The Origin and Char
acter of the Byzantine Rural Community."
MICHAEL J. KYRIAKIS is currently revising his doctoral dissertation "Theodore Pro
drome et le mileu intellectual à Constantinople au douzième siècle." Recent publications
incL le articles in Byzantion andByzantina.
ARISTEIDES PAPADAKIS is Associate Professor of History at the University of Mary
land Baltimore County. Recent pubücations include articles in Traditio, Byzantion, Byz-
antinoslavica, and Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. Current research centers on a
study of the Byzantine reaction to the Council of Lyon during the Patriarchate of Gre
gory II of Cyprus (1283-89).
JOHN WORTLEY is the editor oí Mosaic, published by the University of Manitoba. Re
cent publications include articles in Byzantion and Analecta Bollandiana. Current re
search centers on a study of the cult of relics in the Byzantine Empire.
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES, 4, Part 2 (1977), 111-26.
ARTICLES
JOHN WORTLEY (Winnipeg, Canada)
The Oration of Theodore Syncellus

(BHG 1058) and the Siege of 860
The Oration in depositionem pretiosae vestís Deiparae in Biaćharnis

(BHG 1058) often ascribed to one Theodore Syncellus isa document which
presents certain problems of dating and authorship of considerable com
plexity.1 These have attracted a degree of scholarly interest in the past, and
the treatment of them has been partially reviewed in a recent book by Jan
Louis van Dieten who used the document in question as primary evidence
for the patriarchate of Sergius I (610-38), and more specifically for the Siege
of Constantinople in 626. 2 Since there appear to have been some contribu
tions to this matter which were inaccessible to van Dieten (notably by Jugie
and Wenger), the time may not be inopportune for reopening the question,
and for introducing some new considerations which (so far as I am aware)
have not yet been published.
It being the case that BHG 1058 may not be readily accessible in its
entirety to all readers, it may be advisable to begin with a brief discussion
of its contents. It begins thus:
0etd nva каіреуауа μυστήρια Θβοΰ φι\αο&ρσπίας уѵыріората

των ήμβτβρών ού προ πολλών yeyovaow yeveœv ·
έφανβρώ&ησαν бе ταύτα тгікаѵуесюероѵ και έκτυπώτβρον
Xpóvcì) тф καΰ ημάς, ών αύτόπται και ΰβωροί yeyòvapev
απαντβς οοοι ταύτην σχβδον οίκοϋμβν την ΰβοφύλακτον
1. Εις Karddeaw της τίμι,ας έσοήτος της ϋζομήτορος èv Βλαχερ^αις, ed. F. Combe-
fis, in Graecolat. Patrum Bibliothecae Novum Auctarium, 2 vols (Paris: sumptibus
Antonii Bertier, 1648), II, cols. 751-86. (N.B., the twenty-third and twenty-fourth
columns of the text were incorrectly numbered; they should read 773 and 774). All
references are to this, the only complete edition, with corrected pagination. BHG=
Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, ed. F. Halkin, 3rd ed., 3 vols. (Bruxelles: Société des
Bollandists, 1957).
2. J.-L. van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios /. bis Johannes VI. (6ΙΟ
Ί15), Geschichte der griechisten Patriarchen von Konstantinopel, Teil 4, Enzykolpädie
der Byzantinistik . . . Band 24 (Amsterdam: Verlag Adolf M. Hakkert, 1972), pp. 16 ff.,
and especially n. 54.
112 ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES
μεχαλόπολιρ. ταύτα δε oiyr¡ καλυφϋήνει ούχ οσων ού yap

ΰέμις τά ûéia μυστήρια λή&ης βυ&οίς (η/γκαλύπτεσ&αι ·
διό κα&όσον ο]όν те έ'στιν περί των οϋτω πως φαωερω&έντων
μυστηρίων, ειπείν πεφάσομαι?
The writer then goes into a conventional deprecation of his abilities as

an orator and a rather beautiful prayer to the Holy Mother for her assistance.
Blachernae is then exalted above all the other shrines of the Virgin, and this
leads him into the story of how the holy robe came to be there, a re-telling
of the Legend of Galbius and Candidus, and of how by a pious larceny,
they were able to get their hands on the rehc and to bring it to Constantin
ople in the time of the Emperor Leo I and Verían, who jointly built the
σορός at Blachernae to house it. 4 Then comes a "bridge passage'* leading
into the second part of the oration: Καί ταύτα μεν άπερ ή Θεοτόκος èv
Βλαχέρναις έ&ησαύρισεν τή πόλει μυστήρια-Φα δε ânep èv тф καυ ημάς
χρόνω yeyóvaaiv ων αύτόπται και ΰεωροί καΰεστήίαμεν απόντες, ёѵбеѵ
¿ρώ·5 Unfortunately he does not do what he says he is going to do. The
events in question are so well remembered by almost all his auditors that he
can quite safely leave most of the story untold. Indeed at one point, having
told how the barbarian chieftain sought an interview with the emperor, he
breaks off in a most tantalising way and says: та бе έξης· ётерш ßißvot
φερέτωσαν · έπ άλλο yap ανω&εν ò λόγος τήν όρμήν έπονήσατο^ The object
of the Oration is to praise the Robe of the Virgin, and no more of the story
will be told than is absolutely necessary to achieve that object. Consequently
what we have is a series of reflections upon a certain situation without having
more than a very shadowy idea of what the situation is. What little we can
gather of it can be separated into two parts.
Everything was at peace when, not many years ago, a most terrible attack
was launched against Constantinople by an unidentified and terrible foe.
ore Toùvw αρχάς είχεν ёті ή της φοβέρας εκείνης каі φ&οροποιού νόσου
άνάβασις, καί τις παρασκευή άναορωπίνως ειπείν ούκ ήλπίξετο- απάντα
δε τά προ τείχους δωύντες κατέτρεχον ci πολέμωι, ιερά τε καί èrepa,7
it was thought a wise move to anticipate the greed of the enemy by removing
all the valuable gold- and silver-work which decorated the Blachernae Church.
3. Combefis, col, 751 A-B.

4. Ibid., cols. 757A-773B.
5. Ibid., col. 774B.
6. Ibid., col. 774D. The object of the oration is not to record history, but .rather
επαξίως ϋμν€Ϊν τά σά μυστήρια, ibid., col. 753A.
7. Ibid., col. 775B; cf. col. 774E:tfreτοίνυν ¿¿navra τά itépiA του ά'στβος ó βροϋχος
екеіѵоя èneX&ibv έλυμήνατο....
THE ORATION OF THEODORE SYNCELLUS (BHG 1958) 113
The workmen charged with this task appear to have gone about it with con
siderable enthusiasm, even to such an extent that they broke into the holy
σορός where they found a piece of imperial purple fabric within a casket.8
Thinking this to be the actual robe of the Virgin, they brought it to the
patriarch who (at the bidding of the emperor) sealed it in the treasury of the
Great Church. Here ends the first part of the story; the preacher passes on
very quickly to the second part with a few brief words to indicate the passage
of time and events: ore бе λοιπόν την ùneXûoooav ëXvoev χάλαξαν, аѵатеі-
λας ήμν της του Θεού φιλανφρωπίας ò ήλιος,9 then patriarch and emperor
conjointly appointed a high festival for the solemn replacement of the relic.
All night long it lay at Saint Lawrence's Church, then in the morning an
impressive procession brought it back to Blachemae amidst scenes of wild
popular devotion.10 Within the sanctuary the patriarch opened the casket
and found that the purple fabric had crumbled away to dust revealing within
that which was taken to be the true robe, for it was undammaged by time
or decay. The patriarch fearfully took the relic in his hands and elevated it
in the sight of the people for a space of time, after which he replaced it,
concluding the solemnities with the Divine Liturgy and general commun
ion.1 1
8. Ibid., c o l 775E: οροϋσι бе βασιλικής аХоѵруібос μέρος ελάχιστον, îfarep τής

Οβοτόμισαν eîvai то πβρφόλαιον.
9. Ibid., col. 778 A-B. One has to ask though, the passage of how much time? It
might be implied that there elapsed some considerable time (even some centuries)
between the finding and the restoration of the robe, in view of the fact that the imperial
purple fabric in which it was wrapped at the first opening of the σορός (ibid., col.
775E) was found to have crumbled away in decay at the second opening ( ή μέν yap
â\ovpyk βασιλική όλη бі€р №п каХ ё'ф&арто, ibid., col. 779D). However, the way the
text passes from invention to restoration with scarcely a pause would seem to suggest
a close relationship in time, and both would seem to be intended when we read of
those happenings ών αύτόπται και Οβωποι yeyfoaiuv ά'παντβς {ibid., coL 75ΙΑ), ών
αοτόπται και &€ωροί κα&βστήκαμςν Ηπαντβς {ibid., col. 773B and cf. col. 783A). The
full force of аѴартес must be allowed; it is not merely a question of some of us/you,
or even of most of us/you, but of all, signifying that neither event could have taken
place long enough ago for a new generation to have grown up which was ignorant of
either. Nor need the decay of the purple fabric argue a separation in time of more than
a few weeks between the two events. Archeologists know only too well how artifacts,
especially textiles, can survive the centuries in sealed chambers, only to perish rapidly
on exposure to the air.
10. It is clear from some of the phrases used that there was a very large popular
participation indeed in this event, e.g.: . . *. ώς каі κίνδυνον, òXiyov беіѵ έλπισ&ήναι
έκ του συνω&ισμοϋ της συνδραμούσης πληούος (ibid., col. 778Ε). ò yàp λαός ούκ èv~
ебібоѵ προστρέχων каі συνεχών, και σπάσαι &4λων έκ του μυστηρίου àyιx σμòv, €ύχ-
ερή τ φ Ιεραρχεί τήνδίοδον (ibid., col. 779A).
11. τούτων бе οίίτως τ€Τ€λβσμένων, ή navUpoç λοιπόν yéyovev σύναξις, των те
ôeluov λοηίων συνήοης άνάηνωσις, και της πανι4ρου μυστayωy ς ή Ocia άνάρ &ησις ·
προϋέντος πάλιν του ιΜραρχου èv τ φ παν^^€στάτω της σορού δυσιαστηρι'ω S αυτός
έκαινούργησςν те και κα&τγγ(ασ€ν, τα πανόηια re και οωοποιά της αναίμακτου ουσίας
Such in brief is what the preacher has to say, and interesting though it
undoubtedly is from many points of view, inevitably one is far more inter
ested in what he does not say. The return of the relic to Blachernae was a
tremendous occasion, redolent of high drama and great emotion which comes
through very clearly in the description. It is very clear that this is far more
than the restoration of war damage or the return of an evacuee. It is dif
ficult to read the account without feeling that here we are talking about the
triumphal procession of a great champion, and the awesome devotion to
something which had proved itself to be mighty in deed.12 So far as I am
aware, all the scholars who have dealt with this matter have assumed this to
be the case, and it is difficult to imagine how one could think otherwise.
Either the relic had delivered, or was thought to have delivered, the City from
that dreadful visitation when τις παρασκβνη άν&ρωπίνως einew ούκ ήλπί-
ξ€ΤΟ^
Such being the case, almost unbidden the questions arise: Which enemy?
What date?—and so forth. The first attempt to answer these questions was
made in 1895 by the Russian scholar Chr. Loparev who published a portion
of BHG 1058 together with some old Russian versions of it. 14 In his intro
duction Loparev gave the opinion that the siege in question was none other
than the celebrated Russian attack on Tsargrad in 860, thus the patriarch
in question must be Photius. Moreover since the preacher says that nearly
all his audience remembers the events in question15 and later mentions
the emperors in the plural,16 this oration must have been intended for
delivery in either 866 or 867 during the brief period when Michael III and
μυστήρια ων αυτουργός ката то ueïov -γενόμενος \oyiov, μεταλαβών те τούτων каі

Ηπασιν μεταδους, ε'τι re την είρήνων τω λαφ έπευξάμενος, άπελυσεν απαντάς . . .
{ibid., col. 782D-E).
12. It is indeed never specifically stated that the relic had saved the City, but it
might well be implied at the end of the narration of description of how the restora
tion festival was organized: ó Ιεράρχης τ(μκ>ς · · · μεΰ' ύφηλοϋ аѵукаКегтаі κηρύγματος
tínaoav των αρχιερέων τήν σύνοδον, κλήρόν, ο'σος èv άνδράσι, και Ησος èv yvvai&v
ΰσος èv τέλει, και Ηαος èv άξιώμασιν, κάί ο'σος èv ϊδιωτικφ βιοτεύει τφ σχήματι бейте
λεύγων, ϊδετε ίερεϊς και λαοί, τα μεγαλεία Χριστού Θεού ημών δ eure, ΰησαυρον τον
%ως νυν κεκρυμμένον ϋεάσασδαι- δεύτε προσκυνήσατε δώρον πανώγνον, ο'περ f¡ &εοτό-
,κος είς σωτηρίαν τη πόλειδέδωκεν. {Ibid,, col. 778B-C).
13. Ibid., col. 775B.
14. КН. Loparev, "Старое сеидътельстео о Положениу ризы Богородицы еъ
Влахернахъ ноеомъ истолковании примънительно къ нашествию Русскихъ на
Византию еъ 860 году," Византийский вземенник, 2(1895), 581-628.
15. The point is frequently made that the audience saw the events to which the
preacher is alluding, e.g.: ούτος ϋμϊν d των οείων μυστηρίων, ώ αύτόπται και αυτή κ οοι,
ò της έμής πενιχράς λ&γος δυνάμεως (Combefïs, II, col. 783A).
16. rotę πιστοϊς βασίλεΰσιν ημών, ε^ηνικον παράσχου και πολυχρόνιον το βασίλειον
{ibid., col. 783E). I suppose it is just conceivable that in the following phrase there is
a play on the name of the Patriarch:τον Ησιον Ιεράρχην èm βίου φωτίξοντα τον Xaòv
δ ιαφύλαξον.
Basil shared the purple, presumably on the 2nd of July of one of those years.
This is a very tempting explanation, especially in view of Photius' explicit
statement: "Immediately as the Virgin's Robe went round the walls, the
Barbarians gave up the siege and broke camp."17 This is indeed the earliest,
and so far as I am aware, the only occasion on which there is positive evi
dence that people believed the City to have been saved by the Robe, 18
but otherwise the arguments in favour of this dating are rather slight. For
instance the celebrated words τοϊς moroïç βασίΚβύσι ημών could be no more
than a reference to the imperial couple or family as in the Liturgy: bnèp
των βύσββαστάτων к al ϋβοφνΚάκτων βασιλέων ημών....
It is therefore not surprising that the year after Loparev's work appeared
there was some severe criticism of his dating. This came from another Rus
sian, V. G. Vassilievskii,19 who pointed out that in his opinion BHG 1058
must refer to a time when Blachernae was still outside the walls of the city;
otherwise there would have been no danger of its despoliation and no need
to remove the decorations. Since it was not until after the siege of 626
that Blachernae was given its defensive wall,20 626 was selected as the siege
in question. Moreover, a considerable number of manuscripts attribute
BHG 1058 to Theodore Syncellus, and in the Chronicon Paschale there is
17. The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, trans. C. Mango (Cam

bridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958), p. 102: Homily IV; and cf. p. 109= Του
êv ayioiq ημών Φοτίου · · · λόγοι каі όμιλύη &γδροήκοντα треіс, 2 vols. (Constantin
ople, 1900), II, 41-42 and 55-56. See further on this below.
18. There is a story which is found in many places (e.g., the Oration for the Feast
of the Akathist in Combefis, II, col, 807D-E) to the effect that on 7 August 626 the
Patriarch Sergius processed around the City walls not only with the icon mentioned
above, but also with the relic of the true cross and with the Robe of the Virgin. The
story is manifestly untrue, as Heraclius had not yet restored the True Cross to the
Christians. George of Pisidia says nothing of the Robe, and BHG 1061 (see below)
mentions only the icon. There appears to be no pre-860 source for this story. The siege
of Thomas the Slav is also said to have been averted by the Robe. It is said (the story
seems to have originated with Genesius) that having raised his colors on the roof of the
Church at Blachernae, Michael II caused his son (the future Emperor Theophilus) to
process around the walls of the City with a relic of the cross and the Robe (Genesius
39 = Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeco-latina [hereafter PG\, ed. J. P. Migne,
161 vols, in 166 [Paris: Lutetiae, 1857-66], CIX, col. 1037B; cf. Theophanes Contin-
uatus, ed. I. Bekkert, Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae [Bonn: impensis E. Weberi,
1838] , p. 59 = PG, CIX, col. 73A). Considering the resemblances between this story and
the one relating to 626, the religious policy of Michael II, and the fact that Genesius
wrote at the very least seventy years after the event, it seems quite possible that he had
been led astray by more recent events.
19. V. G. Vassilievskii, "Аеары, а не Русские, Оеодоръ, а не Георгий. Замбчания
на статью X. М. Лопарева; " Византийский временник, 3 (1896), 83-95.
20. Sic, Nicephorus, De rebus post Mauricium gestis 21 = PG, C, cols. 905C-908A:
ò бе άρχΐ€ρ€υς της πόλεως συν Κωνσταντίνε τφ ßaoCKel €ύχαρίστηριους λιτάς τφ
Ѳеф прооёфероѵ έν τφ ι>αφ της Θ€θμήτορος τφ èv Βλαχ4ρναις Ιδρυμένω άφικόμβνοι
(και) τβϊχος eòduc δωμησάμβνοι του iepoû èaeivou ναού φρουρών κατέστησαν ·
a mention of one Theodore Syncellus as a participant in the events of 626 ; 21

he is named as one of the four ambassadors who went to meet with the khan
on the 2nd of August of that year. Furthermore (Vassilievskii argued) BHG
1058 must have been completed the final redaction of his chronicle, a work
which contains a verbatim quotation from the Oration.
As far as the question of authorship is concerned, it must be conceded
that Vassilievskii made a telling point, though not necessarily an irrefutable
one. Of the seven known manuscripts which attribute the document to Theo
dore Syncellus, the earliest is dated 1012 A.D.; one is from the fourteenth
century and the rest are later.22 We cannot set aside the possibility of there
having been more than one person named Theodore (not exactly an uncom
mon name) who held the rank of Syncellus,23 nor for that matter the chance
of some enterprising copyist having tried to discover the author of an anon
ymous text with the aid of the Chronicon Paschale.
But to Vassilievskii's two other points we must take exception. In the first
place the text does not say expressly that Blachernae was at that time out
side the city wall; on the contrary, it leaves it open to suppose that it was
already enclosed. The evacuation of the decorations took place when απάντα
бе προ τβιχους биюѵтея Χατέτρεχον ot πολέμια, lepa και ётера-2* If the
rich suburb of Blachernae in its vulnerable position on the Horn were at that
time unprotected, would it not have been one of the first areas to have fallen
to the enemy? The description suggests that the severity of the onslaught was
such that the possibility was arising of having to abandon Blachernae and fall
back upon the older line of defence (the wall of Theolosius II), and that it
was duly being evacuated in case the possibility became a necessity.
Second, as M. Jugie was to point out in 1944 in a work which strongly
favored Loparev's dating,25 the alleged quotation from BHG 1058 by George
the Monk cannot be taken too seriously. George's work is known to be
heavily interpolated, and the fact that Cedrenus omits the passage in ques
tion weighs heavily in favor of its having been introduced by a later hand.
21. Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorff, 2 vols., Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzan-
tinae (Bonn: impensis E. Weberi, 1832), II, 721, 11. 8-10: Θβόδωρος ò Ъеофікеатато*
σ&γκ€λ\ος ]
22. The seven MSS are listed by A, Wenger, L'Assomption de la T. S. Vierge dans
la tradition byzantine du VIe au Xe siècle (Paris, 1955), p. 115: Monacensis graecus
146 (anno 1012)y Vaticanus graecus 820 (eighteenth century), Lavra 455 (seventeenth
century(, Dionysiou 169 (anno 1599), Gregoriou 7 (fifteenth-sixteenth century), Xero
potamou 236 (sixteenth-seventeenth century) and Turin. LXX с, iii, ./^(fourteenth
century).
23. Certainly a Theodore (Santabarenus( is known to have stood high in the favor
of Photius, at least during thefirstpatriarchate.
24. Combefis, II, col. 775B.
25. M. Jugie, La mort et lAssomption delà Sainte Vierge, étudehistorico-doctrinale,
Studi e testi, 114 (Vatican: Biblioteca Vaticana, 1944), p. 704, . 2.
To this could be added that the degree of disparity between alleged source
and supposed plagiarist is so great that the possibility of both having used
a common source must be considered; and since it seems that the comple
tion of George the Monk's work cannot be dated with any greater accuracy
than to the reign of Michael III, there is still the possibility that the final
redaction was not made until after 860.
In 1955 A. Wenger published a work in which he rejected both Loparev's
and Vassilievskii's datings of the siege in question, and advanced in their
place an ingenious hypothesis of his own in favor of the year 619. 26 Vas-
silievskii had already drawn attention to some resemblances between BHG
1058 and a certain anonymous description of the siege of 626, as it is usually
called {BHG 1061)21 On the basis of internal evidence relating to style,
idiosyncracies of expression and so forth, Wenger came to the conclusion that
BHG 1058 and BHG 1061 were not only similar; they were actually written
by the same person, though not in connection with the same set of events.
BHG 1058 he felt could not possibly refer to 626 because it says very clearly
that the emperor was present in the city if not at the very outset, certainly
very early on, throughout, and at the end of the said siege, whereas nobody
is going to question the fact that Heraclius spent the whole of 626 far away
in the east. For this reason, Wenger suggested that the event in question was
seven years earlier, when Heraclius went out of the city to meet with the
khan, ostensibly to talk of peace, but instead nearly fell into a mortal am
bush.
Wenger certainly drew attention to some striking similarities between the
two documents, but one extraordinary difference he overlooked. The writer
of BHG 1058 had a marked penchant for the work πάντως as an emphatic
exclamation. Such use is not of course unknown elsewhere, but here it is
used at least ten tunes in the course of the oration, and this surely is remark
able.28 On the other hand there does not appear to be a single occurrence
of this peculiarity in BHG 1061. It seems at least unlikely that a writer who
used such an expression so freely in one work should be able totally to
supress it in another, and therefore unlikely that both documents are by the
same author. Moreover Wenger's identification of the events of 619 with
those described in BHG 1058 is puzzling; he gives a brief summary of the
events of 5 June which seem to bare very little resemblance to the account
26. Wenger, ch. Ill: "Le vêtement de la Vierge aux Blachernaes; Histoire Littéraire
des sources," pp. 111-39 and 294-310.
27. Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, éd. A. Mai, 10 voh. (Roma: Typis sacri Consilii pro
pagando Christiano nomini, 1852-1905), II, 423-37; abo Analecta A valica, ed. L. Stern-
bach (Krakow, 1900), pp. 298-320.
28. Vide Combefis, II, cols. 754C, D and E; 758E; 759C; 762B; 763E; 770C;782A
and784B(é?íúr/.?).
in the Chronicon Paschale and even less to Bury's rather fuller account.29
What happened that day seems to have been no more than a hasty raid under
pretence of negotiation whilst the emperor was probably on a hunting expedi
tion; it bears little resemblance to the situation implied in the Oration. Nor
is it obvious why Wenger was so disturbed by the absence of Heraclius from
the city in 626. It is very clear that the son of Heraclius, Heraclius-Con-
stantine, was in the city at that time. 30 Born to Eudocia on 3 May 612 and
elevated to the purple on 22 January 613, by 626 he had both the age and
the rank to qualify as the "faithful emperor" of BHG 1058.
However, the most palpable objection to Wenger's hypothesis is this:
if during the year 619 the Robe of the Mother of God had accomplished the
sort of significant victory which would seem to be implied in BHG 1058,
why then was this relic not brought out and used in the much more threaten
ing circumstances of 626? Why was Sergius I content to parade not even with
the ikon of the Saviour άχβφοποίητος (which was with Heraclius at the
front), but with a mere copy of it? 31 A similar objection can then be made
to the 626 dating; if at that time the Virgin's Robe worked a mighty act of
deliverence, why do the contemporary records speak only of the ikon?32
It would appear that the case for an early dating is scarcely proven, whilst
the possibility of a later dating has not been eliminated; we will now proceed
to examine that possibility.
In this century, the leading proponent of a later date has been Martin
Jugie, who fully supported the hypothesis of Loparev. However, it must be
pointed out that one of the most important elements in Jugie's case has
since collapsed. He was convinced that there was no reliable evidence of a
cult of the Robe prior to 860, 33 but since he wrote, Wenger has discovered
29. Wenger, p. 119; cf. Chronicon Paschale 391 ( = PG, XCII, cols. 1000B-1001A);
and J. B. Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395-
800), 2 vols. (London and New York: MacMillan and Co., 1889), II, 222-23.
30. Vide Nicephorus Patriarches ut supra ( . 20); Chronicon Paschale 702-04.
31. Vide van Dieten, Exkurs I: "Welches Bild trug Patriarch Sergios am 29. Juli
626?," pp. 174-78.
32. There appears to be no mention of any relic having been used during the dan
gerous years 674-48, at which time the purely human aid of "Greekfire"seems to have
sufficed. In 718 it was the ikon Hodegetria that put the foe to flight pace Theophanes
{ad AM 6218, "in spite of the Emperor's sins")«
33. Jugie (passim) thought that prior to 860 there was no cult of the robe. See
esp. Excursus B: "Les reliques mariales byzantines," pp. 688-707. He was troubled
however (p. 693, n. 1) by an anonymous Kontakion which he quotes from Friihbyzan
tinische Kirchenpoesie, ed. P. Maas (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber, 1910-), p. 31, in
which the Robe (έσδής) of the Virgin is Praised as the shelter and protection of the
City. Since Pitra and Maas both felt that this poem should be ascribed to the time, if
not actually to the pen, of Romanus the Melode, it seemed to constitute irrefutable
evidence of a very early cult of the robe. In fact this is not the case. The word èoôrjç is
and published a previously unknown primitive version of the Legend of

Galbius and Candidus BHG 1058a which seems to be basic to all the other
versions, and which was certainly in circulation before 860. 34 Therefore,
there must have been a cult of the Robe before 860, and assuming that
BHG 1058 refers to that year, this is what it implies. If there were no pré
existant cult of the Robe, why was there a σορός at Blachernae?35 How did
the workmen who broke into it know, or think they knew, what they had
found there? Also the document puts into the mouth of the patriarch a state
ment which would seem to imply that there was already a feast of the Robe
in existence, to which the annual celebration of the events described in the
Oration were now to be added.36 Therefore it can be said with some cer
tainty that not only was there a cult of the Robe before 860, but it was a
fairly well developed cult with its own shrine, its own feast day, and its
own cult-legend pointing back to the fifth century.
Against this background there are four major elements to be considered,
all of which seem to indicate some dramatic occurrence in connection with
the Robe circa 860. First, with the exception of the primitive form of the
Legend of Galbius and Candidus mentioned above (BHG 1058a)?1 all the
known and dateable references to the Robe of the Virgin are in the works
of writers who could have written (and most of whom certainly did write)
used sometimes to connote the Girdle of the Holy Mother (ζώνη); for an example of
this which is unmistakable, see Memologii Anonymi Byzantini saeculi X quae supersunt,
ed. V. V. Latyshev, 2 vols. (Petropoli, 1911-12), II, 342, 11. 4-12 (for 31 August, the
feast of the Girdle):
Φαιδρά ¡cai πανεύσημος ή καί νυν ήμϊν δ Ι ε'τους έπιστάσα της
imepdywv Οεσποίνης ημών και Θεοτόκου λαμπρά και χαρμόσυνος
έορττ} · τις αυτή; της τίμιας αύτης ή χατά&εσις ζώνης · τοΐ7αρού>
δεύτε, ώ φιλόϋεον α'Φροισμα, φαλμικώς ταύτη και χαρμοσύνως τάς
χείρας έπιχροττ{σωμεν, τη Θεομτ{τορι τα χαρισττ}ρια προσότ/οντες
ασματα πρεπόντως και φιΚντίμως, οτιπερ τ ψ ένατ€·&€ΐμένην αύτη
πόλο» ημών ντο του Θεού και υΐοϋ αύτης ταύτη те καΐτη παντίμψ
ταύτης έσ#ήτιπεριε$*ωσε, περιετείχισε, περιέβαλε και χραταιώς
περιεχαράκωσεν ·
34. See above, n. 26.
35. The disposition of the σορός is described with some accuracy. Those charged
with the salvage work at Blachernae έτόλμησαν δε και της Θείας ефафаодаі ταύτης
σορού · · · ε'σωοεν δε της ορωμένης σορού, ήτις ¿κ χρυσού και ápybρου έχει την ποιη-
σιν, σορός eòpéòm Χιίΰου, στιλβούσης λαμπρότητο irai ταύτης ε'νδον προς тсј> μέρει
τφ κατά Ырктоѵ, ευρεται κείμενος Ô ΰεϊος θησαυρός èv етёрц> μικρψ φυλαττόμενος
(Combefis, II, col 775D). At the restoration of the relic the same disposition is ob
served: τήν &ε(αν έσϋητα à Ιεράρχης ένείΚησεν, каі ката то πρότερον σχήμα èv <¿
υ πηρχεν σορία κατά το άρκτώον μέρος της ά^ίας σορού è vané οετο {ibid., col 782D),
. 3 6 . Thus the patriarch κλειτήν τε αύυήν εορτών έορτηι> ¿όρισε yfaodai ταϊς λοι-
παϊς έτησΙοίΚ ταϊς èv Βλαχερναις ττλβυμεΊ>αις τη Θεοτόκη, εορταΐς τε καί παοηγ
ύρεσιν {ibid., cols. 782Ε-783Α).
37. Wenger, pp. 294-302. He designated this text PVO; it is based on a tenth-cen
tury MS. See ibid., pp. 128 ff.
after 860 and (with the exception of Anna) before 960: George the Monk;
Photius the Patriarch; Joseph the Hymnographer, Joseph Cenesius, the
Scrip tores post Theophanem and the derivatives of the Logothete, not to
mention Nicephorus Presbyter, author of the Vita Sancii Andreae SalO*
Surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that it is more likely that BHG 1058
was in some way directly associated with these many references, rather than
divided from them by 250 years of silence.
Second, comparison of the oldest extant version of the Legend of Galbius
and Candidus pace Wenger (ut supra) with later versions of the Legend
indicates a very marked change of emphasis. In the oldest version, BHG
1058a, the relic is given no particular distinction beyond that which is its
due by association; but in the later versions it has assumed the distinctive
role of guardian or palladium of the Queen of Cities. In one version for in
stance the noble brothers attempt to exculpate themselves of their pious
theft in a prayer to the Virgin herself:
προς yap την την σήν ή ретааеоія, ή πασών των

αλλων εστί βασιλίς και άεί τα σα τψάν έπψελώς έγι>ω*€ · ταύτχκ
δώρον ήμβϊς το ùeiov τούτο διακομισαι wretöopev είς άσφάλβων
каі δόξαν αϋτης μηδέποτ€ σββνννμένην?^
38. Anna Comnena, Alexias, ed. A. Reiff erscheid, 2 vols. (Leipzig: in aedibus B. G.
Teubneri, 1884), VII. 3; Photius, Homily IV; Joseph the Hymnographer Canon IV .
èv катадёоеі της τίμιας έσθήτος τής il7repa7¿ac Θεοτόκου èv Βλαχέρ»αις, PG, CV,
cols. 1003-09; Genesius, p. 39; Theophanes Continuatus 59 and 407, Georgius Mon
achus Continuatus 827, and Symeon Magister 674-75 and 736; Leo Grammaticus 241;
Vita s. Andreae SAIU in Acta Sanctorum Bollandiana, Май, VI 4*-lll*, 3rd ed. 4*
-102* (Paris: V. Palmé, 1863-19-); and PG, CXI, cok. 625-888: cc. 203, 204. Ońe
should also mention the passages in the Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae
which speak of the Robe (principally 793. 5-794. 8, and the very curious one at 348.
45-48, one of many examples of serious confusion of the Magrian relics, here with the
επιλοχία), likewise the reference to the Robe, or rather to краопебоѵ Ы του μαψορίου
τής παναγίας Ѳеотокου which occurs (in connection with the Patriarch Thomas I,
607-10) at с 128 of the Vita s. Theodori Syceotis, BHG 1748, in Vie de Théodore de
Sykéôn, ed. A.-M. J. Festugière, Subsidia Hagiographica, 48, 2 vols. (Bruxelles: Société
des BoUandistes, 1970), I, 103; cf. II, 216-17 and 250. This saint died in 613 and the
Vita is, as usual, allegedly the work of a contemporary. Jugie, who only knew the
Vita in the older edition of T. Ioannou, Μνημάϊ'àyioXoyucd (VEnezia: Twrocç Φοίνικος,
1884), pp. 381-495, refused to allow this to shake his conviction that there were no
references to the Robe prior to 860 on the grounds that the MS tradition of the Vita
would admit of a terminus ante quern no earlier than the twelfth century, whilst the
inclusion of verbatim quotations from the Acta of the Seventh Oecumenical Council
established a terminus post quem of anno 787 (Jugie, p. 693, n. 1). We now know that
the MS tradition in fact goes back to the tenth century (Festugiere, I, xxv), and many
established a terminus post quem of anno 787 (Jugie, p. 693, n. 1). We now know that
the MS tradition in fact goes back to the tenth century (Festugière, I, xxv), and many
would regard this Vita as having originated prior to ca. 650. The reference cited above
has therefore to be either a most extraordinary άίπαξ dating from thé eleventh century,
or an interpolation made after the events described in BHG 1058.
In the version of the Metaphrast the entire causality is attributed to the

Holy Mother:
ή ТЫРѴѴ ύπέραγνος μήτηρ τον peyáXov Ѳеоо και

σωτηρος ημών δησαυρον τήρ ιδίαν έσ&ήτα τηέαντης πόλβι χαρίσασΰαι
βουλομένη διά τώνδ€ των φιλουέων ανδρών ûevorépco vi τρόπφ
yevéoâai τούτο οικονομεί.40
Of Joseph the Hymnographer there have survived two Canons in which

it is perhaps possible actually to detect the shift of emphasis taking place.
One (Canon V) is a hymn to the relic of the Girdle, kept at Chalcoprateia
and feasted on 31st July;41 the other (Canon IV) is in honor of the
Robe. 42 These two hymns have some very striking resemblances to each
other, to the extent that it is tempting to see them as two versions of the
same set of ideas, possibly written before and after Joseph's exile (which
seems to have coincided with Photius' first patriarchate).43 The fifth (and
older?) Canon celebrates the Girdle in terms which show that it was defin
itely regarded as the guardian of the city; it is spoken of as χαραπωμα ταύτης
της πόλεως,44 and in the seventh ode the hymn continues:
Ή πόντων Βασίλισσα προς ουράνιους σκηνός άπαφουσα

καταλέλοιπβν ολβον тђ βασίλίδι πασών τών πόλεων
τψ ταύτης ξωνψ δι ής πβριζώσςταχ
έπώρομής ορατών και αοράτων έχΰρών45
There is of course nothing particularly unusual about this; such language

applied to that particular relic is fairly common. What is unusual, and indeed
very uncommon until the late ninth century, is that in the other Canon (IV),
the same language, in even stronger terms, is applied to the relic of the
Robe, which is now cast for the first time in the role of guardian of the
City:
39. Latyshev, II, 130,11. 26-29.

4 0 . / /., p. 377,11. 17-20.
41. Canon V: nepl της τίμιας £ώι>ης της imepayfaç Φεοτόκου, PG, CV, cols. 1009-17.
42. Ut supra, . 38.
43. Pending the completion of a critical study, it is of course impossible to be certain
that these are genuine works of the Hymnographer, the appearance of 4α>στ}0 in the
acrostich not withstanding. If the Canon on the Robe is genuine, it must have been
written between 867 when he returned from his exile in Chersoń, and the year of his
death, which has been shown by van de Vorst to have been the same year as Photius'
second deposition, 886, vide Analecta Bollandiana, 38 (1920), 148-54.
44. PG, CV, col. 1013A.
45. Ibid., col. 1015B.
Ώς πολύτιμου θησαύρισμα κεκτημένη,

τ) ο è τιμώσα πόλις την έσδήτάσον, Κόρη,
πίοτει κατασμάξεται, και χάριν κομίζεται.46
Likewise:
Ανέδειξας τη ιασών βασιλίδι των πόλεων

ή τεκονσα Βασιλέα των όλων και Κυρών,
афрауёя ως τείχος την σεπτην και áyíav έσ&ήτά σου.4Ί
Robe and Girdle are even mentioned together as co-guardians:
Σύ, Δέσποννα аущ, τοις σοίς δούλοις δεδώρησαι

κραραίωμα την έσϋητα και τιμίαν σου ζώνη, και
ΰεϊον πβριτείχισμα.48
Nevertheless, in its concluding ode the hymn makes it very clear that it is
now the Robe which has primacy of honor for the City:
φαώρον περφόλαΐΌν το σον μαφόρων έδωρήσω και

προτείχισμα τη ое τψώση βασιλίδιτών πόλεων πασών,
ως βασίλισσαν απάντων ποιημάτων τνγχάνονσαν,
Θεοκυητορ μητροπαρΰενε.49
The suspicion begins to arise that the Girdle is being "phased out" as pal
ladium of the city; certainly that appears to be what happened in the end,
as can be very clearly seem by comparing two extant homilies on the Girdle.
The first one, written by the Patriarch Germanus I (715-30), addresses the
relic directly in language of some considerable extravagance, as the two quo
tations following show:
Ώ ζώνη σεπτή, ή την σην πόλιν περι

κύκλωσα καιπεριέπουσα, καιΒαρβαρικής
έπώρομης άνεπιβούλευτον διασώξουσα.50
6. Ibid., col. 1008A.

47. Ibid., col. 1008C.
48. Ibid., col. 1008В.
49. Ibid., col. 1009C.
50. This magnificent homily de zona ißHG 1086; PGy XCVIII, col. 372-84) entirely
lives up to its splendid opening: 0€Οο%ασμένα ¿λαλτ^η nepi σου, ή πόλι,ς του Ѳео£>,
which in the event refers to ή του Κωνσταντίνου πόλι,ς. This quotation is from PG,
XCVIII, col 377B.
Την σην κληρονομίαν, τον σον λαόν, ώ

πανάχραντβ της πανάχραντου ζώνη, ορΰούς
TQ πίστει, σώους τφ κατά @eòv βίμ,
άβλαγβϊς της οίασουν επήρειας διάσωξβ.
Έχοιμέν oe Ισχύν και βοηΰβιαν, τείχος και
προσπύρΎων λψένα καχ καταφνγήν σωτήρων^
The second homily is a much more sober affair; it is the work of Euth-
ymius the Monk, and if he is to be identified as the Patriarch Euthymius
(for which there are some persuasive arguments) it must have been composed
somewhere around 900, within about a decade either way. 52 The extra
ordinary thing about Euthymius' homily is that with only one possible
exception,53 never once does it make the slightest reference to the Girdle
as protector of the city. This is a curious turn of events; one hardly thinks
of the popularity of relics being subject to fads and fashions, and in any
case, cults in general tend rather to expand than to limit their spheres of
influence. But this is not the only-curious feature of the later homily; in it
the relic itself has receded to a very subordinate rôle. The main themes are
the dedication festival of the church (Chalcoprateia) and the nature of Christ.
It is a very far cry from Germanus' direct appeals to the relic as though it
were the Deity. In short, the cult of the Girdle seems to have suffered an
eclipse (from which, so far as I am aware, it never did recover), 5 4 whilst
that of the Robe seems to have become very glorious.
Third, two outstanding emperors, Romanus Lecapenus and Alexius Com-
nenus, neither of them exactly gullible persons, are known to have regarded
the relic of the Robe as something from which a mighty act of deliverence
could be expected, for each of them took it into battle with him. 55 This
seems to indicate two things; first, that at some time prior to the reign of
Romanus the Robe had produced a mighty work (or at least, had been
thought to have done so); second, that far from being consigned to oblivion,
51.'№.,coL377D.
52. Euthymii monachi encomium in venerationem pretiosae zonae sanctissimae Dei-
parae necnon in dedicationem sanctae ipsius capsae in Chalcopratiist ed. M. Jugie, in
Patrologia Orientalis (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907-22), XVI, pt. 2, 504-14, = BHG 1138
("a Euthymio mon.
Patrologia Orientalis (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1907-22), XVI, pt. 2, 504-14, = BHG 1138
("a Euthymio mon. {dein part. CP] ").
53. Jugie,. Patrologia Orientalis, XVI, pt. 2, 512, 1. 23, the text is a little less than
explicit; it is just possible (but by no means necessary) that év τότοις could refer to the
Marian relics just mentioned.
54. Unlike the feast of the Robe, the feast of the Girdle (31 July) has even disappear
ed from some of the modern Greek service books.
55. Theophanes Continuatus 407; Symeon Magister 736; ana Alexias VII. 3.
that mighty act had been widely accepted and its memory perpetuated.
It can hardly be merely coincidental that there have survived two documents
which seem to account each for one of these things, viz, Photius' Fourth
Homily and BHG 1058, the first written in the very year, nay, in the midst
of the very events in question, the other a few years later. The main objec
tion to relating both documents to the events of 860 is fairly obvious: there
is no specific internal evidence for doing so (otherwise the question of dating
BHG 1058 would not arise). It is however equally true that there is no in
ternal evidence for not doing so, and this is a consideration of some impor
tance. The chances of two separate documents concerning two separate
(albeit similar) events presenting no contradictory evidence must be, to say
the least of it, somewhat remote, expecially in a situation in which the events
in question are some centuries apart in time.56 On the other hand, two
documents concerned with a similar event, but from very different points
of view, might very well fail to provide conclusive evidence that they are
relating to the same events.
It has to be borne in mind that the two documents in question were
produced for very different reasons and under entirely different conditions.
Photius' concern is pastoral: he wants to ensure that the extraordinary
degree of repentence produced by the imminent threat of Russian occupation
be something lasting and genuine, and it is a logical sequel to the Third
Homily (during the Russian attack) in which he announced that this was
divine wrath falling on the evil-doers. "Theodore's" concern is not pastoral,
it is cultic; it is with Blachernae Church and more especially, with its famous
relic, the Robe, and these he intends to exalt, to the exclusion of all extra
neous matter. Thus his homily rises to its climax in describing an event,
the restoration of the Robe which must have taken place after the delivery
of Photius' Fourth Homily.57 Yet in spite of these considerations, the
Oration and the Homily are remarkably complementary. Given the story
in the former of thefindingof the Robe, then Photius' otherwise inexplicable
choice of that particular relic for his procession around the walls can be
understood. Given the success which he attributes to that endeavor, the
whole story of the restoration in the Oration makes much more sense, and so
56. There is one apparent discrepancy; in a highly rhetorical passage Photius stigma
tises the enemy as "leaderless" {άστραττ^γητον ), Mango, p. 98, = Laourdas, p. 43. But
in the passage which turned Wenger's attention to the events of 619, BHG 1058, speaks
very clearly of a leader, and in terms which suggest that Photius was being less than pre
cise: ебокеі бе, και τούτο βασιΚέα πιστότατον è'iret&ev, ώς των è-Ονών екеірыѵ των
τοσούτων ò άγτγγούμ€νος èm σπονδών eipnvucuw ßeßauJjoei, κατά πρόσωπον αυτόν
èùékoi &€άσασοαι. Combefìs, II, col. 774D.
57. Conversely, Photius' Third Homily must have been delivered at a very early point
in the story, before the return of the emperor from his mysterious mission of which
BHG 1058 says nothing. See Mango, p. 89 and n. 42.
forth. But there is more to it than that; there are some striking similarities
between the two documents, e.g., the visible wasting of the suburbs by the
enemy, the suddenness of the attack, the despair of the Romans, the all-
night prayers, etc. There are even occasional echoes of the Homily in the
Oration, which is scarcely surprising if the latter was in fact composed at
Photius' command.58 So the position would seem to be that whilst there is
no conclusive evidence for identifying both with 860, there are some very
tempting pointers in that direction, and apparently no conclusive evidence
to the contrary.
Fourth, the earliest extant version of the Legend of Galbius and Candidus
(BHG 1058a) never says exactly which item of clothing it was that the
brothers stole from the Jewess, nor indeed would they have known, for they
would hardly have opened the box. BHG 1058a uses very general terms such
as έσΰής, перфоХаюр, πρβιβολή, фореоіа and in this it is faithfully followed
by all the later versions of the legend,59 also by Photius and the author
of BHG 1058. But in Joseph the Hymnographer's Canon (IV) on the Robe, 60
and again in the tenth-century Vita Sancii Andreae Sali there is a precise
statement of which item of the Virgin's clothing was preserved in the σορός
at Blachernae;61it was her ώμοφόρνον or μαφόρνον as the word was common
ly abbreviated, and most subsequent writers use this more precise term.62
This gradual transition from the general to the precise term would seem to
suggest that there had been a discovery of some sort; that by the time Joseph
composed his Canon ГѴ men had actually seen something which before (e.g.,
in the time when the legend of Galbius and Candidus wasfirstwritten down)
they had not seen, and only knew of by hearsay.63 This seems to be in ac
58. I have noted the relationship between Photius' Fourth Homily and the Gospel
passage, Matt. 14. 22-34, elsewhere: Byzantion, (1969), 201. Cf. BHG 1048, the Meta-
phrastic version.
59. E.g., Latyshev, II, 127-32 = BHG 1058e, and the former, pp. 376-83 = BHG
1048y the Metaphrastic version.
60. PG, CV, col. 1009 A,C.
61. Vita s. Andreae Sali, cc. 203, 204.
62. On this item of clothing and this relic, see du Cange's note sub μαφόρνον in
Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infirmae graecitatis, and also his note on Alexias
VII. 3 ( . 98 inPG, CXXXI, cok. 547-54). J. Ebersolt, Sanctuaires de Byzance; recher
ches sur les anciens trésors des églises de Constantinople (Paris: E. Leroux, 1921), p.
46, n. 51, provides a description of the vestment; cf. Vita s. Andreae Sali, с 101 and
also Georgiana Buckler, Anna Comnena: A Study (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1929),
pp. 77-78, n. 2.
63. Two of the MSS on which Wenger based his text PVO (BHG 1058a) use the
word μαφόρνον in the title, but not in the text. A shorter version of this text was also
edited by Wenger, pp. 306-10, "S" = BHG 1058b from Codex Sinaiticus graecus 491.
As Wenger points out, ibid., pp. 96 ff. and 127 ff., this codex is in very poor condition
and there is some disagreement about its date, which could be eighth or ninth century.
cord with what is said in BHG 1058: first, that when the workmen broke
into the holy σορός at Blachernae, they, brought to light something which
nobody had ever seen before64 -secondly, that in the course of the restoration
celebrations, tìie patriarch unwrapped the relic and elevated it for every
body to see, thus revealing to all that the item of clothing in question was in
fact a μαφόρνον. Now if in fact this relation took place not in the ninth, but
early in the seventh century, why should a tradition of referring to the
relic in vague general terms have hung on for three centuries whilst men knew
all the time what the relic really was? And a fortiori, why should the precise
term suddenly have come into use so long after the event?
Such then are the considerations which point to a later rather than an
earlier dating for BHG 1058. To me they seem heavily to outweigh the argu
ments for an earlier date, and to confirm Loparev's contentions that the
patriarch to whom the document refers, and to whom it owes its composi
tion, i.e., to whom the preacher refers as тф бе тоѵто πράξαι кекеѵоаѵт
(and elsewhere as ó καϋ ήμας Συμβών, ô καύ τ)μας Μωστ}ς) and for whose
longevity he prays so devoutly at the end, was none other than Phothis.65
On the other hand, that emperor who takes a decidedly secondary (though
sufficiently pious) rôle to that of the patriarch must have been Michael III
the Drunkard.66
University ofManitoba
It could contain three uses of the word μαφόρνον, once in the title, once towards the end
of the text, and once in the repeated title at the end. The last two are however hypothet
ical reconstructions by the editor, p. 310; the most that can be said with certainty is that
the word in question appears in the title.
64. (το μυστήρνον ) το πασι τέως ά&έατον, Combefis, II, col. 775D. The point is
quite heavily stressed that they did not see the Robe. Thus, ibid., col. 778D, on the
night before the restoration, таѵ Hyu>v ϋτ\σαυρον Ηπασι προύϋηκεν etę προσκυνήσω
κεκαλυμμένον δηλαδή, και όφδαλμοϊς άν&ρώπων ά&έατον. It is made very clear that
not until the time of the restoration was the relic seen, its covering having been mistaken
for the object itself, until this fell away leaving the uncorrupted robe, which was once
and once only exposed to the sight of the people before being restored to its original
position, ibid., cols. 780C-E and 782A-D.
65. Ibid., cols. 75 IB, 774A, 778D, and 783E.
66. Ibid.. cols. 774D-E, and 778B, et al.
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES, 4, Part 2 (1977), 127^6.
DANUTA MARIA GÓRECKI (Urbana, 111., U.S.A.)
The Heraclian Land Tax Reform:

Objectives and Consequences
The historians of Byzantium agree that the bankruptcy of the free farmer
class in the eleventh century was one of the main causes of the decay of the
empire itself. The historians also agree that it was the oppressive tax system
introduced during the rule of the Heraclian dynasty which became an essen
tial factor in the destruction of this class.
This article will try to distinguish the principles of the Heraclian land
tax reform through an analysis of existing textual and historical materials:
The Taxation Treatise, Cod. Marc. gr. 173, the Νόμος Γβοργικός, and the
history of land taxation from Diocletian to post-Justinian times. With the
help of these sources, the article will try to review the elements of the Herac
lian land tax reform which are already known, to reconstruct the still un
known ones, to organize all these elements into one system, and to elucidate
the weaknesses of this system which led directly to the decline of the farmer
class.
Introduction
When Heraclius became emperor in 610, the Eastern Roman Empire was
on the verge of total collapse due to the years of unsuccessful wars and inter
nal turmoil and to the series of natural disasters which occured in the second
half of the sixth century. When the rule of the Heraclian dynasty terminated
with the death of Justinian II in 711, the empire was a strong state founded
on a new socio-economic structure entirely different from the old Roman
patterns. During the years of the Heraclian rulers, "Byzantium ceased being
Roman and started being Byzantine."1 This success, accomplished under the
most unfavorable political circumstances, was due to the introduction of
thorough administrative reforms. These reforms attempted two objectives:
the improvement of the military strength of the empire and the restoration
of its economy.
From the historical developments during the seventh century and on
wards, one can conclude that three areas of Byzantine state affairs were
1. G. Ostrogorsky, "Die wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Entwicklungs-grundlagen des

Byzantinischen Reiches," Vierteljahrschrift fur SoziaUund Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 22
(1929), 130.
subjected to the reforms: the army, land tenure and taxes. The reforms
abandoned the Roman principles of separation of military and civilian admin
istration. Military premises determined a new concept of administrative
division of the state. The system of themes, which probably originated before
the times of the Heraclian dynasty, became a part of the reforms. The
themes, established initially in frontier territories, populated by soldiers and/
or civilian colonists, had gradually replaced the system of provinces and
prefectures.2
The land reform was aimed at reviving the vast territories of the empire
depopulated and devastated during postJustinian times. Land was given to
farmers and soldiers. It was populated by means of colonization, as far as
the farmers were concerned, and by the policy of military settlement in
respect to the soldiers. Thus the reform put soldiers and farmers in the
same socio-economic category: they were all considered small landowners.3
The reform of the land tax system was based on the existence of a broad
class of small landowners. The large property ownere (ot δυναιοί) had never
been a dependable source of tax income. Their involvement in political
2. The question of themes has been a subject of fervent discussion for decades and
one of the most controversial issues of Byzantine administration. A comprehensive
survey on the discussion from A. Rambout (1870) to 1958 is presented by A. Pertusi,
"La formation des thèmes byzantins," in Berichte zum XL Intern. Byzantinisten-Kon-
gress (München: C. H. Beck, 1958). The argument mainly revolves around the time of
their estabushment. At this point Petrusi, concluding from the De Tematibus of Con
stamene VII that the themes were introduced after Heraclius, criticizes Ostrogorsky's
strong conviction that it was Heraclius who developed the system of themes as a part
of his administrative reforms. Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State,
rev. ed., Rutgers Byzantine Series (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1969),
pp. 95-98. J. Karayannopulos, "Über die vermeintliche Reformtätigkeit des Kaisers
Herakleios," in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantologie, 10 (1961), 53-72; and
idem, "Die byzantinische Themenordnung: eine Übersicht," Studi di onore di E, Vol-
terra, 2 vols. (Milano: A. Giuffrè, 1971), II, 521-26, summarises all the views on the
subject and criticizes the scholars linking the establishment of the theme system with
Heraclius. Karayannopulos believes that the systems of themes originated in the fourth
century and was completed in the eigth. However, N. Oikonomides says that the term
theme was applied for the first time in 626/27 during Heraclius's campaigns against
the Persians. See his "Les premières mentions des thèmes dans la Chronique de Théo-
phane," Zbornik radova vizantoloskog instituía, 16 (1975), 1-8.
3. The existence of "farmer-soldiers," assumed in scholarship until the late 1950s,
has been brought into question during the last two decades. A survey of the opposing
views is presented by W. E. Kaegi, "Some Reconsiderations on the Themes," Jahrbuch
der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft, 16 (1967), 39-54.
Being a small landowner did not necessarily mean cultivating the land with one's
own hands. The institution of tenancy was known in Byzantine land tenure law. Thus
I would defend the notion of "farmer-soldier," understood as a soldier who owned
farming land. See Ostrogorsky, History, pp. 98 and 133; and R. J. H. Jenkins, "The Age
of Conquest, A.D. 842-1050," in Byzantium: An Introduction, ed. P. Whitting (New
York: New York Univ. Press, 1971), p. 66, who states that the soldier's land was "cul
tivated by his kinsmen . . . he himself was continually drilled."
THE HERACLIAN LAND TAX REFORM 129
matters, mainly dynastic struggles, yielded them tax privileges and immuni
ties, eventually disorganizing the fiscal policy of the empire. Thus, the new
principles of land taxation had also dictated the policies of the Heraclians
toward big property. During the seventh century, considered to be the most
difficult times in the history of the Byzantine potentates, the ôwarotwere
not only prevented from having any political influence upon the throne,
but were also deprived of any means of increasing their latifundia at the
expense of small property.
The Heraclian land tax reform distinguished between the two categories
of small landowners as land tax payers. Farmers paid their taxes in money,
but soldiers did not pay property taxes sensu stricto. Instead of cash pay
ments, they were to provide their own military equipment, including a
horse. In this way, the burden of maintaining the army was, to a great extent,
shifted from the state to the soldier-landowners,4
The exact time of the introduction of these reforms has not been estab
lished. Some scholars attribute them to Heraclius himself, assuming more
over that his military successes in the wars with the Persians derived from
these reforms. Other scholars, due to the lack of sufficient sources from that
period of Byzantine history, have avoided any definite statements which
would link the reforms with a particular ruler.5
Historical Antecedents
There were no regular land property taxes in the Eastern Roman Empire
before Diocletian. Farmers paid only communal duties and occasional con
tributions in goods which were ordered by the Roman emperors according to
the needs of the state. The taxation system introduced by Diocletian was
based on the principle of capitatio-iugatio: a unit of land (iugum) could be
taxed only if there was a corresponding unite of manpower (caput) to cul
tivate it. Thus neither a piece of land without a commensurate unit of man
power nor a man who did not cultivate a commensurate piece of land could
become an object of taxation. On that principle Diocletian introduced two
basic taxes which were collected simultaneously: capitatio and land tax.
4. A "Standing Order" of Nikephoros Phokas to the provincial military governors,

concerning payments and grants for soldiers, includes the phrase:"... their households
and those of the soldiers serving under them, and their retinues, shall be absolutely
exempt from taxation; which privilege was granted and reserved to them of old and from
beginning. . . . I am ashamed to tell you that these men are flogged . . . by a rascally
crew of tax-gathering riff-raff. . . . Sir, your soldiers must not be at the mercy of the
civil jurisdiction in the provinces..." (ibid., pp. 68-69).
5. Ostrogorsky, History y pp. 95-100, attributes the reforms to Heraclius himself.
Karayannopulos, "Über die vermeintliche Reformtätigkeit," p. 72, assumes that Hera
clius, as busy as he was with the wars, had had "no time nor opportunity" to introduce
any reforms.
The rate of the land tax was determined by a set of evaluative norms which
constitute the second element of the Diocletian tax system. The criteria for
evaluation were extremely simple, being limited to the geographical quality
of the land (flat, hilly, etc.) and the kind of goods produced on it (wheat,
olives, etc.). Neither the agricultural value of the soil nor the quality of its
products was taken into consideration.6
This very uneven taxation of the rural population resulted in a situation
in which the poorest farmers had to pay the highest tax in relation to the
value of the goods they produced. Small land owners and free land tenants
(coloni) who were not able to pay taxes fled from the countryside en masse.
Thus the balance between caput and iugum was upset and the land, deprived
of manpower, was no longer taxable. In order to promote the efficient work
ing of the capitatio-iugatio system, Emperor Constantine introduced glebae
adscriptìo in 332. 7 This restriction was intended to prevent fluctuation of
the rural population and, with it, the decay of the tax base of the state.
Unfortunately, there are no available sources which provide detailed in
formation on how the capitatio-iugatio system operated in the continuously
changing internal situation of the proto-Byzantine period. Severe depop
ulation of the countryside due to famines, plagues and wars resulted in
continuously deteriorating economic conditions. Moreover, despite the legal
prohibition, farmers continued to leave their land in large numbers to escape
the unbearable tax oppression.8 Under these circumstances the capitatio-
iugatio system could not function in the way intended by its originator.
This brought about corrections in the making of assessments and in the ways
of collecting the land taxes. The changes were aimed at weakening the pre
vious invariable interdependence between iugum and caput, thus freeing the
new taxation system from the perils of demographic fluctuations. Traces
of these corrections were noticeable as early as the end of the fourth century.
6. These statements are based on the views of O. Seeck, "Capitatio," in Paulys Real·
encyclopädie der klassischem Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa, 7 vols. (Stutt
gart: J. B. Metzler, 1894-19-), IV; and idem, "Schatzungsordnung Diokletians," Zeit-
schrift fir Sozial und Wirtschaftsgeschichte (1895), pp. 275-342; of A. Piganiol, L'impôt
de capitation sous le Bas-Empire romain (Chabéry: Perrin, M. Dardel successeur, 1916);
of E. Stein, Geschichte des Spätrömischen Reiches (Wien, 1928), pp. 109 ff.; and of
Ostrogoisky, History, pp. 40 ff. Karayannopulos opposes these views, insisting that
capitatio and iugatio were two separate independent taxes. See his "Die Theorie A.
Piganiols über die jugatio-capitatio und die neueren Auffassungen über die Entwicklung
der sozialen undfinanzwirtschaftlichenInstitutionen in Byzanz," Byzantinisch-Neug-
riechische Jahrbücher, 19 (1966), 324-49. The following argumentation presented in
this article seems to prove the former hypothesis.
7. Seeck, "Colonatos," in Paulys Real-encyklopadie, IV, 497 f.; and C. Saumagne,
"Du role de Tongo' et du 'census' dans la formation de colonat romain," Byzantion,
12 (1937), 487-581.
8. K. E. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Rechts (Ber
lin: Weidemann, 1892), pp. 228 ff.
During this period we find the first signs of collective responsibility for land
taxes along with the institution of preemption (προτιμησις, С. Th. III. 1.6).
The cataster of pre-Justinian times had specified two terms for two types
of taxation units: ομόκηρσα and όμόδουλα. The first type included the
residents of the same village who paid together and were "embraced by the
same tax register." The second one was related to tax units cultivated by
enslaved rural workers who were "embraced by the same slavery."9 These
innovations distinctly show a tendency to emancipate the taxation system
from thefluctuationsof the rural population.
The second implement serving this goal was the compulsory leasing of
state-owned wasteland (adiectio sterilium) to proximi quique possessores.
This institution, already known in Ptolomean Egypt, was introduced by
Caracalla and a century later by Constantine the Great. In pre-Justinian times
the scope of adiectio sterilium had been expanded. It had imposed a collec
tive responsibility for taxes on all barren land ascribed to the ομόκηρσα
type of fiscal units.10 The origin of these institutions was based on the very
existence of rural communities and, in turn, determined their subsequent
development.
Lack of sources makes it difficult to trace exactly when a peasant became
an owner of land. But peasant ownership of land, which originated not
later than some tune in the fourth century, opened a new era in the evolu
tion of the farmer class. After that time this class split into two groups which
represent the two forms of land tenure in Byzantium: tenancy (free colons)
and ownership (free farmers). Communities of free farmers appear to some
extent in the pre-Justinian period. Zacharia described the community as an
"area of land owned by free farmers" representing a separate cataster unit
in official financial records, and responsible as a whole for all taxes.11 In
Justinian law the two kinds of land-property taxes, ομόκψσα and όμόδσυλα,
already were present in an institutionalized form. Όμόκηνσα referred to the
tracts of land which formed a taxable unit regardless of ownership. Όμοδου
9. P. Lemerle, "Esquisse pour une histoire agrarie de Byzance," Revue historique,

219 (1958), 37 and 4445; and Ostrogorsky, "Die ländliche Steuergemeinde des byzan
tinischen Reiches in X. Jh.," Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial und Wirtschaftsgeschichte,
20 (1927-28), 27 ff.
10. Zachariä von Lingenthal, pp. 228-36; F. Dölger, Beifrage zur Geschichte der
byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts, Byzan
tinisches Archiv, Heft IX (Leipzig: Teubner, 1927), pp. 128 ff.; Ostrogorsky, "Die
. . . Entwicklungsgrundlagen," pp. 129-42; J. Karayannopulos, "Die kollektive Steuer
verantwortung in der frühbyzantinischen Zeit," Vierteljahrschrift ßr Sozial- und Wirt-
schaftsgeschichte, 43 (1956), 289-322; M. I. Rostovtsev, Studien zur Geschichte des
römischen Kolonates (Leipzig und Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1910), pp. 56-58 and 195-
201; and А. С Johnson, 'The èm Βολτί of Land in Roman Egypt," in Aegyptus, rivista
italiana de egittologia e di papirologia, 32 (1952), 61-72.
11. Zachariä von Lingenthal, p. 236.
λα referred to those tracts which belonged to the same owner, regardless

of whether they were contiguous. Adiectio sterilium in its broadened sense
was incorporated into Justinianic law as επιβολή (iunctio). Justinian expand
ed επιβολή even more, in his attempt to remedy a deplorable economic
situation brought about by wars, famines and epidemic diseases. Procopius
of Caesarea comments: "The pestilence, which had attacked the inhabited
world, Üid not spare the Roman Empire. Most of its farmers had perished of
it, so that lands were deserted. Justinian did not exempt the owners of
the properties. Their annual taxes were not remitted, and they [the land
owners] had to pay not only their own but their deceased neighbors'
share."12 Thus the new scope of επιβολή, besides the double duties of adiec
tio sterilium also covered the responsibility of a farmer for taxes from desert
ed plough-land adjacent to his own property.13 This responsibility became
the heaviest tax burden of all for the rural population. Moreover, those
"who owned land were compelled to feed the Roman army . . . And if suf
ficient provisions for these soldiers and horses were not to be found on their
estates, these unfortunates had to go out and buy them at an excessive
price, wherever they could, even if they had to transport them from a distant
country . . . This requisition . . . took heart out of the landowners. For it
made their annual taxes easily ten times what they had been... ." 14 In con
sequence, the end of the sixth century witnessed an almost complete eco
nomic collapse of the rural population.
Sources
The sources: the Taxation Treatise and the Νόμος Γεοργικός were part
and parcel of the Byzantine legal system. Three factors determined the
character of this system: the Roman law, the vulgar law (a "spoiled" Roman
law) and the popular law. The Roman law was introduced to the Eastern
Roman Empire along with the Constitutio Antoniniana in 212. It granted
Roman citizenship to all of the inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire.
However, the various tribes and peoples living in these territories had already
developed their own, strongly differentiated laws. After 212 the native and
Roman systems coexisted, influencing one another for over three centuries.
Justinian, considering himself an heir of the ancient Roman culture and a
perpetuator of the idea of intellectual conquest of the world, had returned
in his codification to the "pure" Roman law. He thus eliminated from his
Corpus Juris the accretions of the vulgar and the popular laws. This new,
12. Procopius, Secret History, trans. R. Atwater (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan
Press, 1961), p. 114.
13. Johnson, pp. 61-72; Dölger, Beitrage, pp. 128 and 132; and Ostrogorsky, "Die
. . . Steuergemeinde,*' pp. 30-31.
14. Procopius, p. 113.
and very conservative, legal system did not, however, keep up with the
existing needs of the culturally and socially heterogenous population of
the Eastern Empire. Moreover, since it was written in Latin, the Corpus
Juris did not have favorable prospects of becoming universally accepted by
the Greek-speaking peoples of the empire. Hence the gap between the written
laws and the legal practice of everyday life which developed in pre-Justinian
times grew wider during the period of the Byzantine Middle Ages. This situa
tion resulted in the coexistence of two kinds of legal instruments, one derived
from the official law and the other from common practice. This dichotomy
in the legal system had developed to such an extent that the existence of a
rule in the official code did not mean that this rule was actually in force.
The opposite also held true: the existence of a rule in practice did not neces
sarily indicate that the rule had its source in the official law. 15
The sources to be examined in this article represent both types of law:
the Taxation Treatise-the official law, and the Νόμος Γβοργικός—the practice
of the living law. However, unlike the case in many other areas of Byzantine
law, the Taxation Treatise and the Νόμος Γεοργικός confirm that in matters
of taxation the same rules and institutions existed in the official law and in
practice. This concurrence makes of them a particularly trustworthy source
of information.
Of the two, the Νόμος Георуисоя is the earlier source. It originated long
after Heraclius' death but still during the reign of his dynasty, probably in
the last quarter of the seventh century, when the new land tax system suc
cessfully operated on the base of a well developed, broad class of small
land owners.16 The territorial extension of the Νόμος Teopyucóq was. very
wide; it was commonly known and applied from Ravenna in the west to the
Caucasus in the east, and from Egypt in the south to Bulgaria in the north.
Included in the Hexabiblos of Harmenopulos compiled in the fourteenth
15. E. Levy, West Roman Vulgar Law: The Law of Property, Memoirs of the Ameri
can Philosophical Society, Vol. 29 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1951),
pp. 9-11 and 15-16; A Albertoni, Per una esposizione del diritto bizantino con riguardo
alVItalm (Imola: P. Galeati, 1927), pp. 206 and 208; and D. Nörr, Die Fahrlässigkeit
in byzantinischen Vertragsrecht, München Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken
Rechtgeschichte, 42. Heft (München: Beck, 1960), pp. 7 ff., 114, and 209.
16. Zachariä von Lingenthal, pp. 250 ff.; B. A. Panchenko, Krest'ianskaia sobstven-
nost' ν Vizantii, Zemledel'cheskii zakon i monastyrskie dokumenty (Soffia: Durzhavna
pechatnitsa, 1903); W. Ashburner, "The Farmer's Law," Journal of Hellenic Studies,
30 (1910), 85-108, and 32 (1912), 68-95; F. Dölger, "Ist der Νομός Ъоруікбя ein
Gesetz Kaiser Justinians II?" in Festschrift für Leopold Wenger zu seinem 70, Geburt-
stag (München: C. H. Beck, 1944-45); J. de Malafosse, Les lois agraires à Vépoaue byzan-
tine; tradition et exégèse, Recueil de l'Académie de Législation, t. 19 (Toulouse: F.
Boisseau, 1949); Ostrogorsky, History, p. 90, n. 3, and pp. 135-37; and J. Karayan-
nopulos, "Entstehung und Bedeutung des Νόμος Ћоруисоч" Byzantinische Zeitschift,
51 (1958), 357-73.
century, the Νόμος Георужос survived the Turkish domination and was still
applied in Greece until the end of the nineteenth century.
The Νόμος Георуімк has been preserved in numerous, more or less vary
ing, manuscripts. This discussion will utilise three of these versions: Ash-
burner's, considered by modern scholars to be the best; Ferrini's, and Har-
menopoulos'.17 The Νόμος Γεοργικός was an unofficial compilation of at
least two independent sets of legal norms and of many particular cases elabor
ated by the common legal practice in problems and conflicts typical for
a rural community. The compilation accurately defined the rights and duties
derived from land property and land tenure. It also clarified legal means of
the protection of the rights of small landowners. More significantly, it con
tained information about new institutions of land tenure which were de
veloped as a result of the Heraclean land tax reform. At this point the Νόμος
Георуікоя converged with the legal norms of the Taxation Treatise. However,
the provisions of the Νόμος Георуисоя related to the responsibility for land
taxes have become clear only in the light of the Taxation Treatise.
The Taxation Treatise, an official instruction for tax collectors, described
the duties of a land-owner as a taxpayer.18It explained the hierarchich struc
ture of the tax administration, the procedure for assessment, exemptions
and changes, and the meaning of the technical terms used in the tax regis
ters. Of a didactic character, the Taxation Treatise was composed in a clear,
well organized manner, indicating professional competence on the part of
its author. The Taxation Treatise was written in the late tenth or early elev
enth century, much later than the Νόμος Георуиак. Nevertheless, this docu
ment represents socio-economic and legal institutions which had originated
long before it was written, and which remained in force for a long time
afterwards.
17. Ashburner, the Greek text: pp. 85-108, and the English translation, pp. 68-95;
С Ferrini, "Edizione critica dell Νόμος Ѵеоруіхоя," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, ϊ (1896),
558-71; and Constantini Harmenopuli manuale legum sive hexabiblios cum appendicibus
et legibus agraris, ed. G. E. Heimbach (Lipsiae: T. O. Weigel, 1851), pp. 828-51. All of
the following quotations are taken from the Ashburner version in his own translation.
The two other versions are quoted only if the differences between them and the Ash
burner version may throw some additional light on the discussed problem. (My trans
lation).
18. The Taxation Treatise of Cod. Marc. gr. 173> f.275v-2181r was discussed by
DÖgler and published in his Beiträge, pp. 113-23. Quotations in the paper refer to pages
of Dölger's Beiträge (numbers) and to lines on the pages (subscripts), i.e., in the manner
applied by Dölger himself in the index.
J. Karayannopulos discovered an older treatise of Cod. 121 (Zavorda) which· is very
similar to the Dölger text, and published in his "Fragmente aus dem Vademecum eines
byzantinischen Finanzbeamten," in Polychronion: Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75.
Geburtstage, ed. P. Wirth (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1966). C. M. Brand published an
English translation of both treatises with introductory comments in his "Two Byzantine
Treatises of Taxation," Traditio, 25 (1969), 35-60; Ostrogorsky, "Die . . . Steuerge
meinde," pp. 1-114; and Lemerle, "Esquisse," 220 (1959), 259 and n. 2.
Lack of source material relating the Taxation Treatise to the socio-eco

nomic questions of the Byzantine Middle Ages makes it difficult to determine
exactly when the term επιβολή defining the mutual tax responsibility of
neighbors in Justinian's law was replaced by the term αλληλέγγτον applied
in the Treatise (119. 12). The Taxation Treatise does mention the respon
sibility called έπφολή, but its meaning had changed. The new άπφολή com
mitted the whole rural community to pay for the deserted land whenever
the responsible neighbors were too poor to pay (277. 3942. 116). This
change was enacted to prevent the massive desertion of land by farmers
who were not able to bear the increased tax burdens. Thus the two institu
tions of άλληλέγγνον and επιβολή guaranteed that the new tax system would
function successfully. The enforcement of these duties, however, depended
entirely on the very existence of a third element: the rural community.
The origin of the institution of the rural community and αλληλέγγυοι*
goes back, like the origin of επιβολή, to the time of Ptolomean Egypt. The
community was started by an organization of small tenants in order to
protect themselves from abuses by tax officials. In Ptolomean times the or
ganization was already established. The community was a corporation respon
sible for all the duties of its members. The duties included the cultivation of
barren land alotted to the community by the state àvev συναλλαγών (i.e.,
"without a contract," the later έπφολή). Together, the community paid the
rent and all due contributions which were levied collectively. Only tenants
renting the best category of land paid these fees independently from the
community in small groups, at least two of them together έ£ αλληλεγγύης
(i.e., "on the basis of reciprocation"). However the community was respon
sible for these members as well as for all the others. Because the solvency of
these rich tenants, which was guaranteed by the έξ αλληλεγγύης obligation,
considerably lessened the responsibility of the community, they were also
able to move freely and to rent land within several communities at once. Later
the responsibility è% αΎληλζγγύης was applied to all tenants.19
The legal status of a rural community in the Byzantine Medieval period
is clearly outlined in the No μος ΓεορΎΐκός. The community was an organiza
tion of free farmers who owned their land. Every owner had the full right
to dispose of his land by leasing it (Article 11-15), exchanging it (Article
3-5) or mortgaging it (Article 67). He might sell or give away his land during
his lifetime or in a will. The community was a legal person able to own land
by itself. It could be a party in a trial (Article 7) or in a contract (Article
23 ff.). It was responsible for its own obligations and duties as well as for the
obligations and duties of all its members.
The rural community represented a basic unit in the Byzantine tax system.
19. Rostovtsev, pp. 159-76.

The territory of the community, described in the cataster as a tax unit

(οποταγτ|), was divided into single sections (στίχοι), composed of a few
individual farmsteads. Thus the total amount of money due from the whole'
tax unit was equal to the sum of the taxes due for individually owned farm
steads and for the land owned by the community. The community was
responsible for the entire amount (114. 22 ff.). The execution of the tax
policy was centralized; all decisions relating to exemptions from land taxes
were reserved for the emperor. He granted tax privileges as an act of grace
to large property owners. Where small land-owners were concerned, however,
he delegated this authority to inspectors (επόπτης; 116.5).
The Treatise specified the tax exemptions applicable to rural communi
ties. It stated: "Total or partial exemptions from taxes may apply to . . .
a piece of land or to the whole tax unit" (118. 21-23). The Treatise defined
a case of total exemptions (ολοσυμττάθητον) as a situation "when nothing
is to be paid" (118. 24-27). This privilege might be granted when taxpayers
had already deserted their land. The Treatise provided for total exemption
in two situations. First, when several farmers had deserted their land and the
rest of the community was preparing to do the same, the whole community
might be exempted from tax duties on the already deserted land. Second,
if the farmers who deserted their property were alive and there was some
assurance that they would come back sometime, their duties could not be
transferred to their neighbors, provided these neighbors were too poor to
pay them (κονφίσμός, 119. 19-26). The partial exemption (апокекινημένσν)
was applied in the case of a taxpayer who still remained in the community.
He might be partially exempted either by paying the tax on only a part of
his land or by paying for all his property, but at a lower rate. However, the
main difference between total and partial exemptions lay in the fact that
all partial exemptions were to be paid by someone other than the owner:
a duty on the exempted tracts within a section was to be paid by the neigh
bors embraced by the same section. If the whole' section was exempted, the
duties for the whole territory were imposed upon the neighboring section
(119. 14-18). All these exemptions were temporary. Every indication of an
increase in the wealth of an individual or a community as a whole resulted
in an immediate proportional increase in the tax duties (όρθώσις, 119.
138-43; and 120. 1-2).
The Byzantine property law did not accept the Roman institution of
res derelicta which provided that an object became ownerless in the very
moment of its desertion. According to the Byzantine law, the abandoned
land remained the property of its owner for thirty years after the act of
derelictio. As the Treatise explains: " . . . after thirty years the exempted
territory becomes ownerl'ess" (116. 6-10; and 118. 26-27). 20 These new
20. The same provision in the Zavorda Treatise, Karayannopulos, "Fragmente,"

p. 324.
contents of Byzantine land property law and the duties of a neighbor and the
community derived from this law represent, certainly, the fourth element
of Heraclian tax reform. The land owner had only to pay taxes on the proper
ty of his absent neighbor; the community had only to pay taxes on the
property of its absent members. By thus expanding this responsibility for
thirty years, this law became an essential element of the Heraclian tax system,
protecting the state income against fluctuations in the rural population.
Summarizing the discussion based on an investigation of the proto-Byzan
tine and post-Heraclian land tax institutions, one is able to reconstruct the
elements of the Heraclian reform related to land property. The point of
departure for this reform was to establish a system in which the income
from tax duties would be free from the unconditional coexistence of caput
and iugum. This reform had to resolve three issues: what was supposed to
be taxed, how the solvency of the taxpayers could be guaranteed, and how
the functioning of the executive apparatus could be supervised.
The land, a constant element, became the basis for taxation. All land own
ers were taxpayers. The payment from the large property was guaranteed
by the glebae adscriptio of their land workers. The payment from small
property owners was assured by establishing these four requirements: the
mutual tax responsibility of neighbors (αλληλέγγυο»); the collective tax
responsibility of a community for its members (επιβολή); the institution of
the rural community itself as an organization assuring the effectiveness of
αλληλέγγυο» and è-πφολή; and, finally, the new contents of land property
ownership law, which, abandoning the notion of res derelicta, warranted
the continuance of tax responsibilities for thirty years. The management of
the tax system was based on a network of catasters. Their hierarchic struc
ture paralleled the administrative division of the state. A section (στίχος),
the lowest unit of local division, listed the owners of each particular tract
of land along with the names of neighbors responsible for each owner's
taxes. Every section as a whole was responsible for a definite neighboring
section, and every tax unit (υποταγή) had to pay for a definite neighboring
tax unit in case of its insolvency. The cataster also had to supervise the in
spectors, whose power was both restricted and controlled by the hierarchic
structure of the tax administration. The emperor himself was at the top of
the hierarchy, executing unlimited power over all the financial policies and
land taxation in the empire.
The Νόμος Георуисоя

The Heraclian fiscal system discussed above had strong impact on the
inner structure of the rural community. In self defense the communities
had to develop legal institutions aimed at solving their economic difficul
ties. These institutions soon matured and are reflected in the Νόμος Геор-
7*κος. The widely claimed incomprehensibility of its provisions related to
land tenure resulted from the fact that the Νόμος Георуисоя had usually
been studied without sufficient reference to the Taxation Treatise. In addi
tion, the primitive redaction of the Νόμος Георуисоя also contributed con
siderably to the misinterpretation of its particular articles. Consequently,
the theories and hypotheses which originated from the Νόμος Георуікоя
had obscured, rather than elucidated, the character of the Byzantine rural
community. In the following comments, the provisions of the Νόμος Геор-
yucoç related to tax duties will be interpreted in the light of the Taxation
Treatise. The conclusions will contribute to understanding of the socio
economic character of the Byzantine rural community.
The basic right of a peasant who paid somebody else's taxes was spec
ified in Article 18 of the Νόμος Георуисоя: "If a farmer who is too poor to
work his vineyard [Harmenopulos and Ferrini: 'his field'] takes flight and
goes abroad, let those from whom claims are made by the public treasury
gather in the grapes, and the farmer if he returns shall not be entitled to
mulct them in the wine. [Ferrini: 'to request anything from them']." The
phrase: "those from whom claims are made by the public treasury" (oc
άπαιτούμβνοι тф δημοοίω λόγο;) 21 has been variously interpreted by several
scholars, depending on their familiarity with the relevant fiscal and legal
institutions. Heimbach claimed that this phrase referred to tax collectors
and his interpretation was not challenged until Panchenko's outstanding
analysis of the Νόμος Teopyucoç. Panchenko was the first to point out the
relationship between the right to collect a crop from someone else's land and
the duty of paying taxes for that land. This interpretation was accepted by
Dölger and Ostrogorski.22 These two scholars had already known the Taxa-
tion Treatise and its definition of the duty of άλλήλέτγνορ.Thus Ostrogor
ski and Dölger were able to verify Panchenko's interpretation and point to
the legal base of the relationship between the right and the duty derived
from Article 18.
The uniqueness of the provisions of Article 18 has been confirmed by
existence of two other provisions in the Νόμος Георуисоя, setting the rela
tionship between an owner and a possessor of his land. Article 17 stated
that a peasant who cultivated somebody else's barren land was entitled to
21. ιη èâv άπορήσας уешруоя προς ròèpyaoaodai τον ϊ'διον αμπελώνα

διαφυγή και %€ѵѵтеѵот}, ol τφ δημοσία άπαιτούμβνοι \<fyt^ έπιτρνγήτωσαν
αυτόν, τή έχοντος Нбсіаѵ τον έπανβρχομβνου yecopyoû ξημιοϋν αύτοϊς
τον olvov-
It seems justifiable to change the wording of Ashburner's translation: 'from whom
claims are made by the treasury" to "responsible for taxes" in the following discussion.
22. Panchenko, Krest*ianskaia sobstvennost', p. 19; Dölger, Beiträge, p. 133; and
Ostrogorsky, "Die . . . Steuergemeinde," p. 25.
harvest it for three years.23 This usufruct could be executed even in the
presence of the owner, who had to tolerate this situation and who was
allowed to take back the possession of his property only after the right of
usufruct expired. This situation points to an arrangement of rights and
duties in which the possessor of the land did not have to pay land taxes,
while the owner, although not possessing his property, did have to pay taxes
for it. The interdependence between land ownership and land tax duty is
once again emphasized in Article 19 of the Νόμος Γεοργικος.24 This article
protected the rights of an absent owner who had paid all his due taxes, by
providing that everyone who entered and harvested his land would have to
pay the owner double the value of the crop.
Hence an analysis of Articles 17, 18 and 19 of the Νόμος Георуікоя leads
to the conclusion that an owner had to pay taxes for his land whether he
possessed it or not. Only in case of his insolvency did the neighbor respon
sible of αλληλέγγυοι? have to take over the owner's tax duties; the neighbor
then had the right of usufruct on the land for which he had paid taxes. On
the other hand, any tenant titulo usuftucti whose tenancy derived from any
other sources than άλληλέγγυον did not have to pay taxes on the land he
possessed. Article 18 in its second part denied the owner, if he happened
to return to his property, any compensation for a crop harvested by the
neighbor who paid his taxes. The corresponding article of the Νόμος Геор-
γικός as it appears in the version of Harmenopulos does not include this
provision. It denied, instead, the tax-responsible neighbor any claim against
the owner, if the latter happened to return.25 The two provisions are not
contradictory but complementary; they point to the two trends of fiscal
policy of the time which were stressed frequently in the Νόμος Γεοργικός;
protection of an owner and protection of a taxpayer. Another right of a
23. "If a farmer enters and works another farmer's woodland for three years he shall
take its profits for himself and then give the land back again to its owner":
ιξ èdv yeojpyoç βίσελϋών epydor¡Tai k'vuvXov χώραν етерои yeúpyov.
τρία έτη έποκαρπεύσει еаитф. και αποδώσει πά\ιν την χώραν тСЬ кѵріщ
αύτης'
24. "If a fanner who runs away from his own field pays every year the extraordinary
taxes of the public treasury, let those who gather in the grapes and occupy the field
be mulcted twofold":
(24) ιϋ èàv yeu>pyòq άποδράσας ек τοϋ Ιδύ>υ àypov теХт} κατ' èVoç та
έκστραόρδινα τοϋ δημοσίου λάγου, ol τρνγώντβς каі νςμόμβνοι TOP dypòv
ζημωύσδωσαν èv б ιπλή поабтпти
The phrase "pull down . . . lawlessly" indicates that there existed also the possi
bility to "pull down lawfully" thus apparently, on the basis of some valid legal deci
sion.
(25) Edv άπορήσας уеь^руоя προς το èpyéÇea&ai, TOV'ÌÒWV aypòv
καίδ ιαφΰτη, oí та б ημοσια άπαιτούμβνοι триуеі
τωσαν τον dypòv, μη k'xovreç èfàeiav έπανβρχομένου τοϋ yeojp
70Ö ?ημιουι> ή' ?ητ€θ> αυτόν το οίονοϋν.
peasant cultivating somebody else's land was protected by provisions of

Article 21 of the Νόμος Геору<к<к.
The Roman principle superficies solo cedit was fully accepted by Justin
ian: the owner of the land acquired the ownership of the building some
body else built, or of the crop somebody else planted on his land. The vulgar
law departed from this principle, separating the right to own a building or
crop from the right to own the land on which the building was built or the
crop planted. The owner of superficiel was equally protected as was the
owner of soli: both theserightswere immutable.
The Byzantine law reflected in the Νόμος Георуиак accepted the prin
ciple of the vulgar law. According to Article 21, a peasant who built a build
ing or planted a vineyard on someone else's land became the owner of the
building and the vineyard.26 But in the Byzantine law therightof the owner
of superficiel was mutable. When the owner of the land claimed the posses
sion of his property back, he Was entitled to remove the superficies without
any compensation. However the Byzantine law tended to protect the owner
of superficiel. Article 21 commanded the owner of the land to accept another
piece of land from the owner of the superficies. Only when this exchange
could take place neither by contract nor by adjudgement infra), Article
21 dictated a return to status quo.
The Νόμος Георуџсос did not indicate directly whether the owner of the
superficies had any claim to force the owner of the land into the exchange;
yet the designation of the ownership of the superficies as a right was un
doubtedly intended to provide the constructor of the superficies with a basis
on which to establish legal protection of his property. In Article 66 of the
Νόμος Георуисоя, one can trace the existence of an authority (a judicial
body or just a judge) intended to arbitrate litigation between the two own
ers.27
26. "If a farmer builds a house or plants a vineyard in another's field or plot and after
a time there come the owners of the plot, they are not entitled to pull down the house
or root up vines, but they may take an equivalent in land. If the man who built or plant
ed on the field that was not his own stoutly refuses to give an equivalent, the owner of
the plot is entitled to pull up the vines andjmll down the house":
ка èàv yçijjpyoç οίκοδομήσι^ οίκον καί φντεύσΐϊ αμπελώνα èv аурф
άλλοτρίψ ή топе?, και џета χρόνον &λ&ωσυ> ol τοϋ τόπου κύριοι, ούκ
&χουσιν аЪеиаѵ τον οίκον κατασπάν και τας αμπέλους άκριξοϋν, άλλα
λαμβάνειν άντιτοπίαν δύνανται.· ei δέ άνανεήων aovavevei ò ete τα/ αλΧό-
τριορ àypov κτίσας ή φυτεύσας μη δούναι άντιτοπίαν, аЪеіаѵ ехеш τον
TOÖ τόπου κύρνον υάς αμπέλους άνασπάν, υον δ e οίκον κατασπάν.
27. "If people pull down others' houses lawlessly and spoil their fences on the
ground that the others had fenced or built on their land, let them have their hand cut
off':
£ς ol κατασπώντες οίκους αλλότριους ανάρχως ή άχρενοϋντες
φρ ayμούς, ώς еія та Ιδια φράξαντβς ή κτίσαντες, χζιροκοπευσΟωοαν.
The effort of a rural community to assure the tax solvency of its members
is most evident in the institution of èpioeia (half-sharing), a particular kind
of contract which aimed at helping a poor farmer to maintain his property.
In Articles 1Ы5 the Νόμος Георуисός cleariy specifies the circumstances
under which this sort of contract may be entered.28 The owner of the land
had to be so poor that he had no means of cultivating his land. The farmer
who entered such a contract with an impoverished farmer was to provide
the landowner with whatever he lacked in order to produce a crop: man
power, tools and seed or any one of them. Thus the extent of the contrac
tor's duties could vary considerably. But regardless of his investment his
remuneration was constant: a half of the crop. Therefore, the poorer the
owner was, the more the contracting farmer had to invest and the less he
obtained from it. As the Taxation Treatise states29 the partial land tax
exemptions transferred the duty to pay taxes from an exempted owner
either to his neighbors or to the whole community. Thus one can conclude
that the contract of eptoeia might take place under at least three types of
circumstances: to prevent the bankruptcy of a poor fanner who still paid
his taxes, to restore the solvency of a farmer whose taxes had been paid
by his neighbors, or to improve the economic potential of a farmer or group
of farmers whose taxes had been paid by the community. The institution of
half-sharing points most distinctly to the social response of a rural com
munity to its collective problems arising from the interdependence between
the economic status of any one member of the community and the economic
status of the community as a whole.
A farmer also could enter a contract to cultivate somebody else's land for
a fixed price (Article 16). However, the Νόμος Георуисос assumed, appar
ently, that the fixed price might decrease the contractor's interest in the
quality of the crop he produced. Thus Article 16 contained a special pro
vision to protect the owner: in case of negligence the contractor had to pay
the owner a compensation equal to the value of the land.30 The Νόμος
Георуисоя gives no evidence as to the economic status of the contracting
farmers. Nevertheless, the provision for the penalty in Article 16 seems to
28. The institution of "half-sharing" was commented by Zachariä, pp. 225-26;

Panchenko, p. 42; and Ashbumer^ v. 32, pp. 79-83.
29. See above pp. (8-9 of text).
30. "If a faimei takes over the fanning of a vineyard or piece of land and agrees
with the owner and takes earnest-money and starts and then draws back and gives it
up, let him give the just value of thefieldand let the owner have the field":
ις èàv yeojpyoç έκλαβόμβνος уешруіаѵ άμπβλώνος ή χώρας στοιχήσας
μετά του κυρίου αυτού και αρραβώνα λαβών άπάρξηταί, καίδιαοτρέφας
d0rfan αυτόν., τΑν τψήν τήν άξ{αν του dypoû &OTCJ και τον âypàv έχέτω ò
κύοιος αύτνύ.
provide a basis for speculating that the owner of the land was generally poor
er than the contractor. Otherwise, such a provision for compensation would
not be realistic. Moreover, since Article 16 follows immediately the pro
visions for the contract of half-sharing, it may belong to the same set of
innovations stemming from the collective responsibility of a rural com
munity for the obligations of its members.
Subsequent Historical Developments.31

The Heraclians had, indeed, laid a strong base for the successful function
ing of the tax system. The policy of colonization and of military settlement
had revitalized the vast territories devastated by wars and plagues during the
last decades of the sixth century. This effort culminated during the reign
of Justinian II, who transferred large numbers of Slavs from conquerred
territories to the interior parts of the empire. The period of the Heraclian
dynasty was marked by an unprecedented boom for the Byzantine free far
mer class.
After the death of Justinian II, the empire went through the shock of
iconoclasm and a series of civil and external wars (with the Arabs and the
Bulgars), lasting until the middle of the ninth century. However, the Hera
clian policies were carried on during that period of time. Leo III (717-41)
and Constantine V (741-75) concentrated mainly on the administration of
themes. Nikephoros I (802-11), the strongest ruler of the epoch confiscated
and colonized a part of Church latifundia, continued to increase the army
along with establishing new themes on the conquered territories, populating
the frontier areas of the state and strenghtening the discipline of the tax
administration. These measures, however, could not prevent the progressing
decrease of the small landowner class which resulted from the wars. This
process was further aggravated by the economic effects of the Thomas
the Slav's rebellion (821-23), combined with indolency of Nikephoros Fs
successors. "The civil war ruined numberless small farmers who in prosperous
times could barely pay their way, and the fiscal burdens rendered it impos
sible for them to recuperate their fortunes unless they were aided by the
state. But it was easier and more conductive to the immediate profit of the
treasury to allow these insolvent lands to pass into the possession of rich
neighbors."32
The period of prosperity in the empire beginning in the 850s brought
31. Based on J. B. Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire from the Fall of
Irene to the Accession of Basil I (A.D. 802-867) (New York: Franklin, 1965); Ostro-
gorsky, History , cc. II-V; and A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-
1453, 2 vols. (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1958), I, 330-51.
32. Bury, p. 110.
about the increasing influence of the potentates and restoration of their

political and economic power. Leo VI the Wise (886-912) not only entrusted
all the top positions in the military and civil administration to members of
the aristocratic families; he also abolished the institution of preemption, the
main legal means of preventing the potentates from absorbing the small
owners' land.33 Consequently, the large latifundia began to grow rapidly
at the expense of small property, undercutting the whole socio-economic
structure of the empire. Only Romanos I Lecapenus (92044) understood
the dangerous implications of these developments, stating: "The small hold
ing is of great benefit by reason of the payment of the state taxes and the
duty of military service; this advantage would be completely lost if the num
ber of small-holders were to be diminished."34
In his Novel of 922, Romanos I reinstituted preemption and proclaimed
all transactions concerning land between small owners and the potentates
to be illegal. Any acquisition by a big owner was punished by a fine and
the previous owner could claim back the land without any compensation.
Such a claim expired after ten years, if the owner happened to be a peasant,
and after thirty years if he was a soldier. The right to claim was extended to
the owner's heirs, relatives and other persons responsible é£ αλληλεγγύης
or for military duties related to the land.35
The political successes of Romanos I put an end to the invasions of the
Bulgars and of other Slavic peoples, devastating the rural population of the
southeastern parts of the empire, and assured favorable conditions for imple
menting his reforms. But the period of famine and pestilence which followed
the severe winter of 927-28 hindered any success these provisions might have
had. Starving farmers were forced to sell their land just to survive.
Romanos Lecapenus, calling the potentates an inner enemy of the state
"worse than the famine and the plague," condemned their policies in his
next Novel. In this Novel the emperor confirmed the validity of all the pro-
33. By this time the provisions of preemption were evaded by abuse of antichresis.
The short-term loans guaranteed by antichresis usually lead to transfer of ownership of
the mortgaged farmers' lands to the creditors. The potentates increased their properties
considerably in this way. Article 67 of the Νόμος Jèopyucos limits the advantages of
the creditors by introducing provisions favorable for the borrowing farmers (see Mala-
fosse, pp. 51-54):
ξξ ol τόκου χάριν λαβόντβς dypòv каі πλβέω των επτά χρόνων
φανωσι καρπιξόμενοι, Φηφισάτω ακροατής επταετίας каі την
ανω πάσαν και την κάτω την ήμ loe Lau еіофораѵ στοιχησάτω €ίς
ксфаКаюѵ.
34. J. and P. Zepos, Jus graeco-romanum, 8 vols. (Athenai, 1931), I, 209; Ostro-
gorsky, History, pp. 24142; Zachariä von Lingenthal, pp. 236-48: and J. A. B. Mon-
treuil, Histoire du droit byzantin ou du droit romain dans l'Empire d'Orient, depuis
la mort de Justinien jusqu'à la prise de Constantinople en 1453, 3 vols. (Paris, 1843-
46), II, 330-34.
35. Zepos, I, 198 ff.
visions of 922 and added new ones concerning the land acquired by the
potentates from the small owners during the famine. Such land was to be
returned without compensation if acquired fraudulently; however, if a
δυνατός paid a just price for it, the previous owner had to pay back the
money while claiming back his land. The right to claim was unlimited in
time in the former case but expired after three years in the latter one. 36
In 947, Constantine VII (913-57) extended the farmers' right of preemp
tion in purchasing the potentates' land as well. He also settled the problem
of soldier land, defining the minimum value of a soldier's property and pro
hibiting its sale or division among heirs.37 Nikephoros Phokas (963-69)
tried to stop the expansion of ecclesiastical property, equally dangerous to
the existence of the small owner class, by prohibiting donations of land to
the church and the founding of new monasteries. He also trebbled the value
of soldiers' property, which could not be alienated. However, an aristocrat
himself, Nikephoros Phokas eased to some degree the situation of big proper
ty by abolishing the small owners' right of preemption in purchasing the
potentates' land.38
The last and strongest blow against big property came from Basil Π (976-
1025). In his Novel of 966, Basil II restored the right of claim relating to all
small property sold to the potentates after 922. Moreover, he charged the
potentates with the responsibility of άλληλέγγυον for their neighboring
farmers if he latter were insolvent, and he also limited the growth of church
property.39 These measures improved the economic situation of the empire
in two ways: they assured tax income and prevented the further depopulation
of farm land.
The death of Basil II brought the whole epoch in the socio-economic
history of Byzantium to a close. When Romanos Argyros (1028-34) abolished
the responsibility of the potentates in regard to the farmers' land taxes, the
result of the long struggle between the throne and big property over the
farm land was easy to foretell. In their selfish economic policies, the poten
tates had gained a powerful ally: the farmers themselves. Ruined by three
36. Ibid., I, 205 ff.: Montreuil, II, 330-34; Novels 1-3;; and G. Ostrogorsky, "The
Peasant's Pre-emption Right," Journal of Roman Studies, 37 (1947), 117 ff., gives an
account of ways in which Byzantine officials evaded the law in land transactions. See
N. Svoronos, "Recherches sur le cadastre byzantin et lafiscalitéaux XIe et XIIe siècles,"
in Etudes sur l'organisation intérieure société et l'économie de l'Empire byzantin
(London: Variorum Reprints, 1973), pp. 348-50.
37. N. Svoronos, "Les privileges l'Eglise a l'époque des Comnenes: rescrit inédit de
Manuel Comnène," ibid.; Lemerle, 219 (1958), 256, and 220 (1958), 74; Zepos, I,
214, 222, and 240-43; Montreuil, II, 336-41 (Nov. 1, 2: farmer land; Nov. 3: soldier
land).
38. Zepos, I, 249 ff.; and Montreuil, II, 353-56 (Nov. 2, 5: farmer land; Nov. 1,6
soldier land).
39. Zepos, I, 262 ff.; and Montreuil, II, 357-60.
centuries of the repetitive invasions of the Arabs, the Slavs and the Bulgars,
by internal turmoils, natural disasters and constantly growing tax burdens,
the free farmers had no chance to maintain their social status. Giving up their
land and their families to large landlords became their only hope for sur
vival.40
Conclusion
From the above analysis one can conclude that the Heraclian land tax
system imposed tremendous hardships on the small landowners and became
one of the main causes of the decay of that social class in the eleventh
century. The system itself contained the seeds of its own destruction; it was
a shortsighted assumption on the part of its creator that all his successors
on the imperial throne would be wise enough and strong enough to carry on
his policies of balancing the interests of the potentates against the interests
of the state economy. The erosion of the free farmer class, which had al
ready begun during the Isaurian dynasty, was accelerated not only by war
devastations but also by the economic policies of the potentates and the
indolence of the ninth century emperors. The strains which the land tax
system put upon the decreasing rural population were not mitigated by any
action on the part of the throne. The politics of these rulers led to the total
distortion of Heraclian socio-economic ideas regarding the small landowners.
For the Heracleans the broad, healthy, well-to-do farmer class represented
the mainstay of the empire's existence. For their successors this same class
gradually became an object of unprecedented economic abuse. For over a
century no emperor attempted to adjust the tax system to the existing econ
omic situation, nor to adjust the economic situation to the tax system. The
efforts of Romanos I and Basil II came too late to stop the process which
"prepared [the empire] for the reception of a new race of inhabitants."41
The rural community responded to the Heraclian land tax reform, by
elaborating the adjustive legal norms presented in the Νόμος Георуисоя.
This response, however beneficial it might have been in the short period of
peasant class prosperity, was not sufficient when this class became a con-
40. The deterioration of the rural demographic conditions and its impact upon the
farmers' tax duties are reflected in the last (Harmenopulus's) version of the Νόμος
Jèopyucoç. The version does not include any equivalent of Article 19, hence one can
assume that no absent farmer did pay his taxes anymore. Instead, the last version in
cludes a new provision in Article I. 14: "If a farmer does not pay for his neighbor's
abandoned land, he is punished by a fee equal to double the amount of the due taxes":
Έάν yecjpyàç απόδραση ек του, Τ€λ€ίτωσαν κατ
&τος ектраорбіма του δημοσίου λάγψ οϊ τρυ^/ώντ€<: καί νβμόμενοί
τον ά-γρόν • el бе μΑ ξημωύσδωσαν èv δ ποσότητι.
41. Bury, loe. cit. quotes G. Finlay, History of Greece, B.C. 146 to A.D. 1864,
éd. H. F. Tozer, 7 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1877), II, 133.
tinuous casus belli between the throne and the potentates for the exclusive
right to exploit it. Although a farmer as a land owner had certain rights
under Byzantine law, this protection had no effect against the abuses of the
state and the potentates. Furthermore, the minimal protection given the
farmer came entirely at the expense of other farmers, usually the poorest
ones, whom the Byzantine property law did not provide with any kind of
legal recourse.
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

WILLIAM N. BAYLESS (Rocky River, Oh., U.S.A.)
Synesius ofCyrene: A Study of the Role

of the Bishop in Temporal Affairs*
It is a well-known fact that in the transition from antiquity to the Middle

Ages bishops came to assume a large measure of responsibility in temporal
affairs. In a sense .this trend began with Constantine, for his conversion and
favor elevated the Church to a quite unprecedented position in society.
Constantine, however, retained tight control over the ecclesiastical structure,
so that only with the decline of the central government could bishops effec
tively assert temporal authority.
The origins of this evolution, as is the case with many historical move
ments, are obscure. Writers of the late empire could hardly be expected to
foresee the ramifications of a phenomenon that was only in its inchoate
stages. Undoubtedly it was at least partially caused by the breakdown of
classical institutions. Brown regarded this as the primary cause for the rise of
the holy man in the society of late antiquity in Syria and elsewhere in the
East.1 A careful study of this process in the earliest stage, then, may be
helpful in understanding it when it became more fully developed and an
obvious feature of society.
The episcopacy of Synesius, bishop of the town of Ptolemais in Libya,
is in many ways a desirable model for such a study. Synesius was bishop in
the early years of the fifth century when the authority of the central govern
ment was deteriorating. It is true that Synesius lived in the East where the
decay was definitely not as pronounced as it was in the West. But, as Synes
ius' letters reveal, Libya at least was torn by barbarian incursions and in
competent government so that its situation more nearly parallels that of the
West than that of the East as a whole. Ptolemais, moreover, provides the
opportunity for studying this transition in a small provincial town on the
fringes of the empire rather than in a more urbanized or patriarchal see
where conditions would obviously be different. Finally a rather large amount
of historical material is available. One hundred and fifty-six letters written
by Synesius to many persons on a wide range of subjects reflect his person-
*This article is a revision of a paper presented at the Briarcliff Conference of Greek,

Roman, and Byzantine Studies on 19 December 1976.
1. P. Brown, "The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity," Journal
of Roman Studies, 61 (1971), 100.
ality and the condition of Libya during his lifetime.

There are two aspects to Synesius' episcopacy which can serve to unify
such a study: the attitude of the people to Synesius and the role of the
bishop; and the manner in which Synesius conceived of his own function
as a bishop. The first aspect is closely connected with the way in which
Synesius came to be a bishop, the second with his actions once he held
office. This essay will examine each aspect in turn.
Perhaps the most difficult problem in the life of Synesius centers around
the circumstances in which he became a bishop. The people of Ptolemais
forced him to accept the episcopacy, much against his will. In a letter to the
elders of the Church he writes: "I was unable for all my strength to prevail
against you and decline the bishopric, and this in spite of all my machina
tions; nor is it to your will that I have now yielded. Rather was it a divine
force which brought about the delay then, as it has caused my acceptance
now."2 Only after six months of hesitation did Synesius yield,3 and even
then he repeated frequently on later occasions that he was unfit for the
task.4
What is far more astonishing, however, is the nature of the conditions
Synesius set down as a prerequisite for his acceptance. Synesius would not
separate himself from his wife and insisted on remaining in the conjugal
state while a bishop.5 Synesius, the pupil of Hypatia, went on to assert that
he would in no way compromise his Neo-Platonic philosophy, especially on
the subject of the Resurrection: "This resurrection, which is an object of
common belief, is nothing for me but a sacred and mysterious allegory,
and I am far from sharing the views of the vulgar crowd thereon.... Divine
truth should remain hidden, but the vulgar need a different system. . . . If
I am called to the priesthood, I declare before God and man that I refuse to
preach dogmas in which I do not believe."6
Synesius' marriage was less of an obstacle, for married men were occasion-
2. Ep. 11 (112) [96]. Throughout this paper the traditional numbering of the letters
(as found in the manuscripts and Migne) appears first. Druon's chronological listing of
the letters is given in parentheses. Translations are from A. Fitzgerald, The Letters
of Synesius of Cyrene, (London: Oxford Univ. Press, H. Milford, 1926). References
to Fitzgerald's work are given in brackets.
З.Ер. 96 (111) [184].
4. Ep. 13 (136) [98], for example: "The city ought thus to understand the impru
dence it committed toward me in appointing one to the priesthood who had not sufficient
confidence in his mission to enable him to go to God and pray on behalf of the whole
people, but one who has need of the prayers of the people for his own salvation."
5. Ep. 105 (110) [199]: "I therefore proclaim to all and call to witness once forali
that I will not be separated from her. . . . I shall desire and pray to have many virtuous
children."
6. £p. 105 (110) [196-202].
SYNESIUS OF CYRENE: THE BISHOP IN TEMPORAL AFFAIRS 149
ally made bishops. But his attitude toward orthodox doctrines is so remark
able that it has been seriously doubted whether Synesius was a Christian at
all at the time of his election. Although much has been written on this sub
ject, the evidence is insufficient to reach any certain conclusions.7 On bal
ance, it seems that he was not. It is quite clear that he was raised as a pagan.8
He had studied under Hypatia at Alexandria where he became deeply imbued
with Neo-Platonic philosophy. Synesius retained his affection for Hypatia
and his interest in Neo-Platonism all his life. He was on intimate terms with
Proclus, Troilus, Paeonius, and other Neo-Platonic philosophers. Both Evag-
rius and Photius explicitly declare that he was a pagan and did not receive
baptism until his election.9
Even if Synesius was a Christain, it is surprising that the people should
choose a man of such unorthodox views, expecially when he was so reluctant.
Yet they did want him and were willing to wait sex months for him to accept.
Ptolemais must have wanted Synesius badly to overlook such circumstances.
Quite cleaily Synesius was not selected for spiritual guidance. Why then did
the city choose someone like Synesius? To understand how a situation like
this could come about, it will be necessary to examine Synesius' previous
life and the state of Libya at this time.
Synesius possessed a large and productive estate south of the seacoast.
His economic position made him a prominent curialis and a member of the
provincial council.10 Synesius' cosmopolitan education fitted him for a role
of leadership in the community, but his philosophical disposition was more
inclined to other pursuits: "This leisure [for philosophy] I shall enjoy when I
succeed in freeing myself from entanglement in the political life of the
Romans; and that will be when I am released from these accursed curial
functions."11 But his culture, his wealth, and his rank in society were bound
to place him in an important position in the turbulent years to come.
7. W. S. Crawford, Synesius the Hellene (London: Rivingtons, 1901), pp. 35-37

has summarized scholady opinion on both sides since the Renaissance. He points out
that the main argument presented by those in favor of Synesius' Christianity is the
difficulty they have in believing that it could be otherwise.
8. Ep. 66 (122) [148].
9. Evagrius HE 1.15: Пеібоѵоі б' ούν αυτόν της σωτηριώδους iraMyyeveaíaq ά£ι-
ω&ηναι, καί τον ξιτγον της Ιερωσϋνης ìrneXdeiv, οίιπω τον \6yov της αναστάσεως
παρα&€χόμ€νον, ουδέ 6o£áfeu> èòéXovra. Photius BibL 26: Ήι> δ"ούτος è£ Ελλήνων
φιλοσοφία σχολάξων. t)i> φασι προς τον ΰειασμορ τοϋ Χριστιανασμοϋ vevoama, τα μβι>
¿ίλλα παραδέχβσδαι βύπβιΰώς. τον be nepí αναστάσεως . . . ούκ ¿#е\ец> vpoaUaôai
λόητον. άλλ' ούν καί ούτω Siatcelßevov è μύησαν те та ^детера, και en καί άρχνερωσύνης
Αξίωσαν. Photius notes that at the time of his election he was becoming disposed
(уеоааѵта) to Christianity.
10. Synesius' accomplishments as a curialis are discussed by С Η. Coster, "Synesius,
A Curialis of the Time of the Emperor Arcadius," Byzantion, 15 (1940), 10-38.
11. Ep. 100 (30) [187].
Synesius was appointed by Cyrene as a special envoy to represent to

Arcadius the condition of the province.12 The brutal frankness of his speech
to Arcadius is in very striking contrast to the fulsome speeches of adulation
so customary at the court. The speech reproaches the emperor for separating
himself behind a wall of court ceremonial instead of leading his armies
into battle as emperors used to do. The reliance on parasitic barbarian troops
is also attacked. The unparalleled boldness of the De Regno has led some to
think that Synesius wrote the speech we now have later and that the original
address was much milder in tone. But Synesius elsewhere declares that he
used "a freedom of speech unexampled among the Greeks" in his appearance
before the emperor,13 so the De Regno was probably actually delivered.
Synesius spent three years in Constantinople. It was probably during this
period that he made the friendships which were to be so valuable to him
later. Although he does not seem to have known the regent Anthemius
personally, his later letters make it clear that he was on intimate terms
with the praetorian prefect Aurelian, who was consul in 400, Troilus, Theoti-
mus, Nicander, and other influential persons in the government. These
friendships, especially with Troilus, the closest adviser of Anthemius,
were later to be of great help to him. In addition Synesius was on the best
of terms with Pentadius, the praefectus Augustalis of Egypt, to whom the
praeses of the Pentapolis was accountable.15
Synesius returned to Libya in 402. 1 6 Since 395 that area had been raided
sporadically by barbarians from the south whom Synesius refers to as Ausur-
ians.17 In the years 405-06 their incursions reached menacing proportions.
The attacks of these barbarians, who were probably relatively few in number,
were so successful largely because of the incompetent government and poor
military leadership to which Libya was unfortunately subjected. Synesius
complains bitterly about the quality of the soldiers who were supposed to be
defending Libya. Soldiers bought exemption from service or retired to remote
areas when an invasion was imminent.18 Their commanders were little better:
12. De Regno 2: 'Еде σοι πέμπει Kvprm. Cf. also Petau's critical note on this passage
in Patrologia Graeca LXVI, 1055, no.6.
\Z.DeInsomnüs9.
14. Epp. 29-30 (61-62) [105-06]. For a discussion of Synesius'pohtical acquaint
ances in Constantinople, cf. G. Grützmacher, Synesios von Kyrene, ein Charakterbild
aus dem Untergang des Hellentums (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1913), pp. 61-65.
15. Socrates 7.1.26.
16. Marcellinus com. sub a. 402 mentions an earthquake in Constantinople, Since
Synesius says (Ep. 61) that he left the city shortly after an earthquake, the year 402
probably marks the date of his departure.
17. Philostoigius 11.8. Philostorgius calls them Auxorians (Άυξωριανοι), but there
is no doubt the same group is meant.
18. Epp. 130 (75) [219-21], 122 (87) [212-13].
"The cowardice of our generals has delivered up our country to the enemy
without a single battle."19 The administration of the governor Cerealis was
marked by corruption and cowardice. Cities were blackmailed by the threat
of billeting soldiers there—a fate that could be as disastrous as a sack by the
barbarians.20 When Cyrene was besieged by the Ausurians, Cerealis retired to
a ship in the harbor from which he sent commands by messengers and which
afforded him a safe exit should the worse come to the worst.21 Such behav
iour hardly inspired confidence in the defenders.
Under such chaotic conditions it is scarcely surprising that the Ausurians
were quite successful. Snyesius' jeremiads, even if exaggerated, present the
picture of a region on the point of collapse: "I am encompassed by the suffer
ings of my city and disgusted with her, for I daily see the enemy forces, and
men slaughtered like victims on the altar."22 And under such circumstances
it is also not surprising that the desperate inhabitants turned elsewhere for
leadership.
Since the government was so ineffective, Synesius and many like him un
dertook the resistance to the enemy. He began manufacturing iron weapons
even though he was fully aware that this was illegal.23 To judge from a letter
to his brother, Synesius had gathered a considerable stockpile of weapons.24
The histoiy of this border warfare, of course, is obscure; but apparently Sy
nesius' talent gave him a position of leadership. He so indicates in one of his
letters: "I myself enrolled companies and officers with the resources I had at
my disposal. I am collecting a very considerable body at Asusamas also, and I
have given the Dioestae word to meet me at Cleopatra. Once we are on the
march, and when it is announced that a young army has collected round me, I
hope that many more will join us of their own free will. They will come from
every side, the best men to associate themselves with our glorious undertaking,
and the worthless to get booty."25 Synesius himself was not happy with this
role, but necessity forced it upon him. His success against the Ausurians made
him a natural leader: "Now friends of mine, soldiers and civilians alike, who
suffer injustice, are forcing me to pretend to power in the city, a thing for
which I know myself to be unqualified by nature. They know this as well as I
do, but for their own sakes they are forcing me to take some actions, however
19. Ep. 133(73)[225-26].

20. Яр. 130(75)[219-21].
21. Ibid.
22. Ep. 124 (24) [214]. This letter was written to Hypatia and describes to her the
pitiable conditions in Libya.
23. £p. 107 (86) [203].
24. Ep. 108 (85) [203^].
25. Ep. 125(72)[215].
unwillingly."26 Thus, on the eve of his election to the episcopacy in 410,

Synesius had gained a wide reputation for his military ability and talent for
leadership.
In considering the reasons for Synesius' elevation to the episcopacy, his
previous career must be taken into account. Although direct evidence is lack
ing, for the motives of the people in electing him are nowhere stated, there is
every reason to believe that his leadership in temporal affairs was the reason.
Synesius was a well-educated and cultured curialis. He was known to have
made influential contacts in Constantinople and Alexandria that could only
be beneficial to his troubled land. His speech to Arcadius marked him as an
original thinker and a forceful orator. Finally, he had assumed direction of
the war against the barbarians when a weak and venal government had shown
itself impotent.
It is hard to see any other motive which could have induced the people to
elect a man who may not have even been a Christian and who certainly made
no secret of the fact that his views on key dogmas were quite at variance with
the popular conception of them. However Synesius saw his office, the people
saw the bishop as a position of temporal authority that would balance the au
thority of tyrannical officials and that could serve as a rallying point against
the barbarians.
Evidence for this view of the episcopacy is found in a letter Synesius later
wrote as a bishop.27 The letter, written to Theophilus, patriarch of Alexan
dria, explains to him a dispute in Palaebisca, a village on the frontier of Libya.
The people had deposed their bishop Orion, a pious but elderly man, and re
placed him with a young and energetic man, Siderius, who had served in the
army under Valens. Orion's old age had been "a reproach in the eyes of those
who consider that the priesthood should be a champion of men's affairs, and
versatile in its functions."28 Since the election was clearly uncanonical, Syne
sius had journeyed to the village to correct the wrong. But he was so strongly
moved by the emotional appeals of the people that he wrote to Theophilus
to ask him to allow the election to stand. He said that it might be better to
overlook the irregularity since extreme necessity had compelled the people to
take the step.
The people of Libya quite obviously had come to look upon the episco
pacy as a political as well as a religious office. Synesius was elected because he
could protect them from barbarian attacks and bureaucratic abuses. Later
events were to show that the Libyans were not mistaken in then: choice.
26. Ep. 144 (50) [239).

27. Ep. 67 (123) 1149-60].
28. ѢЫ.
To judge from the extant letters written after Synesius became bishop, his
time was divided between dealing with barbarian incursions and evil governors,
with little time for his philosophical pursuits or spiritual duties. The nomadic
Ausurians continued their raids throughout the remaining years of Synesius'
life. Synesius' correspondence is not sufficiently informative to allow us to
follow the progress of this warfare. Apparently the tide went back and forth
during these confusing years. At times Synesius seemed on the verge of des
pair: "All is lost, all is destroyed. At the moment of writing, there is nothing
left but the cities, nothing."29 At other times he was almost jubilant, as in his
oration congratulating Anysius and the mercenary Unnigardae on a smashing
victory over the barbarians.30
But whatever the course of the war, it is quite clear that Synesius played a
significant role in it. Notwithstanding his episcopal dignity, he was often in
the midst of the fighting: "I long to give my eyes a sleep uninterrupted by the
sound of the trumpet. How much longer shall I stand upon the ramparts, how
much longer shall I guard the intervals between the turrets."31 Synesius com
plains that this military service was practically required of him as if it were
one of his duties: "I live, not as a private citizen, in a country which is prey
to war, and I am bound continually to condole with everyone's misfortunes.
Often in a month I have to rush to the ramparts, as if I received a stipend to
take part in military service rather than to pray."32
The distress of the war caused Synesius to abandon some of his cherished
concepts. Although he had bitterly attacked the use of barbarian mercenaries
in the De Regno, he had only the highest praise for the Unnigardae.33 It is a
credit to Synesius' flexibility that he was not intransigent in the face of the
obvious advantage derived from using Huns. It is not known what success Sy
nesius had in his struggles with the Ausurians. But he did labor energetically,
writing to Theophilus for aid and directing the fighting.34 Quite probably the
barbarians continued to remain a menace but did not succeed in overrunning
the cities and forts.
Although the struggle with the barbarians indicated the role a bishop was
expected to play, the power of the bishop is much more strikingly illustrated
by Synesius' dramatic confrontation with the civil authority. Public office
seems to have been a recognized means of financial exploitation at this time.
29. Ep. 69 (147) [160].

30. Catástasis 1.
31. Catástasis 2.
32. Ep. 89(146)[177J.
33. The Unnigardae are probably the Hunugaii, a Hunnic tribe on the Danube, men
tioned by Jordanes Get. 5. Cf. С. Lacombrade, Synésios de Cyrène, hellène et chrétien
(Paris: Société d'édition "Les belles lettres," 1951), p. 106.
34. Ep. 69 (147) [160].
Cerealis was by no means the only example, for Synesius in praising an atypi-
cally honest official remarks, "Marcellinus did not claim any of those profits
which usage has made to appear lawful."35 But Andronicus, the new govern
or, was so extraordinarily rapacious that he put even Ceralis in the shade.
Synesius seems to have had a forewarning of Andronicus' reputation be
cause he wrote to Troilus requesting his intervention with Anthemius for the
removal of Andronicus.36 He noted that the appointment of Libyan (Andro
nicus was from Berenice) to an office in Libya was illegal and hoped "that it
may not come to pass in the time of the great Anthemius that Roman rule
shall perish from the midst of the province.37
Synesius' fears, however, were fulfilled.38 Extortion was practiced on an,
unprecedented scale with dire punishment, including torture, awaiting those
who could not or would not pay up. Synesius finally excommunicated him
for violating the sanctuary to arrest one of his victims and then refusing to
release the prisoner despite Synesius' remonstrances.
Synesius' excommunication took the form of a lengthy oration, Against
Andronicus.^9 This oration was actually a sermon which Synesius delivered
to his congregation. It is included among the letters simply because this is the
arrangement found in the manuscripts.40 This oration is of interest because it
reveals Synesius' concept of the episcopacy. After reviewing the terrible evils
to which Andronicus has subjected Libya, Synesius then makes it clear that
he is not excommunicating Andronicus for any of these offenses. The sole
reason for the excommunication is an ecclesiastical offense—violation of the
sanctuary.
It is too much to say that Synesius advocated a separation of church and
state, but he certainly saw the importance of keeping the two functions
distinct: "The past ages made the same men priest and judges! The Egyptian
and Hebrew nations were for long ruled over by their priests. Then, later it
seems to me, when the divine work was executed in a humane spirit, God
separated the two ways of life. One of these was appointed to the priestly,
the other to the governing order."41 For Synesius temporal and spiritual
power have been separated and should not be united. He goes on to say that
he cannot exercise both powers: "Do you need a protector? Walk to the
35. Ep. 62 (155) [146].

36. Ep. 73(109)[163-65].
37. Ibid.
38. Emilienne Demougeot, De l'unité*à la division de l'Empire romain, 395-410,
essai sur le gouvernement impérial (Paris, Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1951), p. 342, aptly
remarks: "Les lettres de Synésios ont fait de lui un sorte de Verres."
39. Ep. 57(98)[12740].
40. Fitzgerald, p. 127.
41./Ш-[136].
administrator of the laws of the state. Do you want anything of God? Go to

the priest of the city. . . . Power to serve two masters is not in me." 42 Con
sequently Synesius feels he cannot excommunicate Andronicus for his
criminal actions. Andronicus is being excommunicated only for violating the
laws of the Church.
Synesius' view of episcopal authority is all the more remarkable when
contrasted with the attitude of the people who had elected him. Synesius
mentions in his address that many had expected an excommunication long
before this for Andronicus' crimes. To these Synesius replies that he waited
for the opportunity of an ecclesiastical offense because "I have waited to
make you convinced with me, by the logic of facts, that to join together
political ability with the priesthood is to combine the uncombinable."43
This is a strong statement on the limitation of episcopal power and is cer
tainly quite at variance with the general opinion of Synesius' contemporaries.
As this essay has already shown, Synesius' fellow citizens elected him because
of his demonstrated political ability. As Synesius' address indicates, they
expected him to assert political authority against Andronicus. But Synesius is
disturbed by this view and points out that he does not share it. He saw the
episcopate as a spiritual office, they looked upon it as a temporal office.
Synesius followed up his address with a letter to other bishops telling them
to treat Andronicus as an outcast.44 Andronicus gave some signs of repen
tance so that Synesius was prevailed upon, quite reluctantly, to lift the
ban.45 Synesius' suspicions were fully justified: Andronicus shortly there
after ^murdered a certain Magnus after the latter had refused to pay a sum of
gold demanded of him. The excommunication was renewed—this time per
manently.46
The incident has an interesting epilogue. The excommunication seems to
have brought about the punishment of Andronicus by the government.
Synesius had compassion on Andronicus and requested Theophilus to try to
mitigate the penalty: "In the past Andronicus did injustice, but now he in
turn is treated with injustice. Nevertheless it is the character of the Church to
exalt the humble and humble the proud. The Church detested this man
Andronicus on account of his actions, wherefore she pressed for this result,
but now she pities him for that experiences have exceeded the measure of her
malediction."47 The contest had thus ended in a complete triumph for
42.7Ш-1137].
43. Ibid- [136].
44. Ep. 58 (99) [14043].
45. ¿Γρ. 72 (129) (161-63 J. "But it is presumptuous to attempt to resist, when you
are alone against many a younger man against elder men, one who had not taken office
a year ago against those whose lives have been spent in the priesthood." [162].
46. Ibid.
47. Ą?. 90(132)1177].
Synesius and shows the far-reaching political effects that a spiritual weapon
like excommunication could have.
The entire episode reveals how far Synesius' opinion of the role of the
bishop differed from that of his fellow citizens. They were only too eager to
see the bishop wield his authority against temporal rulers. When one considers
the type of government to which they were exposed, they can hardly be
blamed for this disposition. Synesius, however, was aware of the limitations
and possible abuses of his office and tried to prevent exercises of power that
might set a precedent that could lead to unforeseen complications in the
future.
In a sense too, the incident summarizes Synesius' entire career. Synesius
did not want to be bishop or lead the defense against the barbarians or
champion the rights of the people against Andronicus. But Synesius was
moving against the times. Faced with chaos by a grasping and impotent
government, the people naturally turned to the bishop as their protector.
They elected Synesius because of his proven ability for leadership. They
relied on him to supervise their defense against the Ausurians. Finally, they
expected him to "combine the uncombinable" by "joining together political
ability with the priesthood" against Andronicus. He did not do this, however,
but waited for the proper moment when he could legitimiately exercise his
episcopal authority. Ptolemais wanted a temporal leader for its bishop.
Paradoxically, it elected a man who was reluctant to play the part. But
Synesius' dignified and courageous leadership as bishop showed that Ptol
emais had nevertheless made a wise choice.
MICHAEL J. KYRIAKIS (Glifada, Attikis, Greece)
Medieval European Society as Seen in Two

Eleventh-Century Texts of Michael Psellos
[PART III]
General Summary and Conclusions
It has been seen in the above study and translation of the two eleventh-
century compositions of Michael Psellos that they not only tell us much
about the upper classes of Constantinople, but they also reflect the author's
character and his outlook. In this section, the above details are brought
together (along with other relevant information from other woiks of Psellos)
in an attempt to see the man and his work from a vue d'ensemble. Thus,
within the limits of this present study, Psellos' home and family are consider
ed and his interest in and contributions to a number of domains and disci
plines (including medicine, law, philosophy, rhetoric, language and literature).
Finally, I shall reflect upon the upper class society as described in the above
two and other texts of Michael Psellos, and evaluate his attitudes toward the
social environment of eleventh-century Constantinople.
A. Family Life of the Upper Classes in Eleventh-Century Constantinople

The first composition examined above revealed Michael Psellos in the role
of a parent concerned with the upbringing, development and education of his
only child Styliani, and participating at the same time in a number of family
and social situations.1 In the descriptions of his daughter, of her harmonious
character, attractiveness and virtues, Psellos appears happy and proud of her
good fortune, good looks, intellectual abilities, devotion to learning, modesty
and goodness of heart, but also for the love she had for her parents. Further
more there was, he noted, StyHani's deep devotion to religion, the church and
1. We have no information about Michael Psellos' marriage. We know neither his

wife's name nor his relationship with her. The notations in text I and Sathas are inter
esting, but hypothetical.
her sense of Christian charity.

While the funeral oration is a rich source of information about family life
and of the upper classes in eleventh-century Constantinople, the text raises at
the same time a number of questions about the author.2 Well known in his
own time and the later Middle Ages as one of the most prominent intellectual
leaders (and also as a scholar and statesman), he is seen in the first text as a
family man and parent. At the same time, he seems discontented with that
highly stratified society of which he was a part, where links with the nobility
counted and were much sought after.
His writings and activities show Michael Psellos trying not only to survive
against all kinds of opposition, but attempting to protect and to justify his
preoccupations with philosophy and Hellenism, and also seeking to cultivate
and to transmit his Platonic and cultural interests to his students, friends and
others. At the same time he was disturbed by a number of existing social and
other conditions in his environment some of which are reflected in the two
above texts and-in his other compositions, and he sought to improve them. It
has been noted that in the first oration Psellos was shattered by a family
tragedy, as he laments: ". . . nothing is more calamitous than the loss of a
child"; which happening may be related to the comment made in Chrono
graphia VI. 196 '7: " . . . I was heartbroken by a terrible disaster "
As a result of these experiences, Psellos at some later date and possibly far
from Constantinople composed the above work, a lament, for "a daughter
lost." In that effort he actually constructed a representation of an idealized
Byzantine maiden, for while the initial subject and inspiration were the
personality and virtues of Styliani, Michael Psellos apparently went beyond
them in his composition and created an image, weaving these with Classical
Greek, ЫЫісаІ and other influences, but creating work that remained in
withdrawn to the monastery, ca. 1054, then a number of oppressive and com
plex thoughts must have passed through his mind,
sive and complex thoughts must have passed through his mind.
A correlation of historical events along with details appearing in the
funeral oration and in his other works suggests that the sorrowful incidents
and the tragic loss of young Styliani may have taken place between 1053
and eariy in 1054. Thereafter, it appears that Psellos following her death
returned briefly to his post in the imperial court, but found conditions
greatly changed, for in his absence ". . . slanderers and sycophants . . ."
(Chronographia VI. 191) had succeeded in taking his place in the emperor's
favor. These conditions and the " . . . fickleness of the Emperor" convinced
2. Among them are: Was Michael Psellos married? If so,,where and when? Did he and,
his wife have a daughter? Was her name Styliani, and what is the source of the name?
His own mother's name was Theodote. Could the source have been Stylianos Zaoutzes?
him and his friend John Xiphilinos3 to quit the court and Constantinople,
and to retire to a monastery.
A great deal is known about Michael Psellos, but of his only child, Styliani,
we know nothing more than what he has set forth in his composition, and we
may therefore wonder what portion of these details were actual. It cannot
be overlooked that the grief-stricken father, not long after the girl's death
while composing a lament for her loss extended and elaborated upon actual
details (graces, virtues, etc.) and produced a subjective representation, wherin
actuality and imagination were molded together with his intellectual and
aesthetic interests.
These speculations notwithstanding, it appears that Styliani was a pretty,
intelligent maiden, whose family background and environment contributed
much to her development as an alert, modest, gifted and lovable youngster.
So precious was she to her parents that they felt it was fortuitous, despite
their anguish and great sorrow, she had left this sad, foul world4 ". . . un
touched and unstained by its evil. . . ." If however Styliani had lived-out
her span of life, she probably would have married some young man of the
nobility, and have raised an attractive family.
It has been seen that the first composition (text 1) provided us with con
siderable details about Michael Psellos himself and his outlook. He was seen
in the part of a parent, proud and happy with his daughter's character and
her abilities (also with her progress in learning), who was as he pointed out
" . . . first among her schoolmates. . . ." But at the same time however, he
mentioned that she did not neglect the craft of the loom, while she also
occupied herself with weaving and emboidery.
There are also references to Psellos' wife, to the household and the im
mediate family circle, including relatives, friends, etc. These details are inter
woven with the later period—the terrible days and nights of Styliani's ill
ness and suffering. The author also tells with concern and gratitude about
various persons, the mother, the close relatives, the family friends, including
the nurses and the servants, who stood by during the girl's illness to comfort
her and her parents, and to accompany them to the cemetary where they
wept and mourned together the sorrowful loss of the maiden.
Although in no other text known at this time does Michael Psellos appear
in the role of a father5 and parent, he does express elsewhere "fatherly
sentiments" for his students. In some discourses, he shows concern for their
studies and advancement in learning and he urges them to use their tune and
3. See below: III, D.

4. See above, nn. 68 and 82 in Part I. The expression may also be one of consolation.
5. Sathas and others have attributed some suspect works to Michael Psellos that tell
of an "adopted daughter" and eyen of a grandson!
opportunity profitably. In other works he praises some of them and is happy

about their efforts; and in one6 we find him impatient and critical of students
who would waste their time—who were actually indifferent to study and, to
the benefits they could gain from "the treasurehouse" of Ancient Greece
and from its philosophy in particular.
Concerning Michael Psellos' role as a family man, it appears that our only
source of information is the funeral oration. Human and moving as the work
may be, it remains on one level a sorrowful expression of a parent heart
broken by the loss of his only beloved child, while on another it is an attrac
tive work of literary art. For these and a number of other details the ora
tion is worthy of further study.
B. Medicine in Eleventh-Century Constantinople

Despite the long and continuous Byzantine preoccupation with medicine
among practitioners,7 teachers of medicine, professors of philosophy, and
others, very little progress if any was made in its practical and scientific
domains. It might be said that this was so largely because Byzantines deal
ing with medical art were preoccupied principally (and for a variety of rea
sons) with theory-with ancient Greek literature on medicine, with the lan
guage, and method of Hippocrates and other physicians, and also with ancient
Greek philosophers who wrote on medicine. These predilections can be seen
in the writings of Michael Psellos, of Theodoras Prodramos and Michael
Italikos (both of the mid- and later twelfth century) and in many others.
Further revealing of the environment in which Byzantine medical activities
and studies existed, men like Michael Italikos (the teacher of Philosophy
of Rhetoric and Theology and later Archbishop of Philippopolis) is said
to have also been an instructor (teacher) of medicine (διδάσκαλος των
ιατρών).*
The interest and active role Michael Psellos played in medicine is revealed
not only by his minute notations in text I, not only in the various essays
and other compositions (see further on) he has written on medicine, but also
by what he tells in his Chronographia and elsewhere, including the role
medicine played in his private life and teaching. Nevertheless, it has been
noted in the first text that contemporary (eleventh-century) medicine was
unable to diagnose, help or alleviate the suffering or to cure the sick. At
6. See my study, "Student Ufe in Eleventh-Century Constantinople," BvÇavrwa,

7 (1975), 377-88.
7. One can hardly use the term "physicians," though the use in Byzantium of Ιατ
ρός, i.e., doctor, was common, for their knowledge of medicine was most rudimentary
and was based largely on theory. See below HI, B.
8. See R. Browning, "Unpublished Correspondence Between Michael Italicus, Arch
bishop of Philippolis, and Theodore Prodomus," Byzantinobulgarica, 1 (1962), 279-97.
the same time, it must seem curious to students of medicine that the malady
(a severe case of smallpox) is referred to by Psellos as something unusual
and "difficult to diagnose"! For actually that disease (or epidemic) appeared
periodically in Byzantium and Western Europe in the Middle Ages. It came
from Africa and the East, carrying off some, but also leaving characteristic
signs whereever it passed. The epidemic of smallpox that deformed, tor
mented and ended the life of Styliani ravaged the Byzantine Empire re
currently, and even the princess Eudokia, eldest daughter of Constantine
VIII and sister of Zoe and Theodora," . . . had been disfigured by small
pox."9 A century later, a prominent Byzantine intellectual leader and teacher
of philosophy, rhetoric, etc., Theodoros Pródromos, a prolific writer and
admirer of Plato, also composed a detailed description of a smallpox out
break, which he himself had contracted,10 was ravaged by it, but survived.11
The smallpox epidemics fell upon Byzantium repeatedly, ravaged many
and passed on to the West, leaving suffering, deformity and death in their
course. They bewildered the Byzantine populace and the physicians euphe
mistically referred to them as βύλσγιά or blessing. Michael Psellos was very
critical of those practitioners whom he pointed out ". . . were known more
for their failures than for their success " These circumstances persisted in
Byzantium throughout its millenium and reflected conditions (historical and
others) that impeded development in medicine and other scientific domains.
And while the imperial court was later able to bring in physicians from the
East, the people, for the larger part, had to depend on various practitioners
and prayers.
Apparently, certain factors among them the emphasis of the teaching
on medical theory, the linking of medicine with philosophy, the opposition
of the church to science generally and to Hellenism,12 the absence of any
systematic medical training and the ignoring of the practical side of medi
cine—restricted the development ofthat science.
Because of these and other reasons, there was little.time nor were facili
ties available to achieve advances in Byzantine science. Also, while medicine
along with philosophy and several other sciences formed part of medieval
encyclopaedic learning, surviving notes, commentaries, etc., show its depen
dence on ancient Greek sources. At the same time teachers ("Masters")
in the higher schools of learning as Michael Psellos, Michael Italikos and
9. See G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell's,
1968), p. 321. She was the older sister of Zoe and Theodora.
10. Disfigurement included рок-marks on the face or body, loss of hair, etc.
11. See E. Jeanselme and L. Oeconomos, "Communication faite au premier Con
grès de lTiistoke et de l'art de guérir," publié 1921 Anvers.
12. The opposition however was not continuous and there were periods of tolera
tion. See HI, D and F, wherein we see philosophy and Hellenism persisted.
others, taught philosophy and a number of other subjects, but also medical
theories.
A number of literary texts, including the late eleventh century Timar
ion}* the twelfth-century Physician or the executioner (Δήμιος η Ιατρός)
and the fourteenth century Mazaris' sojourn in Hades reflect those condi
tions.
Although the revival of learning in Byzantium after 1025, or following
the death of Basil II, brought an increased interest in letters, in philosophy
and science (including medicine), it appears from all surviving evidence that
no medical schools were founded in Byzantium, nor do we know of any
systematically trained physicians to have been brought forth during the
eleventh or later centuries.14
In contrast to the above developments in Byzantium, the Moslem East
made considerable advances in science and in medicine; and it is interesting
to note that from the eleventh century on one finds physicians from the
East in the court at Constantinople, while the most important writers on
medicine at that tune were Michael Psellos and his contemporary, Symeon
Seth (Στ}#). Both were active in thé imperial court, and if they were not
actually rivals m medicine, they represented nevertheless different approaches
to that science. Also like Michael Psellos who had dedicated works on medi
cine to the reigning emperor, Symeon Seth did the same and his Σύνταγμα,
κατά στοιχεί ων και τροφών δονάμβων (i.e., A Lexicon on the Property of
Foods) was presented to Michael VII Doukas. Earlier, Psellos had addressed
his Collection of Essays on Medicine and on Other Topics (Διδασκαλία
Παντοδαττή . . . Πόσιμα Ίατρικόν)15 to Constamene X, the father of Michael
VII.
Aside from the above mentioned work which may have been a compre
hensive instruction manual on a number of topics from medicine to physi
ology, Psellos composed several others works dealing with medicine. Among
them are his Υίάνψα Ίατρικόν, a composition on various medical topics in
1,357 iambic verses, a short essay on the medical property of stones, Перс
λίΰων δυνάμεων, a lexicon on the common names of diseases, Uepiκουλών
στοιχείων κ ai τροφών δουάτων èv νοσήμασι, and another essay on nutrition
Uepi διαίτης. The last work was dedicated to Constantine X Doukas.
Michael Psellos and Symeon Seth were influenced by ancient Greek
physicians, philosophers, among them Hippocrates, Galen, Dioskourides,
Aetios, Oribasios, Empedocles, and Proclos. A notable difference, however ap
pears in the writings of Symeon Seth who referred to and used Arabic sources.
13. See my forthcoming study on this work.

14. See Bréhiei, Le monde byzantin, HI, 380-82.
15. The work was published in Michael Psellus, De omnifaria doctrina, ed. L. G.
Westerink (Utrecht, 1948).
Symeon Seth who was a physician of Semitic origin had gone to Constan
tinople as a youth with his father. Later, Symeon became court-physician
to Michael VII Doukas and flourished like Psellos in the second half of the
eleventh century. But judging from the surviving eleventh-century Byzantine
works on medicine—commentaries, notations, collected material, and satires-
it appears that very little if any progress was made in the actual treatment of
patients or in surgery. Furthermore, even though the twelfth century dis
played increased interest in medicine and a number of hospitals were founded
in Constantinople by emperors and the state, and though we find references
to teachers of medicine, in actuality conditions remained largely unchanged
as our surviving sources amply show. The hospitals were hospices, or homes
for the ill and the aged, or charitable institutions under the supervision
of a state official, while the δώάσκαλοί των ιατρών, i.e., teachers of medi
cine, dealt with speculation. Yet, important though those developments
were, they contributed nothing to the treatment of patients or to practical
medicine.
As for Michael Psellos' detailed description of Styliani's illness, one finds
in some other works similar descriptions and like developments of passing
from robust health and beauty to the opposite. We have seen above in the
funeral oration that Psellos begins with a detailed description of Styliani
as she was prior to her illness—vigorous, agile, attractive and delightful.
Thus, while in the beginning she is pictured full of life and action, and joy
ous to behold, she appears subsequently confined to her bed, ravaged and
deformed horribly by disease. In a like manner in his Chronographia (VI.
124-26), Psellos tells about the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos.
He is first portrayed as handsome with a striking physical appearance. We are
told about his good looks, his robust health and " . . . his beauty was like that
of Achilles or Nireus . . . for Nature having formed him . . . brought him to
perfection. . . ." He rode well and was an extremely fast runner. But then
illness came upon him (ibid., pp. 127 and 129) with debilitating symptoms,
and the former attractive person was deformed and suffered " . . . enduring
pains, leading to paralysis and misfortune."
While Michael Psellos' name is intimately associated with philosophy,
Hellenism and literature, actually his interests in teaching and writing covered
a large variety of subjects including astronomy, music, rhetoric, and others,
including medicine, both theoretical and practical. As to medicine a nota
tion appears in the Chronographia VII. 74 '5 and is of particular interest
to us. In a passage where he speaks of Isaac I Komnenos,he writes: " . . . for
he [Isaac I] knew that besides my other activities I had also practiced Med
icine. . . . " Furthermore, we are told that on another occasion when he
approached the emperor who was then on his sick-bed, Isaac said to him
". . .'You came at an opportune moment' and he promptly gave me his hand
to feel the pulse. . . ." Psellos also mentions that he and the emperor's chief
physician were present, and that he [Psellos] "disagreed with his diagnosis"!
C. Law: Jurisprudence in Eleventh-Century Byzantium

The institution of law in the Byzantine Empire had been inherited along
with several other systems from Rome; and inevitably its spirit, form, and a
number of its characteristics reflect that origin. It was and remained through
out one of the most important legacies that Byzantium nursed, developed
and. transmitted to Europe and the Near East. Indeed Roman law, as it
evolved throughout the Byzantine millenium, also incorporated numerous
elements from the Hellenistic world, from ancient Greek philosophy, and
from a number of eastern sources. After the fourth centuryAJD., it was
deeply infused and made more flexible and human through Christian in
fluences, while Byzantine jurisconsults, courts, students of law, and the
School of Law in Constantinople under John Xiphilinos, each made thek
own special contributions. Thus, the institution of law in Byzantium devel
oped, expanded, enriched and molded itself to fit the newer and continuously
changing needs.
Byzantine law codes from the fourth to the mid-fifteenth century show
amply those developments. The imperial codes of Theodosios and Justinian,
the Eklogai of Leo III, the Basilika of Leo VI, etc., were continuously devel
oped and modified. Indeed, Byzantine civil and canon law preoccupied
generations of legal minds, and the result of this activity holds a consider
able place within the empire's surviving literature, while the influence of the
codes on Europe and law generally is incalculable.
The source and foundation of Byzantine law was the Roman Empire and
the law was directly linked with person of the emperor, as it has been pointed
out by Louis Bréhier.16 He writes: the emperor was " . . . le juge suprême . . .
juger est sa fonction primordiale , . . toute Justice émane de l'Empereur
(source'de Droit) . . . nul ne peut rendre Justice qu'en son nom " These
traditions and their continuity can be seen in the wording and spirit of
Byzantine codes, for they bear the name and authority of the reigning sov
ereign. Some laws, however, are simply entitled Βασιλικά, i.e., imperial,
Εκλογαί, i.e., selections from earlier imperial codes, and Επαι^αγωγΐ}, i.e.,
reinstatement.17
When young men of ability and intellectual capacity wanted to complete
their studies, find employment, or enter a profession during the Byzantine
period, they would go to Constantinople. If some among them did not want
16. Bréhier, Π, 179-202.

17. The titles refer to imperial codes of law and are associated with the names of
emperors: Eklogai (Leo III); Epanagoge (Basil I); Basilika (Leo VD, etc. See further
Ostrogorsky, variously.
to take up any of the common, more accessible pursuits as the work of a

laborer, of a servant in one of the wealthy homes, of a rower in the navy or
merchant marine, or the career of a soldier, or enter a monastery, then they
had two choices. One was the entry into the Byzantine bureaucratic admin
istration and work in one of its оекрета, i.e., offices as a clerk or.scribe
σεκββτικός. Another choice would be to become a lawyer, άσηκρι,τής, νοτάρ-
ιος, ουντγγορος. Since knowledge of law was important in the government
and administration, in public and civil affairs, in the Church and elsewhere,
the emperors were oblidged to found schools of higher learning, usually
located in Constantinople and placed under their supervision in order to
prepare educated public officials and men trained in law.
Such were the purposes of a number of higher schools established in the
capital from the fourth and fifth centuries onward, and of the two eleventh
century (ca. 1045) institutions of learning.18 One was the School of Law,
directed by John Xiphilinos; the other was the School of Philosophy directed
by Michael Psellos. Alongside these, however, there also existed in Constan
tinople various private schools,19 where young men would go after com
pleting their primary schooling to study rhetoric, philosophy and possibly
some elements of law. During the earlier centuries, however, in the teaching
of law: nothing had been carefully or systematically organized; and it appears
that no school of law existed in the Byzantine capital prior to the eleventh
century. Yet, both the study of law and the legal profession existed in the
empire prior to 1045, but legal study was casual, disorganized and depended
mainly on memorization. For the most part, young men began their actual
contacts with the profession by working for a lawyer or in the office of a
notary.
Michael Psellos' association with law probably began early, at the same
time of encyclopaedic studies, although later he served as a lawyer's clerk
in Asia Minor. Beyond this and despite his learning and oratorical talents
that would have served him well in the profession, there is no evidence to
demonstrate that he actually practiced in a court of law. 20 And although
he may have been appointed one of the judges in the civil court of Velum
that tried the case of Vestarchis Michael, neither then nor on any other
known occasion did he actively practice the profession of lawyer.
In that same text, a brief but significant view of Byzantine civil court
procedures is described. John Kordakas, Elipidios Kenchris' defense lawyer,
18. See my study, "The University: Origin and Early Phases in Constantinople,"
Byzantion,A\ (1971), 161-82.
19. See my forthcoming study on*this topic.
20. Psellos, however, had close contacts with law, the legal profession, the courts,
etc., through his teaching, functions at court, his friend Xiphilinos, and others. See
below III, С
brought forth certain objections, but was overruled because of legal tradi
tional forms, and principally because of the empress's earlier decision. There
fore, while the defense counsel remonstrated to certain details in the ves
tarchis testimony, these were disregarded by the judges. Another notable
detail in the litigation was that, although the judges were dealing with a
protege of Empress Theodora, they actually handled him in an indifferent
manner, much to his surprise.21 And one may well wonder what were the
reasons and significance for that treatment?
Another practicing lawyer and a contemporary of Michael Psellos was
Michael Attaleiates. It is said that he went to Constantinople as a youth,
studied law, and became a practicing lawyer. It is known that he served as
judge, κρπής, in the two civil courts of Velum and the Hippodrome. Al
though Attaleiates made a fortune, he is known for his charitable activities22
and for a number of compositions including his History and a Διάτα£ις,
i.e., Will or Stipulation. In view of Attaleiates' silent treatment of Michael
Psellos in his historical work that relates theevents of 1034-79, it might be
noted that each belonged to opposite political parties, i.e., civilian, or mili
tary. Also, the Emperor Michael VII who had been a pupil of Psellos, but had
brushed him aside, commissioned Attaleiates to compose for him a manual
of law.
The lawyers' profession in Byzantium prior to the sixth century had been
one without restriction or regulation concerning their studies and the exer
cise of their profession. It has been mentioned above that young men who
went to Constantinople to study law would usually serve an apprenticeship
alongside a practicing lawyer or a notary. They would also attend courses in
one of the schools where οώάοκαχοι νομικοί, i.e., instructors in law, taught,
the former would then go on to practice.
It was during the sixth century, however, that the Constantinopolitan
lawyers formed a corporation to bring considerable order to their profession
and also to the teaching of law in the schools.23 The rules and regulations
imposed on the profession and on the schools of law reflected concerns
with abuses and disorders. Thereafter the schools teaching law and their
students were closely supervised, while at the same time the number of
lawyers allowed to join the corporation was limited. In order to become a
member, the applicant's background had to be examined and approved by
a committee. Lawyers in Byzantium not only practiced in the courts, but
21. It was noted in Part II, above, that the judges accorded him no considerations.
22. He founded a charitable center (monastery) in Constantinople. See his ΑιΛταξις.
23. In the pre-Byzantine centuries, the fourth and fifth, no definite period had
been fixed for the study of law in Byzantium. It was in the sixth century that the
requirement was set for four years and later extended to five. See Brehier, II, 183.
they also served in a number other domains in the administration, in dip

lomacy, in the army, and in the church. The lawyers in Constantinople were
well organized and they wore a distinctive robe, toga, which presumably
was black, but they also wore a distinctive hat. But difficulties, abrupt
historical changes and trials descended on the Byzantine Empire after the
sixth century, and the legal profession and its schools followed a checkered
course until the important reorganizations of the eleventh century.
Although little is known about Michael PselloY studies in law prior to the
1040s, it appears that they were general and fragmentary, and actually his
main interests centered on philosophy and on rhetoric. His familiarity with
and modest knowledge of law was expanded and enriched when he came into
contact with John Xiphilinos. Although the date of their meeting is not
known, it is said that when they were both students they helped each other.
Psellos would teach philosophy to Xiphilinos, while the latter would instruct
Psellos in law; and it appears that this interchange of knowledge was con
tinued later on (ca. 1042) when both were directors of higher schools of
learning (of philosophy, and of law) and were active in the court of Con-
stantine IX Monomachos.
The contributions of John Xiphilinos to the study of law and to juris
prudence cannot be overemphasized. Not only did he reorganize the teaching
of law in Byzantium by establishing a solid foundation for its systematic
study, and not only did he bring order to the vast accumulation of legalistic
codes and documents, but at the same time the school of law he shaped and
directed in Constantinople (ca. 1045-54) influenced directly the other
schools that appeared later in western Europe, in Bologna and Paris.24
The second text or memorandum examined above, is an important and
rare document of its kind to have come down to us from the eleventh cen
tury. Rich in details about Byzantine jurisprudence and about upper class
society, it has attracted the attention of modern scholars, historians, students
of law, and sociologists. Indeed, most scholars wish that the text might
have provided us with further information about Byzantine legalistic pro
cedures in particular. For while the parade of individuals—the principles in
the lawsuit, the judges, the witnesses, and the defense lawyer—is noteworthy,
all nevertheless comes to an abrupt ending. Yet, it is also to be noted that the
judges managed to have the last word!
It appears from the texts internal evidence and inspite of various expressed
points of view25 that the memorandum was composed by Michael Psellos
and that the author and Vestarchis Michael are two distinct persons. But a
number of details remain unintelligible, and not all questions are clear.
24. See my study, "The University."

25. See above, Part II, n. 53.
D. Philosophy in Eleventh-Century Byzantium: Michael Psellos andPlatonism
. . . because Philosophy . . . φιλοσοφία μέν yap, are то

cannot be compared with any è/c πασών οϋση, και την Svi πασών
thing else [i.e., with any other συμφωνία» έχούση, oòòév αν
science] for while it surpasses παραβάλοιτο* αύτηνγάρ èavrjj
every other, it is at the same (jvypívoi€v ò οϋτω ποιών η πώς
time in harmony with all of αν αύτ$ σωύβίη, το τέχνη τ€χνών
them. Should one seek to eval el ναχ κ ai επιστήμη έποστημών
uate [Philosophy] he would be 26
oblidged to compare it only
with itself. Otherwise how
could it remain what it is:
the art of all arts, and the
science of all sciences....
In the two compositions (I and II) examined above, and in practically most
of his other writings Michael Psellos' interests in and preoccupations with
philosophy are apparent.
In Byzantium, Platonism27 and Aristotelianism were cultivated through
out the empire's existence and more so during the empire's periods of cultural
flowering. Inspite of the danger of being accused of sympathy for Hellenism,
then of being brought to trial and condemned as an admirer of the profane
philosophies, such interests persisted. Like other intellectual leaders in
Byzantium, Psellos was repeatedly accused by rivals, the envious and even
his friends of having an "excessive admiration for Plato"! In his apologia
("declaration of Faith")28 addressed to the Emperor Constantine DC, Psellos
professed his faith in Orthodoxy. But while he was able to deter his accusers
and to justify his interests in philosophy and Hellenism, others like his dis
ciple and successor John Italos29 were formally accused, brought to trial,
and dismissed from their positions. Nevertheless, the interest and study of
philosophy, the "profane literature," and Hellenism continued without
any serious interruption.
26. From Psellos' Έ'γκώμιον el'ç 'Ιωάννη τόν $€θσέβαστον Μητροπολίτη ν Ευχαϊ
των και προτόΌθ77θλοι>.
27. In its two forms: a. Byzantine, Neoplatonic mixed, etc.; b. in its pure form,
i.e., based on the texts of Plato, from the eleventh century on.
28. A. Gaizya, "On Michael Psellus' Admission of Faith," Έπετηρις Εταιρείας
Βνξανηνων Σπουδών, 35 (1966-67), 41-46.
29. At the School of Philosophy, Constantinople.
During the Byzantine era a considerable number of persons, both laymen

and churchmen, studied and preoccupied themselves with philosophy. Most
prominent among the former were Michael Psellos, John Italos, Theodore
Metochites and George Plethon. It was largely through their efforts of teach
ing and writing that Platonism was kept alive and further developed in Byzan
tium, and was then passed on to the West.30 Psellos' mtellectual interests
and preoccupations with philosophy and rhetoric were renowned in his own
time; both his teaching and his writings had a profound influence on the
intellectual and cultural environment of Byzantium from the eleventh to the
fifteenth century. In a Lucanic-stylized satirical dialogue, Timarion, com
posed by an unknown writer31 at the close of the eleventh century,. Psellos
is represented as a Sophist,32 who makes a distingutehed appearance in
Hades, where he is warmly received among the spirits of ancient Greek
philosophers. Although Psellos interests in knowledge, Hellenism, and most
of all in philosophy were not without opposition and threats of all kinds,
he was able to pursue them throughout his lifetime. And though the "funeral
oration" shows him turning during his time of grief and desperation along
witn his family to God and religion, his preoccupations with philosophy
however never diminished, as his later compositions demonstrate.
In his encomian for John Mavropous, Psellos wrote as if he was speaking
directly to his friend and former teacher:
. . . In truth it seems to me . . . "Εοικας δέ μα öieouai τόν έφ*

that you address yourself to ησυχίας βίσν αυτόχρημα όμίλίαν те
God, behave virtuously and προς ûeov elvai каі Ιεπιτνχιαν κρ€ΐττόνων,
seek the moderation and the каі λογισμών %παρσιν t}' ανάπαυσα;.
elevation of Thought and this *'Ori μέν ovv кал χάρις τοιαύτη τοις
in order to attain Harmony. ήσυχάξονσι уіѵетш, οϋκ άρνη&€ΐην9
No one can deny that these άλλ" έ*>ίοις, каі σύδέ τούτοις dee,
[three pursuits] bring joy to ούδ έπί πολύ, dXk ώσπ€ρ αστραπή
those who have found Peace. όμον те έ'λαμψβ каі παρ€λήλν&€ то
But this joy is for some, and φανέν . . . каі iva τ ακριβές
not always for the same per- €Ϊπομι, Цѵ νους επιστάτη φιλόσοφος
son. Nor does it last for a πασι πράγμασνν, ουδέν äv αηδές τοις
long time, because like light- μ€ταχ€ΐρίξουσι ταύτα уеѵоіто... . 3 3
30. See R. Byron, The Byzantine Achievement: An Historical Perspective, A, D.

330-1453 (London: G. Routledge & Sons ltd., 1929), p. 236.
31. Several attempts, not very satisfactory, have been made to identify the unknown
writer of this work. See R. Romano, ed., Ћтапопе, Byzantina et Neo-Hellenica Neo-
apolitana 2 (Napoli: Università di Napoli-Cattedra di Filologia Bizantina, 1974), pp. 25-
38.
32. See above introduction to Part I and III, D.
rung [this joy once attained]

flashes and disappears... and
to speak precisely: if the mind
is controller in all these matters,
then nothing disagreeable can
happen to those who follow
them [i.e., the three pursuits].
Here and in a number of other compositions we see Michael Psellos striving

to relate philosophy to religion, while throughout in his thought, writing,
and teaching his actual concerns for the preservation and continuity of phil
osophy and Hellenism were continuous, sometimes openly expressed and at
other times veiled for reasons mentioned above. His particular interests in
and devotion to Plato and his ideas have been set forth in a letter34 of reply
to certain accusations sent to his friend John Xiphilinos, who in 1064 had
been installed as Patriarch of Constantinople. In his letter Psellos openly
avows his interests: "[Indeed] Plato is 'mine', О Sun and Earth . . . why
should I exaggerate [the philosopher's renown and my own interest] with
words; of my dealings with the man and his dialogues. Also of my marvelling
at the manner by which he develops his thought. But since you accuse me,
why don't you also accuse the Great Fathers [of the Church] for didn't
they also use Philosophy to refute heretics like the Eunomians and the
Apollianarians?35 If you believe that I follow those notions [i.e., of Plato],
then you do not judge me properly brother "
Then continuing his reply to the Patriarch's earlier letter, Psellos added:
" . . . since I have studied many philosophical writings and have delivered a
large number of discourses [on that discipline] I cannot deny that I have been
concerned with Plato, nor have I neglected Aristotle while I am also familiar
with both Chaldean and Egyptian notions . . . Yes by your reverend head!
And what can I say about the forbidden books?36
Yet all these matters, when I compared them to our God given Scrip
tures, the clear, the shining, the infallible, were found to be fraudulent and
full of adulteration. . . ." But then in concluding his apologia, Psellos re
turned to his initial argument: " . . . [Yes] Plato is 'mine'... yet I fear that he
is also 'y ours'! that is to repeat your own words. [In spite of this however],
you have never succeeded in refuting any of Plato's ideas nor his renown.
34. Entitled: Τώ μοναχώ κυρ 1ωάννην каі уеуоѵоті Πατριάρχη τφ Αιφιλίνω

in Sathas, V, 444-51.
35. Psellos, who has written that he studied theology (Ιβραηκή τέχνη), has also
dealt with certain "heresies." Here he referred to two dissenting religious sects of the
fourth century. See the work Timotheos, attributed to Psellos.
36. Or such books dealing with the occult, magic, secretrites,etc.
While as for me I was almost able to do this even though it cannot be said
that all his ideas are 'worthless'. For the discourses on Justice37 and those
on the immortality of the Soul38 were the sources of our own [Christian]
dogmas. . . ." Perhaps after rereading his letter, and wanting to soften its
critical and harsh espressions (for he had written " . . . You who criticize all!
О hater of philosophic discourses; I say this as not to call you hater of
Philosophy"), Psellos added in closing: ". . . But do not believe [for a mo
ment] brother most beloved, for you are beloved, that what I wrote here,
after you sought to cut me off from Christ and bind me up with Plato, was
prompted by any hate for you. Not at all, by mine and your own Jesus
Christ. Rather it was because I was greatly offended by your attacks on Plato
and could not accept their unfairness...."
Elsewhere, in another letter, τώ каіоарс Ιωάννη τω Δουκά, sent to John
Doukas, brother of the Emperor Constantine X, Psellos explained: ". . .
Because I p a disciple of Plato and remember word for word the Logoi.
[i.e., the arguments] set forth in the Republic. . . ." His reference was to a
discussion centering around such ideals as Justice, the meaning of Good, and
so forth. Psellos also attempted to instill these and other Platonic notions
in his pupil, Prince Michael (later Michael VII Doukas). Ironically enough,
Psellos lived to see his former student fail as a ruler, forced to abdicate (31
May 1078), and sent to a monastery.39
It has been noted above that a number of modern scholars occupied them
selves with the writings, the thought and life of Michael Psellos. But some
contemporary historians, Zervos in particular, have called Psellos a Neopla-
tonist and, although as he himself has written Psellos had been influenced
considerably by that school of philosophy and has extolled Proclos,40 he
does not actually belong to it, for the major and predominant influence on
his thought and work was Plato.
Psellos' role as a cultural and intellectual leader in the Middle Ages is well
known, and he is also said to have been the forerunner of Platonism in
Italy, and of the Renaissance.41 His preoccupations are evident not only in
his writings, but also in his teaching, in the activities of his disciples, and
others in the succeeding centuries.
It has been mentioned above that, although his interests and preoccupa-
37. Justice: Republic I. 33;Laws I. 631;and Gorgias483.

38. Soul: Phaedros 245C; Republic 608D; Meno 81C; and Symposium 208.
39. Nor was Psellos successful in transmitting philosophical notions to his father
Constantine X Doukas.
40. Whom he calls "the most excellent Proclos (ϋανμασιώτατον ϊΐρόκλον)" in
Chronozravhia VI. 38.
41. See Byron; and A. Rambaud, "Michael Psellos, philosophe et homme d'état byz
antin," Revue historique, 3 (1897), 312-27.
tion with profane matters and with philosophy especially were exposed to
opposition and to charges of "impiety," Psellos managed nevertheless to
explain and to justify his activities in an acceptable manner.42 Others like
his disciple and successor at the School of Philosophy, John Italos, stirred
up much antagonism and trouble. But Italos cared little 43 about the ani
mosity he had stirred up and was too outspoken for the realization of his
aims. He is important to the history of philosophy because ". . . Jusq' à
Italos nous cherchons la pensé philosophique a l'intérieur de la Theologie.
,ł44
Italos, le premier, rend à la Philosophie son autonomie He was brought
to trial however, forced to recant publicly in the cathedral of Haghia Sophia,
and then expelled from his teaching post.
Although Italos was daring, outspoken and indifferent to dogma, includ
ing threats from church and government, and although he insisted that
philosophy was a science "independent" and not the "servant of Theology,"
his outlook and expressions were considered too extreme for his times and
were so judged by the church, the imperial government and Alexios I, who
presided over his trial. ítalos' positions were extreme and different from those
taken by his former teacher, Psellos. Thus, while one may extoll the place
and importance of John Italos, admire his courage during difficult times
which were oppressive to science and freedom of thought, yet Michael
Psellos appears in contrast as a statesman and an actual preserver of those
traditions of philosophy and Hellenism which he nursed, cultivated and
transmitted over and beyond his own century.
E. Byzantine Society
The social environment of eleventh-century Constantinople into which
Michael Psellos was born and flourished was that of the upper classes. It
included the aristocracy of the capital, the court, the highest church of
ficials, and the upper middle classes. The roots of that society, along with
its traditions, were in ancient Rome and in the Hellenistic world, while its
political foundations were also rooted in the imperial and monarchical past,
harboring within them certain worthy qualities along with the limitations and
evils ofthat system.
Byzantine society was alive and highly stratified, but open at the same
time.45 Its history shows that individuals and families, no matter what their
origin or initial status may have been, could move from one stratum upward
42. See III, D.

43. Annae Comnenae, Alexias, 2 vols., Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae
(Bonn: impensis E. Weberi, 1839-78), and her impressions of John Italos.
44. See B. Tatakis, La philosophie byzantine, 2nd ed. (Paris: Presses univ., 1959),
p. 214.
45. Particularly during the earlier Byzantine centuries.
to another and even to the apex. Thus all social levels were oriented toward
that summit, i.e., the imperial throne, the "God chosen emperor," and to
the colorful court of Constantinople. The society was a heterogeneous union
of people, races, religions and cultures, bound together by another amalgum
of Roman, Greek, Christian and Eastern institutions, customs, beliefs ideas
and cultural elements.46 But Byzantine society was divided internally at the
same time by social, economic and even religious differences.
In that Byzantine society, however, layalties depended as in most social
organizations on power, on strong, dynamic but also successful leadership,
on victorious actions, and on the prosperity of ruling groups. There was
nothing monolithic about the Byzantine Empire, as its history amply shows.
Nevertheless, a number of institutions and forms persisted, but even these—
imperiality, art, law, and language underwent certain, even though slight
changes. But the person of the emperor, certain other institutions, and above
all in the city of Constantinople the mind, not the heart, of Byzantium re
mained. It was in imperial capital where laws, culture, arts and religious
expressions and dogma were shaped and radiated to the provinces.
Inevitably, there was reaction and opposition to the imposing, imperial
structure, to the administration and its policies, and to officials and institu
tions. The opposition and open hostility came from various social groups
the majority of whom did not have the means to take action. Dissent was
usually carried on by the powerful and wealthy magnates dynatoi of the east
ern provinces. Yet, even they looked to the capital and coveted the throne
for themselves and their family.
There existed in Byzantium at the highest social level two antagonistic
groups: the military aristocracy of the provinces and the capital nobility.
Each possessed qualities and dynamic potentialities of its own, but also they
had their limitations along with shortsighted interests and actions. In the
eleventh century, these two groups competed for the imperial throne. Their
internal conflict, along with other social economic and religious problems,
brought discontent, deterioration, and the eventual downfall of Byzantium.
Psellos' father, we are told, was an aristocrat, and there had been ". . .
men of patrician rank among his ancestors. . . ." 47 In the eleventh century
however, Psellos' father had fallen from the ranks of the nobility, and was
engaged in trade and commerce. We have no precise information however
about these matters, but in the same work Psellos mentions that the family
underwent financial difficulties; nor is it known whether those conditions
were brought on by external circumstances or by the father's mismanage
ment of his commercial affairs.
46. Fused into "one State, one religion and one law."
47. See the encomion for his mother in Sathas, V, 29.
The social and economic background on Psellos appears to have been an

impediment to his career and in his rise up the ladder of dignities, and also
in gaining the emperor's favor. Courtiers and others of aristocratic rank
in the court made fun of his lowly origin. His enemies and wellborn rivals
were jealous of Psellos' abilities and resented his rise and his acquisition of
titles and posts in the government. Thus, whenever possible, they sought
to undermine his name and capabilities before the emperor as he himself has
written in his Chronographia, but without mentioning names or giving precise
details.
Unmistakably, interaction with upper class society was important to
Psellos and frequent references to them appear in his writings. From these
and other Byzantine sources, it can be seen that the center or heart of med
ieval society was the family, wherein the mother as in almost all social levels
was relegated to a less active role. She could nevertheless and when circum
stances allowed assume an important and decisive role.48 This can be seen
in the case of Theodote, the mother of Psellos, in those of Zoe and Theodora,
and even among the lesser nobility and the poor. On the whole however,
the role of women among the lower classes in the Middle Ages was largely,
if not entirely, inconspicuous, Psellos mentions them occasionally, but only
in passing, or when necessary.
Should a comparison be attempted of social conditions in eleventh cen
tury Byzantium with those in the Latin West in the same period, one would
find in the latter a more troubled, greatly divided social environment, where
warfare, restless populations and fragmentation prevailed. At the same time,
while barons and knights were fighting each other, the Normans lacked re
straint and sought to carve out kingdoms wherever possible in Europe.
During the years of Michael Psellos, John Xiphilinos, Constantine IX and
Theodora, the Normans had not yet invaded England, nor had the Crusades
begun.
Byzantine society in contrast was more orderly and settled. To be sure
this was largely true of the upper ruling classes and of conditions as they
appeared on the surface. Indeed, that environment had a semblance of
well-being, while its culture was alive and colorful. There existed at the same
tune internal divisions, armed conflict, poverty, unrest and despair, and
also opposition to the central government. Yet despite those conditions and
the conflict between civilian and military parties, no actual political frag
mentation existed in Byzantium.
Michael Psellos, who belonged to the civilian faction has written about
certain uprisings which took place in his times, and the one led by the dy-
48. See my study, "Women Active in the Middle Ages," The Greek Review of Social
Research, 19-20 (1974), 102-10.
namic George Maniakes.49 Although Maniakes was not of the landed aris
tocracy, it appears he had their support. Physically, he was very tall, power
fully built, and a talented person, who by his prowess and military abilities
had risen through the ranks and had become a general.
Prior to this uprising we are told that Maniakes had led the Byzantine
armed forces and had distinguished himself in the campaigns of the East and
in those of the West, but then for various reasons—anxiety within the govern
ment, envy among his fellow officers, fear of him and his abilities—among
others, he was slighted, accused of treason and thrown into prison. Such
circumstances are familiar to Byzantium and to history. Psellos has written:
" . . . I have known this person [George Maniakes] myself and was impressed,
for nature had bestowed on him all the attributes of a man destined to
command. He stood ten feet tall [бека πόδες, an expression simply meaning
"very tall"] and those who looked at him had to stare upwards, as if at a
hill or the summit of a mountain. . . . There was nothing delicate or agree
able about him [. . . ού τρυφβτόν και еттерпе ç . . .] for he was like a fiery
whirlwind with hands powerful enough to make fortifications totter and to
crash through gates of brass. He had the movements of a springing lion;
[these characteristics] along with the scowl on his face, made him terrible
to behold . . . while barbarians lived in dread of him.. .." This capable mili
tary leader, however, was treacherously slain in 1043. 50
In his writings Michael Psellos not only dealt with the happenings of his
time and with the conditions in his social environmnet, but he has also pro
vided us with descriptions of his contemporaries. In the first text, the number
of persons discussed is small, while in the second the number is larger. In
the latter, outside of the personality of Michael Psellos whose outlook is
reflected throughout the composition, there is Vestarchis Michael, the plain
tiff in the lawsuit and the one actually responsible for the entire situation.
There is also his young adopted daughter, but neither her name, nor her
characteristics are mentioned, nor does she appear in any of the scenes
described or take part in the court proceedings. Yet her presence is sensed
as she moved about her father's house, glancing perhaps at her indifferent
fiancée as he would come and go to be tutored unwillingly by his hated
future father-in-law. Or when she possibly was living in the house of John
Kenchris, the father of Elpidios, where she may have been placed51 by her
father when the vestarchis left for awhile for the monastery.
We can also imagine her complaining to her father about the young man's
refusal to speak with her, and also of ignoring her completely. No doubt too,
49. Chronographia VI. 75 ff.

50. Probably by someone in his own forces!
51. Guilland, "Un compte-rendu."
she had also complained that Elpidios hated her, as the vestarchis later told
the court. The girl may have been seven or eight years old, and it is possible
that she was literate, for as she was the daughter of a teacher, who it was
pointed out in the text, had concerned himself with her immediate and future
needs, it is likely that she could at least read and write.
The person of the defendant Elpidios Kenchris is central in this text.
He was in his early twenties, but nothing about his physical appearance is
known. There is much told about his inconsiderate behaviour toward the
vestarchis, about his indifference to learning, his shameful pursuits and lowly
companions. Nevertheless, and inspite of all these details, from among several
candidates "who held high posts in the court/' the text explaines, the ves
tarchis had chosen Elpidios to be his future son-in-law. He was chosen prob
ably because of the close friendship existing between the vestarchis and the
young man's father, the Protospartharios John Kenchris, but also because
Elpidios appeared to be an appropriate choice for his daughter who was
seemingly amenable and capable of being developed, he assumed, in char
acter and intellectually.
Whether the vestarchis knew of Elpidios' inclinations or not, he probably
felt that he could influence and educate him in demeanor and in Wisdom,
help improve his ways, help him lead a more virtuous way of life, and help
him to climb up the ladder of court dignities to the benefit of himself and his
fiancée. The vestarchis intended to accomplish these thing through his in
fluence at court, and because he wanted to provide a comfortable future for
the pak. But all his efforts were in vain as he had explained in his letter of
supplication to the Empress Theodora. In it he noted that Elpidios neither
cared for learning nor desired to improve his conduct, while he also expressed
dislike for his fiancée. Repeatedly, the vestarchis attempted to interest
Elpidios in learning, and urged him to follow the traditions and deportment
of his class and rank; yet instead, the young man not only insisted on pur
suing his own indinations, but he also repaid the vestarchis' interests and
efforts with contrariness and hatred. To what extent, then, was the depiction
of Elpidios typical of the upper class environment of Constantinople? For if
the imperial court was said to be notoriously profligate, if "immorality and
•bribery were rife. . . ," if emperors like Michael V 5 2 and Constantine IX
were interested mainly in eunuch followers, mistresses and luxury, what
could be expected of courtiers, officials and their children? Undoubtedly not
all were carried along by that current, yet Michael Psellos has little good to
say about his social environment.
Elpidios Kenchris, judging from all that was said and implied in the memo-
52. See Chronographia V. 15 and the reference to boy eunuchs (μεψάκνα) of the
emperor's personal guard.
randum, appears to have been lazy, willful, indifferent in his behavior to the
traditions and ways of his class and office, nor does he seem bright. He was
apparently abnormal in his pursuits and would ignore place and persons,
including the demands imposed by his titles, in order to follow his inclina
tions which included his mixing with "the most disreputable persons."53
While both Elpidios and the vestarchis are the two main figures in the memo
randum, their characterizations and especially that of the young man seem in
complete. Although this may have been done on purpose, as the author did
not wish to offend any person, and the empress in particular for whom the
work was intended, the result is sketchy with various questions left unan
swered and considerable doubt about the identity of Vestarchis Michael.
The text tells little about the person of John Kenchris, who held the
title of protospatharios, and belonged to the upper classes or petty nobility
like his friend Vestarchis Michael. The latter's unwillingness to "reveal hidden
matters" in the courtroom may have been prompted by consideration to
wards the young man's father and others whom he did not wish to embarrass.
If this was so, then it was one of the few occasions that showed the vestarchh
in a favorable light.
The two rulers appearing in the text, Constantine IX and Theodora, had
by their actions and lavishness, but also by their lack of judgment, aided
the circumstances leading to the lawsuit. But also it was Theodora's deci
sions that eventually brought about its termination. Constantine К is crit
icized here and in other works for his apathy toward the affairs of state,
his dispensation of titles and his scattering of money. It was said that he
would hand out titles and grant favors to anyone who amused or flattered
him. Nor did he particularly care for whom the titles were destined. Thus,
while Psellos has praised Constantine IX for certain important and construc
tive acts, he was also critical of his "favorite Emperor."54
In contrast to the brief reference to Constantine IX, the Empress Theodora
has a more important role in the memorandum and the litigation; these and
other details are revealing of her part in the earlier affairs of the vestarchis.
It seems that after Constantine's death, the vestarchis continued his demands
and impositions upon Theodora, asking her for additional favors and dig
nities for his future son-in-law. In the beginning the empress apparently
acquiesced to those requests, but then in view of the developments that
followed, the gossip in the court about Elpidios and the subsequent petition
of the vestarchis, it may have been these and other matters that prompted
Theodora to send for Michael Psellos and to ask him to return to Constan
tinople.
53. This commentary does not refer to social classes, but to morals and vices.
54. Chronographia 54.
The appearance of John Kordakas, the defense lawyer who held the
title of spartharios, is most brief and regrettably condensed. He is shown in
action, attempting to raise objections to the vestarchis' deposition, and to
his demands that Elpidios should pay him for the protospathariate which
he did not actually want. These arguments, however, were overruled by
the judges,55 who pointed out that the issue had already been settled by the
decision of the empress.
The group of four persons or witnesses appearing in the text with their
names and titles bring added color and and movement to the trial, and also
substantial weight to the vestarchis' accusations. They are identified as
Theodore Myralides, a consul and master of court ceremonies, the two
Xirites brothers: Euphrosinos who. held the office of mystographos and
Gabriel who was a thesmographos, and finally someone named Michael
who was both a thesmographos and an overseer of the costumers in Constan
tinople.
The social environment dealt with by Michael Psellos is essentially that
of the upper classes. On occasions however and for pertinent reasons he
refers to the common people. In his Chronographia (V. 26), for instance,
when treating with the events of 1042 and the uprising of the population
against Michael V and his uncle the Nobilissimos Constantine, Psellos tells
about the anger of the ayopavov γώ>ος,ί.β., the common, vulgar species of
the market place.56 In the same work and in a few other places Psellos has
provided us with brief but important details about the lower classes.57
Yet, his and the majority of surviving Byzantine texts appear to be prin
cipally concerned with the upper classes, with those referred to as the well
born, splendid, renowned, illustrious (race) [то еѵуеѵея, λαμπρόν, evbo%ovy
èm<txw€< (yépoç)]. In his compositions however, Psellos is critical. He deplores
and dislikes immensely the supreficiality and foul characteristics of that
social environment,58 and the conditions that brought them about. But at
the same time he would have liked that society to have been better, har
monious and natural.5 9
" . . . Then recovering my senses I began to curse this life of ours,60
wherein strange and terrible happenings come to pass . . . " ( . . . еСта δη
55. Who only followed Byzantine legal procedure, and since the empress had al
ready given her decision on those matters. Note also that there was more than one judge.
56. The people, the mob, etc., are referred to sometimes (see Attaleiates and other
Byzantine writers) as ѵеѵітес (i.e., the poor).
57. Chronographia and the encomion for his mother.
58. See below, III, E.
59. Also incorporating both Platonic and Christian virtues, which as he mentioned
in text I existed in Styliani. At the same time, however, he manifestly knew human
nature and had few illusions.
60. The reference here is to his environment: the court, the society and so forth.
συλλβξάμβνος τήν φνχήρ έπηρασάμην της ήμ€τέρας ξωής δ ην βϊωθβ σνμ·

ßaiveiv τά καινά τούτα και άτοπα, . .)· The events of 1042-the lamentable
fate of Michael V and his uncle Constantine the nobilissimos61 -brought
tears and sighs to Michael Psellos. Elsewhere in the same composition he
is critical of his social environment and of the imperial court, denouncing
their falseness, waste and corruption.
About Constantine IX Monomachos and his reign, which Psellos knew
first hand, he wrote: "A healthy animal is not [corrupted] at once, nor by
the first symptoms of illness. So it was with the Empire during the reign of
Constantine . . . the malady grew worse by degrees, then it reached a crisis,
and threw the 'patient' into complete disorder.. . . The Emperor taking little
part in the government, sought [instead] to amuse himself with a multitude
of pleasures. [By his actions] he was preparing the once healthy body of his
Empire for a thousand infirmities, destined to attack it in the years to come.
. . ," 62 Then, in an attempt to explain further how those conditions came
about, Psellos added: "The causes contributing to this immoderation were
the weak characters of the empresses [i.e., Zoe and Theodora], also Con-
stantine's willingness to acquiese to their luxurious laughter-loving habits*.
As for the emperor's (Constantine IXs)role, Psellos pointed out that "At
the start of his reign Constantine ruled neither with vigour, nor with dis
cretion . . . Now two things in particular contributed to the hegemony of
the Roman [i.e., of the Byzantines, or the empire], namely our system of
honors and our wealth. To these a third might be added, the wise control
of the other two (along with their prudent distribution). Unfortunately how
ever, Constantine's idea was to empty the treasury and not leave a single
'obol' [meaning a coin of the smallest value]. As to the titles, they were
handed out indiscriminately to a multitude of persons (who had no right
to them).63 [They were handed out] to the most vulgar sort, to those who
had pestered the Emperor, or had amused him with their witticisms. . . ."
Although Psellos was critical of Constantine IX and his reign, he also wrote:
"Naturally, I would have wanted my favorite emperor perfect, even if such
an attribute could not conceivably be applied to all the others, but [persons
and happenings] do not conform to our wishes... ," 64
61. Chronographia V. 41.

62. In view of the historical, political, economic and other developments after
Constantine IX, the observations of Psellos are penetrating and farsighted. The decline
of Byzantium is said to have begun with Constantine IX. See Ostrogorsky; D. Zakin-
thynos, Byzance: Etat-Société-Economie (London: Variorum Reprints, 1973); Four-
teen Byzantine Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellos, trans. E. R. A. Sewter
(London: Penguine Books, 1966); and other historians.
63. Note this phenomenon in the case of Vestarchis Michael, where neither prudence
nor control was exercised by Constantine IX.
Other writers, like Michael Attaleiates, a contemporary of Psellos, have

also written about Constantine IX and his reign. In his historical work Ισ
τορία, Michael Attaleiates, who was a lawyer and had served as judge in
Constantinople, wrote: "After having appointed the most oppressive tax
collectors, men the people call 'sekretikous' [i.e., finance officials or bu
reaucrats], he [Constantine IX] imposed exactions (or penalties) on every
one, accusing them falsely of tax defaults. [In such a manner], he was able
to drain the marrow from the bones (from those who in some way were
well off) by bringing unjust charges against them (and accusing them of all
sorts of illegalities). Many were the sighs of those who suffered damages and
were oblidged to pay. The prisons too were filled with the accused, and there
were continuous lamentations...."
It was noted above that Michael Psellos and his friend John Xiphilinos
decided to quit the court of Constantine К and Constantinople, because of
the disorder and confusion that reigned there; also, that after a brief sojourn
in the monastery, Psellos was called and returned to the capital and court.
There he was active and prominent during the reigns of six subsequent
rulers.
In the government of Constantine X Doukas (1059-67), Psellos not only
held an important position, but he was also appointed tutor to Prince Mi
chael. Of Constantine's wife, the Empress Eudokia, Psellos wrote: "She was
an exceedingly clever woman. . . . I don't know whether any other ever set
such an example of wisdom. . . . She neither became a slave of pleasure, nor
gave way to voluptuous emotions. . . . 6 5 But then later Psellos was oblidged
to explain the actions and inconsistencies in the woman's life.
While her spouse Constantine X was dying in 1067, the Empress Eudokia
swore before him, in the presence of the patriarch, the senate and officials,
that she would not marry again, but devote herself to the care and welfare
of her six children. But in less than seven months, she married Romanos IV
Diogenis who was crowned emperor in 1068. Commenting on those develop
ments, Psellos wrote: "Man is an easily changeable animal (ανυρωπος еодет-
άβλητον ξώορ) and especially when there are strong external motives for
such a turning about. . . ." Later when Romanos IV was defeated with his
army at Manzikert in 1071 and he was taken prisoner by the Seljuks, Psellos
wrote that the Empress Eudokia was bewildered and ". . . unable to decide
what to do next "66
The situation in the court at Constantinople was indeed in convulsion with
perfidy and conspiracies were rife. When the news of Romanos' defeat
reached the city, there was a struggle for power and the civilian party suc-
65./¿>/rf.,VII.3,4ff.
66. Ibid., VII.
ceeded in placing Michael VII Doukas (1071-78) up on the throne. But

thereupon the situation became desperately confused when it was learned
that the Seljuk Sultan Alp Arslan had released Romanos IV, and the latter
was already on his way back to the capital.
The confusion, uncertainties, indécisions and intrigues that took place
around the person of Empress Eudokia were complicated by the fact that
her husband belonged to one party, while her son Michael VII belonged
to the other. Then a delegation was organized and sent out to meet Roman
os IV. But he was misled, deceitfully blinded and eliminated from the scene.
"With the establishment of Michael VIFs rule the situation changed for Mi
chael Psellos. Although he had been the new emperor's tutor and had written
warmly about him, praising his " . . . extraordinary intelligence. . . exces
sive modesty. . .," the young ruler pushed him aside. Later, when that in-
competant sovereign was forced to abdicate in 1078, Psellos too disappeared
from the scene.
Michael Psellos' critical attitude towards the social environment of his
times is amply expressed in a number of his compositions. In the first text
above he expresses his dislike for its superficiality, its lack of modesty and
even such practices carried on by the νυμφαηωηοί (usually carried on by
elderly women, or others, who sought to bring maidens and young men to
gether.67 We have also seen that Psellos has provided us with considerable
information about his social environment, its customs and outlook, as found
in the encomion composed for his mother. While telling about family
he wrote: "As to my father, he had a gentleness [of character] and anyone
could approach and speak with him. Only mother (because of her great
virtue) would speak with him, not as an equal to an equal, but as if from a
lower standing (. . ь où бе ек του Ι 'σου άλλα έκ του έλλάτονος. . .),[and this
not because she was embarassed in front of him], but conducted herself ac
cording to the older traditions (άρχαίαρ б еа'та£ц>).68 Psellos also mentioned
that his mother did not care for matters of the market place, nor about those
happenings that aggitate the people [mob] ( . . . ούδ' et'nç elfy δήμος κυμαίνων
. . . ), for she concerned herself with her home and kept her ears closed [to
all extravagant gossip].
As a parent, educator and professor of philosophy, Michael Psellos was
much concerned with youth, and the troublesome conditions of social
67. Psellos' reasons for not liking them is not clear. Note, the practice is still carried
out in Greece and in Greek communities around the world by προ&νίτρςς or the con
temporary term used for the ѵоцфауогуоѵс.
68. The comment is interesting for the words "according to the older customs"
may be variously interpreted. They may refer to a respect attitude towards the head
of the family; while it may also relate to social status. The first mentioned attitude
existed in Byzantium on all social levels.
environment. His commentary and criticism show a solicitude and the hope
that aü may improve and move towards the better. In the first text (ora
tion), Psellos told with considerable joy and pride of Styliani's intellectual
abilities, and progress in learning, while in other writings he also praised
the advancement of his students.69 Elsewhere in some essays, he appears
impatient and disheartened as he reprimanded those who would come late
to class, those who would chatter in the classroom during a lecture, or those
who would go to sleep. Because, he pointed out, these students would prefer
to waste their time in taverns, to spend their precious hours watching ΰέατρα
(literally theatre, but meaning side shows about the Hippodrome), or to
pursue other pleasures Constantinople had to offer. In one essay,70 which
Michael Psellos may have read to his class at the School of Philosophy, he
pointed out with annoyance to those students who drifted in, because they
said "it was raining": "Yet I am unable to sympathise with such conduct,
nor do I intend to suspend the Logos [Philosophy, Knowledge] between
your wanting to learn and your [actual] indifference...."
Although Psellos did not compose as other Byzantine writers71 βασιλικός
άνδβώζ, i.e., a model of a perfect imperial ruler, he did draw a sketch or
model of a perfect Byzantine maiden. This he moulded out of Styliani's
qualities as she was prior to her illness with her "natural beauty, with her
modesty," and other exemplary virtues. It is also likely that the maiden's
attributes were elaborated upon and blended with ancient Greek and Chris
tian elements, in order to create an image of Perfection, Goodness, Modesty
and Harmony.
In the memorandum we have seen that the treatment of Elpidios by the
judges who felt sorry for him, was unusually considerate; while the ves-
tarchis was handled abruptly. It was he who was in fact responsible for the
events; note the introduction to the memorandum and developments leading
up to the litigation. The vestarchis, for all his knowledge and experience,
was unable to "see," since he lacked "Foresight," but also understanding
of human character, the weaknesses and inflexible character of the young
man he chose to be his future son-in-law.
Although the inclinations of Elpidios were not a rarity in the court of the
Macedonian dynasty, his conduct nevertheless must have been extravagant
and his vices known to all. Yet in a court where eunuchs, immorality and
corruption were rampant, it must seem curious that Empress Theodora in
her writ referred to Elpidios as ".. .the living image of a depraved character"
69. See the essays and discourses of Michael Psellos (text I, those complementing
John Italos and others) praising Styliani and his students for their work and progress
in learning.
70. See my work, "Student Life in Eleventh-Century Constantinople."
71. See the άνδριάς of Nikiforos Blemmydes and of other Byzantine writers.
(και στήλην βμψνχορ κακσήΰβνς ψυχής τον ΈΚτίδων ćmetpyaoaro).

Although the social environment mirrored in the writings of Michael
Psellos is that of the upper classes, the nobility and upper-middle class along
with the imperial court of eleventh-century Constantinople, these repre
sented only a smaU portion of the empire's total population; it was, never
theless, these groups whose ways, tastes and traditions that shaped in a great
measure the social and cultural environment of Europe and the Near East
during the Middle Ages. At the same time, the literature emanating from
Constantinople—its types and style, along with the histories, chronicles, and
lives—greatly influenced the subsequent understanding of Byzantium and
its society.
A closer examination of surviving evidence will, however, show funda
mental social dtfferences; all the Byzantine centuries were not the same, nor
were the social and other developments of one "hue or character." Indeed
the eleventh century was in a political, social and cultural sense a particular
ly troubled and crucial period. Events after 1025 amply show this. Internal
developments during the reigns o*f Michael V, Constantine IX, and Mi
chael VII prepared the way, as Michael Psellos has written, for a ". . . mul
titude of disasters that were to come... ," 72
It was noted above that, the political and economic control of eleventh-
century Byzantium was contested by two groups or parties, the civilian
(UoXtTUiop) and the military (Στρατιωτικόν). The heterogeneous composi
tion of those two parties, their political, economic, ethnic, and even cultural
similarities and differences, divided and pitted the one against the other,
and these questions have been examined by a number of historians.73 These
internal factors and the destructive armed conflict that followed wasted men,
material and property, led to the neglect and opposition to the armed forces,
and proved disastrous for Byzantium as its enemies—the Seljuks, Normans,
Patzinaks and others—profited at its expense.
Michael Psellos, who belonged to the civilian party was prominent and
active in the events of the period. He also held important posts in the govern
ments of several emperors, representing both the civilian and the military
factions, and understood the importance to Byzantium of the military
party. He even admired some of its leaders. He was also aware, as his writings
show, of the serious differences and potentials of those two parties. He saw
the deterioration of one and the able, dynamic qualities of the other; he
noted the attempt of the one to undo and destroy the other and to replace

73. See Ostrogorsky, pp. 316 ff.: and S. Vryonis, "Byzantium: The Social Basis
of Decline in the Eleventh Century," Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 2 (1959),
159-75.
its vigorous action with passive policies as payments of tribute made to the
enemy, while he acknowledged the capable military and political leadership
of the other. But at the same time the civil conflict only served to undo the
strength of the state leaving it helpless and without capable leaders.
During his active life as a civil servant, a member of the government, an
official, senator, statesman and intellectual leader, Michael Psellos was in
timately linked with the upper classes of Constantinople and the civilian
party. Also, although he occasionally mentions persons of the other classes,
his life and work are manifestly linked with the upper classes. Yet both his
philosophic interests and his Christian background were in conflict with that
social environment and he had nothing good to say about it. For these
reasons, it is unlikely that he was either comfortable or happy in that circle,
or had many friends among those upper classes.74 He was respected never
theless, even admired by his rivals and enemies; but while the people of the
court and higher officials of the church suspected his learning, others envied
or were afraid of him.
In the encomion for his friend and former teacher John Mavropous,75
Psellos wrote: "Who showed himself so mighty in front of temptations?
Who was able to restrain his passions defeating those barbarians who attack
from the outside and set up a trophy for his triumph...?" It should be noted
from the study of Michael Psellos5 compositions that he found examples of
modesty and virtue everywhere except in the upper classes, but did not
stress these shortcomings if he was writing of the imperial family "under
command" and supervision. In the encomion for his mother76 Psellos wrote
that although she was not of the "illustrious race" (eùyevéç yévoç), she was
in her life and work both "illustrious and remarkable. For those qualities
are not of the exterior, but well forth from one's inside world "
At the same time we find Psellos critical of his close friends, some of
whom were not of the upper classes. In a letter to his friend John Xiphilinos
who had recently (in 1064) been appointed Patriarch of Constantinople,
Psellos wrote: "For each virtue, when accompanied by haughtiness and
arrogance my brother,77 turns into the worst of wickedness, and this is the
result of ignorance. This fault is condemned, as you well know, by my
philosopher, i.e., by Plato."
The above information and commentaries about Michael Psellos and his
attitudes towards his social environment do not intend in any way to repre-
74. This is shown by the attacks against him by courtiers,rivals,"sycophants" and

others mentioned in his writings. It is also likely that persons in his environment did not
care for Psellos' aggressiveness or some of his actions.
75. Sathas, V, 153 ff.
76. ѢШ.
77. The term was used since Psellos was addressing a fellow monk.
sent him as a reformer, moralist or as a model of virtue. Unquestionably,

he was a complex, dynamic and controversial personality, but also he was
atypical of his environment. He was one of the most important intellectual
leaders of the Middle Ages, and it is unlikely that he had any actual illusions
about himself.
When his work, his creative contributions to learning, to philosophy and
to the cultural environment of Europe are examined alongside his limitations,
accusations, and questionable activities in the history of Byzantium; or when
the personality of Michael Psellos is examined in its totality, there will then
emerge a distinctive and remarkable individual, whose life and work are
worthy of closer study. At the same time, in the above essay, the society
of his time—the upper classes and others—will appear in a clearer perspective.
For it has already been seen in the above summary notations, that his social
environmentfiguredprominently in his writings, teaching, and thought.
F. Language (Byzantine Medieval Greek)

Although the work and expressions of Michael Psellos were thoroughly
permeated with ancient Greek influences, from the Homeric epics to Attic
prose and poetry, to the Hellenistic and later compositions, neither his lan
guage, his style, nor his literary forms are slavish imitations of those sources
of inspiration. While he had a profound admiration for and interest in Hellen
ism and sought to preserve both philosophic, literary and other ancient
Greek values; and while he borrowed and employed various elements in his
own compositions and teaching, these details he reshaped to fit his own
thought, literary style and personality.
These characteristics are evident in his longer prose works, e.g., the encom
ion for his mother, the funeral oration for his daughter, the Chronographia,
and others. In these and other writings his preoccupations with philosophy
and Hellenism can be seen. Furthermore, in the encomion for his mother
Michael Psellos tells about these interests and of ancient Greek literature
in particular: "I am delighted by the art of words, by the [orderly] arrange
ments of their topics (ύποΰέσβωρ) and their greatly loved (ύπβραγαπτ}-
K€u>) beauty that flowers. And I wing over these [flower-filled] fields of
Reason like a honey bee. Then I go on to compose honeyed writings [of
my own] (μβλιτσυργώ). The life, writings and activities of Michael Psellos
were directly and intimately linked with the Greek language, its literary
traditions, with rhetoric and above all with philosophy. In his own times,
Psellos was renowned for his oratorical excellence, for attainments in the
art of writing, and for his efforts and contributions to philosophy, and this
influence can be traced into the fifteenth century.
The representation on Michael Psellos as a Sophist, i.e., a teacher of
philosophy and rhetoric, in the satiric dialogue Timarion has already been
mentioned above. Those two domains are central to his thought and work,
and this is evident in his writings, while he has also explained that they pre
occupied him considerably: " . . . I seek to harmonize [Philosophy and Rhet
oric] with each other. . . ," 78 Those preoccupations are apparent in his
works, particularly in his eulogies, history, discourses, and letters, where
influences from the pre-Socratics through Proclos and others are mixed with
ancient Greek literature and oratory. But along with such influences from
the Homeric epics and Aesop, there are others from Herodotos, Thucydides,
Hippocraties, ancient Greek drama, Demosthenes and Isocrates along with
Lucían, Libamos and others. At the same time there are also influences from
the Bible, Church oratory, hymnology and Christian poetry
Some of these influences have already been noted in the two texts above,
where they have been moulded into a literary style that is characteristic of
the author. The funeral oration for Styliani is manifestly a work of art, and
as a literary composition it belongs to the category of epidectic oratory.
At the same time, its language is filled with Classical Greek elements, among
them such Homeric words as: λβυκώλενος,καλλίσφορος, 'έλκεξίπεπλος,
ερατεινή, and dpyvpònefa, that have been used (in text I) with their original
meaning. From other sources there are such words as: ένοβομόχβιρ, èpvû
ροβαφής, εύεώής, στιλβολάμπο,, and προσλαλω.; and as well; are expressions
borrowed from Aesop as τό των κοΚιών πείσεται, and others from common
sources as λάβρος πυρετός..
Variable, subjective and sorrowful though Psellos' funeral oration may
be, it is well developed and mobile in its language and oratorical style. The
development is flexible and rich in its manner of presentation, while its
imagery, along with the colorful and harmonious flow of narrative, are
characteristic of the "Master's" hand. Inevitably however, and for modern
tastes in particular, that language is not easy to read and presents a number of
problems for the Classicist as well as for the student of Modern Greek.
Among these difficulties is the Byzantine and Psellos' tendency to over-
embellish with expressions and adjectives, or to repeat the same idea, but
differently expressed, without adding anything further to the topic. While
the practice may have been employed for the sake of emphasis, it actually
slows down the narrative and impedes the flow of thought. Despite these
and a few other minor obstacles, the "funeral oration" of Michael Psellos is
however an attractive work of literature. In the text it is referred to as an
еткфеик (also a δεσποτικός) λόγος, i.e., a funereal, and a loftly imposing
oration. Yet, while he follows closely the form and spirit of these literary
prose traditions, Psellos at the same time develops them, as he introduces
further elements from Elegiac, Epidectic, and even from church oratory.
78. Sathas, IV, 121, and V, 476.

Different in spirit, treatment and form is another lament Psellos probably

wrote on command. It was composed for the emperor's mistress, a woman
known only as Sklerina who died in 1044. The work consists of 446 iambic
verses and is entitled Ύού xmepraxoo Κωνσταντίνου τού Ψβλλον οτίχοι ναμ
βίκοι еся τήν τ€λ€ντήν της Εκληραίνης {Iambic Verses for the Decease of
Sklerina, Composed by the Most Honored Constantine Psellos). It was written
as if it were addressed to Sklerina by her mother, and while the language is
rich and formal, it nevertheless lacks life and movement.
The second text, "memorandum," is entirely different in form, content
and intention than the first. As it was written for the Empress Theodora,
it contains all the ornamentation (wording, flattery, and formalities) be
longing to such a work; but at the same time, there are other developments,
interesting details and observations on people, on society, and about Byzan
tine legal procedures. The Greek language here is simpler than that of the
first text, but nevertheless it is well written and attractive. Professor R.
Guilland has called it ". . . un joli morceau de littérature juridique. . . ," 79
Although both texts reveal in theû language, internal organization, philo
sophic reflections, and in other details the hand and outlook of Michael
Psellos; and although they are different in their forms, substance and intent,
they both belong nevertheless to the domain and traditions of rhetoric.
The first composition is actually a panegyric and an epidectic discourse,
while the second belongs to legalistic oratorical prose. And it is their par
ticular details, expressions, language, and philosophical reflections, that give
each work its distinctive character and interest.
Both E. Renauld, in his Etude sur la langue et le style de Psellos,^ and
also in his French translation and study of Psellos' Chronographia*1 and
E. R. A. Sewter reflected upon the language and compositions of Michael
Psellos. In his English translation of the Chronographia?2 Sewter in par
ticular stressed "No Byzantine was a better craftsman of words, though
a few wrote better Greek. . . . He is the most difficult of authors to trans
late; yet the dialect is vital and usually unaffected. . . . Moreover, Psellos
has one saving grace, a charming sense of humor... ," 83
[CONCLUSION]
79. Guilland, "Un compte-rendu."

80. E. Renauld, Etude sur la langue et le style de Psellos (Paris: A. Picard, 1920).
81. Idem, Michael Psellos, Chronographia ou VHistoire d'un siècle de Byzance (976
1077), 2 vols. (Paris: Budé "Belles Lettres," 1926-28).
S3. Ibid., p. 18.
i)
; ;
д>
k
NOTE
GEORGE GALAVARIS (Montreal, Canada).
Mary 's Descent into Hell: A Note on the

Psalter Oxford, Christ Church Arch. W. Gr. 61*
Recently, an interesting Byzantine psalter of the year 1391, now in Ox

ford, cod. Christ Church Arch. W. gr. 61, illustrated with three full page,
badly preserved miniatures, was brought to the attention of students of Byz
antine art by Professor Vokotopoulos who discussed extensively the formal
and iconographie problems of the codex and its Constantinopolitan origin.1
The frontispiece, fol. lv, portraying David as the author of the book, fol
lows the tradition of the author portrait common in Byzantine art. The re
maining two miniatures, fols. 102ν and 103r, do not serve as illustrations
proper of a particular text in the psalter (Figs. 1, 2). One facing the other,
they form one composition, laid out in the form of a diptych the theme of
which can be described as the presentation of a monk by the family name of
Kaloeidas to the enthroned Christ by the Virgin Mary. The Mother of God,
inscribed the 02EIA ΑΝΤΙΛ [Н]*[І]С (Quick Assistance), and the monk are
represented on the left hand page, while the enthroned Christ, named the
ΑΙ[Λ]ΕΗΜΩΝ (Merciful), is on the opposite page. Vokotopoulos has rightly
stressed the uniqueness of the iconography of this "presentation-intercession"
scene. Mary is not simply presenting a monk, probably the donor of the psal
ter, to Christ.2 She is actually holding him from his left hand and is pulling
* In a conversation I had with Dr. I. Spatharakis of Leiden, late last spring, I learnt
that he had an article on this Oxford Psalter ready for publication. It turned out that Dr.
Spatharakis was not familiar with the material contained in this note which is part of my
still unpublished book, Themes of East Christian Civilization. He kindly suggested that I
write it down as a sequel or an appendix to his article which he generously let me read. I
accepted his suggestion and prepared the present note. But in the meantime Professor
Vokotopoulos' study on the Psalter appeared in which he discussed the manuscript from
the same point of view as Dr. Spatharakis in his now unpublished article. Likewise Pro
fessor Vokotopoulos does not touch at all upon the material of this note. The photo
graphs are published courtesy of Professor Kurt Weitzmann of Princeton who studied
and photographed the manuscript several years ago.
1. P. L. Vokotopoulos, Ένα Ыуѵыато хеіроурсцро του κωδικοητράφου Ίωάσαφ каі
ot Мікроурсираіея του: το ψαλτήριο, Christ Church Arch. W. gr. 61," Deltion christian-
ikes archaeologUces etaireias, per 4, 8 (1975-76), 79-198, ph. 100-04.
2. This portrait is not included in the excellent book of I. Spatharakis, The Portrait
in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976). It will be included
in a supplement he is preparing. In this book the reader will find several examples of
presentation-intercession scenes.
him out of a sarcophagus with great force. The unknown illustrator has based
this part of the composition on an Anastasis scene of which the principal
characters, Christ and Adam, have been replaced by the Mother of God and
the portrait of the monk. Vokotopoulos has discussed this iconographie motif
within the concept of Mary's intercession in general terms.
The application, however, of this Anastasis iconography to Mary deserves
a closer examination which will help us see its larger implications within the
important question of the cult of Mary in Byzantium. The composition does
not reflect the peculiarity of an artist who utilizes the theme of the Descent
into Hell in order to stress the role of Mary in man's salvation. Nor is he think
ing of the Last Day only to which the Anastasis motif certainly refers and of
Mary's supplication for humanity on that day. In Last Judgment composi
tions one sees the usual Deësis scene with Mary and John the Baptist on ei
ther side of the enthroned Christ who shows his pierced hands, testimonies of
his love for man. In the Christ Church miniature, and this is its unique ele
ment, the Virgin is represented as coming out of Hell, bringing the monk
from darkness into light.
In fact, this Anatasis iconography, applied to Mary, is based on a widely
spread literary tradition. It derives from an apocryphal text which describes
in great detail the Descent of the Virgin into Hell. It is entitled: The Apoca-
lypse of the Virgin, All-holy Theo tokos; about Hell. In other versions the ti
tle is rendered as, The Apocalypse of the Virgin who descended into Heiland
saw how the sinners were punished. The text is known through a number of
manuscripts. Tischendorf singled out three codices which were kept in Ox
ford, Vienna and Venice.3 Gidel and Pernot added three more manuscripts
of which the two, dating from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, were lo
cated in Paris, and the third, a later version, was found in the village Pyrgi of
the island of Chios. Three other variants were known to E. Legrand. The text
of the Paris manuscripts (Bibl. Nat., codd. gr. 395 and suppl. gr. 136) and
that of the Chios codex only are known to me through the publication of
Pernot who has not, however, discussed the dissemination of the text and has
not attempted to discover the exact number of extant manuscripts. Although
there is no critical edition (it would have been welcome if one were to under
take the task), the present evidence shows that the three versions, represented
by the two Paris and Chois codices, stem from one archetype. At present it is
impossible to ascertain the date of this archetype but Pernot suggested, and
probably he is right, that this Descent of the Virgin into Hell was created
possibly in the Middle Byzantine period.
3. C. von Teschendorf, Apocalypses apocryphae (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1896), pp.

MARY'S DESCENT INTO HELL 191
We bring the main points of this text here, in so far as they contribute to
our understanding of the Christ Church miniature. The Virgin is so much dis
tressed for those condemned in Hell that she decides to descend into Hell and
see for herself their sufferings. Before she undertakes her journey her role in
the scheme of man's salvation is stressed by the unknown author. She is
greeted by Michael, the archangel of the Lord, and four hundred angels, as
follows: "Hail Holy Virgin, Mother of God, Reflection of the Father, Dwell
ing Place of the Son, the Command of the Holy Ghost, Hail the Adoration of
the Angels, hail the Preaching of the Prophets; hail you who are higher than
all, reaching the throne of God." (§ 2). She is guided by Michael through Hell
and the various punishments are described in detail (§ 4-19). In each case the
sinners are covered by darkness which is Ufted in the presence of Mary. As
she goes from one area to another her own compassion increases, especially
as she is confronted with a group of sinners who have lost the faculty of speech
because of darkness. At the end of the journey Mary refuses to depart from
Hell. She asks Michael to leave her there in order to share the punishments of
mankind. She must do this—she says—because " the sinners have been called
sons of my Son" (§ 20). At last she ascends from Hell and runs to the throne
of God, stretches out her hands, lifts "her eyes towards the holy throne and
her merciful Son," and she pleads in tears: " 'Lord, be merciful, for I have
seen their punishments and I cannot endure any more . . . for they [the sin
ners] are work of Your hands and their entire race blesses my name on every
occasion. . . .' And the Lord said to her, 'Listen, All-holy. No man who in
vokes you will fail in his petition, whether in heaven or on earth; he will be
saved through you' " (§ 21). Christ convinced by His mother grants rest to
the sinners for a period starting from Easter and ending on All Saints' day
(§ 25). Finally the Virgin is taken to Paradise where she sees the just and
where the angels relate to the Apostles the events in Hell (§ 26) . 4
In the text, trust in God's love is strong and so is the behef in Mary's inter
cession. But the underlying theme is man's deification. Man is the son of the
Son of God and cannot be condemned to eternal suffering. For us important
is Mary's Descent into Hell and her ascent and pleading before the throne of
God. She wishes to snatch all sinners away from the darkness of hell.
The Christ Church miniature must be seen against this background. Even
the epithet "Merciful" for Christ is not chosen accidentally. To be sure the
scene is not a hteral illustration of the apocryphal text which led the donor
or the artist to utilize and adapt an Anastasis Composition to Maiy's Descent
into Hell. It is, however, a document showing the importance of this tradi
tion. It gives us an insight into popular piety and the cult of Mary.
4. H. Pernot, ed., "Descente de la Vierge aux Enfers d'après les manuscrits grecs de
Paris," Revue des études grecques, 13 (1900), 233-57.
This tradition was widely spread as it is shown by the dissemination of the

text to Russia and its persistence down to modern times. The Apocalypse of
the Virgin was known to Dostoevskii who used it m The Brothers Karamazov.
It is mentioned by Ivan Karamazov in his conversation with his brother Ale
sila which is about Ivan's poem, entitled The Grand Inquisitor, Although the
work is well known, a few pertinent verses deserve to be quoted here: ". . .
even as far back as the Tartar period, there exists, for instance, a monastic
little poem (of course, translated from the Greek) called Our Lady's Going
Through Torments, with scenes and a boldness not inferior to those of
Dante's. . . . And our Lady; astounded and weeping, kneels before the throne
of God and prays for mercy on all in h e l l . . . without distinction.... It ends
by Her obtaining from God a yearly respite from the torments, from Good
Friday to Trinity Sunday "5
The anonymous writer of the Apocalypse of the Mother of God follows a
much older belief associated with the role of Mary in man's salvation and
with the concept that "there is no measure for God's love." In Byzantine art
this belief had found various expressions. Above all it was embodied in vari
ous intercession scenes, which had their literary counterparts, like, for exam
ple, three little-known poems by John Mauropous, the eleventh-century bish
op of Euchaita, which were inspired by zDeè'is representation.6 In the course
of time Mary's intercession is changed into action. She is allowed to descend
into hell in order to save the sinners. The Oxford miniature, although a unique
example, reflects this spirit and must be placed within the development and
history of Mariolatry in Byzantium.7
McGill University
5. F. M. Dostoevsky, The Grand Inquisitor, trans. S. S. Koteliansky (London: E.

Mathews & Marrot, 1930), pp. 2 and 3.
6. See J. P. Migne, Patrologie cursus completus. Series graeco-latina, 161 vols, in 166
(Paris: Lutetiae J. P. Migne, 1857-66), CXX, col. 1178.
7. Cf. G. Galavaris, "A Question of Mariolatry in Byzantium," The New Review, 4,
No. 4 (1964), 1-15.
ARISTEIDES PAPADAKIS (Baltimore, Md., U.S.A.)
A Byzantine Diptych
Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople. Letters. Greek Text and English

Translation by R. J. H. Jenkins and L. G. Westerink. Corpus Fontium His-
toriae Byzantinae, Consilio Societatis Internationalis Studiie Byzantinis
Provehendis Destinatae Editum. Vol. VI. Dumbarton Oaks Texts II. Wash
ington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Trustees for
Harvard University, 1973. xxxix + 631 pp. $38.00.
Lucian Lamza. Patriarch Germanos I. von Konstantinopel (715-730). Versuch
einer endgültigen chronologischen Fixierung des Lebens und Wirkens des
Patriarchen. Das östliche Christentum. Neue Folge, Heft 27. Würzburg:
Augustinus-Verlag, 1975. xxxv + 248 pp. 2 illustrations. DM 30.80.
The two titles under review, though vastly different in content and ap-
proach, are eloquent reminders of a commonplace in Byzantine studies-the
major role religion played in the life of the empire. Characteristically, Ger-
manus I and Nicholas I, the patriarchs of Constantinople who are the subject
of these works, belong as much to the secular as to the ecclesiastical life of
the empire. Both were major forces in Byzantine ¡talkies both foreign and do-
mestic (one was actually head of the empire for nearly a year), as well as key
figures in the life of the Church not only for their considerable canonical and
theological insight but for their refusal to submit to the imperial caprice in
matters of faith (in itself no small achievement). Not surprisingly, both have
joined the fellowship of saints and are commemorated in the Synaxarion of
the Orthodox Church on 12 and 15 May respectively. But their historical im-
portance is further enhanced by their literary and epistolary output. German-
us' writings, for example, are precious doctrinal and historical documenta-
tion for the origins of the iconoclastic question, while Nicholas' letters are
not only a private but an official correspondence and thus doubly valuable.
The Commission for the Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae of the As-
sociation Internationale des Etudes Byzantines has in recent years edited or
re-edited a number of Byzantine texts, in addition to the seven in press and
the dozen or more now in preparation.1 The present long-promised edition of
1. For a summary of the state of publication, consult Byzantine Studies I Etudes By-
zantines 2 (1975), 203-04.
patriarch Nicholas' letters by R. J. H. Jenkins and L. G. Westerink is volume 6

of this enterprise and is a welcome addition given the stature and skill of its
editors, the impeccalbe work characteristic of the Corpus Fontium, and the
dearth of literature available on the patriarchs of Constantinople. In the main,
the value of this critical edition lies in its completeness since it supersedes all
previous editions and even supplements the fundamental internal criticism of
the letters done by V. Grumel in 1936.2 For the latter in fact omitted twen
ty-two letters of the Patmos collection in addition to the twenty published
since by J. Darrouzès.3
The edition and the translation, which faces the original of letters 1-163,
is the work of the late Prof. Jenkins; Prof. Westerink's contribution is the edi
tion and translation of letters 164-190, the introduction (which includes a
brief resume of Nicholas' career, a discussion of the chronology of the letters,
a description of the major independent collection and stray items), and a re
view of the partial extant editions; the invaluable summaries of each letter
ine edition's own Regestes-is also Prof. Westerink's work. It replaces the
commentary projected by Prof. Jenkins before his death.
Because Nicholas' letters were in fact never much copied in the medieval
period the manuscript tradition is more simple than is usually the case, a fact
which makes the editor's work less difficult. Indeed there is only one inde
pendent manuscript, Patmos 176, which contains most of the letters and
from which the editio princeps was made in 1844 by A. Mai. (The transla
tion of this edition in Migne is characterized by Westerink as "useless".)
All the same, problems of chronology abound. Yet, the solutions that are of
fered, though often tentative, are a tribute to the editorial skill of Prof.
Westerink. Essentially, his conclusion is that the collection is posterior to
912; with the exception of letters 3,4, and 161, the entire collection belongs
to Nicholas' second patriarchate (912-25) and not to his first (901-07). The
editor concludes that the correspondence of the first patriarchate was either
destroyed by Nicholas himself or seized by the authorities after his arrest.
This being so, the new dating is a major revision of Grumel who saw fit to
place sixteen of the letters in the first patriarchate. Not a single letter (includ
ing 3, 4, and 161) can in fact be shown with certainty to belong to that per
iod. This however, is not to sully Grumel's work for it still remains the
groundwork for the chronology of the present volume.
Nicholas is of course chiefly remembered for his involvement in the events
surrounding Leo VI's fourth marriage (the familiar tetragamy affair) whose
2. V. Grumel, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I, 2 (Istanbul:

Socii Assumptionistae Chalcedonenses, 193 2-).
3. J. Darrouzès, "Un recueil épistolaire byzantin: le manuscrit de Patmos 706," Re-
vue de études byzantines, 14 (1965), 87-121; and ibid., Epistoliers byzantins du Xe
siècle (Paris: Institut français d'études byzantines, 1960).
A BYZANTINE DIPTYCH 197
complications have been explored ebewhere by Prof. Jenkins.4 The major

hurdle was the patriarch's refusal to recognize the legality of the marriage, a
fact for which he was eventually forced to resign his throne. On his restora
tion, however, Nicholas again denounced the marriage and on 9 July 920 he
had the Church solemnly proclaim the celebrated Tomus of Union in which
fourth marriages were banned.
In all this oikonomia figures very prominently and Nicholas' letters remain
invaluable for our understanding of a concept which the Byzantines them
selves never defined. An examination of the linguistic and historical evolution
of the notion (Lampe's Patristic Lexicon offers more than thirty definitions)
would indeed be rewarding. Suffice it to say, the matter cannot be treated
exclusively in church-state terms, as the true source of all Byzantine political
ideology5 or as a give-and-take elastic attitude in matters of Church disci
pline. Such an approach ignores the soteriological and penitential dimension6
which, for example is fundamental to Nicholas' understanding of the term.
"Dispensation is a concession unto salvation, saving him who has sinned,
stretching out the arm of help, and lifting up the fallen from his fall; not per
mitting him to lie where he has fallen, or rather pushing him toward a miser
able pit. Dispensation is an imitation of the Divine Mercy, a snatching out of
the jaws of the beast that howls against us the man who is about to be de
voured by those jaws of destruction" (letter 32, p. 237).
Historians for the most part have been reluctant to exploit Byzantine let
ters, because, it is said, they are long-winded displays of oratorical virtuosity
and so contain little of historical value; yet even so, as more of this genre is
published or re-edited historians will come to realize that it is more than a
tissue of literary pyrotechnics and must be placed among the historical sour
ces, as it has been done, for example, for another unexploitedgewe: Byzan
tine hagiography. We have four major collections of letters by patriarchs-
Nicholas I, Photius, Gregory II, Athanasius I—and all are indisputably histori
cal sources of the highest order.
One more example from Nicholas' letters will suffice to demonstrate the
historical value of this collection now at the historian's disposal. In a private
conversation, the emperor Romanus Lecapenus was indiscreet enough to
complain to the patriarch that the disasters of the regency were the result of
God's displeasure—an argument long familiar to the Byzantines who had
4. Especially in Hellenika, 14 (1956), 293-372; and Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 16

(1952), 23141.
5. As it has been done recently by the distinguished French Byzantinist Helene Ahr
weiler, L'idéologie politique de l'Empire byzantin, Collection SUP, 20 (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1975), 129-47.
6. See the unpublished paper read at the 1975 American Historical Association con
vention in Atlanta, Georgia, by J. Erickson, "Byzantine Ecclesiology and the State: the
Problem oí oikonomia. ' '
heard it from the iconoclasts in the eighth century. The patriarch's non-theo
logical reply, that military success is not dependent on theological but mili
tary causes, is, for my part at least, an insightful comment on the great patri
arch's statesmanship and objectivity (too often we think of ecclesiastics as
too involved in theology to be objective or pragmatic). "In the days of the
lord Leo you know that Mapas and his followers came around, and were uni
ted in the Church, and, at a time of profound peace in the Church, Thessalo-
nica and Tauromenon were lost. And why? Because carelessness had been
shown here beforehand. . . . This (my Son) you should consider and under
stand, . . . and you will learn by personal experience what it is that gives our
state good fortune or ill" (letter 75, p. 327).
The work on Patriarch Germanus unlike that on Nicholas is not a collec
tion of source material but an exhaustive study of those sources relating to
the life and career of Patriarch Germanus, who was, as is well enough known,
the first defender of images and the first victim of iconoclasm. (It is not with
out significance that the patriarch's portrait in the southwest gallery of St.
Sophia was done not long after the restoration of images in 843.) In any case,
it is decidedly not a biography in any strict sense.
Chapter 1 deals with the state of the sources such as those of Theophanes,
Nicephorus and the Vita of the patriarch; chapter 2 is concerned with Ger
manus' life before he became patriarch, the chronology of his birth, his fam
ily, and his election to the See of Cyzicus; chapter 3 revolves around Ger
manus as patriarch (715-30), his relations with the Emperor Anastasius II,
with Leo III, and the phenomenon of iconoclasm; chapter 4 focuses on his
abdication (January 730), his death, his condemnation (as xylolatres) in 754,
his rehabilitation in 787, and his cult; chapter 5 concludes the work with a
critical edition of the Greek text of the patriarch's Vita followed by a Ger
man translation. The bibliography which preceeds the five chapters is excep
tionally complete and includes both the Western and the Slavic literature on
the subject.
Although Germanus' liturgical, hymnographical, and homeletic composi
tions are of first importance they have nevertheless rarely taken precedence
over his doctrinal compositions and his role in the epic struggle of icono
clasm. His letters7 for example are directly related to what has become the
central focus of iconoclastic scholarship: the origins of the movement. Re
grettably, this subject is treated only indirectly by Prof. Lamza who does not
deal at length either with the question of the origins of iconoclasm or the pa
triarch's iconology. True, the author's goal is quite different. All the same,
this valuable study would have surely benefitted by a chapter on these issues,
7. J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeco-latina, 161 vols, in

166 (Paris: Lutetiae, 1857-66), XCVIII, cols. 135-232.
A BYZANTINE DIPTYCH 199
particularly because of Lamza's obvious knowledge of the materials.

Other topics, however, are discussed such as the patriarch's "translation"
from the See of Cyzicus to that of Constantinople; his role at the council of
712 when he was pressured to renounce the decisions of 681 on monothelet-
ism; and his subsequent condemnation of monotheletism on his nomination
to the patriarchate. Lastly, we are informed that the patriarch's relics are to
day venerated in France (Bort-les-Orgues) where they were transferred by the
Crusaders who stole them from Constantinople in 1204.
The edition of the patriarch's Vita in which he is styled as "confessor" is a
fine addition to the increasing number of available hagiographie texts of the
iconoclastic period. This particular pre-Metaphrastic document was probably
written shortly after the settlement of 843 when a flourish of these works
became available which were designed to glorify the "neo-martyrs" for the
cause of the holy images. The edition supersedes the one originally published
by Papadopoulos-Kerameus since it takes into consideration several manu
scripts not used by the Greek scholar. Two minor corrections may be noted:
Ѵуеіто not ττγητο (p. 208, line 111) and έλάττους not έλλάτους (ρ. 222, line
321).
A final observation. Several years ago Prof. Westerink, in the introduction
to his edition of Nice tas Magistros' letters, took the opportunity to expose
the problems of editing Byzantine texts and to indicate in general how neces
sary the solution of problems of chronology, of identification of authors, and
of origins are, if a source is to be used at all by scholarship. Historians and
scholars of the Byzantine Church will find much for which to be grateful in
the diptych here reviewed.
University of Maryland Baltimore County

Peter Schreiner, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken: Chronica Byzantina Breviora. Cor

pus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 12. 1 Teil: Einleitung und Text. Wien: Verlag der
Österreichissche Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1975. 688 pp.
By the time this review is printed, the second and third parts of Schreiner's Klein-
chroniken will have appeared. These will contain historical and philological commentar
ies, German translations of selected chromcles, and comprehensive indices. Part 1, which
is under consideration here, contains the texts of 116 short chronicles, each with an in
troduction explaining what is known about its authorship, manuscript tradition, previ
ous editions and translations (if any). In addition, there is a brief general introduction in
which Professor Schreiner defines the literary genre of "short chronicle" (βραχέα χρον
ικά, Kleinchroniken, Kurzchroniken, etc.), and sets forth the methods by which he class
ified and edited the texts included in this volume. Because I do not have on hand the
volume which will contain the commentaries upon the texts, this review will necessarily
be limited in scope, as I wish to avoid "second-guessing" Professor Schreiner.
Chronicles, of course, are not history, though they contain materials from which his
tory may be written. Au fond, a chronicle is a list of events-it can hardly be called a
narrative arranged according to a rigid chronological framework. In the Middle Ages,
the framework was usually a year-by-year one, although one also encounters chronicles
arranged by reigns of rulers, such as No. 14 in the present volume. Even when a chroni
cle can be attributed to a single author, it lacks artistic unity. And since it is a list of
events, or "notices", rather than a connected narrative, it is difficult to demonstrate re
lationships among historical events in chronicle format, though a scholar using data pro
vided by chronicles can do so. Occasionally, one runs into a chronicle by an author so
phisticated enough to raise it above the limitations of the genre, or even consciously to
use it as a literary artifice. None of the chronicles in this book can claim that distinction.
What are the standards for inclusion in this volume? Obviously, the chronicles must
be brief. However, Professor Schreiner draws the line at works with just one notice un
less they are surviving fragments of lost originals. To these, the entire final section of the
book ("Kleinchronikenfragmente") is dedicated. Schreiner does not include any chroni
cle whose notices begin after 1540, the year of the fall of Monemvasia, because after
that date all the lands of the former Byzantine Empire except Crete were in the hands of
the Turks. He does include all short chronicles which begin before 1540, even when their
notices extend as far as 1718, as in No. 68. Although the bulk of the chronicles cover
the period from 1204 onwards, a few, like Nos. 14 and 57, go back to late antiquity.
After the general introduction, the book is divided into six parts, each division cor
responding to one type of chronicle. The first is "Reiehschroniken"-chronicles dealing
with happenings in the Byzantine Empire as a whole. "Kaiserchroniken" treat primarily
of the emperors: some are mere lists of rulers and how long they reigned. The longest
division is "Lokalchroniken"-those which are of interest for local history. The largest
number of them come from the Peloponnesus, but there are others from such areas as
Crete, Cyprus, and southern Italy, which during much of the Middle Ages was a Greek-
speaking area under Byzantine control. The "Chroniken türkischer Eroberungen" deal
with the final cataclysm. Finally, "Einzelchroniken" includes materials which do not fit
into any of the previous categories, and "Kleinchronikenfragmente," as previously men
tioned, is made up of extant fragments of vanished originals.
This work is an exhaustive one. Professor Schreiner has examined well over 200 man
uscripts from libraries as widely separated as those of the Historical Museum at Moscow,
the Vatican, and the Yale University Medical School (!). Many manuscripts, of course,
are to be found in libraries in Greece, and a few are in such isolated outposts as the Mon
astery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, thefibraryof the Jerusalemite Patriarchate, and
even Istanbul. Manuscripts which Schreiner was forced to examine through microfilm or
other types of photocopies are so identified, as are those which have now disappeared
through war,fire,or other disasters but which can still be examined in previously printed
editions. At the very end of this volume is a (fortunately) brief list of short chronicles
which are known to have existed, but were never published, and whose manuscripts have
now perished. There is also a concordance with S. Lampros & K. I. Amantos, Βραχέα
Χρονικά. ЪкЫЬоѵтаі еігЦіеХеіа (Μμημεϊα τής ελληνικής ¿στορtaç, Τόμος A', τ€ϋχος 1
[Athenai, 1932/33 J), a previous attempt at an edition of the Byzantine short chronicles
which was never completed.
Barring major discoveries of new manuscripts, Professor Schreiner's work should re
main unchallenged for several decades. The book has been produced with the usual high
standards of the other volumes in the CFHB. I have one minor addendum: Schreiner
notes that Chronicle No. 7 has been translated by Peter Charanis ("Les BRAXEA ΧΡΟΝ
ΙΚΑ comme source historique," Byzantion 13 [1938], 341-59). His reference is correct,
but it implies that the translation was into French. Actually, despite the French title, the
article of which the translation forms a part is written in English.
Martin Arbagi Wright State University
Thomas F. Mathews. The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul: A Photographic Survey. Uni

versity Park, Pa.: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976. 406 pp. $50.00.
Professor Mathews was happily inspired to publish a photographic record of the By
zantine churches of Istanbul. Between 1968 and 1973 he himself took some 10,000 pho
tographs at Istanbul, out of which he has selected 489 for reproduction. He has supple
mented this material with 148 photographs and 16 drawings from other sources. In all,
there are 653 illustrations pertaining to more than 40 churches. A brief notice, accom
panied by a sketch plan and a bibliography, is devoted to each monument.
As can be seen from this summary of the book's contents, the author's intention was
to provide a working tool to students of Byzantine architecture and sculpture; frescoes
and mosaics have been excluded on the valid grounds that they are sufficiently we.ll ill
ustrated in other publications. A particularly useful feature of this book and one that
confers on it the status of a work of scholarship is the reproduction of a considerable
number of old photographs and drawings which show the monuments in a condition
more complete than the present one, or various details that have since disappeared. In
seeking out these views the author has examined a number of photographic archives and
is perhaps the first Western scholar to have made systematic use of therichcollection of
the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Monuments (Eski Eserleri Koruma Endimeni)
housed in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul.
Excellent as the book is, a few minor deficiencies may be noted. Thefirstis of a tech
nical nature. Mathews has done all his photography with a 35 mm. camera. While such an
instrument is adequate for most purposes, it is not suitable for general views of large
buildings. The result is that many interior and exterior shots of St. Sophia, St. Irene, Sts.
Sergius and Bacchus, the Kariye Camii, etc., are too fuzzy to be of much use. A slightly
larger camera of the Hasselblad type, which is neither heavy nor difficult to handle,
would have yielded much better results as I knowfromlong personal experience.
My second criticism is that while Mathews has made a laudable effort to locate old
photographs and drawings of the churches of Istanbul, he has not gone far enough in
this direction. I realize that the publisher probably would not have allowed him to repro
duce a greater number than he has done. He could, however, have listed in each case such
drawings and photographs, both published and unpublished, as contribute to our know
ledge of the architectural features of the monuments. Let me give a few examples. W.
Salzenberg's Altchristliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel (1855), which Mathews
quotes only with reference to St. Sophia, contains reasonably accurate delineations of
St. Irene, the Vefa Kilise Camii (showing the original columns under the main dome and
the outer south aisle, now destroyed), and Christ Pantocrator (showing part of the inlaid
pavement that is no longer preserved). The drawings of Charles Texier (1833-35), now in
the Library of the Royal Institute of British Architects, London, also deserved fuller
mention. Mathews has reproduced two of them, both of the Vefa Kilise Camii. Among
those he omits, one, for example, shows the original columns under the dome of Christ
Pantepoptes instead of the present stone piers, and there are six sheets pertaining to
Christ Pantocrator with interesting details of the pavement. I have given some account of
Texier's drawings in Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 80 (1965), 315-
36. Other useful drawings may be found in Albert Lenoir's Architecture monastique
(1852). The extremely detailed drawings by Cornelius Loos, made in 1710-11 and now
in the Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, are invaluable for the architectural study of St.
Sophia. There are many others, besides. It would not, I believe, have been too laborious
for Mathews to have listed such drawings as well as a number of published old photo
graphs under the appropriate headings, thus completing the visual documentation.
Finally, there are a number of minor slips and omissions. The appellation "Blacher-
nes" (pp. xvi, 376) is incorrect. The Patriarch Constantius I, author of the Κωνσταν-
Ttvidç, appears as Constantius IV and is quoted on p. 16 in an English translation of
1868 and on p. 60 in a French translation of 1846. It is not very accurate to speak of a
Romanian embassy to the Sublime Porte in the sixteenth century (p. 36). The Comnene
tomb "presently in the Hagia Sophia Museum" (p. 72) is not known to me. For "Nike
riot" (pp. 102, 263) read "Nika riot." Myrelaion does not exactly mean "The Place of
Myrrh" (p. 209). The dome of St. Sophia has 40, not 42 windows (p. 264). With refer
ence to St. John of Studius, it may have been worth mentioning that the little "chapel"
which once stood over the cistern is described by S. Byzantios, Ή Κωνβταντινούπολις,
I (Athens, 1851), p. 310, in whose time it served as a holy fountain. With regard to St.
Mary Chalcoprateia, the author might have quoted E. Mamboury in Byzantion, 11
(1936), 234, who reports the discovery of a colonnade along the south wall of the church
(unpublished, as far as I know). For Kariye Camii there is evidence of important repairs
in 1875, at which time the roofline of the facade was altered.
In spite of such small blemishes, Mathews' book will certainly prove extremely use
ful. It is appropriate, furthermore, that it should appear exactly a hundred years after
the Βυζαντινοί џеХетсц, of A. G. Paspates which contains thefirstsystematic account of
the Byzantine churches of Istanbul. A comparison of the two works reveals how much
has been gained in the meantime and how relatively little has been lost. Some of the
smaller churches, it is true, have disappeared. Rather more serious has been the damage
done by incompetent restoration: The Myrelaion has been permanently disfigured and
two facades of Christ Pantocrator badly spoilt. Considering, however, the vicissitudes of
Istanbul in the past century, the record of preservation has been remarkably good. It
is an observation not devoid of irony that more Byzantine churches were pulled down
during the nineteenth century in Christian Athens than in Muslim Istanbul.
Cyril Mango Exeter College, Oxford

Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Number 28. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for
Byzantine Studies, 1974. 371 pp., 333 ills.
The first four contributions in this volume are amplified versions of papers read at
the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of 1973, entitled "Arts, Letters, and Society in Byzan
tine Provinces" and dkected by Ihor Sevcenko. In his "Byzantine Art among Greeks and
Latins in Southern Italy" (pp. 1-29), Hans Belting examines painting and sculpture of
the ninth through twelfth centuries and discerns a range of creative responses, often by
Latin artists, to contemporary metropolitan Byzantine style. He believes that as a gen
eral rule Latins rather than Greeks living in southern Italy were the patrons of this art, a
thesis which he supports with two observations: first, that Byzantine officials in this out
post followed each other in quick succession, and so lacked time to develop an interest
in artistic patronage; and second, that Greek monasticism in the province was ascetic and
of the migratory rather than the stationary type. Nevertheless, he sees the Benedictine
abbey church at Monte Cassino as a major art center in the second half of the eleventh
century, producing Byzantine and Latin art of the highest quality. Had Belting treated
architecture in his study, I think that he would have been able to marshal additional evi
dence in support of his thesis.
Kurt Weitzmann's "Loca Sancta and the Representational Arts of Palestine" (pp. 31-
55) presents an iconographie study of the impact of some of the holiest sites in Palestine
on the creation of visual images with very specific topographical details. This imagery oc
curs not only on ampullae, ivories, and manuscripts, where it has been identified by
other scholars, most notably André Grabar, but also on painted icons, in particular some
preserved on Mount Sinai, which are included by Weitzmann in his study. In the third
article, "Byzantine Architecture and Decoration in Cyprus: Metropolitan or Provincial?"
(pp. 57-88), A. H. S. Megaw succinctly summarizes the results of recent discoveries and
excavations, and of restorations of buildings, architectural sculpture, mosaics, and wall
paintings dating from the fifth through the twelfth centuries. The full impact of Constan
tinople on Cyprus occurs only under the Emperor Justinian I, and even then, according
to present evidence, the new Justinianic architecture of vaulted and domed spaces failed
to replace the traditional wood-roofed basilica. After the reestablishment of Byzantine
rule by Nicephorus Phocas, however, Cypriot church architecture does echo metropoli
tan models. Megaw's brief observations on the apse mosaics at Lythrankomi, Kiti, and
Livadia await fuller explication before we can unreservedly accept his identification of
these works as major monuments of the style of the imperial capital in the sixth and first
half of the seventh centuries. The fourth paper, André Guillou's "Production and Pro
fits in the Byzantine Province of Italy (Tenth to Eleventh Centuries): An Expanding So
ciety" (pp. 89-109), states, first, that wealthy archons directed the healthy economic ex
pansion and urbanization in the province-he focusses on southern Italy-and second,
that the literary books produced there, almost exclusively religious and liturgical, reflect
metropolitan sources. That is to say, the ruling elite in Byzantine Italy, which was a
small and highly mobile group in this period, was responsible for the entire economic,
social, and intellectual life of the province. Thus all four symposium papers establish
that, in varying degrees, the imperial city shaped salient aspects of civilization through
out some provinces in late antique and Byzantine times. But what about its influence on
other key provincial centers, such as Syria, Asia Minor, Thessaloniki, Rome, and Raven
na? Was it as considerable there, and why? Perhaps these questions will be treated in the
papers read by Cyril Mango and Dior Sevcenko at the same symposium, which are sup
posed to appear in a later number of the Papers.
The remaining papers in this volume comprise textual studies, field reports, and notes.
In "Truth and Convention in Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art" (pp. 111-40)
Henry Maguire takes a fresh look at ekphraseis, not in the favored mode of earlier schol
ars, as evidence for the reconstruction of lost monuments, but as expressions of Byzan
tine attitudes toward works of art. He demonstrates that most Byzantine writers followed
literary sources with little or no regard for accurate description, while only a small num
ber of writers looked at art qua art and made original observations. During the course of
development of Byzantine art the ekphraseis became neither less and less nor more and
more reliable. Rather, ekphrasis remained a matter of the skillful matching of literary
conventions with works of art.
In his highly stimulating inquiry into the history of demotic Greek verse, "The Nature
and Origins of the Political Verse" (pp. 141-95), Michael J. Jeffreys argues that in the
twelfth century, probably for the first time, political verse in the vernacular was in com
mon use at an informal level, and that such verse must have been a major medium of ex
pression for the uneducated and half-educated members of Byzantine society at that
time; these persons write it, spoke it, and sang it. Observing that a definite link exists
between this verse and members of the imperial court, he advances the hypothesis that
the versus quadratus existed in a Greek form, and already in the sixth century was heard
in and around the Hippodrome in Constantinople. The content of such Greek verse gen
erally would have been satirical comment about the emperor, on the Roman pattern.
Cautiously Jeffreys postulates further that the ultimate origins of political verse may be
traced to verses sung by soldiers in the retinue of the emperor during the triumphal pro
cessions of the Roman Republic and early Empire. like the meter of Byzantine political
verse, the meter of these army songs would have been the versus quadratus.
Lennart Rydén in his article "The Andreas Salos Apocalypse: Greek Text, Transla
tion, and Commentary" (pp. 197-261) publishes a text written by a certain Nicephorus
in Constantinople, presumably in the tenth century. Rydén collates the Greek texts of
the Life of Andreas Salos from manuscripts dating to the fourteenth century and earlier.
The Vita is not only a saint's life but also a kind of "pseudo-learned encyclopedia," in
which fundamental questions about theological matters and natural phenomena are
raised and answered; this encyclopedia occupies a large part of the Vita.
In the first of two field reports in the volume, Fikret K. Yegul publishes an important
group of carved capitals made for the extensive reconstruction of the palaestra of the
bath-gymnasium complex at Sardis, which is attributed to the late fifth century ("Early
Byzantine Capitals from Sardis: A Study on the Ionic Impost Type," pp. 265-74). These
capitals exhibit some features absent in other examples of the type, and Yegul rightly
interprets them as revivals of earlier forms from Sardis itself. In "The Church of the Pa-
nagia Amasgou, Monagri, Cyprus, and Its Wallpaintings" (pp. 276-349), Susan Boyd
identified four distinct layers of frescoes: (1) figures of saints attributed to the early
twelfth century; (2) a complete feast cycle accompanied by figures of the four evange
lists, attributed to the first quarter of the thirteenth century, and thus the earliest pre
served such cycle on Cyprus; (3) figures of St. Zosimus and Mary the Egyptian of the
fourteenth century; and (4) scenes securely dated by inscription to 1564, to be treated
in a subsequent study.
Two notes conclude the volume. In "Some Thirteenth-Century Pottery at Dumbarton
Oaks" (pp. 353-60), Nancy Patterson Sevcenko publishes a glazed amphora and four
bowls of similar workmanship which are identified with "Port St. Symeon ware," known
to have been manufactured at the port of Antioch in Syria in the first half of the -
teenth century. George P. Majeska's "A Medallion of the Prophet Daniel in the Dumbar
ton Oaks Collection" (pp. 361-66) introduces a gold medallion of Palaeologan date
which*, he surmises, belongs to a class of monuments known as "Seals of the Prophet
Daniel," acquked by pilgrims at the shrine of the prophet in the imperial city.
W. Eugene Kleinbauer Indiana University, Bloomington

Robert Browning. The Emperor Julian. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali
fornia Press, 1976. xii, 256 pp. 12 illustrations, 3 maps.
For almost a half century, Joseph Bidez's perceptive and detailed La vie de l'empereur
Julien (Paris, 1930) has served as the standard biography of this evocativefigure.Robert
Browning would offer a new, up-to-date study, asking the questions which concern his
torians in the late twentieth century, fully abreast of the trends of more recent historio
graphy, and thus '*not looking for a simple, unilinear development but recognizing the
complexity and the internal contradictions of human affairs." The chosen format is tra
ditional. An introduction sketches the main features of the Age of Constantine and Juli
an, while a series of chapters chronicles Julian's career from "childhood and youth" to
"Persian War and death." A brief epilogue provides the occasion for historical judgments
and a brief essay on the posthumous reputation of Julian the Apostate from Ammianus
Marcellinus to Gore Vidal. Γη Britain, the book is published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
and it is a seemingly commercial venture, aimed at a general audience. There are no
footnotes, and the only aids to the reader are an extremely cursory note on the sources
and a rather haphazard two-page list of suggestions for further reading. The reviewer left
the book with a sense of disappointment and with a feeling that this is the least success
ful of Professor Browning's three recent volumes, possessing neither the freshness of his
imaginative and scholarly Byzantium and Bulgaria nor the visual relief of his more gener
al Justinian and Theodora.
The peculiar value of Bidez's La vie de l'empereur Julien lay in the author's profound
understanding of the intellectual currents of late antiquity, which permitted him to draw
a sharp and informative portrait of Julian as an intellectual figure and to place the em
peror's intellectual achievement and religious aspirations within the perspective of his
age. By contrast, Browning's biography is essentially a political narrative. There is no
separate treatment of Julian's literary activity nor any detailed analysis of his thought.
Individual works are dealt with by cursory summaries within the context of Julian's
practical affairs of the moment. Even such signal works as the Hymn to the Sun God and
the Misopogon are discussed in less than a paragraph. If, as Browning believes, Julian was
"very much a man of his time, sharing alike its superstition and its rationalism, its prag
matism and its concern for dogma," then his literary works present us with something
rare in ancient history, the opportunity to grasp the character of an age in the terms of
the man most capable of shaping its history. The sophistication and cutting wit of the
Caesars, the religious fervor of the Hymn to the Mother of the Gods, and the bewildered
pathos of the Misopogon give Julian what few Roman emperors can have for us, a per
sonality. These treatises are fundamental documents in the intellectual history of the
fourth century. They are also the very stuff of biography. Julian is the rare case in which
the biography of a Roman emperor is possible. We can cut through the silent idealiza
tion of the portraiture, the bombast of the coinage, the eulogies of sycophants and the
petty carping of enemies; we can commune with the man himself. His writings reveal
Julian to be very much a man of his age, standing on a level far removed from and more
human than the great earth shakers, Alexander, Augustus, and Constantine.
As political narrative the book reads well. Browning knows how to set a scene and
possesses an enviable talent for capsule portraits of cities like Antioch and of men like
Maximus of Ephesus. The book is not, and perhaps was not intended to be, the much
needed fundamental réévaluation of Julian. The starting point must be the critical reex
amination of Ammianus' portrait. As in the case of Tacitus' image of Tiberius, the stylis
tic and dramatic qualities of Ammianus carry us almost unawares along with his narra
tive; and despite his express warning (16.1.2-5), we too often forget that we are dealing
with a panegyric and continue to judge the details of individual episodes and the char
acter and achievement of both Constantius and Julian by the standards of Julian's eulo-
gist. Hard questions about individual problems remain to be asked, and the answers are
to be sought in the detailed analysis and comparison of our sources. For example, per
haps a first step in a more careful definition of Julian's policy toward Christianity lies
in the simple determination of the religious affiliations of the highest magistrates. The
results are interesting and point to the systematic exclusion of Christians from the high
est civilian posts and the continuation of Christians in the highest military offices. (Cf.
R. von Haehling, Die Religionszugehörigkeit der hohen Beamten im römischen Reich von
Constantins Alleinherrschaft bis zum Ende der theodosianischen Dynastie [Diss. Bonn
19751, pp. 494-503.)
Browning's Julian is a book to recommend to the general reader and to undergradu
ates. More advanced students may continue to prefer Bidez.
/. Rufus Fears Indiana University, Bloomington
Derek Baker, editor. The Orthodox Churches and the West. Studies in Church History,
13. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976. xii, 336 pp. £10.00.
This valuable volume contains papers read at the fourteenth summer meeting and the
fifteenth winter meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society. It is a miscellaneous col
lection of twenty contributions, some good and others excellent, related to Orthodoxy
and Byzantium. The great number of refreshing views represented makes it worthwhile
reading.
The complex contrast of West and East is distinctly interpreted by Peter Brown in
his essay, "Eastern and Western Christendom in Late Antiquity: A Parting of the Ways."
The reader is led to understand some features of the divergence between East and West
in terms of "diverging attitudes to the idea of the holy in the two Churches."
To keep "the Holy" in proper perspective, Emmanuel Amand de Mendieta studies
"The Official Attitude of Basil of Caesarea as a Christian Bishop toward Greek Philoso
phy and Science," as reflected in his homilies. The author reveals Basil's delight in con
demning the folly and insanity of the Greek philosophers and scientists who ignored the
real utility of the perfect truth of Holy Scripture. Central in Basil's thought was the em
phasis on the simplicity and certainty of Holy Scripture and of the Christian Faith.
Basil's juxtaposition of Greek philosophy to that of Christianity is a frequently repeated
theme of several Church fathers.
Very revealing is Averil Cameron's study, "The Early Religious Policies of Justin II,"
which corrects our picture about Justin and the Empress Sophia who have suffered bad
ly from conventional sources. Their moderate policies toward the Monophysites were in
tended to restore unity, and their vigorous patronage of religious art enriched many
churches. Contrary to some historical works insisting that these two were not interested
in the West, thek gift of the Holy Cross to the Queen-turned-nun Radegund in Poitiers
and thek sending of relics to Rome stand out as clear evidence of thek favors.
A very good piece of research is W. H. С Frend's study, "Eastern Attitudes to Rome
during the Acacian Schism (484-519)," showing that the two sides were thinking in dif
ferent terms: Rome in terms of discipline and Roman primacy, the easterners in terms of
doctrine and also consensus among the "college" of patriarchs.
literary criticism can be found in Derek Baker's "Theodore of Sykeon and the His
torians," which considers the oldest manuscripts in their various versions. The penetrat
ing interpretation by Janet L. Nelson of "Symbols in Context: Rulers' Inauguration
Rituals in Byzantium and the West in the Early Middle Ages" brings a new view of how
royal inauguration was taken over in the West byrituallydesignated indivictyals without
whose anointing no ruler could be made, in contrast to Byzantium where an inaugura-
tion ritual was never devised. As a result there was no accepted superiority of spiritual
over secular authority in Byzantium, as there was in the West due to the ritual prescrip
tion: quod minus est a meliore benedicitur. Gelasius' distinction between potestas and
auctoritas could not even find linguistic equivalent in Greek.
A new outlook is established by Joan M. Peterson's article, "Did Gregory the Great
know Greek?," challenging a general assumption that Gregory knew Greek because he
was for six years apocrisiarius. The implication seems to be that he knew Greek well
enough, and, being well versed in Latin, was able to serve as a bridge between West and
East.
East-West antagonism is shown in Rosalind M. T. Hill's study "Pure Air and Porten
tous Heresy," in which the East is reprimanded for producing a great number of heresies,
so alienating the West that mutual understanding was greatly hindered. On the other
hand, Donald M. Nicol blames the West for "Papal Scandal," represented by the pope's
claim for primacy, which was never accepted by the East in the sense of "universal juris
diction over the whole oikumene." The only authority recognized by the East was an
ecumenical council at which the pentarchy was represented. All other excessive claims,
whether by Rome or Byzantium, were resented, as the author successfully shows by a
perusal of twenty-five Greek documents written on the subject between 1204 and 1400.
The Fourth Crusade with the creation of the Latin Empire and patriarchate in 1204 did
irreparable harm. Anti-Latin pamphlets aggravated the situation, and ecumenical councils
in Rome (1215), Lyons (1245 and 1274), and Florence (1439) perpetuated a "papal
scandal" with their demands for the primacy of the pope's jurisdiction, stressed even by
St. Thomas Aquinas in Contra errores Graecorum (1274). In attempted rapprochements
several dialogues were opened with the Latins, with Barlaam of Calabria introducing the
idea of the collegiality of bishops. But the claims of the pope to speak for the whole
Church on the one hand, and the claim of Constantinople since 1370 for its ecumenical
patriarch on the other, defeated all opportunities for reconciliation.
Brenda M. Bolton's "A Mission to the Orthodox? The Cistercians in Romania," re
veals how the Cistercians, who were regarded as the chief papal agents during the Cru
sades, were sent to establish their monastery at Chortaitou near Thessaloniki in 1203, to
watch and challenge the "unorthodoxy of the Orthodox."
Truly revealing is the study "Bonaventure, the Two Mendicant Orders and the Greeks
at the Council of Lyons (1274)" by Deno J. Geanakoplos. On the basis of the agenda of
this Congress recently published by A. Franchi, Geanakoplos insists that Bonaventure's
importance and role at the Council have been largely exaggerated and misrepresented.
This was done for the purpose of his canonization (1483) and his proclamation as Doc
tor of the Church (1588), when he was termed the "soul of the union." The real merit
for this reunion, however, belongs to two obscure Franciscans, John Parastron and
Jerome of Ascoli.
Kathryn D. Hill's "Robert Grosstente and his work of Greek Translation" reveals this
thirteenth-century English scholar as a prolific writer, who as Bishop of Lincoln invited
Greek scholars and collected Greek manuscripts to spread the knowledge of Greek in his
country. A very interesting topic is treated by Muriel Heppel in "New Light on the Visit
of Grigori Tsamblak to the Council of Constance (1418)." Heppel insists that a sermon
found by her in the pre-1917 collection of the Vilno library differs from the one "stress
ing a reunion" that was delivered at the Council by Grigori, Orthodox Metropolitan of
Kiev, in his capacity as head of the Orthodox Church of Lithuania, in which Kiev was
then located. The author suggests that the Vilno manuscript represents the original ser
mon, which was revised by the translator, Maurice of Bohemia; she proposes that the
change was made after Grigori's arrival in Constance.
Another interesting item is reported by G. J. Cumming in "Eastern Liturgies and
Anglican Divines 1510-1662," namely that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was given
to John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, by Erasmus in 1510; some copies were also acces
sible to Cranmer, and may have influenced the Anglican liturgy. Henry R. Selfton in "The
Scottish Bishops and Archbishop Arsenius" describes how the Anglican Archbishop
Campbell used Arsenius, who in 1716 was on a begging mission in England, to suggest
that a union might be entered into by the non-jurors and the Greek Church. A proposal
for this union was signed and it was a mark of eastern influence in Scottish worship.
Kalistos Ware's "The Fifth Earl of Giulford (1766-1827) and his Secret Conversion
to the Orthodox Church" is another interesting entry. Protopope Dimitrios Petrettinos
baptized the Honorable Frederick North, visiting the island of Corfu in 1792, under the
condition that it be kept secret to avoid all repercussions in English society. The secret
was kept faithfully until the close of the Earl's life, when the Orthodox priest Smirnov
administered to him the Holy Communion over the objections of his relatives.
In the political sphere, Richard Clogg's study, "Anti-Clericalism in Pre-Indepen-
dence Greece с 1750-1821," reveals how anticlericalism arose despite the common
faith that the "Church played a central role in the forging of the Greek national move
ment." In 1821 this sentiment was promoted by political, cultural, and socio-economic
conditions, and it erupted especially in reaction to the Church's preaching about sub
servience to the Turks in the Ottoman era.
Eric Tappe outlines 'The Rumanian Orthodoz Church and the West" in historical
perspective, focusing on the geographical area of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania.
Adoption of the Church Slavic language in the tenth century helped to consolidate
national feeling, yet political and religious attitudes underwent frequent change until
1698, when the Emperor Leopold achieved a certain stability by extending privileges
to all those Orthodox who would recognize a pope.
Stuart Mews's "Anglican Intervention in the Election of an Orthodox Patriarch
(1925-26)" elucidates a rather embarrassing episode involving the Anglican Bishop of
Egypt, Llewellyn H. Gwynne, who intervened in the name of the Archbishop of Canter
bury in the election of a new patriarch of Alexandria. His favored candidate, Nicholas,
Metropolitan of Nubia, aroused the people's resentment, and the British Government
subsequently withdrew its help in order to save face. Eventually, on 26 May 1926,
a compromise was reached, providing for the re-election of the ex-Patriarch Meletios.
A final study by Nicolas Zernov, "The Significance of the Russian Orthodox Dias
pora and its Effect on the Christian West" describes: a) the Russian Church on the eve
of the Revolution, b) the Russian Church in exile, c) the Russian religious renaissance
and its impact on the Church in the Diaspora, d) the message of the Russian Church
in the Diaspora to the West, and e) the Christian West and the Russian Church in Dias
pora.
This colorful spectrum of studies had an impressive impact on this reader, not only
through the rich, well written and well annotated material content, but also through
enlightened diction and freshness of outlook. The volume could enrich students or
scholars, theologians or historians, and it is warmly recommended to all. Perhaps the
presence of an index would have been helpful in orienting readers.
Ludvik Nemec Rosemont College and Chestnut Hill College
Doukas. Decline and Fall of Byzantium to the Ottoman Turks. An Annotated Transla
tion of "Historia Turco-Byzantina" by Harry J. Magoulias. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press, 1975. 346 pp. 3 maps, 10 black-and-while plates. $18.50.
Among the four principal historians who wrote about the last years of the Byzan
tine Empire, Doukas is probably the slightest in intelligence and judgment. Although
he had as close a knowledge as any of the various Turkish dynasties, great and small,
which were absorbing and transforming the old Greek heritage, he could still persuade
himself that the successes of the Ottomans were temporary, and that some startling re
versal of fortune would lead to a sudden decline in the Ottoman state. Sphrantzes and
Kritovoulos knew better, and even the more hopeful Chalkokondyles (whose relatives
appear in the middle ranks of Ottoman administration) was aware that a Greek res
toration could not come soon. Only Doukas, to that last dramatic moment when he
seems to drop his pen in mid-sentence as he watches the assault on Lesbos in 1462,
continues to hope that something miraculous is just around the corner.
For all his limitations, however, he has a great deal to tell us, perhaps more about
Turkish than about Greek affairs. There are few details of importance on the Christian
side for which Doukas is our only, or even our principal source. He lived on the fringes
of the declining empire, and had only a second-hand knowledge of events which we can
follow at first hand in the pages of Sphrantzes and others. But that same position at the
edges of what still remained to Byzantium gave Doukas a special opportunity to observe
the Turks, both the small coastal dynasties of Asia Minor and the rising Ottoman state.
He knew Turkish, not merely superficially, but well, and often served as an envoy to
Turkish rulers. Without Doukas's history, we should know far less than we do about the
early history of the Ottomans. In the absence of reliable Muslim sources for the period,
Doukas is often the principal source, and sometimes the only source, particularly for the
chaotic period after the capture of Beyazid I in 1402. Later official Ottoman historians
preferred to suppress altogether the memory of Beyazid's son Süleyman, and much of
what we know about his reign comes from Doukas.
Not, of course, that Doukas is wholly reliable. The notes to this translation bring out
a number of points where he can be shown to be wrong, but these concern Christian
as often as Muslim history. His comments about Ottoman domestic manners are prob
ably based on prejudice and rumor at least as much as on observation. Pederasty does
appear to have been very common in early Ottoman society, but it is doubtful that all
members of the Ottoman governing caste were quite so preoccupied with their ravenous
sexual appetites as hostile sources maintain. Mehmed II is a special case, and there is
pretty general agreement that there was a distinct pathological streak in the man (it
seems to have appeared in his sister, too), but we need not necessarily believe that all
members of the dynasty were equally affected. It was a brutal age, no less on the Chri-
tian than on the Muslim side.
Professor Magoulias has done a great service by making this text generally available
to historians of the later Middle Ages. His translation follows closely the fine dition of
the Greek text published by Basile Grecu in 1958. For those who, like the present re
viewer, have little or no Romanian, and who quickly tire of Doukas's loosely linked
strings of participial phrases, the translation serves as a welcome quick reference to the
Greek text. I could wish only that the annotations had been more closely keyed to the
Grecu edition, with a chapter and paragraph reference rather than the numerical
sequence that was used. It would be very desirable as a general practice if the notes
for such a translation were regularly put together so that they could be used with the
original text as well as with the translation.
Maps are as good as the constraints on modern publishing seem to allow, but the
absence of any indication of contours is always misleading. Doukas unfortunately
shares with most other Byzantine writers a breezy disregard for accurate geographical
references, and a little more guidance might have been in order. Zeitounion, for in
stance, is mentioned four times, and on one occasion it is clear that the equivalence with
modern Lamia holds (XXVIII, 11; p. 165 and note 164). On other occasions when
Doukas manages to make it sound like a place somewhere along the Strymon river, the
notes fail to indicate that this creates rather a problem. (In all probability, all four
references are to Zeitounion/Lamia, and Doukas has simply been careless.)

Toward the end there is one small point that may be misleading (XLV, 13; p. 258
and note 317). Doukas is here giving an account of the eariiest foundation of the famous
Covered Market of Istanbul. He calls it "Bezestan" which he glosses very correctly as
"Vestiopraterion"-the place where the bezzaz> or cloth-merchant, displays his goods.
This is not an agora, or open market-place; it is a closed, well-guarded building, where
adequate security precautions can be taken to protect the merchant's valuable stocks.
Of especial interest is the fact that Doukas calls it a theatron, using a word which clearly
has undergone a great change in meaning since antiquity. No open-air theater this, but
a closed, roofed exhibition hall, as unlike the traditional notion of a Greek theater
as any building could be.
The book includes a chronological outline at the beginning, and a serviceable index,
and there are some very evocative photographs taken by the translator. As book prices
presently are, it can be considered reasonably priced.
Pierre A. MacKay University of Washington
Otto Demus. Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium.

New Rochelle: Caratzas Brothers, 1976. xii, 97 pp. 79 black-and-white illustrations.
$17.50.
Byzantine Mosaic Decoration was first published in 1948 in London by Kegan Paul
Trench Trubner and Co. and reprinted by Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. in 1953
and 1964. The statement by Caratzas Brothers on the copyright page that they are the
first to pubtish this book in the United States is quite erroneous. Byzantine Mosaic
Decoration initially appeared in this country in 1955, published by the Boston Book
and Art Shop.
That Byzanine Mosaic Decoration has been reprinted so many times is eloquent
testimony to the continuing value of this book. Demus's analysis of the formal quali
ties of Byzantine art is as fresh and meaningful today as thirty years ago. The character
istic placement of the mosaic image on a curved surface, the play of light upon it, the
glittering effect of the gold cubes, and the use offiguraidistortion all serve to involve
the image with the real space in front of the picture plane. This aim is essentially dif
ferent from that of Western art, which was more concerned with the illusion of space.
And it is entirely consistent with Byzantine Neo-platonic notions about the nature of
the image. The space between beholder and image is to be abolished, for not only is
the image to partake of the viewer's space, but the spectator transfers his condition to
the image.
After an analysis of the formal aspects of Byzantine art, set against a background
of architectural and theological considerations, Demus gives a short history of Byzantine
mosaics from the fourth to the twelfth century when economic circumstances neces
sitated a shift to frescoes. There is a special section on the particular problems posed
by mosaics outside of Byzantium-Sicily in the twelfth century and Venice in the -
teenth. The final chapter on the revival of mosaics in the Palaologan period compares
the pictorial principles of the fourteenth century with those of the middle Byzantine
period. The concern for the image in relation to the space of the whole church is re
placed by an emphasis on individual images, each with its own internal picture space,
or rather, several spaces.
Since Demus's book is likely to remain standard reading for students new to Byzan
tine art, it would have been helpful to attach a bibliographic addendum listing the
major works that have appeared during the intervening thirty years, such as V. Lazarev's
Istoria della pittura bizantina (1967) and С. Mango's The Art of the Byzantine Empire
312-1453 (1972), as well as monographs on individual monuments. An addendum could

have served also to acknowledge some of the more important findings that through
their absence date Demus's book unnecessarily. For instance Photius' Homily (pp, 34
and 54) was delivered not at the dedication of the Nea, but some sixteen years earlier
at the dedication of the Church of the Virgin of the Pharos (R. H. Jenkins and C. Mango,
"The Date and the Significance of the Tenth Homily of Photius," Dumbarton Oaks
Papers, 9-10 [19561,123 ff.).
An addendum is also a simple vehicle in which the author could have noted any
changes in his opinions. Some revisions are necessary of his view on the development of
the middle Byzantine system of church decoration. For example, it cannot be said that
the Pantocrator is derived from the Ascension or that it entirely replaces it (p. 19 ff.).
The two scenes occur together in the late ninth-century church ι built by Stylianus
Zaoutzas and described in a Homily by Leo VI (Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire,
p. 203 ff.), and also in the eleventh-century church of St. George at the Mangana (ibid.,
p. 219). Demus himself has remarked ("Probleme byzantinischer Kuppel-Darstellun
gen, " Cahiers archéologiques, 25 [1974], 107) that the Ascension continued to be repre
sented in the vault of the presbytery of many middle and late Byzantine churches.
According to the homilies of Photius and Leo VI, the dome image was interpreted
primarily in imperial terms. Therefore the Pantocrator is best understood as a replace
ment of the so-called "Liturgical Maiestas" found in the Early Christian apse, just as
the cupola replaces the apse as the focal point of the church. An imperial interpreta
tion of the Pantocrator, the occupant of the dome, echos contemporary descriptions
of the dome itself, not as heaven as Demus suggests, but as a throne. See, for example,
the poem by Constantine the Rhodian, ca. 930, on the Church of the Holy Apostles
(Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, p. 200) or the inscription in the tympanum of
Hagia Sophia made probably after the earthquake of 869 (Mango, The Mosaics of
St. Sophia at Istanbul [1962], p. 63 ff.). The analogy of the dome with a throne recalls
Germanus's remarks on the symbolism of the bema-"a place like a footstool and like
a throne" (Mango, Art of the Byzantine Empire, p. 143). According to Germanus the
whole church is an image of heaven, while in the cosmological symbolism of Maximus
the Confessor the sanctuary, not the dome, is equated with heaven.
Recent scholarship has revealed a closer relationship between pre- and post-icono
clastic art than Demus assumed. There is evidence of a continuing, albeit much reduced,
tradition of religious figurai art (see Robin Cormack, "The Arts During the Age of
Iconoclasm," Iconoclasm [1975], p. 35 ff.). In addition, there was a very pronounced
antiquarian tendency during the second half of the ninth century as the Nicaea mosaics,
the solidi of Michael III, and an epigram on the mosaic in the Chrysotriclinos {Antho-
logiagraeca, 1,107) all demonstrate.
It is certain that Demus, a vigorous, active scholar, would have much to add on these
and other issues. His comments on the development of the study of Byzantine monu
mental decoration would be a marvelous gift to present and future students of Byzan
tium. Only because this book is so intelligent and still so very pertinent would one like
to see it brought up to date.
Jane Timken Matthews Stonington, Connecticut
Marceli Restie. Reclams Kunst führer. Istanbul, Bursa-Edirne-Iznik. Baudenkmäler

und Museen. Stuttgart: Verlag Philipp Reclam jun., 1976. 632 pp. 125 plans, 52
illustrations, 9 maps. DM 42.80
The present volume, in the series of Kunstführer of the German publisher Philipp
Reclam jun., surveys the antique, Byzantine, and Ottoman architectural and artistic
monuments of Istanbul/Constantinople, Bursa/Prusa, Edirne/Adrianople, and Iznik/
Nicaea. Situated in the hinterland of the Sea of Marmara, in eastern Thrace and north
west Anatolia, these four cities are linked by their long imperial associations: Istanbul,
of course, as capital of the East Roman and Byzantine empires from A.D. 330, and of
the Ottoman state after 1453; Bursa and Edirne as Ottoman capitals from 1326 to 1413,
and 1367 to 1453 respectively; and Iznik as a major center in the early Byzantine period,
and as the capital of the Seljuqs of Rum at the end of the eleventh century and of the
Lascarids of Nicaea in the thirteenth century.
Restie, naturally, devotes the greatest part of his text-fully two-thirds-to Istanbul,
beginning with a brief outline of the city's topography and history and a description of
its fortifications, including Rumeli Hisar and Anadolu Hisar, the Ottoman fortresses
flanking the Bosphorus to the north of the city. Subsequent sections deal with the
city's religious monuments-mosques and churches-and with its secular architecture-
palaces, commemorative structures, aqueducts and cisterns, fountains, baths, markets,
nans, and domestic architecture. The treatment of each monument begins with an
historical outline, followed by an architectural description frequently accompanied
by plans (taken for the most part from such standard works as Gurlett and Gabriel)
and photographs or reproductions of old engravings. The name of each monument is
given in Turkish, supplemented where appropriate with its German name, and locations
are carefully noted and keyed to the map fixed to the inner back cover of the book.
In addition, there is a guide to the collections of several of Istanbul's major museums,
including the Arkeoloji Miizesi, Eski Sark Eserleri Miizesi, Topkapi Sarayi, and the Turk
ve Islam Eserleri Miizesi. The latter will be of special value to non-Turkish speaking
travelers and students, as in many cases the official guidebooks published for these
museums by the Department of Antiquities of the Turkish Ministry of Education are
printed only in Turkish, and also because many collections are so inadequately labeled
(most notoriously, that of the Arkeoloji Miizesi).
The treatments of the history, urban form, monuments, and museum collections
of Bursa, Edirne, and Iznik follow much the same general format, again with historical
and architectural descriptions of individual buildings, and numerous and adequate
plans and photographs. The book concludes with an extensive bibliography in which
most of the standard works in European languages are listed (although the Turkish
hterature is for the most part ignored), a glossary of technical and non-German terms,
and thorough indices of the names of artists and architects, and of monuments.
Restie judiciously selects and carefully summarizes the fundamental facts pertaining
to the monuments with which he deals. And although the author makes no pretensions
to original scholarship-which, in any case, is precluded by the nature of the book—his
guide is far superior in order, completeness, and accuracy to any of the other standard
guides presently available (including the Guide Bleu and Nagel volumes). Certainly, it
will serve as a handy and welcome reference for the student of Byzantine and Ottoman
art, as well as for any thoughtful traveler in western Turkey.
Howard Crane The Ohio State University

Roberta. C. Chesnut. Three Monophysite Christologies: Severus ofAntioch, Philoxenus
ofMabbug, and Jacob ofSarug. London and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.
158 pp. $16.95.
Few these days would regard the Council of Chalcedon as the definitive resolution
of the Christological controversies of antiquity. Doctrinal struggles continued and if
anything increased in scope, as new positions were advanced and vigorously defended.
Among supporters of the council, some regarded its decisions as a vindication of the old
Antiochene diophysite Christology, but many others, particularly in the East, sought
alternative approaches which would definitively exclude any lingering suggestion of
Nestorianism. A similar task confronted those who rejected the council. While a few,
like the aphthartodocetist Julian of Halicarnassus, might explore the possibilities of a
true monophysitism, more conservative churchmen like Severus of Antioch and Phil-
oxenus of Mabbug were obliged to account for Christ's full humanity, even though they
might reject Chalcedon's language of two natures. The significance of these alternatives
to Chalcedon has already been established by such scholars as Lebon and De Halleux.
Dr. Chesnut, while not superseding the work of these older authorities, does modify or
correct it at several points, to demonstrate even more forcefully the remarkable diver
sity encompassed within that movement which we so misleadingly label monophysite.
Three Monophysite Christologies gives a surprisingly vivid picture of the intellectual
and spiritual worlds of Syria in the late fifth and early sixth century: "surprisingly
vivid," for the book succeeds in spite of itself. Dr. Chesnut writes as a systematic theo
logian; she attempts to present each author's Christology and epistemological presup
positions in a distilled form, as free as possible from the dregs of context and history.
Yet well-chosen quotations and lucid presentation of even technical material help to
compensate for the deliberate narrowness of approach.
The strengths and weaknesses of. her method are most apparent in Dr. Chesnut's
treatment of Jacob of Sarug. She gathers this poet-preacher's most striking and charac
teristic metaphors and shows the gnostic parallels to his mythological system, but she
is on shaky ground when she tries to extract from this a complete Christology. She can
only conclude "that Jacob holds to a christology which is unsatisfactory in many areas"
(p. 141). It would be more accurate to say simply that Jacob is not a systematic theo
logian.
Quite a different case is Severus of Antioch. Theologian he was, the best of his
generation. Though his works survive chiefly in Syriac, he wrote and thought in Greek
and moved in a cosmopolitan milieu foreign to either Jacob or Philoxenus. Dr. Chesnut
ably expounds his vision (inherited from Cyril of Alexandria) of the hypostatic union of
divinity and humanity in Christ and his important distinction between "self-subsistent"
and "non-self-subsistent" hypostasis which permitted him to explain this union of
different levels of reality. Yet here too greater attention to context would have been
desirable. Severus was a very conservative theologian, the self-conscious heir to the
Cappadocians and Cyril of Alexandria. Closer examination of his use of these masters
would reveal his own place within this theological tradition more clearly than repeated
allusions to a "Christian Platonist tradition" (pp. 51, 113, 142 et passim). The author
might also have been spared some embarrassing, though not fatal slips. For example,
the belief "that Jesus had a human soul endowed with will and reason as well as a human
body" is described as "Severus' peculiar position" (p. 25 n.3). Yet no respectable theo
logian had believed otherwise since the fourth-century heretic Apollinaris, who had
taught that in Christ the Logos replaced the rational soul. (Equally extraordinary is the
suggestion elsewhere in the book [p. 110] that Theodore of Mopsuestia practiced an
allegorical method of biblical interpretation.)
Dr. Chesnut is at her best with Philoxenus. She takes pains to demonstrate that he,
like Severus, does maintain Christ's full humanity, despite weaknesses in terminology.
But she· also deftly brings out his bold-indeed reckless-use of analogy, his love of
paradox, his anti-intellectual asceticism-characteristics which hardly encouraged dia
logue with the opposition. If Severus is self-consciously part of the Greek patristic
tradition, Philoxenus is self-consciously Syrian, determined to fashion a technical theo
logical language for that tradition even if it means impeding, rather than encouraging
communication. His is the spirit of stubborn separatism that assured the permanence of
the divisions created by Chalcedon. Perhaps for this very reason his Christology, though
far cruder than that of Severus, lends itself to a considerably more exciting presentation.
Let us hope that Dr. Chesnut will consider him in greater detail in a sequel to this,
her excellent first book.
John H. Erickson St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary
Robert F. Taft, S.J. The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and other
Pre-anaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Orientalia Christiana
Analecta, 200. Roma: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1975. xl, 485 pp.
Appendix of textus receptos, chronological list of mss., index of mss., and general
index. 20,000 lire.
This work, by the former editor of Orientalia Christians Periodica and present pro
fessor of liturgies at the University of Notre Dame,, was done originally as a disserta
tion under the noted Spanish scholar of Byzantine liturgy, Juan Mateos. It is a worthy
product of what now amounts to a school of Mateos' pupils, all of whom are devoting
themselves to the careful resourcement and exposition of the historical evolution of the
second largest rite of Christian worship in the world. The work of this school represents
the discipline of liturgiology in its strictest andfinestsense.
The present volume stands as the second in a series of three studies analyzing the
devlopment of Byzantine eucharistie practice from the surviving mss. of the tradition,
wherever they can be found. The first of the series was Mateos' own La celebration de
la parole dans la liturgie byzantine (1971), which dealt with the first part of the Divine
Liturgy to the Great Entrance. The third, to be done also by Taft, will cover all the
anaphoral material, the communion, and the ending of the service. When complete, this
trilogy will stand as the most complete historical account of the Byzantine Divine
Liturgy yet written as analogous to the work of J. A. Jungmann on the Mass of the
Roman Rite, Missarum Sollemnia (1949), as the state of the mss. presently allows.
The range of mss. studied in the present work numbers some 200, dating from the
eighth through thé seventeenth centuries, even to the Athens Ieratikon of 1951, repre
senting the textus receptos of the Great Entrance as presently observed. The very dis
persion of the mss. illustrates the difficulties confronting such studies as this. That
Taft has managed to correlate all these and produce a coherent picture of the develop
ment of the ritual they represent or comment upon is a solid accomplishment. Moreover,
when this book is read along with Thomas Mathews' The Early Churches of Constantin-
ople: Architecture and Liturgy (1974), the life of worship of a major Christian church
begins to take on the form and substance necessary for dependable theological reflec
tion upon the tradition authored by that church. One is freed from the heavy hand of
the modern equation of tradition with partly founded (or even unfounded) speculation.
Idioms such as the still recognizable processional quality of Byzantine worship are recog
nized as creations of a people utilizing a great city not merely as the setting for, but
as the organ of thek faith-a faith that in turn molded a world view of incalculable
portent for the modern world in politics, science, commerce, theology, and all the arts.
For too long scholars have paid not enough attention to the action-symbols and patterns
of people, particularly when these cluster about the values by which people cohere and
thus manage to survive. Liturgy is about such matters.
In so vast a work as this book there are bound to be flaws. Here they are minor,
such as occasional colloquial irritations and specific questions about several dates.
But Taft's convincing rejection of theories that view the Great Entrance as originally
an act of "offering" is so salutary that one gladly forgives lapses. No doubt in the third
volume of the trilogy he will show that the Anaphora, or great eucharistie prayer, is
the "offering" of the gifts of man to God, their source. (If one wishes insights into
Byzantine cosmology, one may find many in the anaphoras of Basil and John Chrysos-
tom.) Taft's opinion that the Great Entrance was originally less an "offering" of the
gifts of bread and wine than a solemn transfer of them from the skeuophylakion of
Hagia Sophia to the altar of the church is valid, in my opinion.
But there is much more to the book than this, which is why I recommend it to all
those interested in Byzantine studies.
Aidan Kavanagh Yale University
Roberto Romano, editor. Pseudo-Luciano Timarione, testo critico, introduzione, tra-

duzione, commentario e lessico. Byzantina et Neo-Hellenica Neapolitana. Collana di
studi e testi diretta da Antonio Garzya, 2, Napoli: Università di Napoli, Cattedra
difilologiabizantina, 1974.187 pp.
This is as comprehensive an edition of a hvely piece of twelfth-century Byzantine

satire as will be needed for a long time. The account belongs to the popular genre that
began with Homer, a tale of a journey through Hades. Echoes of Plato and Plutarch,
among others, can be heard, but the principal influence emanates from Lucían, par
ticularly his Necyomanteia,
Initially in dialogue with his friend, Kydion, then solo throughout the rest of the
narrative, the protagonist, Timarion, relates how he recently vistied Thessaloniki in order
to observe the great trade fair held there in conjunction with the celebration in honor
of St. Demetrios, which attracted merchants from all over Europe and Asia Minor.
His excursion induced high fever; he was endeavoring to return to his home in Cap-
padocia (then under the Sultan of Iconium) when, twenty days later, he was given up
for dead at an inn. His visit to the fair thus set the stage for his voyage to the under
world.
Two nekrophoroi wrest Timarion's soul from his body and convey it past the fa
miliar portals, guarded by a grim Cerberus and his savage minions, to the seat of judg
ment, which, however, bears much greater resemblance to the Elysian fields than to
the torture chambers of an Inferno. Timarion believes his conductors acted arbitrarily
when they seized his soul, and desires a hearing on the question. He is encouraged when
on his way he meets his former teacher of rhetoric, Theodore of Smyrna (an historical
figure active during the reign of Alexius Conmenus; thus, the reference is of value in
dating the work), who undertakes to plead his case before the judges, who supposedly
enjoy a high reputation for strictness. This encounter leads to the core of the piece,
which is an original agon done in the style of Aristophanes.
The traditional figures, Minos and Aeacus, have been joined by upright Theophilus
(819-42), the last Iconoclast emperor, a necessary addition because the Christians (fre
quently called "Galileans") are now so numerous everywhere, although all in Hades are
free to profess whatever faith they wish. The trial turns on the issue of whether a person
is "legally dead" (in contemporary parlance) if one of the four humors is absent in him,
as was Timarion's case. The judges, unable to render a verdict without expert advice,
seek the views of Aesculapius and Hippocrates. The former is portrayed as a mute
muffled in a veil; the latter resembles an Arab in a burnoose. Theodore's formidable
oratory convinces all to find for the plaintiff, whose soul is ordered restored to his
body, and the nekrophoroi are removed from the posts they have held since "the days
of Kronus."
On his return journey through this strange Hades, where no one is punished and the
shades lead lives strikingly like the ones they have left behind, Timarion notices several
philosophers of antiquity seated quietly eating and discussing and overhears an alter
cation between Diogenes the Cynic and John Italus, who succeeded Michael Psellus (here
apparently the scribe who recorded the judges' decision concerning Timarion) as the
leading philosophic practitioner in Constantinople. The satire is invariably gentle and the
humor subtle. Medicine, rhetoric, and the judiciary are their targets. Gluttony receives
good-natured attention: in recompense for his spirited pleading Theodore carefully
enumerates the good things Timarion must not forget to send below from his table.
In addition to a clear introduction, indices, and excellent notes to the text, Romano's
edition contains three succinct excurses. Reviewing the hypotheses designed to identify
the anonymous author, the editor is inclined to favor Nicolas Callicles. The section on
Lexicography, admirably supplemented by the apparatus criticus, illustrates the way in
which classical themes, quotations, language, and grammatical constructions are deftly
blended with koine and later usages. The discussion of the manuscript tradition reveals
that Timarion has been preserved in a unique Vatican codex. The Greek text is sound
and the Italian translation precise and accurate. Romano has provided a bibliography of
secondary literature on Timarion, including Russian sources, which Italian scholars have
tended to ignore. All interested persons should be delighted with this valuable addition
to the expanding corpus of secular Byzantine literature.
Hugh F. Graham California State College, Bakersfield
Deno J. Geanakoplos. Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in
Middle Ages and Renaissance. Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History. New
York: Archon Books, 1976. xiv, 206 pp. 16 plates, 4 maps.
Interaction of the "Sibling" Byzantine and Western Culture in the Middle Ages
and Italian Renaissance (330 600). New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1976. xxii, 416 pp. 18 plates, 5 maps.
I first met Deno Geanakoplos when he was still a graduate student at Harvard Univer
sity. He had passed his examinations, but that not yet chosen the subject of his disser
tation. We talked about the matter and he made it clear to me that what he wanted
was a subject which related to Byzantium and the Latin West. His general orientation,
he said, was toward Western medieval Europe, but the phase of it in which he was
particularly interested was the effect that Byzantium may have had upon it, and it on
Byzantium. He chose, finally, as the subject of his dissertation the reign of the Byzan
tine Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus as it related to the West. In 1959 that work
came out in book form under the title: Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West.
A Study in Byzantine Latin Relations.
The book on Michael paleologus was followed by a steady flow of studies, a flow
which is still going on, on subjects virtually all of which relate to Byzantium and the
West, how and to what degree and in what domain they may have affected each other.
In 1966 some of these studies were brought together under the title: Byzantine East
and Latin West: Two Worlds in Christendom in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
That book as repringted is put forth here as item one of this review.
The reprint contains the same number of studies as the original and has been brought
out with no revisions whatsoever. These studies, six in number, plus a prologue, extend
in time from the end of the Roman Empire in the West to about 1600, and all except
one deal with some aspect of the relations between the Greek East and the Latin West.
Two aspects of these relations are particularly emphasized: the ecclesiatical antagonism
between the two sections of Christendom and the significance in the cultural evolution
of Western Europe of the revival of Greek studies and the role which Byzantine scholars
played in that revival. Two studies are particularly interesting in connection with this
revival: the one on the evolution of the Greek community in Venice and the other on
Crete as the place of origin of many of the scholars involved in it. An entire study,
indeed, is devoted to one of these Cretan scholars, the humanist and theologian Máximos
Margounios who offered a modification of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy
Ghost in order to facilitate the union of the churches and whose Latin Library, be
queathed by him to the Monastery of Iviron on Mt. Athos, still exists. The revival of
Greek Studies in the West is touched upon briefly in another essay, but the emphasis
of that essay is on the impact of Byzantine culture on Europe in the Middle Ages. The
essay is interesting more for the discussion which it offers than for the concrete results
it achieves. The ecclesiastical antagonism, taken throughout the book as the principal
factor in the failure of East and West to achieve some cultural integration, is to some
extent treated in detail in the essay on the Council of Florence, called to bring about
the union of the churches. That council actually reached an agreement on the question
but the Greek East, despite the inroad which some Western ideas made among some of
its intellectuals, would have none of it. The Greeks feared that acceptance would even
tually mean the loss of their cultural identity. These are points which are well taken by
Geanakoplos.
Caesaropapism, a term coined by modern scholars and implying that in Byzantium
the power of the emperor over the church was absolute, is the subject of one essay in
the book not directly concerned with any aspect of the relations between East and
West. The question is examined thoroughly and the conclusion is reached to the effect
that while the power of the emperor over the church was in many ways absolute, there
were two domains in which it was limited. The emperor could not by himself introduce
any doctrinal innovations or make any accommodations with the Church. There were
expense of the Greek Church. There were emperors who tried the one or the other, but
their attempts in the end failed. That is, of course, true. In Byzantium there was public
opinion and sometimes the pressure of that opinion was strong enough to affect changes
in imperial policy. But the point should be made that it required imperial initiative or
at least imperial approval to make these changes. The question, therefore, is not whether
the emperor had legal right to act in any of the affairs of the church, but whether it was
practical under certain circumstances to do so.
The title of the second item put forth here for review may create the impression that
the item is an organic book, the result of putting together of the material and ideas
which the author may have gathered in the course of his researches into an integrated
whole. This is not the case. This item, too, is a collection of studies, in content extending
over the same period of time and dealing pretty much with the same kind of material
as the first one. There are, however, more of them, fourteen altogether, and as a con
sequence they make the collection in which they appear more comprehensive than the
first one.
In their coverage of subject matter, the studies of the second collection vary from
an analysis of the Orthodox Church as the creative element in Byzantine culture to the
dissemination in the West in the sixteenth century of the writings of the Greek Church
fathers. For those not acquainted with the first collection, the study devoted to Deme
trius Chalcondyles as professor of Greek at Padua should appear the most interesting
among the four studies devoted to the revival of classical Greek studies in the West.
This is because the material used in the other studies had already been used to a con
siderable extent in studies on the subjects included in the first collection. This observa
tion applies to a number of other studies. Indeed the study, 'The Influence of Byzantine
Culture on the Medieval West" is a reprint, with some parts eliminated, of the one
entitled, "The Influence of Byzantine Culture on the Medieval Western World," of the
first collection. Subjects which are treated in this collection but are not considered,
certainly not in detail or seriously, in the first include: "Máximos the Confessor and
his Influence on Eastern and Western Theology and Mysticism"; "Ordeal by Fire and
Judicial Duel at Byzantine Nicaea (1253)"; "Church Construction and Caesaropapism
in East and West from Ćonstantine to Justinian"; "San Bernardino of Siena and the
Greeks át the Council of Florence (1438-39)"; and an analysis of a Greek libellus against
religious union with Rome after the council of Lyons (1274). On the other hand, one
study included in the first collection, "Church and State in the Byzantine Empire:
A Reconsideration of the Problem of Caesaropapism," has not been exploited by any
of the studies which appear in the second. Another, "The Council of Florence (1438-39)
and the Problem of the Union between the Byzantine and Latin Churches," has been
exploited slightly in that aspects of it have been elaborated into long essays, the essays
entitled, "Religion and Nationalism in the Byzantine Empke and After: Conformity
or Pluralism" and "Western Influences on Byzantium in Theology and Classical Latin
Literature." Quite obviously in composing some of the studies which he included in his
second collection the author drew heavily from the studies which he had published in
the earlier collection; nevertheless, the second collection does not quite supplant the
first.
A feature of the second collection which distinguishes it from thefirstis the author's
attempt to analyze the process of acculturation and to apply it to the relations between
the Greek East and the Latin West. In doing this he turns to sociology and uses some of
its concepts. In my opinion, it was not necessary to do this. It is quite obvious from his
studies that the West, while appreciating and being influenced by the revival of classical
Greek studies, cared very little and hardly responded to the culture of Byzantium it
self. It is obvious also that its military, political, ecclesiastical, and economic activities
in the Greek East had important historical consequences, but they served also to im
munize the Greeks against its cultural influence. Sociologists may reflect over such
developments, they may draw general principles from them and coin terms to define
these principles, but the historian, however he may be tempted by these principles,
must follow the dictates of the sources. Geanakoplos' studies as history have come to
enjoy some standing and should remain alive for some time to come.
Peter Charanis Rutgers University
Franz Georg Maier, editor. Byzanz. Fischer Weltgeschichte, 13, Frankfurt am Main:
Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1973.444 pp. 10 maps, 12 black-and-white illustrations.
6.80 DM.
This volume in the compact and inexpensive Fischer Weltgeschichte series consists of
a lengthy introduction and seven chapters by six German, Swiss and British scholars, the
two chapters written in English having been translated into German. It embodies both
the advantages and the drawbacks of such a collaborative enterprise. The expert knowl
edge of each author is reflected in authoritative coverage of the major developments in
each period, and the full account of recent scholarship provided in the selective but use
ful bibliographies for each chapter yields a survey that is appreciably more up-to-date
than other general histories of Byzantium. Thus, in his own chapter on the period from
518 to 717 Professor Maier recognizes the gradual nature of the administrative changes
that led to the theme system, and in his chapter on the period of the Komnenoi Dr. Win-
fried Hecht gives a more sophisticated interpretation of the tensions which beset the em
pire in the eleventh century than the traditional view of a sharp dichotomy between mili
tary aristocrats and civilian courtiers. Other contributions which merit special mention
are Hermann Beckedorfs detailed and penetrating analysis of the Fourth Crusade and its
consequences, and the lucid survey of relations between Byzantium and the Slavs given
by Dr. Hans-Joachim Härtel, whose arguments are not vitiated by an over-emphasis on
Bulgaria. Throughout the book a welcome amount of attention is devoted to intellectual
developments and to relations with the West, especially in Dr. Hecht's chapter on the
Macedonian Renaissance. Dr. Judith Herrin's chapter on the Iconoclast crisis is particu
larly strong on-administration and foreign policy, and Professor D. M. Nicol rounds off
the volume with a survey of the events contributing to the empire's decline in the period
of the Palaiologoi. By contrast the treatment of the formative period of Byzantium is
disappointingly scanty, but this may be accounted for by the more detailed attention
given to the sixth and seventh centuries in Professor Maier's volume in the same series,
Die Verwandlung der Mittelmeerwelt (Frankfurt am Main, 1968). An illuminating series
of maps and illustrations forms a useful complement to the text, as do lists of the rulers
of Byzantium and neighboring states.
An inevitable feature of collaborative ventures is the lack of a coherent theme or uni
fied approach, and in this case the failing is exacerbated by the tendency of some of the
contributors to concentrate on a narrative, as opposed to an interpretative, approach.
The variable usefulness of the contributions is partly due to a curiously arbitrary policy
regarding footnotes, which appear only in the introduction and in the chapters on the
foundations of the empire and on the Fourth Crusade. The most penetrating part of the
volume is Professor Maier's introduction, which outlines the evolution of the historical
problem of Byzantium from eighteenth- and nineteenth-century views of its history as
"the long-drawn-out process of the decay of the great classical past" to the more recent
interpretation of the empire as a bureaucratic-absolutist society worthy of dispassionate
study in its own right. Maier proceeds to give a thoughtful analysis of the structures and
forces which created the phenomenon of Byzantine civilization and contributed to its
resilience. It is most unfortunate that the interesting themes developed in the introduc
tion are not illustrated in the following chapters on a systematic basis.
Although it would be unreasonable to expect consistently original interpretations in
an introductory history, a policy of tighter editorial control might have enhanced this
volume's usefulness and cohesiveness. But as a concise synthesis of modern scholarship
it can be recommended as a general survey which beginners and specialists may read with
profit.
Thomas S. Brown University of Birmingham
Walter Puchner. Das neugriechische Schattentheater Karagiozis, Miscellanea Byzantina

Monacensia, 21. München: Institut für Byzantinistik and Neugriechische Philologie
der Universität, 1975. ix, 250 pp., 39 blaek-and-white illustrations. DM 14.
Althouth theater in which puppets cast shadows on a sheet-screen between them and
the spectators can be found in China, whence likely it spread westward through Asia, it
was thought to be a product of Turkey when, legend has it, the Greek Jannis (or Barbay-
iannis) Vrachalis taought it from Constantinople to the Piraeus about 1860. Karagiozis
(Turkish for "black-eyed one,") is the hero's name.
He has become entirely Greek. He is witty, sly, cunning, mischievous, happy, unprin
cipled, pious, and earthy in a never-ending series of events derived from Greek mytholo
gy, history, or present times. Other Greek characters assist him. Barbajorghos, an un
learned but shrewd peasant with donkey, is a mountaineer who has never seen the sea.
Sior Nionios from Zante is a (semi) intellectual European. Hatzavates is a half-Turk half-
Greek intermediary. Each of a dozen more characters of the repertoire has his own se
quence of scenes, songs, and dances. Besides these comic characters and plots Greek pup-
peteers, especially Mimaros (Dimitrios Sartounis), added more serious drama to the genre
with heroic themes from the Klephtic tradition, immortalizing Athanasius Diakos, the
patriot martyr.
The puppeteer, also called Karagiozis, is a one-man show, a master of improvisation, a
restless sea of voices, moods, characters, an infinite mine of unwritten lines from count
less scenarios which he weaves with the everlasting freshness of the present moment of
creative genius. The greatest of the puppeteers was' the late Sotiris Spatharis, whose son
Eugenius has played the major cities from Athens to New York. The villagers for their
part share in the creation, for their immediate laughter fashions the next line; their disap
proval changes the whole story. Karagiozis is their expression of moods, needs, ideals in
the never-to-be-repeated moment when people and puppets meet in high humor.
Puchner documents all this well and describes the spoken moment of genius as well as
the written word allows. He concludes with several valuable appendices: a list of impor
tant Karagiozis puppeteer-players, a description of 264 episodes or series of episodes
known to be in the repertoire, sources of 16 scripts of an essentially oral tradition, 174
bibliographic items, and 39 black-and-white pictures of the puppets seen as their shadows
come through the screen. Unfortunately the book itself is poorly manufactured.
When Puchner explains the decline of Karagiozis he himself is in the arena of shadows.
His theory is that Karagiozis and the folk people of Greece are so intimately connected
that one reflects the other immediately. But (he argues) the villagers have moved to the
cities, think of themselves as Europeans, and labor in factories. They have been uprooted
and moved 500 years to another continent. Therefore (he concludes) Karagiozis is in de
cline.
However, Puchner's explanation does little justice to Karagiozis' incredible adaptabil
ity. He came to Greece in 1860 as a Turkish immigrant; and born again of Greek villagers,
he became an integral and living organ of Greek culture and demotic theater for the last
100 years. Indeed, the truth and the full explanation for his decline is that the clever
Greek is caught in the inflexible shadows of his medium. And the medium is the message.
Television came to Greece in the 1960s and to the villages in the 1970s. A new medium
and one decade without shadows was enough to seal Karagiozis' doom and put his shade
to rest.
Puchner may have written the best word on Karagiozis; he certainly has written the
last.
Walter M. Hayes Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies
John Meyendorff. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's
Seminary Press, 1975. 248 pp.
The three centuries of Byzantine religious history following the Council of Chalcedon
in 451 present the student with enormous difficulties. For the historian, the essential
problem is how the once loyal populations of Syria and Egypt were gradually alienated
from Constantinople until in thefirstdecades of the seventh century foreign rule, wheth
er Persian or Arab, seemed preferable to continuous harrassment by the representatives
of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Could at any time a Christological formula have been devised
that would have united the peoples of the East Roman Empire without sacrificing the
links that bound Old with New Rome?
For anyone who believes that the religious issues by themselves were minimal, Profes
sor Meyendorffs work will be highly salutary. The debates about the identity of Jesus
Christ in this period were neither abstract nor purely academic. Was Christianity to be
understood in the last resort as a continuation of Judaism in which God saved by issuing
inscrutable decrees and Christ was a "mere man," living and dying at a certain moment
in history, or was He the second person of the Divine Trinity manifesting Himself through
a loving identification with man and showing Himself as "being love"? That such alterna
tives did indeed present themselves to Christians in the fifth and sixth centuries is clear
enough from the accounts of the utterances of the young martyr Habsa, captured by
Jewish and Nestorian forces at the siege of Najran in 524, or from the rejection by King
Silko of Nobatia of the version of the Chalcedonian faith he believed to be represented
by Justinian. Monophysitism, the theology of Cyril of Alexandria as interpreted by Se-
verus of Antioch, "the single incarnate nature of the God-Word," was the Christology
which inspired martyrs, and to the mass of east Roman provincials it seemed the best
guarantee of theii salvation. They were instinctively Monophysite.
In the second edition of this lucidly written, but nonetheless difficult book, the au
thor shows how initiative in Christological thought gradually passed from the Monophy-
sites to the Chalcedonians. It is a fascinating if slow-moving story covering more than
three centuries from Chalcedon to the Iconoclastic Controversy. Dealing with the three
quarters of a century that separated Chalcedon from the accession of Justinian, surely
more could have been made of the gradual evolution of the Christological position held
by the patriarchs of Constantinople. The Henotikon of Zeno and Acacius of 482 is not
an episode to be dismissed but should be recognized as an effort to establish common
ground between Constantinople and Alexandria without completely jettisoning Chalce
don; and between 482 and the death of the Emperor Anastasius in 518, no east Roman
bishop denounced it. The Byzantine dominions were nearer religious harmony than at
any other period.
However, the author is completely justified in pointing to the reign of Justinian as
the great creative era of Chalcedonian Christological thought. With the final denuncia
tion of Severus at the Home Synod of 536, Origenism became the next possible alterna
tive to Chalcedon. Leontius of Jerusalem emerges as one of the great Byzantine theolo
gians, rejecting the legacy of static Platonic idealism and insisting instead on the dyna
mism of salvation. The Word's manhood, he believed, hypostasised in Him, and filled
with His energy and 'leaven" within the "dough" of the whole of mankind, mediated
salvation through a union of human and divine that was natural. The whole man was
saved, and not merely his immortal soul as Origen had proclaimed. The Fifth General
Council of 553 was not essentially an attempt to placate the Monophysites, though it
went a long way in that direction, but an effort to set out a true neo-Chalcedonian the
ology whileriddingChalcedon itself of any suspicion of Nestorian influence. Reconcilia
tion, as the author says, "could be based in a common faithfulness to Cyril of Alexan
dria," and a Biblical view of man.
By then, of course, it was too late for the Monphysites. At stages like this in the au
thor's argument, one misses the essential political background that explains why between
553 and the murder of the Emperor Maurice in 602, "Chalcedon" became a bad word
throughout much of the east, a matter of passion rather than discussion, just as the fili
oque would become during the schism between eastern and western Christendom after
1054. In the seventh century, all the theological diplomacy of Heraclius would not avail
to heal the breach between the churches and to prevent the loss of Egypt, Palestine and
Syria to the ещріге. In that situation Maximus the Confessor evolved his essentially dy
namic doctrine of slavation, supposing a double movement, a divine movement towards
man in which God is made partakable of by creation, and a human movement towards
God, willed from the beginning by the Creator and restored in Christ. Amidst the disas
ters of the 630s, Maximus ahd his disciples drew on the whole range of orthodox Greek
patristic thought in their effort to contemplate the fundamental relationships between
the essence and energy within the Godhead and their connection with human salvation.
In the eighth century the revival of Monophysite tendencies on the iconoclast side of the
Iconoclastic Controversy was met by similar arguments from John of Damascus, Theo-
dore the Studite and from the Patriarch Nicephorus. Their writings illustrate that the
continuity in Christological thought in Byzantium is an inseparable and integral whole,
and a source of inspiration for the religious art for which Byzantine civilization is famed.
The author has written a profound a convincing synthesis, unfolding the continuity
and logic of orthodox Byzantine Christology. At times perhaps he has made himself
more difficult to follow than necessary through a lack of attention to historical back
ground. Occasionally, too, hostages are given to fortune. It is by no means evident, for
instance, that the Antiochenes, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, were in
any sense followers of Gregory Nazianzen. Their line of descent surely extends back to
Eustathius of Antioch (flor. 325-35) and must include even Paul of Samosata. Nonethe
less, students will derive enormous benefit from this fine, scholarly work. If, in addition,
the author carries conviction that in our present unstable world where Western theologi
cal values seem to be going down like ninepins, the way to salvation is to be found in the
labors of the great Byzantine theologians, his service to his fellow men will have been
great indeed.
W. H. С Frend University of Glasgow
Constance Head. Imperial Twilight: The Palaiologos Dynasty and the Decline of Byzan
tium. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1977. 210 pp. 12 black-and-white plates. $11.00.
In recent years a number of scholars have turned their attention to the previously
neglected Palocologan period of the Byzantine Empke, and several important mono
graphs on the emperors of this dynasty have resulted, e.g., Geanakoplos' Emperor Mi
chael Palaeologus (1959), Laiou's The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II (1972), Bosch's
Andronikos III Palaiologos (1965), and Barker's Manuel IIPalaeologus (1969). Such spe
cialized studies have in turn made possible the appearance of more general works on the
period, such as Donald Nicol's comprehensive volume, The Last Centuries of Byzantium,
1261-1453 (1972), and now a more popular account of the dramatic final centuries of
Byzantium by Constance Head, professor of history at Western Carolina University.
Professor Head, clearly influenced by the masterful imperial portraits of Charles Diehl,
has written a deüghtful series of sketches of the Palaeologan emperors, beginning with
Michael Palaeologus' usurpation of the throne in Nicaea in 1259 and ending with the
death of Constantine XI on the walls of Constantinople in May, 1453. She has drawn on
original sources, the writings of contemporary historians and travelers, to provide vivid
details about the personal appearance and character of the members of the Palaeologan
dynasty, and she enlivens her account with interesting anecdotes, such as the origin of
the unusual name of Simonis, the long-awaited daughter bom to Andronicus II in 1294.
Unfortunately, in the effort to make her book appeal to a wide audience, Professor
Head has greatly simplified the complex web of events which characterized the declining
years of the Byzantine Empire. She concentrates on the imperial court, the personalities
of the emperors, their marriages, their children, their struggles for the throne. She suc
ceeds in presenting the emperors as distinct individuals, but her rulers live in a vacuum.
For example, virtually every member of the Palaeologan dynasty became embroiled in
some sort of religious controversy, either the question of union with Rome, or an inter
nal matter such as the Arsenites or hesychasm. Yet the Arsenite schism, which preoccu
pied Andronicus II for thefirstthirty years of his reign, is nowhere mentioned, and hesy-
chasm, an important factor in the civil war between John VI Cantacuzenus and John V
Palaeologus, is dismissed in one paragraph. Surely the layman for whom this book is in
tended could profit from a more thorough discussion of the causes of the schism between
the churches of East and West, the better to understand the reasons for the intransigent
opposition to Union on the part of the Orthodox. And what of the Ottoman Turks,
whose rise to power in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries so greatly af
fected the fortunes of the Palaeologan dynasty? They are mentioned only peripherally in
the first part of the book, although it was during the reigns of Andronicus II and III that
the Ottomans, under the vigorous leadership of Orhan, seized Brusa, Nicaea and Nico-
media, and consolidated their hold on Bithynia, their base for future expansion. A brief
description of the Ottoman emirate and the reasons for its successful conquests would
have been a useful addition to the book.
Despite my reservations about the narrow focus of Imperial Twilight, I would still re
commend it to the amateur historian or the beginning student as a well-written, accurate
(if superficial) and most readable introduction to the fascinating story of the Byzantine
Empire's long drawn out struggle for survival in itsfinalcenturies.
Alice-Mary Talbot Lake Erie College
Nikephoros Gregoras . Antirrhetika I. Einleitung, Textausgabe, Übersetzung und Anmerk

ungen von Hans-Veit Beyer. Wiener Byzantinische Studien, Band XII. Wien: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976. 494 pp.
La controversia sull' esicasmo provocò lafiorituradi numerosi scritti polemici nella

Bisanzio del XIV secolo. Soltanto alcuni di questi scritti sono stati studiati in modo
esauriente e ben pochi di essi sono disponibili in edizioni critiche aggiornate. A quest' ul
tima categoria possiamo ascrivere ad esenpio la pubblicazione delle opere di Gregorio
Palama, a cura di vari studiosi sotto la direzione di P. K. Christos (Tessalonica 1962-1970).
Molti altri scritti invece-altrettanto fondamentali per la conoscenza di uno fra i momenti
più significativi della storia della cultura e della civiltà bizantina-sono tuttora affidati a
edizioni insufficienti, che risentono dell' epoca in cui videro la luce e del metodo critico
adottato.
Un caso limite era rappresentatofinoradagli Antirrhetica, composti da Niceforo Gre
gora nel 1347 per polemizzare contro Gregorio Palama sulla dottrina di questo e conte
nuti, in una redazione non definitiva, nel codice Genav. gr. 35. La provvisorietà della re
dazione giunta fino a noi sirivelacon frequenti e superflueripetizioni,lungaggini, digres
sioni non essenziali. Potremmo definire questo scritto come una specie di arsenale polem
ico di materiali utilizzabili dopo una certa scelta e una più accuratarifinitura.Alcuni cap
itoli (cfr. ad es. I 2, 6, 13) si configurano come repertori di passi tratti da un autore con-
onico e guistapposti Γ uno all' altro; altri capitoli (cfr. ad es. 11,4, 2) sono serie di varia
zioni su tema, in attesa di utilizzazione.
Quest' opera, nonostante lariconosciutaimportanza dell' argomento, e nonostante il
ruolo di primo piano svolto nella vicenda esicasta sia dall' autore che dal destinatario dell'
opera, era rimasta finora completamente inedita. La lacuna è stata colmata ora dal prezi
oso lavoro di Hans-Veit Beyer, che con la sua edizione dei discorsi 1-3 non solo ha reso
possibile agli studiosi 1' utilizzazione di un testofinorainaccessibile, ma ha anche provve
duto a dare ad esso un inquadramento estremamente solido e a corredarlo di tutti i sussi
di necessari ad una comprensione competa del messaggio teologico (ma anche storico,
politico e culturale) dell' autore.
L'impegno dello studioso non è stato infatti limitato all' edizione critica pura e sem
plice, né Γ attenzione si è fermata solo sui fatti testuali. Neil' ampia introduzione è stato
studiato sotto tutti i punti di vista il periodo storico nel quale lo scritto è nato, e sono
state esaminate tutte le opere prodotte dalle controversie del tempo e la loro genesi, con
particolareriferimentoalle relazioni politiche e ideologiche fra Costantinopoli e il Monte
Athos, e fral'oriente e l'occidente latino. In calce al testo greco la prima sezione dell' ap
parato critico, dedicata ai luoghi paralleli e all' indicazione delle fonti, svolge da sola la
funzione di vero e proprio commento: in essa infatti sonoritrovatetutte le linee diret

trici della formazione culturale di Gregora, non solo quelle classiche e scritturali, ma
anche quelle bizantine, più diffìcilmente reperibili coi normali strumenti di lavoro a dis
posizione. Appaiono inoltre assai opportuni i numerosi paralleli con altri scritti dello
stesso autore. Numerose note esplicative in calce alla traduzione tedesca completano il
corredo esegetico con funzionale sobrietà.
Va sottolineata anche la ricchezza degli indici, anch' essi concepiti come strumenti
per un' esegesi essenziale. In particolare il Wortregister" si propone come un vero e pro
prio lessico della lingua di Gregora, anche se ovviamente limitato alle parole significative.
Ogni termine considerato viene indicato insieme alla traduzione tedesca (spesso duplice о
triplice, con distinzione, mediante i rinvii, dei vari significati assunti nel testo), mentre
per molte parole о espressioni caratteristiche si accenna alla matrice ideologica donde
provengono. Altrettanto utile, in funzione dell' apparato dei loci similes di cui si'è detto,
è naturalmente ilriccoindice delle fonti citate.
E tuttavia la sobdità dell' inquadramento storicistico, al quale abbiamo già accennato,
che dà Г impronta caratterizzante a tutte le parti che compongono il volume. Beyer non
si è lasciato tentare dalla possibilità di studiare gli Antirrhetica come testo soltanto teo
logico o, peggio ancora, come occasione per un esercizio erudito. Al contrario, si è servi
to dello scritto di Gregora per chiarire nel modo più completo possibile le complesse po
sizioni ideologiche dei vari partiti nella Bisanzio del XIV secolo. Soprattutto nell'intro
duzione è stata tenuta costantemente presente la matrice anche politica della polemica
esicasta, favorendo in questo modo la comprensione, da parte dei lettori moderni, della
stessa ragion d' essere di questo tipo di produzione letteraria nell' oriente greco.
Non sfugge infatti a nessuno che le diverse posizioni assunte da partiti contrapposti in
occasione di controversie religiose (o letterarie) sono il segno di una contrapposizione
che è sociale e politica. Niceforo Gregora, qui come in altre sue opere polemiche (cfr. ad
es. il suo Fiorenzo о Intorno alla sapienza, contro Barlaam Calabro, edito recentemente
da P.L.M. Leone, [Napoli 19751), sirivelacome il sostenitore più convinto del nazionalis
mo greco contro il pericolo di un asservimento spirituale all' occidente latino manifestan-
tesi attraverso progetti di unificazione religiosa, e sostenitore altresì del patrimonio cul
turale classico contro ogni tendenza innovatrice in quanto centrifuga e sovvertitrice.
Questo tipo di ricerca di dati storici concreti anche negü scritti bizantini che non ap
partengono al "genere" storico (opere retoriche, teologiche, filosofiche . . .) è portato
avanti da Beyer secondo le tracce da tempo indicate dai suoi maestri G. H. Karlsson (del
quale varicordato,in questa prospettiva, Idéologie et ceremonial dans Г epistolographie
byzantine, [Uppsala, 1962^]) e H. Hunger (Prooimion. Elemente der byzantinischen Kai
sendee in den Arengen der Urkunden, [Wien, 1964 J). L' utilità di tali indagini nel quadro
non ancora completamente chiaro dell' eredità intellettuale di Bisanzio negli ultimi secoli
della sua storia è facilmente comprensibile. E quindi lecito augurarsi che lericerchedi
Beyer, avviate sotto i migliori auspici e collegate con altre iniziative importanti della scu
ola bizantinistica di Vienna (fra le quali citiamo il lessico prosopografico dell'età dei Pal-
eologi, cui lo stesso Beyer collabora), siano destinate a proseguire con uguale impegno e
serietà, e con risultati sempre più notevoli.
Riccardo Malsano Università di Salerno, Italia

PROFESSIONAL NEWS/NOUVELLES DE LA PROFESSION
GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS
The Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies offers annually a limited number of
Visiting and Junior Fellowships to qualified scholars and students of Byzantine and re
lated fields of history, archeology, history of art, philology, theology, and other disci
plines. Additional information and applications may be requested from the Director of
Studies, The Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1703 Thirty-second Street,
Washington, DC 20007.
The Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at the University of California, Los
Angeles, makes available annually several research assistantships designated for the field
of Byzantine studies. For further information and application forms, write to the Direc
tor, Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, University of California, Los Angles,
CA 90025.
FORTHCOMING CONFERENCES
The Fourth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference will be held at the University of
Michigan in Ann Arbor, 3-5 November 1978. The Conference will provide a forum for
the presentation and discussion of research papers in all areas of Byzantine studies. The
program and local arrangements are under the direction of Professor John Fine, Depart
ment of History, University of Michigan.
The Fifth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference will be held tentatively 19-21 Octo
ber 1979 at the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies in Washington, DC. In
formation on local arrangements and the program will be made available at a later date.
The University of Birmingham has announced that its Twelfth Spring Sumposium
will have as its theme "The Byzantine Black Sea." The symposium will meet 18-21 March
1978. The Symposium directors are Anthony Bryer, Odysseus Lampsides, and Dimitri
Obolensky.
The Second Conference on Gree, Roman and Byzantine Studies will meet 31 March-2
April, 1978, at Lady cliff College, Highland Falls, NY. All correspondence should be di
rected to Professor Anthony R. Santoro at Ladycliff College. The 1979 meeting will take
place at Rutgers University.
TWO RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS
Advertisement
Applications are invited for two one-year Research Fellowships in Byzantine Histori
cal Geography, starting 2 October 1978, to work on a project in late Byzantine and early
Ottoman demography. The Fellows, who will collaborate, will be proficient in late Byz
antine and early Ottoman documents respectively. They will hold Fellowships for 1978/79
in Birmingham and, subject to approval, will proceed to Fellowships at the Harvard Uni
versity's Center for Byzantine Studies, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C., in 1979/80 to
complete the project. Further particulars from the Director of the Centre for Byzantine
Studies, University of Birmingham, England; or the Director of Dumbarton Oaks, 1703
32nd Street N.W., Washington DC 20007, U.S.A.
Birmingham Salary on the lower part of the scale £3,660-£6,178.
Applications (eight copies, one of which will be forwarded to Dumbarton Oaks),
naming three referees, indicating which Fellowship is being applied for, should be sent
by 24 July 1978 to the Assistant Registrar (Arts), University of Birmingham,?. O. Box
363, Birmingham, B15 2TT, England.
Further particulars
The Centre for Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, and the Center for Byz
antine Studies, Dumbarton Oaks, are collaborating on a specific project ot further the
general programme of the Commission Internationale de Géographie Historique of the
Association Internationale des Etudes Byzantines.
The project aims to apply modern demographic techniques to those areas and periods
of the Byzantine world in which sources are adequate to use them: especially where late
Byzantine charters can be correlated with early Ottoman defters. We therefore seek two
scholars competent in either, or both, these types of sources who can work together to
apply and adapt current demographic principles to them. We have in mind specific areas
and documents (Athos, Constantinople, and the Pontos in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries), but are open to further suggestions and the project will be largely shaped by
Fellows working on it. There will be consultants to advise the Fellows. It is expected
that the project will employ both Fellows for two years, with the possibility of exten
sion to a third year if it proves necessary. Both Fellows will be appointed by the Univer
sity of Birmingham for thefirstyear, 1978/79 (under the direction of Dr A. A. M. Bryer),
and proceed to appointments by Dumbarton Oaks in 1979/80. So successful candidates
in 1978 will be approved jointly by Dumbarton Oaks and Birmingham, but for adminis
trative reasons their second, Dumbarton Oaks, appointment for 1979 cannot be formally
ratified before autumn 1978. One of the two Birmingham Fellowships is funded by the
University; the other by the Ouranis Foundation of the Academy of Athens and private
monies. The Dumbarton Oaks salaries sstart at $7,000 each, with accomodation. Both
the Birmingham and Dumbarton Oaks salaries are related to age and experience.
The superb research facilities of Dumbarton Oaks are well known and its Byzantine
library is unrivalled. The Byzantine and medieval library facilities at Birmingham are
good, and both Centres hold regular seminars and conferences. In addition, Birmingham
has a computer which is adapted for demographic work.
A Conference on, or publication of, the project are envisaged if the results warrant it.
Please contact either of the undersigned if you require further information.
ANTHONY BRYER, GILES CONSTABLE,
Director of the Centre for Director,
Byzantine Studies, Birmingham. Dumbarton Oaks.
BOOKS RECEIVED/LIVRES REÇUS
Angold, Michael. A Byzantine Government in Exile: Government and Society under the
Laskarids of Nicaea, 1204-1261. Oxford Historical Monographs. London: Oxford
University Press, 1975. xx, 332 pp, indices, two maps, bibliography. $22.50.
Anne Comène. Alexiade. Edited and translated by Bernard Leib, S.J. Association Guil
laume Bude, Collection Byzantine, four volumes. Paris: Société d'Edition "Les Belles
Lettres," 1945-76. clxxxi, 178; 246; 306 and onomastical index; and ix, 141 pp. In
dex; and ix, 141 pp. Index, vol. IV, by Paul Gautier.
Bakker, W. J. and A. F. van Gemert, editors. The ΛΟΓΟΙ ΔΙΔΑΚΤΙΚΟΙ of Marinos
Phalieros. Byzantina Neerlandica, 7. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. 139 pp., two indices.
40 guilders.
Brenk, Beat. Die frühchristlichen Mosaiken in S. Maria Maggiore zu Rom. Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner Verlag GmBH, 1975. iv, 188 pp., 52 black-and-white illustrations, 7
color illustrations, indices.
Browning, Robert. The Emperor Julian. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali
fornia Press, 1976. xii, 256 pp., maps, tables, index, and 12 photographs. $12.50.
Cameron, Alan. Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1976. x, 364 pp., 8 appendices, two indices, and one black-and-
white illustration. $34.75.
Chestnut, Roberta С Three Monophysite Christologies: Severus ofAntioch, Phuoxenus
ofMabbug, and Jacob ofSarug. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. viii, 158 pp.,
index. $14.75.
Doherty, Catherine de Hueck. Poustinia: Christian Spirituality of the East for Western
Man. Notre Dame, Indiana: Ave Maria Press, 1975. 216 pp.
Dujcev, Ivan. LU crise idéologigue de 1203-1204 et les Répercussions sur la civilization
byzantine. Edité par l'association des Amis de la V e Section de l'Ecole Pratique des
Hautes Etudes. Cahiers de Travaux et de Conferences I. Christianisme Byzantin et
Archéologie Chritienne. Paris: 1976. 68 pp.
Etudes et Travaus. VIII. Sous la direction de K. Michałowski. Travaux du Centre D'Ar
chéologie Méditerranéenne de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences. Tome 16. Warszawa:
Editions Scientifiques de Pologne, 1975. 384 pp.
Ferluga, Jadran. Byzantium in the Balkans: Studies on the Byzantine Administration and
the Southern Slavs from Vllth to the Xllth Centuries. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert,
1976. xv, 467 pp., two maps. Sw. Fr. 98.
Keeley, Edmund. Cavafy's Alexandria: Study of a Myth in Progress. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1976. viii, 196 pp. $11.50.
Köpstein, Helga, and Friedhelm Windelmann, editors. Studien zum 7. Jahrhundert in
Byzanz. Probleme der Herausbildung des Freudalismus. Berliner Byzantinischen Ar
beiten, Band 47. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1976. viii, 142 pp., 17 plates, 28 M,-
Kötzsche-Breitenbruch, Liselotte. Die neue Katakombe an der via Latina in Rom. Unter
suchungen zur Ikonographie der Alttestamentlichen Wandmalereien. Jahrbuch für
Antike und Christentum, Ergänzungsband, 4. Münster Westfalen: Aschendorffsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1976. 132 pp., index, 28 black-and-white plates, 11 diagrams.
Leone, Pietro L. M., editor. Nice foro Gregora. Fiorenzo о intorno alla Sapienza. Testo
critico, introduzione, traduzione e commentario. Collana di Studi e Testi diretta da
Antonio Garzya, 4. Napoli: Università di Napoli, 243 pp., 4 indices.
Malsano, Riccardo, editor. Niceforo Basilace. Gli Encomi per l'imperatore e per il patri-
arca, Testo critico, introduzione e commentario. Collana di Studi e Testi dketta da
Antonio Garzya, 5. Napoli: Università di Napoli, 1977. 295 pp., 1 map, 5 indices.
Millar, Fergus. The Emperor in the Roman World (31 B.C.-A.D. 337). Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1977. xvi, 657 pp. $27.50.
Morals Pointed and Tales Adorned: The Bustan of Sa'di. Translated by G. M. Wickens.
Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1974. xxviii, 316 pp. $20.00.
Queller, Donald E. The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople, 120 1204.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977. xiii, 248 pp. $17.00.
Runciman, Steven. The Byzantine Theocracy. Cambridge, London, New York, Melbourne:
Cambridge University Press, 1977. viii, 197 pp. $9.95.
Salamon, Maciej. Rozwój Idei Rzymu-Konstantynopola Od IV Do Pierwszej Połowy VI
Wieku. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 1975.144 pp. zł 9,-
Stoianovich, Troian. French Historical Method: The Annales Paradigm. Ithaca and Lon
don: Cornell University Press, 1976. 260 pp., index. $12.50.
Toynbee, J. M. C. Roman Historical Portraits. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
1978. 208 pp. $35.00.
Turdeanu, Emile. Le dit de l'empereur Nicéphore HPhocas et de son épouse Thêophano.
Introduction, textes slaves, traduction et commentaires. Thessalonique: Association
Hellénique d'Etudes Slaves, 1976. 99 pp., 11 plates.
Volbach, Wolfgang Fritz. Elfenbeinskulpturen der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters.
Third revised edition. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum zu Mainz, Forschungs
institutförVor-und Frügeschichte. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1976.154 pp.,
260 pp., 260 black-and-white illustrations, 2 text figs., indices. DM 148.
Wender, Herbert. The Rise and Fall of the Ancient Worlds. New York: Philosophical Li
brary, Inc., 1976. xi. 295 pp. $8.95.
ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΕ STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES
Subscription rates: Institutions—$20.00

Faculty $ 15.00
Students-$ 12.00
RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN PUBLICATIONS
CANADIAN-AMERICAN SLAVIC STUDIES-FoZume 11 (quar

terly)
RUSSIAN HISTORY-Fo/ume 4 (semi-annual)
SOVIET JJNION-Volume 4 (semi-annual)
EAST CENTRAL EUROPE-Fo/wme 4 (semi-annual)
SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE-Fo/ume 4 (semi-annual)
BYZANTINE STUDIES-Fo/ume 4 (semi-annual)
SUBSCRIPTION RATES 1977
Ordering: INSTITUTIONS FACULTY STUDENTS

One Journal Only $20.00 $15.00 $12.00
Any Two Journals $34.00 $28.00 $23.00
Any Three Journals $48.00 $39.00 $33.00
Any Four Journals $60.00 $48.00 $42.00
Any Five Journals $70.00 $55.00 $50.00
Any Six Journals $78.00 $60.00 $57.00
* Agents receive a flat 20 percent discount on the single journal price.
BACK ISSUE RATES
(Includes all available issues through Volume 10,

1976 of CANADIAN-AMERICAN SLAVIC STUDIES, and
through Volume 3,1976 of the otherfivejournals)
INSTITUTIONS INDIVIDUALS
Canadian-American Shvic Studies $6.00 $4.00
Any Other Journal $ 11.00 $8.00
Checks should be made payable to Arizona State University.

ByzSt 04 (1977)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ByzSt 04 (1977)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ByzSt 04 (1977)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDITORIAL BOARD/COMITE DE REDACTION

Editor-in-Chief/Rédacteur-en-chef: CHARLES SCHLACKS, J R -

Associate Editors/'Rédacteurs adjoints:

BYZANTINE STUDIES/ETUDES BYZANTINES is published as one volume

© 1977, Charles Schlacks, Jr.

The Literature of Catastrophe 1

Medieval European Society As Seen in Two Eleventh-Century Texts

REVIEW ARTICLE/CRITIQUE EXHAUSTIF

Manifestations and Perceptions of the Transcendent in History 81

BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS

Hélène Ahrweiler. Byzance: les pays et les territories (Frank E. Wozniak) 89

PROFESSIONAL NEWS/NOUVELLES DE LA PROFESSION 105

GREGORY T. ARMSTRONG is Assistant Professor of Religion at Sweet Briar College.

JOHN WORTLEY (Winnipeg, Canada)

The Literature of Catastrophe

1. Procopius, De Bello Gothico, ìnProcopii Caesariensis opera omnia, ed. J. Haury, 3

marked influence on subsequent ebcimtological speculation, the Andrew Salos

4. See F. Halkin, Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, Subsidia hagiographica, no. 8a, 3

help of these three sets of evidence a tentative pattern of the devolopment of

6. Die Oracula Sibyllina, ed. J. Geffcken, Џгг Kirchenvater-ßMdssdpm d e r Königl.

but the return of Jesus in glory, of which the other is a forewarning.13

There shall arise in the west a great king of foreign

Dans le septième âge un roi viendra de Byzance et une

15. R. M. J. Basset, "La Sagesse de Sibylle," Les Apocryphes Ethiopiens, 14 vols.

The Greeks and Saracens have certain writings which

There have survived, however, three oriental versions of the interpolated

The Armenian text contains no mention of a messianic warrior-king; to

But in the third lot of revolving years

Pseudo-Methodius was a keen, even a fanatical supporter of the Byzan­

31. ЉШ., p. 89 = Istrin, p. 40.

Did the Andrew Salos apocalyptist use Pseudo-Methodius as a source for

Pseudo-Methodius Andrew Salos

It seems likely that the Andrew Salos apocalyptist knew a version of

OÜTOÇ (= ò ßaoiXetx ЪХХЦРСОР rjrot РыѵаісоѵуеСеХеѵоетаі en avrovç

37. Istrin, p. 41 = Sackur, p. 90.

The documents belonging the the Tiburtine tradition indicate a more

The University of Manitoba

EVA CATAFYGIOTU TOPPING (Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.)

Mary at the Cross:

the Crucifixion through a sensitively imagined dialogue between mother and

language and imagery28 lend dignity and amplitude to the dialogue.

Tie ТГІЯ napůévov, ůee rrçç napůévov

av тая щлартіая гцхоэѵ r\pa< coç àpvót

ò осотгір, ëaoûoaç паѵтас*

it' 1-2, 5-6

Пои порещ текѵоѵ; тѵоя xápw ròv тахѵѵ

où б èmorevov поте ëcoç тоѵтоѵ тоѵя ävoßovc екџхигђрси.

yvùpai ůékco, ITĞJÇ то ıpcbç ¡iov oßevvwcu,

42. Grosdidier de Matons, p. 160, . 3, sees here an allusion to II Timothy 4.7.

The loss of her child means darkness for the mother.45

каі оѵбек owaXyeï- où awèpxerai 00ı

île трос ò emùv oor

OÙK àpPOVlUU Oè ЋОТе, KOP ďnÓUVTJOKO) '

Above all, she expresses man's fear of death.

7грос axrrfy ò et avrf¡<; OVTCJ ßorfaac •

"Tí ба/cpueıç, pvrnp , ri таі cftÀaiç yvvaiţi owaïuxpéPV

џг\ náůcj; џг\ uávco; nûç ov v acòaco TÒV 'Абад;"

52. Cf. Alexiou, Ritual Lament, p. 143.

Ört '#еХан> ënaiïev,

о ѵшя Kat Ѳео\ џои. б ' 9-10

Pseudo-Methodius was a keen, even a fanatical supporter of the Byzan

From the past—Mary's anguished mind is always seeking comfort in yester