Zbornik Radova Vizantološkog Instituta

Primary tabs

Publisher: Institute for Byzantine Studies of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
ISSN: 0584-9888
eISSN: 2406-0917

Pages

The region of Vagenitia and the bishopric of St. Clement
The region of Vagenitia and the bishopric of St. Clement
At the church council in Constantinople in 879/880 there was mentioned for the first and only time the „bishop of Vagenitia“, the area of the Slavic tribe of the Vajunits. On the other hand, the geographical area with that name is mentioned consistently in historical sources between the 7th and the 15th century. This paper analyzes the data on the geographical location of Vagenitia during the Middle Ages and the church organization in its territory and comes to the conclusion that the main area of Vagenitia between the 11th and the 15th century belonged to the bishop of Himara. Furthermore, it points out that according to the notitia no. 10 from the second half of the 10th century Himara belonged to the same bishopric as Glavinica, further to the north. As the greater area of Glavinica in the lower reaches of the river Vojuša in today‘s southern Albania has been reliably identified as the area of activity of St. Clement and his Slavic diocese established in 893, it can be concluded that the diocese of Vagenitia mentioned in 879, as the diocese of the Slavic tribe of the Vajunits, could be a Byzantine forerunner of the Slavic bishopric of St. Clement.
The royal doors from the Church of St. Nicholas in the village Prisovjani
The royal doors from the Church of St. Nicholas in the village Prisovjani
In this paper for the first time the Royal Doors from the church of St Nicholas at Prisovjani are published. According to style, the selected woodcarving motifs, and the iconography of the Annunciation these doors belong to the group of Royal Doors that are linked to Ohrid and its existing artistic workshops from the mid 16th century. Namely, the Royal Doors from the church of St. Clement in Ohrid (now housed in the National Museum in Ohrid), from the church of St. George in the Vlach district of the city, from an unidentified church in Ohrid or its surrounding (now kept in the National Museum in Belgrade) from St. Panteleimon in Nerezi, and the those from the church of St. Nicholas at Korenica. The Royal Doors from Prisovjani bear two key features from the above mentioned works, the carving and the painting. The carving is distinct by the concept of the tablets, and the motifs: the interlacing ornament, known as 'Solomon's seal', the running meander, and the ornament resembling a maggoty effect. The style of the icon painting, and the manner in which the depiction of Archangel Michael and the Holy Virgin were achieved had led previous scholars to believe that these works were accomplished under the influence of the Cretan painting of this period. The Royal Doors from Prisovjani are dated to the mid 16th century, the period of the Ohrid Archbishop Prochor, a period of great prosperity in all arts moreover since the archbishop himself was one of the great patrons.
The scribe of the founder's inscription of Saint Sava in Studenica
The scribe of the founder's inscription of Saint Sava in Studenica
The founder's inscription situated at the foot of the tambour in the Church of the Virgin in Studenica originating from 1208/9, is one of the oldest dated specimens of Serbian literacy. It was uncovered in 1951, during the conservation works in the monastery. Former research (conducted by Dj. Trifunović), has ascertained that inscriptions on the scrolls, books and frescoes in the monastery were written by the Greek artists who decorated the church. Scribal errors indicate beyond any doubt that Slavic was not the mother tongue of the scribes, and that they were not, or at least not sufficiently, familiar with the orthography of this language. In this paper the main focus has been directed at the founder's inscription, which has been put under detailed orthographic and palaeographic scrutiny. The morphology of some letters — the Greek "K", non-distinguishing between ižica (ippsilon) and the Cyrillic "Č" — clearly indicates that in all probability the author of the inscription was a Greek, perhaps the very painter who signed his name in the Greek language on the Mandelion beneath the large founder's inscription.
The selection of royal figures in the image of power during the Palaiologan epoch
The selection of royal figures in the image of power during the Palaiologan epoch
The preserved presentations of the Byzantine basileis of the XIII, XIV and XV centuries show that the creators of the late Byzantine monarchical portraits adhered to certain traditional rules when selecting the personages from the ruling house, which they were to portray. Defining which figures were to be depicted in the portrayal of power depended to a large extent on the changing circumstances and events in the imperial house. However, at the same time this was also based on a significantly more profound conception that rested on principles that had evolved in the course of a long history. The understanding of who could personify power was refracted through the prism of ideology and reflected in carefully shaped iconographic matrices. The omission of the images of certain members of the ruler's house, just as much as their inclusion, carried a certain meaning, as did the hierarchical arrangement of those who were portrayed. Generally speaking, this depended on the degree of their kinship with the sovereign, their sex, titles or dignities, and the connection of the members of the dynasty with the emperor's particular marriage. Therefore, one can rather clearly distinguish certain constants, if not rules, according to which some figures were omitted and others included, and, the specific changes that occurred from the end of the Middle Byzantine period till the fall of the Empire. The development of a unique kind of feudalism played a particular role in the specific characteristics in determining who was to appear in the monarchical portraits of the Palaiologan epoch in Byzantium and the states in its neighbourhood. As the preserved portrait ensembles and known written testimonies indicate, we find the images of the rulers' daughters did not feature in presentations of the 'emperors of the Romans' from the Late Byzantine period. In the Palaiologan epoch, they did not participate in the governing of the state nor were they taken into consideration in plans for succession to the throne. In the earlier period of Byzantine history, slightly different circumstances and views prevailed. That is why, owing to some specific circumstances, the emperor's daughters were sometimes depicted in the portraits of the imperial family. However, from the time of the Komnenoi when the medieval dynastic awareness finally asserted itself in Byzantium, the images of the emperor's female progeny practically vanished from the pictures of those who wielded supreme authority. The custom of omitting the figures of the emperors' daughters from the presentations of the ruling houses was also accepted and rather strictly obeyed for a long time in the portraiture of the neighbouring Orthodox Christian countries. In Serbia, this was disregarded only till just before the state collapsed, while in Bulgaria, exceptions to this rule were observed a little earlier. This was the result of accepting the ideological and iconographic models that were distinctive for the nobility, at the height of the feudal period. The images of daughters-in-law had always been omitted even more consistently than in the case of the figures of daughters in the monarchical presentations of the Byzantine and other Orthodox Christian rulers. As a rule, they were not depicted close to the image of the sovereign, even when they were the wives of the proclaimed and even crowned co-rulers, and successors to the throne. It is very probable that this custom survived into the Palaiologan era even though there are some signs that in Byzantium, this rule may have been disregarded in some cases. The figures of sovereigns' wives and sons had a significantly different status from the images of daughters and daughters-in-law. As a rule, they played an essential and customary role in the monarchical presentation because the rulers' wives and male successors had a stake in authority, in its transfer and succession. Still, it often happened that even wives and sons were omitted from such a presentation - all or some of them. The principle of presenting the individual portraits of emperors was inaugurated in early Byzantium and later, was continually applied even when depicting rulers who were married and had numerous offspring. Different factors could have influenced the decision to depict the monarch alone, even trivial factors. Nonetheless, when insisting on the individual image of the emperor, the ideology upon which this image was based was crucial. The separate portrait of the supreme ruler best explained the iconic essence of monarchical power as a reflection of the King of Heaven and brought to the forefront the exclusivity of the emperor's mimetic collusion with the divine source of power. That is why such a presentation was able to represent the idea and the authority of all earthly majesty through the image of one anointed man. The introduction in the monarchical portrait of the ruler's sons, who were not crowned or proclaimed co-emperors, is a very interesting phenomenon that was characteristic of monumental and miniature painting in the Palaiologan epoch. In the Middle Byzantine period, only those male descendents, who had the status of co-rulers and were crowned, were depicted next to the imperial sovereign. The custom of including uncrowned sons and ruler's sons who had not been initiated in the affairs of state in the presentation of the ruler's house can also be observed from the second half of the XIII to the middle of the XV century in Serbia. It appears that this custom also left traces even in Bulgarian art. On the other hand, the images of the ruler's sons, who had not received the imperial crown, were omitted in the presentations on coins dating from the Palaiologan epoch. Such action was fully in keeping with ancient Byzantine customs in defining the monetary image of authority. An exception could be only one type of coin that many believe to have been produced in the time of Andronikos III, which bore the image of the very young emperor's son, John. Nevertheless, it is more probable that this coin came into being during the regency period, after Andronikos' death in 1341 and the coronation of John V. A little later in the Palaiologan era, however the image of the co-ruler was omitted in the Byzantine monetary image of authority even when he was crowned and bore the title of autokrator. Apparently, the joint presentations of the rulers and co-rulers disappeared completely from Byzantine coins, after the final rupture between John V Palaiologos and John VI Kantakouzenos. In fact, not one of the types of coins bearing the joint images of the ruler and co-ruler has been reliably attributed and classified in this period. Meanwhile, it is important to note that the suppression of the joint presentation of the emperor and co-emperor on Byzantine coins occurred parallel to the unusual appearance of separate co-ruler coins. Separate coins were produced simultaneously by John V and Matthew Kantakouzenos, John V and Andronikos IV, Manuel II and John VII. The production of such coins reflected the complicated political circumstances in the Empire. The situation was affected not only by clashes between the rulers and the co-rulers but also by the periodical assumption of supreme power by the co-rulers, as well as by the later development of Byzantine feudalism. Circumstances characteristic of the later period in Byzantium, which was caught up in a particular process of feudalisation, changed the customs and led to unusual iconographic solutions even in other media. An illustrative example of this is the well-known ivory pixis, which is kept in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection in Washington. Displayed on it, despite the customs of long ago, are the two separate imperial families of John VII, and Manuel II, one beside the other. In iconographic terms, this looks less like a presentation of co-rulership and more like a presentation of almost parallel rules. In the Late Byzantine epoch, another peculiarity is that the image of the augusta is only encountered in exceptional circumstances on coins of the Byzantine Empire. Among the numerous empresses from the Palaiologan dynasty, only Anne of Savoy was depicted on coins and this seems to be just from the moment when she became the regent. Meanwhile, on the presentations of the rulers of the Serbian and Bulgarian states, one can follow the iconographic consequences of the dynastic complications caused by the remarriages of the rulers. The monarchical presentations from the period of the kings Milutin and Stefan Dečanski, or the emperor John Alexander, show that it was quite hard to assemble the figures of the new wives of the said rulers and the sons of those same rulers from their earlier marriages, who were heirs to the throne near the figure of the state's sovereign ruler. If one desired to present a clear dynastic situation, those persons ruled each other out. Sometimes, the ruler's son from a previous marriage took precedence, while in another case the emphasis was on the new queen and her offspring.
The settlement of the Mardaites and their military-administrative position in the themata of the West
The settlement of the Mardaites and their military-administrative position in the themata of the West
The paper discusses questions about the chronology of the settlement of Mardaite soldiers in the Balkans and their military-administrative position in the themata of the West: Peloponnesus, Cephalonia and Nicopolis. It presents arguments in favor of the hypothesis of the Mardaite settlement in Peloponnesus as the result of the colonization policy of Nicepho­rus I in the early 9th century. This view largely rests on information contained in the Chronicle of Monemvasia, a source hereto unused in discussions about the Mardaites. The Mardaites were moved in the territory of the themata of Nicopolis and Cephalonia at the close of the same century in a bid to reinforce Byzantine positions on the eastern coast of the Ionian Sea at the time of the Arab threat to this region. Finally, in the concluding passages the author touches on the military-administrative status of Mardaites in the themata of the West, who operated in units headed by tourmarchai, comparing them to other ethnic tourmai in the Byzantine Empire. [Project of the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Grant no. 177032: Tradition, Innovation and Identity in the Byzantine World]
The terminology of kinship and hierarchy of rulers in the writings of Constantine the Philosopher and his contemporaries
The terminology of kinship and hierarchy of rulers in the writings of Constantine the Philosopher and his contemporaries
According to the simplified Byzantine idea, which was never discarded, the Byzantine basileus is the God's elected ruler. He is the only legitimate emperor in the world because he is the legitimate heir of Roman emperors. Apart from Byzantium, a series of other sovereign states existed throughout the Middle Ages on the territory of the former Roman Empire. That condition lead to the formulation of a sustainable interpretation of the conjured hierarchy of rulers and states. At the top of the fictitious ladder stood only the Byzantine emperor, and, at its bottom, rulers of the lowest rank to whom the emperor issued "orders". All other rulers were distributed between these two instances along the fictitious ladder of hierarchy, depending on their power and the esteem they enjoyed. At the same time, the Byzantine basileus was also perceived as the "spiritual parent" of the Christian nations and rulers who, on the otherhand, depending on their esteemed, boasted varying degrees of "spiritual kinship" with the emperor. These Byzantine concepts were adopted by Stefan Nemanja and his heirs, so that, at times, in medieval Serbia they were real and not fictitious. In the last decades of the XIV century, the power and esteem of Byzantium waned rapidly. The Empire had to take on difficult obligations towards the Ottoman Turks of which she was freed only after the Battle of Ankara (1402). The liberation from demeaning commitments brought on a revival of the ever present concept of ideal supremacy of the Byzantine emperor, especially among rulers in the Balkans. Such ideas were adopted by Constantine of Kostenec, the author of the Vita of Stefan Lazarević, who, however, added certain corrections, conforming them to the views of the Serbian spiritual elite. According to the treaty of Gallipoli, sultan Suleiman accepted (1403) emperor Manuel II Palaiologos as his "father", a fact known also to Constantine the Philosopher, as was later also repeated by sultan Mehmed I. At the time when, in 1410, Stefan Lazarević received for the second time the crown of despots from Manuel II, relations between the Byzantine basileus and the Serbian despots were defined as those of "father and son". By those means, Constantine the Philosopher elevates the position of the Serbian ruler to the level once held by king Milutin following his marriage to Simonis. The author of the Vita of Stefan Lazarević took strict care to state the noble rank of the Serbian despots and thus matched it with those of sultan Mehmed I and the contender to the throne, Musa, who addressed the despots as "brother". Constantine the Philosopher makes no mistake either when referring to the king of Hungary and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Sigismund, whose vassal Stefan was. Regardless, of such ties between the two rulers, Sigismund is never mentioned as the despots' "parent" but solely as his "comrade"(ally), probably because the Hungarian king belonged to the oicumene of Western and not Eastern Christianity and could thus by no means have been a "spiritual parent" to the Orthodox Serbian despots.
The vices of emperor Constans I in the fourth century histories
The vices of emperor Constans I in the fourth century histories
The aim of this paper is to analyze the negative characteristics of the Roman emperor Constans I (337-350), according to the earliest preserved information from the late 4th century histories of Aurelius Victor, Eutropius Pseudo-Victor and Eunapius of Sardis. The earliest account of Constans' downfall is around 361 recorded by Aurelius Victor in his short history De Caesaribus. Victor wrote that Constans became more arrogant and aggressive after he defeated his elder brother Constantine II in 340. Also, he was not cautious enough for his young age, was hated due to his bad subordinates and did not respect his soldiers properly. But, the most outrageous fact was according to Victor, that the emperor had homosexual affinity towards his young and attractive barbarian hostages. The record of less moralistic Eutropius in his Breviarium ab Urbe condita, written in 369, is shorter but sharper. In the beginning the reign of Constans was vigorous and righteous but his character deteriorated after his illness. Following that, the young Augustus befriended himself with corrupted companions and turned to severe vices. His reign grew unbearable to his subjects and unpopular among the army ranks. Briefer then Eutropis is the testimony of an anonymous Latin author of Epitome de caesaribus who was contemporary to the Eastern Roman emperor Arcadius (395-408). This Pseudo-Victor wrote down that Constans devoted himself to hunting session, thus allowing plotters to dethrone him. Finally the single Greek author in this series, Eunapius (died after 404), whose istoria h meta Dexippon survived in fragments and Zosimus' late fifth century abridgment, called Constans the worst among the most intolerable tyrants. The Lydian sophist, as far as we could conclude from Zosimus', also recorded Constans' inclination towards young barbarians whom he allowed to mistreat his subjects. Because of wretchedness in the provinces of his realm, the courtiers led coup d'etat through Augustus' hunting session. Although vivid and informative, the real weight of these four accounts could be estimated only through comparison with the other, real or traditional, dreadful emperors described by the four authors. For example, the youthful age was important component of the bad reigns of Otho, Domitian and Gallienus, as Victor emphasizes. Eutropius' pattern of the promising start of the Emperor's reign and his later disgrace was similarly used in his assessment of Gallienus and Constantine the Great. According to Pseudo-Victor, Valentinian I could be estimated as the perfect prince if there had not been his poor selection of advisers. Constans' homosexual leaning towards young barbarian hostages could be observed from the two points. The first would be the remark that these barbarians were dubious companions for the Roman emperors, just as some of the rulers were blacklisted for their, real or assumptive, sympathy and meekness for women, eunuchs and courtiers. Gratian and Theodosius I were specially ill-famed for their affinity for Alan mercenaries and Gothic refugees respectively. On the other hand, slandered Licinius was praised for his strength in cultivating his courtiers and eunuchs. In relation to Constans' homosexuality, it is essential to note that one of the fundamental keys to the bad emperor's character was his breach of sexual taboos. In the inaccurate 4th century tradition Caracalla was known for his marriage with his stepmother, or Gallienus for his barter with Marcomanic king, in which he allegedly traded part of Pannonia Superior for the barbarian concubine. Explicitly, homosexuality was ascribed to Domitian, Carinus and Maximian Herculius. Finally, although the remarks on Constans' unpopularity and death were taken from the earliest preserved sources, it is clear that only a decade after his demise, the tradition, framed in already existing negative pattern, was established. This version of the events, probably maintained in lost Kaisergeschichte, was firstly acknowledged and then further supplemented by these four authors. In this context it is attractive to note down old samples of dire regimes and Roman historical tradition, still preserved both by the Latin and Greek authors in later 4th century. Then again, this fact is not very helpful in tracing the real character omissions of the deceased emperor Constans. .
The „Testament“ of St. Theodore the Studite as an apology of the Orthodoxy of the Holy fathers from Gaza Barsanuphius the Great and Abba Dorotheos
The „Testament“ of St. Theodore the Studite as an apology of the Orthodoxy of the Holy fathers from Gaza Barsanuphius the Great and Abba Dorotheos
The Testament of St. Theodore the Studite is a script that represents the conclusion of his work, the meaning and the testimony of his prior and shepherd activity. What is even more interesting, at the beginning of this paper, St. Theodore has exposed his view of the Orthodoxy of several venerable fathers, among which he mentioned St. Abba Dorotheus and, in particular, St. Barsanuphius the Great. This article aims to carry out philological and theological-historical analysis of this very interesting apology.
Thematic stratiotai in Byzantine society
Thematic stratiotai in Byzantine society
Investigations of thematic organization never yielded generally accepted results. The reasons behind this are closely tied to limitations regarding source material. On the one hand, there are certain chronological or thematic units poorly represented in the sources. On the other, there are cases well documented by the sources which can, however, overlook data logically expected to be mentioned. Still, Byzantine sources, including legal texts with their often anachronous clauses, have an understanding of thematic priorities which differs from our own, defined by our contemporary standards. Scholars investigating the institution of stratiotes constantly face such difficulties. An undesired but still rather common result of such problems accounts for the fact that researchers base their opinions on superficial lexis and terminology of Byzantine sources and disregard the connections between the main lines of development of the so-called middle Byzantine period (VII-XI centuries) and the changes in thematic organization. Today we can say that the first themes date from the VII century. From then on, the system was gradually developed. Although the original large themes were divided into smaller units during the VIII century, the principles of organization of subsequent themes - which appeared in the IX and X centuries - remained rather unchanged. Above all, that is quite evident from hierarchic lists (Taktika), dating from the first half of the IX to the first half of the X century (Taktikon Uspenskij, Philoteos' Kletorologion, Taktikon Beneshevich). Only in the late X century we encounter a new situation (Escorial Taktikon). In short, from then on we are dealing with quite a complex administrative organism. As for the social aspect, soldier are a part of society in which the so-called free peasants had their own land within the framework of village community property. This general picture is more or less reflected in various sources of different date : in the articles of the so-called Agrarian Law (end of VII - beginning of VIII century), in Theophanes' list of "crimes" of emperor Nicephoros I (802-811) and in data found in the Treaty on Tax Levying (X century). We are dealing with such social and economic foundations of the state which lasted, continually, at least from the end of the VII/the beginning of the VIII to the beginning of the X century, those which, when endangered by the crisis, the emperors attempted to defend by regular repetition of protective laws. All of the above leads us to the conclusion that it would be impossible to expect that the "birth" of this social order during the VII century brought about quick reform based on proclamations of generally valid laws. Secondly, general and common characteristics of the entire era changed in times of crisis, gradually and at first undetectably, so that the order of things marked by the crisis finally surfaced only in the X century. This development is understandable because many significant phenomena of social life were not necessarily defined by specific laws, regardless of the existence of a developed written legislative corpus. The foundations of the legislative order of the Empire did not come in the form of a written constitution or group of basic laws. Under such conditions, explanations of the social status of soldiers should not necessarily be sought among the early examples of pre-Macedonian legislature, just as, following such unsuccessful searches, one should not draw far-reaching conclusions. Since there was obviously no quick, focused and legislatively rounded-off reform at the moment of the appearance of the military order or social group in question, it would be dangerous to take either the "Ostrogorsky model" or the viewpoints which reject it as an absolute paradigm. After all, Byzantine practice was far more diverse then what we are often ready to admit. It is obvious that, in its initial phase - during the second half of the VII century - the thematic organization developed in times of long lasting demographic crisis and the first serious shortages of money reserves and natural goods. For the most part, the need for military corps could be met in no other way but by settling soldiers. Such soldiers-settlers comprise the kernel of the army and are distributed all across the land, as indicated by the names of the themes of the fist and second generation: Opsikion, Armeniakon, Anatolikon, Karavisianon, Voukelarion, Optimaton, Thrakesianon. Certain, although not numerous examples, uncover the diversity of the sources from which the newly the settled soldiers between the end of the VII and the first half of the IX century were recruited (Slavs in the theme Opsikion, the siege of the city of Tyana, extensive measures of emperor Nicephoros I, the case of the pretender to the throne, Thomas the Slav, and the case of the christianized Kouramites). Generally speaking, the settling of soldiers implies the existence of their more or less pronounced physical ties to the land. However, this does not have to implicate that they all had personal holdings or, to an even lesser extent, that they were all peasants. It only means that these soldiers used the land as the dominant source of income. For, according to De ceremoniis and Ibn-Khordadbih, their annual salary (ρόγα) amounted to 1 nomisma, and could not exceed the maximum of 12 (by exception 18) nomismata. Actually, these salaries should be seen as additional assets to the overall income of the soldiers. In that sense, some of the measures (crimes) of emperor Nicephoros I, as interpreted by the chronicle of Theophanes, are especially interesting. The first crime is the settlement of soldiers from all (Asia Minor) themes in the Sclavinias on the Balkans. Those designated for re-settlement had to sell their holdings, often lameting having to lease behind the graves of their parents, perhaps even more distant ancestors, too. Despite this "crime", there were not enough soldiers to satisfy the growing needs for military corps on both sides of the Empire. Thus the emperor recruited and equipped the poor from the sum of 18.5 nomismes which their neighbors had to pay to the state treasury. The measures of emperor Nicephoros show that in those days there were at least two type of stratiotes - soldiers who supported themselves from the income provided by their land holdings and those newly recruited or, perhaps, impoverished soldiers whose equipment was provided for by peasants, through the payments they made to the state treasury. The other solution was, apparently, if not temporary then rather rare, so that the general line of development lay closer to the first solution, both before and after the reign of Nicephoros. Already at the time of publishing of the Ecloga, that is during the reign of Leo III, στρατιωτικός οΐκος was a common reality, just as it was in the much later Tactica of Leo VI. The described situation from the days of Nicephoros is very reminiscent of the way the military estate is defined in De cerimoniis, which speaks of soldiers with "houses", but also of poor soldiers who are in the service as a result of community support. This refers to soldiers who can be denoted, as they are in the famous novel by Constantine Porphyrogenitos, by epithets εν((((ς and ά((((ς. "House" is taken to mean the patrimony of an individual family, which provides material support for one soldier from its own ranks, as it clearly results from the Ecloga and the Taktika. That is why the expression συντεστης - "one who participates in" (equipping a soldier) - appears already in the so-called Leges militares. Basically, we are dealing with the same phenomenon which in the later legislative texts of the Macedonian dynasty (X century) was given clearer articulation. All this implies that military service - στρατεία - could be performed, in part or on the whole, through money payments. According to a considerable number of researchers, the fiscalization of the "stratia" should exclusively be taken as a feature of late Macedonian legislation. However, it is beyond doubt that this phenomenon also had a prior history. In the Vita of St. Euthymios the Younger we find mention of the fact that his mother, as a widow, inscribed the name of her then seven year old son on military lists in the early 830's. Apparently, such formal inscriptions of "soldiers" did happen as a means of evading money payments in substitution for military service. What is even more interesting, the fiscal duties imposed on widows or families came as a renewed ancient custom. One text by Theodore of Stoudion (March 801) implies that the empress Irene revoked this levy which existed in the days of earlier "Orthodox emperors". In the eyes of Theodore, those could only have been emperors from pre-Iconoclastic times. The striving of soldiers to gain property of farming land and the interaction between them and the tax paying population of farmers were always present, just as there were always clear demarcations between these two social groups. The soldiers with their property, on one side, and the peasants (and other civilians) with their property on the other, were precisely distinguished in the X century by the terms στρατιωτικός οΐκος and (ολιτικός οΐκος. These technical terms validated the statements found in the Tactica of Leo VI and the second Novel of Romanos I (934) regarding the two pillars of the state: the soldiers and the peasants. This, however, did not imply the introduction of new institutions but rather of new terminology with specific meaning introduced in times of precise agrarian codification. It is practically self evident that in the mentioned the living conditions of thematic soldiers between the VII/VIII and the X century, there were several options in articulating the social profile of a soldier. It is also evident what the relatively stable types of soldiers were based on. Firstly, already in the VIII century there is confirmation of the existence of soldiers with property, that is land holdings, the source of the greatest part of their income, whether as proprietors or as recruited members of certain families. In that respect, it is important to note that in one Taktikon from the 960's soldiers with personal property were marked as an ancient phenomenon, older even than the Macedonian legislation of the X century. The same applies to the distinction between στρατιώτης, proprietor but not necessarily an active soldier, and στρατενόμενος, one actually in military service. Moreover, the fact is that there did exist social differences between the numerous soldiers with land holdings. On the other hand, there were those among the soldiers who had no property what so ever or practically none to count with. They were recruited in different ways. Some soldiers from this category were recruited through collective contributions of the communities (beginning of IX century), while others received support from certain landowners (end of IX century). The first option appears in later years as well, as demonstrated by a case registered on the Peloponnesos in the first half of the X century, when the population was levied with collecting money in order to secure funding for the soldiers. It is certain that among the soldiers who traded their participation in such campaigns for financial contributions there were also those (former soldiers?) who had grown impoverished in the mean time and could not personally perform military service. The famous soldier Mousoulios from the Vita of Philaretos is a good example from the close of the VIII century. In order to monitor the process of impoverishment of soldiers, we would have to have more of this sort of information from various vitae. The X century legislation came only as a reaction to the crisis which at the beginning of the X century struck smaller and medium size landowners, both soldiers and civilians. This struggle to save the basic body of thematic soldiers had its climax in the days of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. In asserting the value of their property, the emperor could thus calmly claim that such a custom, although not formally written down, had already existed. Having become insufficient, this unwritten custom was codified and raised to the level of a written law. Parallel to the weakening of the military social stratum, there is a growing fiscalization of the stratia, which no longer necessarily had to represent military service but was rather seen as its financial support. The road was thus open for the appearance of a new mercenary army. On the other hand, parallel to the changes in military tactics, the wealthier soldiers finally gained a dominant role. In order to secure the service of such soldiers, in the days of Nicephoros II the minimal value of military land holdings was raised to 12 pounds of gold. This marked the beginning of the rise of lower military aristocracy. During the following, XI century, when the classical thematic organization no longer existed, thematic soldiers had already lost their importance and, save perhaps for minor exceptions, represented a thing of the past.
Theodore II Lascaris as co-emperor
Theodore II Lascaris as co-emperor
This article consists of two main parts. The first part quotes, once again, relevant sources for Theodore II Lascaris’ status as co-emperor and discusses some of Theodore II’s activities as co-ruler. The second part deals with the testimonies of three Byzantine historians: George Acropolites, George Pachymeres and Nikephoros Gregoras, who provide us with different information concerning Theodore II Lascaris as co-emperor. While Acropolites refers to Theodore II as basileuj even before he actually came to the throne, Pachymeres and Gregoras claim that Theodore II was never his father’s coruler. Thus, it is the aim of this study to offer an explanation for the differences in the testimonies of the mentioned historians. [Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 177032]
Theodore the Studite’s eschatological vision (Hilandar 387) in the ktetor hagiography of the Typikon of the Studenica Monastery (IX H 8 [Š 10])
Theodore the Studite’s eschatological vision (Hilandar 387) in the ktetor hagiography of the Typikon of the Studenica Monastery (IX H 8 [Š 10])
Around 1207-8 St. Sava wrote the preface to the Typikon of the Studenica Monastery (Studenica Typikon). It comprises the hagiography of the monastery’s founder The Life of St. Simeon (Vita Simeonis), whose closing lessons make up the opening lines of the Typikon. Until now scholars have been unable to trace the origin of these lessons; however, we have found that they were largely replicated from the oration of the Venerable Theodore the Studite (written before 826). The paper offers a comparative analysis of the ending of The Life of St. Simeon (IX H 8 [Š 10]) and Studite’s sentences that were used by St. Sava as his model (Hilandar 387), as well as other copies of this segment in Serbo-Slavonic and Greek manuscripts of the middle Byzantine period.
Tonsure circulaire dans l’église Orthodoxe
Tonsure circulaire dans l’église Orthodoxe
There were two ways of the clerical tonsure in the Orthodox Church during the middle Ages. The cutting of four locks of hair in the shape of cross and circular tonsure. The wreath of hair around the shaved top of the head symbolized Christ’s crown of thorns. The archpriests of the Serbian Orthodox Church were practicing circular tonsure, from its founder Sava until the middle of the 17th century. [Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 177032: Tradicija, inovacija i identitet u vizantijskom svetu]

Pages