Imperial Constantinople 9780471603702, 9780471603719

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
List of Illustrations (page viii)
List of Maps (page ix)
One The City (page 1)
Two The Economy of the City (page 43)
Three The Bureaucracy (page 79)
Four The Common Life (page 117)
Five The Aristocracy (page 165)
Epilog The Failure of the City (page 191)
Bibliography (page 199)
Index (page 209)

Citation preview

Imperial Constantinople

NEW DIMENSIONS IN HISTORY Historical Cities Series Editor: Norman F, Cantor

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York - London - Sydney - Toronto

IMPERIAL CONSTANTINOPLE

DEAN A. MILLER

Copyright © 1969, by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced by any means, nor transmitted, nor translated into a machine language without the written permission of the publisher.

109 8 7 65 4 3 2 #1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 69-19233

Cloth: SBN 471 60370 8 Paper: SBN 471 60371 6 Printed in the United States of America

PREFACE

Every historian knows that in reconstructing even the smallest fragment of the past he is undertaking an act of unforgivable hubris. He goes on anyway, excusing himself as best he can; he has, after all, plenty of company. He begins, at any rate, with what he hopes is an insight, and ends with a prayer that he has not betrayed the dead. This study has as its center the capital of the Byzantine Empire, a state we no longer have any reason to make excuses for or misunderstand. I have tried to describe Constantinople at the height

of its powers: not the tragic, embattled remnant of tattered glories, but the living New Rome of its best years, when it was the exemplification of an important unitary theory of politics, spirit, and secular life—an imperial city reflecting an imperial theory. According to this theory the city—the capital—must be more than an aggregation of human bodies and the services that they require; the city is above all the solid, archetectonic metaphor of eternal order and harmony, peace, justice, and life. Its ruler, following this plan, exercised powers and controls that we

no longer feel are suitable; but we have to recognize that the Imperial City fitted its day, and that the perceptions that created it are not so much invalid in modern times as occluded or hidden. In my reconstruction I hope I have had an insight; as I hope that

I have not betrayed the dead. I would like to acknowledge the aid I received at various times

in the progress of the manuscript: from colleagues, especially Sidney Monas, R. J. Kaufmann, and Loren Baritz of this department; and Norman O. Brown. I was extended the privilege of using the library of the Dumbarton Oaks Research Center and Library by Dr. Ihor Sevcenko, Director of Studies of the Center. During a sabbatical leave spent in Athens I was materially and Vv

vi Imperial Constantinople spiritually assisted by Mr. Francis Walton and his staff, of the Gennadeion Library, by Henry S. Robinson of the American School of Classical Studies and his staff, and by John and Mary Zelia Phillipides, philoi kai meletetai. There are others who are

aware of the help they extended and may think that I have forgotten: I have not. Finally, I want to publicly recognize the patience and understanding of my wife, an occasional critic of style and an unfailing and invaluable critic of the historical task and profession. D. A. MILLER

Rochester, New York, 1968

CONTENTS List of Illustrations, viii

List of Maps, ix

One The City, 1 Two The Economy of the City, 43 Three The Bureaucracy, 79

Four The Common Life, 117 Five The Aristocracy, 165

Epilog The Failure of the City, 191 Bibliography, 199

Index, 209

Vil

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Portrait of Basil II triumphing over the nations, x

Builders at work in the city, 42 The extension of the Imperial Will, 78 The people in the Hippodrome, 116 Execution of a rebel by wild animals, 164

Vill

LIST OF MAPS Constantinople in the Tenth Century 10 The Byzantine Empire in 1025 a.p. 49 Maps by John V. Morris

1X

Imperial Constantinople

Sa ase ae coe RRM | 2k En SE ISSA S A ROSS Bees SEO aE SSeS COR SELES HLS CATA nwa enone ss

i eT Aane oo aeyOpin ose Se URS CaS/Si Sn (ug asoniesaasoss igs canine rennet Si ee ee I svniiseas iiss agri omeneeen seesaw cores ons |] iii

Fioo -eee(2 oo ,2fueslfe i oe eemoar ee aSo pie oD adhlFee ae og — .eee |eauTe aeeee oe ae = ee 8 pee SS USbe i spon‘. COMMA ah HERMAN eant 2M | Pe 8fC oe 8ooee-.EOi eo oo oo. DEES oe eee: EEE ES ala sia ssa cag RONREBIN eee Pe ee ee Ee Tne BS DS See Se UATE ne nage ontes ane anananieanteannncatange titan

ee a oo a. a ee Ds Se Co =i. ee ~— te 0Li ee ooa COey ee,,Cr™”—-"D oo) Oe: ee a | Ee Le Co eBeee WSeeoe oe..r,,,r..UwUDLULULU ae a i See ee a vat ooOeee | ee ee DOSE 0 Os IE OE aS eee ee re ee Breer oan AE PE UN es SEA OI ONE PS SER OUST Ais aa BOHN lh aielHR ee Uae TOS I A eee a peo Bpiaaorsasean cre eet eA OO AMO RUN an ade octane eee, EE ee ES Se

Ss MI IR COs SOO aoa oe ee Oe’ eeee . SELON OI Soo WR SERRA ICG aSe RaoIRN ie nerais ee POC ES ee oeSE NE SM Reais UnSe eKits cH aut OO DRE ed eee ee NO aEHO 8 cae SG SOE RGSS NeCAN RoCee PEanMGC UA CSe ieee. ike |eee

’ i. oC. | ee aa paceR eran STEe top r REED Bee ee aceon fi NOES: Eero ore A), A ae eee aa eRe SSVI EE SSC Oe NT Fe OMe oe eee EEC a. ee IOS oo OS eeeeee ee ee ee ESE ee eees| eee USEHU ORNc DSR e IaOT LN eee RE as ee IP SCS esl ea sy aa PING ee TRIS EES ES SES SUES: PERLE Sah ee ter ee ne amen ee COSI aaa RRS PS BERLE. INI ecko: Pea) eee ees Fl eee Sa athe eo NG BRU ee Sines Re ere ee a ARO GN SU UN RG Tian OO ie eee

DO INET CSS eeeI SRR ET RSD ARE GRU ae ears eee SUE MRSS SoS:aan ASSES CES UNMEGA o SIRUDAS ES So OTR TGA ONANee UN fe eee (aera eeeee eee ees NG Ee gS PONG pee iens|\s \ommenmeennn, eeeeeeeSIS CS een a Roce SRG SIN eReeRIN IMO He ees Me Es Uae aie (REE ES SESE OS SUD eeRTE POETF eenSaree a CO ene| Go) gE Labia aber meaner beaCa +| ERO aR. Umar, SRD! Geepea en ERRORS TS ak a Sea NG} |.ant —hUrl

aee £....-Cts«C:«si—*s—Si._. 7 oo DE == hLLl..,lr eeee ee ee se . aaa olaa BSE fe” 2 ee oe a i | . oo oo ae . creeren erence gine |) 6 Se ee eee |e coe eo ea oe a ee Co. 4 oe Ne 8. .Me Cs . ff ee MG ee Me oo ee ae a. .NAGE) ae oe Dee ne Gee ae ee ICOESR Oe oe aWye ee ees 2h oe ee ,Potent ee EE IN Si ee. (Co ey as Siem eet Pe ee OO Pe Reece Ciera ones ease CO eeus eeeRe aemeaee |ee Oree aeae Oe Oe 88 Oe oe ee' o a eseee cat SS ete aPON neA ee See NC aeGRO cee ORE me UE a OE Iogy OIE UU 7!Nn _ oo HEISE ON ieer afe ee ee ee ee PS an Oe? Iee Na oo. Ly oo sl ||enen aSet OetL Ce Nn Ni eee eae Oe nam aan en Re Bae OC ieee TAPES SUR TA CERe Sa, ee Ue ee ee ae oo ee go 2a DD ol rr Any, AIAN a ere eae Oe ee eee Oe eee a oe Os | ee Nara OSE IN ce Nt RENEE NNN See Penne pene er Ce eee Wy Me ni ee A. 7ee 4a| BEERS aET ee ie oe aRN Bs .Oe Os on 1aACR DES RSS ee eras eee OsoS eeee ee ee aC|.ae SR aa an Oa PTMS NIG CANE OSES IN CO ee aea. < .. os.73 ee eee Ce Fe oe ys , Mie 7ae — ‘a. EEE SE AR) SS - ee .EN a. leee Ry PG BER 2220S Dee. pe a ee EN ee os eer ae On Se ee ere iN i: a ee ee ee TN ee Ge eee 0 ie ee oe oo oo |... . es oo OO Ce Cee Sy eS a a a | . oe ve ae Ce iis ae CC ae : co Me Ble, aa oe | © ae 7 late of hl,rlrtrt~SC:i‘(ee -,.eee . .ee . Se CL EP es Oo | ooSRST 2 . See eeeSe aee ee ee nosis eines CEES SE a... |... ee, a | REET Dred ESE SS ee Co ere|Cl ee«eee |eeeee 2.eee WEEE SS nT . ae uN -.,. es Whe RE Es SE 8 SS OSE EE ec, oo oN #§ EDS Soe eT Le TE) ee ee ee ea) eee ey el rrr rc rh rmcrmrtttsCtiai i. 8 ,. 8 | hh DEL AURIS CIS Ee aS NTT IR eas OR SSG CUISINE RN as SOO aI EOS Cuore aS aga MET GEE) Rn ae eR Searesaaepeer 10/5): Lee (1 aa Re ER See

Fenton ASRS BEES taeT Bee ace eam es gu) oe ae SNES ANA GU NERY DUN UM AOS OE Ay PES SS ern coe CSE ESET Sey cs nes eH SHAM MMi sect eee RS te Se De

fe ity USES aS NL RO ale CNN SURI s cig UN US oS cao se a |. ee JpSoy gned its giadr SS Mir Si eg — ,...... iSESS ie MSS Soe Se Be eamee Loe ee oe CL'¢ .2). is SSLES Te USES SS Be US pide ELTEE ES x SSA CorEe ces CAA PAG oN UNeae OS UE MU ain DEUS SSE Site BeiiTESS! Ue VISES a Ie a Coe a SEE eeSas We esSera MS OE OOD SIN 2Sco Soe ee ni S's ienka SESE SEESS aUTne ee.SH ee, OeOU ee aeoeons eee

(fe SESE SISOS Eg “RES EAL eerie | aa .. =. ee ee |. @ ee

UP SRA AS Je Ea Pee ON CoeN a SSeS TIMI Ni) a aan ee pa nee EBSA Ge SEM egy ec csc cee Posaeetcmerressm caress 1/51 Ma Ne NUMRN Ios 2 eee So os teas PEM OS aa

JESS SST ASE US Clr rs”:—Ci«sSCi‘(sCO:OCSCCOiCCCCsCC | eee 0) eee res CES LANE SOE SSD SS eee Sst ES Cl Di eeertrtsét(“is—sisOisn’Cissarsee LEAT BSD SST ei ee | ee Se i ceesOia aire ake ee | eee eee ES: [eT PSR DES SD SOSTEST ENS aeeteSEES |... Me | are WAM UTS ST Dd resus fine DAIS LUE DSR DES escSTS alh cS Ra) fei ER 7 a eaee een CO eee ge) SoaMRM sie ceaera’ eee on ees wn SOILS IDES LS Are ee Spo ESS PES SE See TRIN eo Rete | ic ane aRe aRe eea Peseta) ee i See eee JaN ERE ET

So) SAE ES eS ES LASSE EER ge an a eo) Seeapee ere EIN) ee ee |) A aa

Wei De RES En oe 7. eee a.ee |eee eeMeera eee |)SEEee HGR SS be acess oe Fass eeSEoe aSUMING oyUe agSr Beosions ‘iSRR | eee Co ees aa2ee | Soa ERS TE: MESSE PLEASES Se So eee eee nee 0 —=C,rs—s—C reer UMSea Pie SIA REP SDR SA OSS oe =F WASSER DEE SPE De LSee US UN NE aSES IIIT oS ores SON Se —Ce se| +» J DE SORTDE ES ee a SU OEEES Peee oe ee Ae Si: aGa AME: SIS SUE Bey oe iy ee Rene een eee) 0- fll ee eee eoUsSE |)a.8eee |©eee

ASORE Sy ASSES SESEUR WORSE SESaSe Ba)OEE NCH LS ATRSn epee eerste CAaA 0 eeoS aoc SERS LS Sy MEE gS 0STRESS PTO VN eaNe: ee)i acoEO A BE Bee

UES Sou EE DEE EU EOE SES SGC Oi MI TO Ms Moy CO TT gs Rees | Vase or ane Seaseeses genera revemcrsecete see | 1 \/ Ora Py 8 SSS eee foe.

(ELIE UU) OED ee a... Pe

Wen Pa SE SSA us Pa AID ULI AEE SERS GEE BUSSES MISS UNOS CMMI S208 RC We aoe ias Me ee EGER eS SST ne SIE ESN Ss TNMs ek SCR oo Joe

ELSES TS 2 es SE eS ES III AIAN INE EN ee ee ee rrr nl ee 7 eee Cele EEE SS aeeeeh) DA eae ee eee ementaoe | eens eee ee7 OOee aeee SRS 0 etSLE I EeUe BES IE ed EMM ..eeees Seapets ees ee aioa..,... .ON..SI).. eae...-,eee |Ses

Ste ed) eee oe miraie rr lr.Urti“‘(OéOOCOCOSCOCsCsSCSCECgsl nee weeOPES le GL ieSe eg Prentreron nhs nee ||\| emmnenn (a neeten Se TM OMS IM cc 8 ee eee eae ees

bt

ee ee eeee o ceeee Oe eelc eee8 a= a ee ee ee a. , ,. o.. oe | =

PERSE ee see) eee ee SSSI aN ENN UaoSESCO SSSDA AMC 2 ESRC LE Re eranES ay DOTSeuTeses eeee DeRee Ts SP SSS SURE SDNaan ORRLS SRREN SEREAR, AUN Ue COROISOS IRAESSSCA a SaSS HIS 2 SOROS

Teene DSseEEE ES SISSIES 2 Sssoe one. aa 7armas CNS ay ee RD a AT AEE TOIEU ESSE | | heeeeeremeners seme I eee Snes) eg OE pee.) coceoo ee eee ee| USUI SE SES SEE DUES Ge ESAS Oe Cee ee cee ny Saar A RO UE ICOM ooo eo PREUNERS SEATS OUR Si See Sn SLIDERS LORE EAS Te CROSSE SSR OSE Fe AN SSO MN PH UR SO BIN SS ON Rs Rug roc oS LE TAD De LD She REED DMS ESA Sune fa Se go So SO Reaeetrein: | emer Cra oy Se mm EO Ase OAM TSAI GMI EOE sc Py

Piene hig Sy Ges Sg on ee Oy a oa ee ee

bo PRE Bin USDSUSU DUE IAAT peYT ity) OTEDhnseeSE Ge SEE Oe ECE ES SEU AL SY TCT SS AG AAG La | NSS eC WS ie USES LESS FATNESS on or ROSEY Pa Loi eluent Oe Rasen POU SRIRAM zeeUR oooMAM SEES PosDROME her aee Rn Pest “ene” SESE Rs SY SU STE ES SO RESETS Rea siee T ATNR UUSEE CSS Sele aRUAE SG See HOON SNS soc MU BUSES SSANB) TOSCO SiG eee:

UESn SBR IG 8 Peeee 0 oi BSE ones a Crs iclcrCrC‘“(‘;eSCtrsisist we EESee ee aSM |.A|)aeame ee 2 SoS eeereeeeeeFEES ee peers IWeOe SEES SM IIee 2MNS aSOSA Stes 8 wn Lego Cae ee eda DRL SEEE Es easoo ts: eee fe itees oF See SS pees TREES SS See STS Se LS 2S US ee aAA eeeeee SES A ESE SSE eee eee ee eee PUREsee IM ao ARSert SEES eT oes Pioggeecaes reDEE EGbake aeSeta STISE - ee AOO oeSUeee RO Woe as eeSores SE? *

PONS A ee iesteeeeee PN aMES eee re eo eee sop taeSrAUS SSeS See perearase |.eoeee AMS ee eee ee ee CARE Ssone Eee RU NIN RIceaEOE SE ee ee Bbeeaties tracers iatneea tenee tee ee ere aeCs inesRU ee|eee ee SS IANNIS. A SN I oooe coe Be) sc,BSS | eee eee ES A ge eee _ oS ...,.rmlmr,rCUC, — Berenson — See ee ee ee ee ee ee See ae Oe ee SEO rasa aereee nearer ee eee Oe oe |. =eres-_aes

1 Ne oe . 9. ~~ 2 Ch . Di OSS eh AE ee a... EET AS i ene NO eee SASSER ed SOUT SIN 3 Ue eee ||CC ooaokIoo -— EE Se -— a... ee ee oOo. ... a = |. a A Ne ee |. oe Ae a WG SESE NCE Ree RN UE coe pit ecirace

TEES See Hyiuuuaat ee ieee | aUGee ee ES eegs Gee || aesSEEN eer DASE a Se Serres \ aOSee a)Nee epee NY SMT BE RE USC S SSaBeSeg SS Se Perens eee) ene | BS ARO UG SSSI SSESe USSe OMAN SSS oe es P0010 NOUN eeen

ESTE NG ee Fe|oesa) Oe OT NG DF 8 ESSE ..ESee. aOSES ee eee CO Gee aC—O gses ~ OSA EE TE TGR Ce eeSGOO eee IDES SASS Se ESEeo) ENN GES UCTSS eee a ee SO SMG Go ee Ge r,rrtsSsSs—“‘COS

PEE SA So Bo SE Be EU RIES NL MITC SOS CSM 2 EN SURE OR OSCR CO NG SOMME SM SS Se IS OEIC MA IASG RE SoS SSS I age SS

ORES Diao SEES eseeemerge i aei)ee OEeee = 7| ees SERED SDSS Sh eeoe ur SR ie aOO icgE ae TR NGS eee DIG ES anne Sn Sten SEP 28 Sisco SEER ETDS SE NE SR Neate DRE CUNT IT TE CHE ase a: SEENON sian CARNE OSa SO ee CEO eea EERE SSS EUR BS TSS eeAw i ISSSe eS SRE ON

USC RRE Pit en US Ee OSUS aN ila Oe a cha ee a tes Te I TG oe oes BE PALES SS CO e OC es ear eeeee eee eeeOUer SES -OG _..Soe .TG ... OAS ee Oe ® BEND TALIS RTERS EE SSeee TS Se MEINE Ae G0) ts renee ee NN i aera ee ED . oo 7 ee ee es . — . NNN alia SS yg ree ee ey ee ee 2S ER MIRO SOT cc Gonna FR VS ARIAS UREN IO Rea piesa ne. ee oe «= . a Se ON OU ees ORES TEES UME nS S00 Eg Pepe || |aeeoo Ieee SN so oeSRE eeeNS CA= PBS ls Sah Sn ES rere on Co . I al: En Rear en se eee ee tt _ ot EES Sug EE Eo SE ES ee ityeea.=... ........ EU SE SSS SEES SESS SEE ec nese eree ee eee oo DO econ eee . 2 ONIN igs HOARE ES ee Se ee es ae eee BUN) SO ES ec TEE UU ASIN Pere DCE eGo cen AN UBER SO) SSaaa SEMIN sae PS

ee ears ess ee FF rie Cena emmy ca OES co NRREI MUU MEERA ece CaN ONC ERR

DUE SSS SUS Se ESS e202 SHE AUIS ee gue Ie eS eee (0 eae eee eee Beers eee cut) eae SESE Re ce SiS DSi ee gis Sc ia COAT LUST LARIg oe nh gthte Sie Srv Ree a. ee 0 eee AEGIS Be EOE EE a asa a

DY Sfasuunt sd Sen een SAT A A USER SES aan Sy 2g Soe LO Ms Se ee pccenroeerne ec |) eee SES

PESTS EL grMeni iSeer Ee EES ooaed) CC lleeeee pero SAU y get etES SePg sg agESE eS aEISS eerieSAS 0 ae i a ee eee Feow iin cine BA SRDS Le ee a ,rlCUr ieee SeSe ee

S LEE he oe SEAS SEE SIG Ea — oe el elRG hr Le aed SEE OPES =... i Se HSS) SpneepeRSSE TDaeoe SESE . eo Le SE ae Pai et Dy he etAE Seats Danae eaeUSS, |... ee .a ee NBs: De SU Dea Se test lef SUCH UGE DSI UA RE EES I soo 1 RB) Te Bere) a ann oe

Sa eve ee eet oe GeO EEE a Unf EEO Ra cae elit DR GER ee ce ae OP eee EIN Sinica sevice ick nik ration nite SAIN TIS SS Sooo SRS TS QRS

HOE PA sce Eon SU ES lcs—s—SsSE rtsti‘(‘éC — rrroe EEDs ee eeI ene ee ee STR ay DgEE SEaSSfr CCU ee oo‘CSCC PO TM esAy PE Ae ee raheOY Tea Lee SUS US SUSE UNE Se eet ener sis A SNe nC IR ES UU ANNO St NY ORS ||) | ae a es aE BERL a ERS SRM SieSyLESS SOSEESST SUnNEDU SSDS as BeAZoll nN: ONIN ee 8 edares

aBOLE SR Us poSafeLORE IES nfOGCree Sele ee oN BAU DS isi SEESSA SAU eg Ss2 a Deg SEAS TOTS Ee MS IRIN oes ES eeoer EES RRR ERIE ee eeEe aee9° eegehl aq oS EE LS ai...|... OEP ES SPEDE A Be le.rrws~—wON ied PS en Ph APPS UNA Spene OST USSDee a enRESTS ee eeeESotyas anSeine i a eee SeDae SELES SES Be ee EES Ss ee ee ee eee ee Rhea VSS EVOL Sele ee SS SOE en we Pt Pe TS os OU aD) SSS LSS DT DSS iy ee ee ee GER CA OT eerie Mees

SOUSoaAEE pp SO ee fat Lee eeAI OSS eee |. .. Ce EE IGRI SoS. BSS greesENT EADIE eh OOP etovis eneDO Te ee |)OO ees eae eee) ee Os eeea.ere Se a ae AE Weg OSESESS EA en SMUSE oie UU SeeSE A ESSINS SELES Dleee reer eee BBP “

ee EEO ee PH SUE [ESS ae ee See | ees eer eee eae sere eee

PADS ne Doe Ur nee Tee fies ist Mi wh Ser PA SDE {ODS SA a I MI os cond ee, | Reeereares Se ee (on Estos a PAD ene SESSA SS TL SST Ses eeSS iSec eee |ee eee etOle perseI PeSPOR fine: te udSSIES ea ne Sa Mol Soe Ee: OE PoE MAE 2SPSUS SNR AN So Boa eee TSUES” pete leis tate hee) ecGEM SERS ee eeoe aSe °= Ue ES sett EP edUe Re gh oe Su bile aAEL res SeCONG Eek Sabie oe eeNe a ee eee [@) Pee ee BAe oe ne eSeeI ste a ie” fe BER SEES Tie aren orRRR eeee |ER eee PER at aaEe PET Petigll oe et bess feiss ALES NE eee ||| ete ||| aera SEU MMe SS PES SSR fe ae : ec ey eeeeds eee niente a ES SSS fo MGooo PEDRO Poe INI ee SSS BSS SSE ge gees :Bynes veeSA CISD USAR Daa SR eeCO ot i ee ee SEE EE SS2 7 bettie Seay pe ieRoper DCU Dee PC PTE) ISMM eso: SESE I Go oe ee |ee ceca aESE MRS DS Se etSED ot raePsEAU See an SSEGES PC ae eee ee eeEEA EOS SESS

fees eh eeSN hehSiwy ah rEaN SaSpots Sa IMTPS oe SB ee oo ee DOULA ne ggg ee eloh . . SE = &lg#F. ceheies ee EES eras arIS fe ayDe [Pee SPE IA el Wma ab Ae aed RIMM giesee [SEES EE Pout SBS Met gel nT Coe egEA giearnElen De ESE -AMIN |...MING eee -EE||ee ee DA ELST eeigh Da Eoin eee eee eee ee ee. eee SEE gS a eee te Pet (01 ee aera, aSSee ee ee ee ere. oe :Oe (EUs ee ag SINGS So |IEeee eee Dhete os! fer8eSSP) iy Poad Ug IOC ai: 2eee gM AM So Se SSO SSE SIRO USN 8MM EES EseM UNG SRRpeer Seo a eee WEES SE Ln hs Cue ee I ee aSeis es ep LS DE 8 See TES SE ES EES ee ee Rain errs ce eee ae eeeens Speen eee eee oD a reREE ee eeeee EAE SCS Seepee. ts URL a I ne URE ee Pei eeSESS ee ee Sen ene ee aeREE eeaerae ~t Aue SL ee ey STP BS AED ESLEESES os CS NG) iiss eee UU EES Peete tea cemerr ae ate ieee are caer oe - Le °

AS eS leOU fgES eB bene nee ee) |) We ON is 7 e , ’ ee ee er OG a So ae oe. 7 Ae .oo. eae ee \ ca Js - || -,: mn aHe 7aeyee) og le Oe ““| *2=- 3; 28a — |... gS 77 aUi3aCee ae oe a ee Mee ms -... ._ oe | gy at 7 UNC oySa Mishastey es LOS UPS canna oe oo EUS eseee Ny Ee NON! Ii ee otalk : er i DOs ees en i . ee ARONA oe a . = .co et Se He OG Ce a ee rr gee iy ee a... _ | ee : ; Co ole . . = *

7} ., bes Se | 2 eee lle aaa . toes ; : se oe My 0 ey gore ee oo Lon. , epee : foe fee! a re a ee I Nig Ss nag scone techie teen Ln . . ve z taS ; : won a. .. Sigg eo PON Rigg UE Race, Ee oo PEERS se . . ce : havo 3 an SHE wee Seni Ras eee eee oa SESE oe SST TA Ee EN il riindir| 3 .» Fp] , : ee REEs SEAS: SORE ae siete: GA Les Ais NAD Me ae STRAY CO COON e ESSE ee TE SSG ys yg |

edhe ; oios 8ee cer‘ ‘s . a . .oe ioatf[ce fg

fo . rr 7 st a, a. . a

-7Z; -Bek are Weed gs > oo. To a aee es oe ee oo oe IS OUetteee. . : a8 . COV ARTS 20rt7oe a ee, . 5 it eepe,a ia we Oe HESOAs nceae

- Po HL eek : le. aN oe OO MUM Se,RSs : ELE Sa NINES ee eS oi aes | ee . wot..ces teDoe es _: .aan Be :ces oa .Wiget ro ee ee Oo Soeaae pe Seame Nar WM iain _—_—e sts ne eRSete’ re 2S! a Fg Suet DUDA ere ae ae Eee oo oe @ ,* °

we ee we 2eo — aooir & Be ; . ee : OIG! elas be eee rae‘ fas] ES.eee Soke es SEs esoo eteBe ee, -AE Opponents of the societal ritual could be as crude as the ordinary habit-fettered, complacent but intolerant and unproductive monk, or as intellectually acute as the Studites—Theodore, or later Simeon the New Theo-

logian. Against the ecclesia these monastic theoreticians put ascesis, more, they might speak of blocking every road to salvation but the mystic-contemplative. Theodore’s defense of icons was partially anti-Imperial, never crudely iconodule, for to him and to the antinomian enthusiasts who came after him the physical relict had only the function of a signal or code-key to the transcendent.'** The common worshipper was not likely to understand this, and in any case was drawn into the antisocietal camp only under special strains and circumstances, but the tone and intent of that camp’s muttered assault was always available. (c) The Byzantine belief in and concern with the demonic is a side to their religious mentality that deserves close attention. The demon-figure itself has entwined and multiple roots. It serves as a means to objectify the nonhuman scale of powers, and to explain irrationality: as such it is an ancient device with a pedigree older than “classical” mythopoeia. Its forms are various: there is the ghost-demon or revenant, the spirit of the dead. There are the demons who appear with the great Hellenistic salvation-cults, combining all the forms that went before, and adding an element of organization, a demonology. To this was grafted a JudaeoChristian idea of the demon as a focus for visible evil.127 Byzantine demonology provided a formula for dealing with a vast number of powerful psychological data. Within its compass 124 See R. Jenkins, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries (New York, 1966), 96-97, 100, on economy or dispensation versus the antisocietal monastic

attitude. 125 John of Damascus and Theodore of Studios, in Barker, Social and Political Thought, 86-88. 126 On Simeon: B. Tatakis, La Philosophie Byzantine (2iéme fasc. suppl. of E. Bréhier, ed. Histoire de la Philosophie, Paris, 1949), 140-151.

127 See H. Webster, Magic: A Sociological Study (Stanford, 1948), esp. Ch. III, “Procedures and Techniques.”

The Common Life 155 could be set the simplest problem of frustration, such as the familiar resistance or obstinacy of inanimate things (animated by being made demonic). Resistance to or confounding of the human will and all its purposes was easily laid to demonic beings, especially when the notion of the demon as carrier of sin—or as the sin itself—is superadded, for the demon as “devil” intrudes himself into the pathway to salvation in a number of interesting ways. Sickness, of course, both physical and mental, must be demon-carried (and again, the demon becomes the illness itself) since it involves a breakdown of the normal human condition or balance.128

The demonic is, however, a true, if crude, spiritual cement: a force with which the Byzantines were always involved. The very power of the demonic assault could be described so broadly and vividly because this assault was controllable, or at the least could be evaded or repelled. The modes of control or evasion are themselves extremely complex. On the most primitive level the lives of country saints are riddled with diabolic and demonic encounters of

every sort, and in coming victorious out of these encounters the saint’s sanctity is proven.!2® On another level the spells and books of

exorcisms and incantations, which were used and circulated widely, involved the most elaborate use of demonic interventions: the controlled demon, who predicts and grants favors, mixed with signs and portents—in other words, a popular science of demon-

ology—leads up to such constructions as Michael Psellos’ De operatione daemonum, a recension of Neo-Platonist views on the subject.42°The common element in all levels of theorizing about the demonic is the idea that no division can be created between human and inhuman or nonhuman, that all of creation is polyphonically related, so that will and act, rational intent and irrational impulse, dream and reality, are interwoven. Man is continually picked up in a flux that has its origin outside him but 128 A. Delatte et Ch. Jusserand, “Contribution a l’étude de la démonologie byzantine,” Mélanges Bidez (Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et dHistoire orientales et slaves, II.1, 1933-34), 230. 129 See, e.g., Theodore of Sicyon, in N. Baynes and E. Dawes, Three Byzantine Saints (Oxford, 1948), 147-148, 153, 158, 175. 130 Delatte et Jusserand “Contribution,” 207-208; Michael Psellos, De operatione demonorum, Patrilogia Graeca, 122.

156 Imperial Constantinople impinges on him in innumerable ways; in turn, he can affect this power—must affect it, if he is to keep his mental balance. Any saintly individual would intersect and agitate the demonic hierarchy frequently, and the Life of almost any saint must have its encounters, in each of which a demonic agency stands in or behind a variety of phenomena, usually unpleasant. In the Life of Simeon the New Theologian, a Studite saint and a mystic of

note, demons bring (or appear in, as perceptible apparitions ) night-visions to try the saint; they also inspire the jealousy of colleagues and the malignancy of neighbors. The chief demon ( “the” demon, the Evil One—o poneros) caused, the Life says, the “accident” by which a certain Frankish bishop, who was at the monastery doing penance, killed a child. The saint also, in performing

the common task of curing a possessed child, had to expel the demon possessor.’*!

Simeon is a “city” saint, and his matches with the demonic are comparatively rare, though absolutely typical of the genre. Theo-

dore of Sicyon on the other hand was undoubtedly a country saint, whose Life is a series of drastic challenges by a host of demonic adversaries. They are stirred from the ground or from graves (more precisely, gravestones—pagan sarcophagae) and have to be laid again; they possess both people and oxen; they attack the saint and are repulsed with a blast of holy fire; they manifest themselves by knocking or rock-throwing, as gardenvariety poltergeists. They are extraordinarily active, in their proper (or improper ) persons as well as through their instruments.'** In other Lives, such as those of the “establishment” saints Terasius and Nicephoras, both ex-bureaucrats and patriarchs of Constanti-

nople, little contact with the world of demons is shown: this doesn’t mean that they were free of them. As educated men they accepted the existence and the power of demons as literally as did the commonest parish priest.1** 131], Hausherr et G. Horn, eds., “Un grand mystique byzantin: Vie de Symeon le Nouveau Théologien, par Nicetas Stéthatos,” Orientalia et Chris-

tiana 45 (July-Sept. 1928), 23-25, 70 ff, 153, 169. 132 Baynes and Dawes, Three Byzantine Saints, 147, 158, 175; for other poltergeists see the Life of Daniel the Stylite in the same work: p. 15. 133 Da Costa-Louillet, “Saintes de Constantinople,” Byzantion 24 (1954), 217-229 for Tarasius; 246-255 for Nicephoras.

The Common Life 157 One of the vivid indicators of the persistence and deep impress of demon-belief in Byzantine life is the variety of paraphernalia that was called upon to control them. The exorcisms (collected

into books for handy reference), proverbs, folk-sayings and spoken charms show one type of command or prophylactic defense; there are also protective objects—amulets, phylacteries, and

magical relics. These survive from every period and every level of Byzantine life, and they reveal the dark richness of this side of the Byzantine psyche.'*4 Three important factors gave knowledge and possibly the abil-

ity to restrict or even direct: name, embodiment, and powers. The three interlocked, but naming was most meaningful, because

recognition had to come before any action could be taken. The name was absolutely necessary in incantory magic, where the demon was called upon to perform a task or give a sign—a most dangerous and illegal procedure. The names show the deep antiquity and wide provenance of these powerful beings: some were directly identified as pagan deities, especially the old earth-gods —Artemis, Rhea, Cybele, Dionysos; some came from the JudaeoChristian tradition—Ashtaroth, Lucifer, and Pontius Pilate. The

names of the greater number of individually identified demons were non-Greek.!*®

The demonic form was various and much debated. The appear-

ance might be only that (phantasma) or might be a shadow; most demons were incorporeal or if corporeal, “subtle,” and many

changed forms freely. To gain power over them they had to be first identified, then revealed or given form; this might be done by proper feeding (smoke and blood were effective, though some demons wanted milk and honey ).'*° Their powers were the heart of the matter. They ruled over the inhuman and the unearthly, the places of taboo and fear—mountains, woods, cemeteries, doorways and crossroads, swamps, the

subterranean. They were potent at night and at high noon. In 134 Delatte et Jusserand, “Contribution,” loc. cit.; M. A. Andreeva, “Politicheskii i obshchestvennii element Vizantiisko-slavyanskikh gadatel’nikh knig,” Byzantinoslavica V (1933), 122 ff. 135 Leo VI, Novel 65 (Noialles et Dain, Les Novelles, 236-239); Delatte et Jusserand, “Contribution,” 213-214. 136 Delatte et Jusserand, “Contribution,” 211-212, 217, 219.

158 Imperial Constantinople the hierarchy devised by the Neo-Platonists they ascended to the planets, the stars, and the spheres, and had power over the seasons as well; this had some interest for the ordinary Byzantine, but of more poignant concern to him was the multitude of perceptible evils that were laid to their cause.’*” All maladies were demonic, all pests, all faults of wind and weather, insanity and

irrationality, crop failure and epizodtics, moral laxity and the temptations that fed moral laxity.1%5 Demons became, in other words, an objectification of the entire range of that which bore down on man, of all the traumata of life. They had to a degree the power of chastising the soul, within the Christian tradition; they also embodied the equalizing, Fatal power that fell on Classical man. But more than all this, they proved a most comforting

invention: an intermediary force that was understandable and cognizable. Pure evil is a theological construct without meaning to the masses; an absolutely indifferent nature is almost as unbelievable. The demon, or the whole range of demons, makes evil both understandable and supportable. There is a sort of comfort

in the confusion and mixture of recognizable opponents that every man can expect to encounter, standing behind all ills from mischief to disaster.

A Note: The Statue-Demons of the city. Constantinople imported every sort of demon-belief from the countryside, and had in addition a special focus for this superstition in the statue. Constantine the Great had decorated his city with statuary to reinforce its troubled image as New Rome; more was added by the Theodosians and the emperors of the 5th century: these were mainly Imperial icons—personal memorials in the older Roman sense; solid reminders of a Life and a Reign. The last statue in the “Roman” vein was the great equestrian piece erected by the Emperor Justinian in the Augusteon, between the Sacred Palace and the Great Church.!*® Besides the imperial statues and those transferred to the city as

a cosmetic measure—to create an idea of a civic art, and simply to beautify—there were a number of carved or cast-metal images 137 [hid., 222-2294.

138 [hid., 230 ff. 139 Janin, Constantinople, 73.

The Common Life 159 that originally served other purposes—a form of advertising in some cases. There were several Modii in the fora: a grain-measure cast in bronze, held by two hands, an encrypt for Imperial provision and prosperity or plenitudo.'*® There were others that were more frankly symbolic-magical, or at least this is how the population read them. For a number we have no explanation of their original uses or meanings. All these forms in the round, however, became objects of special attention. All of them were con-

ceived as possessing powers, and in many these powers were projections of the demonic. The eidola or images were endowed with a variety of attributes

and potencies. Some were regarded as merely eerie, rather unnatural, since the craft of sculpture itself had died out, and the relics of another time remained without the ordinary familiarizing knowledge of techniques and the dusty, dreary labor of the workshops and foundries. The three-dimensional image itself had fallen out of the civilization. The natural inclination of the Byzantines was to transfer their suspicions of the insubstantial world of the demonic to the frozen substance of the statues, which became either the shell within which the spirit lurked, or the demon him- or herself. When pagan gods or goddesses were figured the identification was all too simple. Eidolon as a description carries a strong supernatural coloration, and a piece of statuary that had been an objet d’art and not a cult image was returned, in the popular imagination, to its beginnings: as the eidolon “which the pagans worshipped.’**1

A curious and valuable little document, the so-called Patria of Constantinople, which dates from the end of the 10th century, is

much concerned with the powers of demon-ridden or purely magical statues, which it describes in terms the commons of the city undoubtedly used.142 These were images in the Hippodrome, according to the Patria, monstrous themselves, which “give birth to monsters and devour men.”!** Another group of images near 140 Thid., 66, 104.

141 The Patria: Pseudo-Codinus origines continuens; adiecta est forma urbis Constantinopolis, in Th. Praeger, ed., Scriptores originiens Constantinopoli-

tanarum, II. Fasc. Alter (Lipsiae, 1907), 258. 142 Patria, passim. 143 Jbid., 190.

160 Imperial Constantinople the Strategion were ordered thrown down by the Caesar Bardas, thus cleansing the site, “for it was a place of magic.’*** For good measure a Tyche of the City was knocked down as well; there were evidently several Tyches, and they suffered a great deal of abuse.1!#°

The great Imperial images could hold no specifically demonic powers, since their significance fell strongly into other categories, but as symbols of the Type of the Ruler they were particularly vulnerable to popular superstitions. When a particularly selective

earth tremor toppled one of them the city could be put into a terrific fright, for no other interpretation was for it but that the reign and perhaps the Empire was close to its end. More farfetched readings (almost certainly after the event) were made of

such incidents as the falling of a statue in the quarter called Deuteron in 865 a.p., which had to mean the approaching fall of the “second” man (deuteron) in the Empire—that is, the Caesar Bardas.'*6 Such associations move sympathetic magic one step toward abstraction, since the particular statue in this case was not important, merely a potent indicator. Ordinarily the statue is more closely connected to the man. It was said (and so reported by the Continuator of Theophanes) that the arch-enemy Symeon of Bulgaria was represented by a statue standing in Constantinople, and that the Emperor (Romanus Lecapenus), following the advice of certain intimates had the image beheaded. “In that hour” Symeon, of course, died.1‘7 If the statue existed, whether or not it was ceremoniously decapitated, is not the point: the people thought that this sort of action was effective. In much the same vein it is reported of the Emperor Michael I Rhangabe that when faced with popular revolt he had the hands of the (or a) Tyche of the City cut off.148 The people, who were the “hands” of the city, subsided, their power of action amputated with the image's hands. The citizenry also were firmly convinced (the Patria at-

tests) that certain pests and vermin—invariably impelled by demonic appetites or personifying the demon himself—were con144 Thid., 189.

145 Tanin, Constantinople, 63, 117; Patria, 160, 257. 146 Theophanes Continuatus, 197. 147 Theophanes Continuatus, 411. 148 Patria, 160.

The Common Life 161 trolled in the city because bronze images of them “fixed” them: prevented their proliferation. Images of a Snake and a Fly are mentioned.1?9

The oddest and one of the most important popular beliefs was again connected with the statuary of the city, especially the Imperial images. The beginnings of the city were not mythic—that is, not beyond the reach of history—but had been mythized— transmogrified, rearranged to suit the mythopoetic faculty of successive generations of citizens. The foundation ceremonies of Constantine the Great, who became the Great Magician, passed from the category of state ritual to that of magical exercise. To

secure the terminus of the city according to the people, the founder had brought the Palladium from Rome to his own Forum; more, he placed near the Milion a chain, securely locked with its

key buried in the base of the monument. So long as the chain’s circuit was complete, the city would endure.’°° But other monuments, scattered about the capital, contained encrypted messages that the initiated could read, telling always of the End: ta eschata tes poleos, ton eschaton hemeron tas historias—“the end of the City, of the last days of history.”1” To find in this Patria of the 10th century a popular apocalypticism contrasting with the normal or official Byzantine view of the

city’s fate is extremely significant. The normative official view sidestepped the Christian or Christian-patristic view of temporal-

ity, the linear movement that had to point to the end of days, and built in the city a theory of sempiternality, of time dissolved in eternalized, ritual forms. The serial time of the ordinary Christian schema was itself a replacement of the earlier short-time or revelatory-prophetic view, which held to a belief in the immanence of the Last Days, and this reading of the uses of time sprang both from a sensation of exalted, neurotic superiority—a spiritual élitism—and a reaction away from the most severe secular pres-

sures. Throughout the history of Christianity (and especially throughout the history of Christian heresy) millenarism was seen 149 Patria, 250. 150 Patria, 166, 174.

151 Ch. Diehl, “De quelques croyances byzantines sur la fin de Constantinople,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift XXX (1929-30), 196; Patria, 176.

162 Imperial Constantinople when a given society felt enough pressure to release millenarian

reactions. Ordinarily Byzantium was not prone to millenarian theories or the excitations they produced, and to find the population of the chief center of the Empire obsessed by prophecies of collapse and the end of history—the history of the saeculum—at a time when presumably the secular power of the city was at its height, is foreboding. The Patria is explicit in at least one case: the equestrian statue in the Forum Taurus bore an inscription which when properly deciphered predicted the fall of Constantinople to the Russians. It is true that the Russians struck into the popular imagination, the city’s first knowledge of them was catastrophic (their attack from the sea in 860 a.p. was a complete surprise), and by the time the

Patria was compiled the unknown writer or writers may have been responding to the campaigns of Svyatoslav against the city —or even to the presence of the Varangian Guard in the city.’ 152 Diehl, “De quelques croyances,” 195.

HOR EEE OO fo ie oS ale be SE EE ee ee EEELLL Sa OS ee

WLSUE Ean Ll na eee SPS wou Mei se Peeen ace a OED gesEY EI BeTent ee . aaane eotr lees PtPie leat sie eeayae EET TLSS osToy | oeSee eeRe DO II eA EP Wipe De sts EDN EeSips brs BA PLAS ED ARS ee nee eee eetre are ie yg SI ne Se ee wens Sent SUPERS SURES ee ESOS PS SL een hy SE eee ESee SEES Se

PD EBC as; got iyiSSE UREA EUS DST SO —Se=a fot oe ee eee EELS a | peaee HEE geUES eePY eeecoo TES SSS TASES oo De see nee :Det wn oe en. fh °ESE OATES SG FLIES SSESO Peataa De es ee vb oneae ee ot : dag DetU Tee oe . OO he he UL PES Vp ieee see Cal ee oP USENET Eg DO ee Nee RSS ge or ee Eos

errr —“—CS, a ee ee CO ee ies

PEE Ble Po ee AE TSS Sr Sa TEE I MS GS Sagoo Secs oan .

wie EIoS SS cd OO So Lc nee De | TE rrr ee Ses ee ee oe .ese TIM 8: re(LE Pee! SEE esSEES Seite Ce Pe teDO SG TEE .gon . eee ee oe Sone 8 SE vile oo the aoe cae oe eepegs ee SSS Tee OE De Se EON voted Leta SB aE Longe iete EEE EN ne es ae ee reece wel ee ae aoe Cem oe) Se Tas ; CHES yeeefaeee boeing Ee eee tg tsEE eeEs WSR a. re uc oes fone ’ aeSP res at8Tepes | SESS TE Ga UNOS SNceeooo Peee te ne EEE ee aPSS ee :SU SUI SE Lo SSeS wus :° US GSSeles EEee CI ae.ween FO IIa cee eeea los .eS -er -me ;::oe, re ODS AUS SeUNS LoS se Nas ee eee eee: : ls bee rene pire ee me oe Saae ace PE Se ete eee, oe CO Pe ES ee ye ite Sg ee ee >... eee (Ae a be ee eee eee ee OOO i La. eee le ae OO er Lan LoS gb i er ee Ce ae 8 aN ge SS eee a | . oS : gee el CSS UO SMMC oe ee ae ne = PSNI Eas 8 eS Se eee ee De a Sie fee : eer eee, a eee oo OPUS SE Se : Pe Penne ee trrstFttsitititétse or ie CE A et ee cee EL EAE Ree De eee ee Pope EsEeSC yee—rrOO eeeeES OLD PSE eS en Se ogg ee ’ oC fe wee ee et a Dee ” wes ee ce SLEEP CREREERE SES: SA Ce SINS UR SSOSE SF eae at FeSO Uae hase: SRDS po

fivine fel ve 2 eT ee wee S82 oP ete . PL TRE Sa RE Be ae POOREST ae a Ls wee ee yin

pol wee Poss i : ee a a a A ES TI INNS DIST USUI NBER CC RR eee REN e : : a i

Doiet ab. a! TLE se TUS liste: cc Te Dos ee Ree cee al ee ti es NO Se Foo aS SLRs it Soe Sethe tle wey Ds : ee an ee ee ii Ee ne Mn HG LOSE UNO IG INORG CS OS SESS le 7 fe eee

EEL EEE EE a ers ee Ss DEE en Se ee eee || Doe Sen nS en OPS he ET eS CN _ 2 a De EEE eS ge ee eo SO pee rare en eee eee As, SOME a eee a SORES ol SBS SE USES US

aet IS De eeeee ::fee er ea CMewe CeePSG eneros | Ce SIsSIRS er ns! ieee ee eees -_ CoP ° ft.Lily feeh reDi Seed Ugg ORES ee pee —ORIN 2BID a. oe 2pas EE re ee csaI|SRM GINS oS FO ae eee : IPRs ;iwoe on sis) Ries erase ae eee eeSIS PH SS COSA AU aaa |ree ae eeeee :the Ase : v!LS reSs eea.ST wees BN Seer @eaten NIRA eeeee eeo toe Ceeee: aes ee Ce . gs eyee | eee mee USD Pe eeeco

Pernt ne ventfoe et Bnet ee gee tres EN eae .ee EEE SEELEY 0S me efhhtent Me UN ETSSE SaLL aES 2SeLe ESeeSee i OM 8 cles lieee ee PEASE sou LORS peeeneias | EEE ee a oes ee peer YS ee ge |.hele Eg Se aE. Au Te ECS Sepoe SSMS oe ega wor SRE

POSS SIDS Pes Se SUWy Sea hee eeTe ee EEL eee Te:I Diy seni hls es a Oe 2ugg ee ge An a ee ac BIS 0 eee Sie eas SerseRe EEN SUS Se eS: eg ee ei nee SecS eee enee ae Bop eB Shire COP SET RS | EE UEDA Peaees kes Bee Sots barriers eecece oerLL STG GRGa IR eeeee oe—.. eeeAS | o

OE ee Pe a LEE ES EBS CITES Sys Se EG eC a hl ee er eee EES See a --eee -IAN Fe cs pete ee eee ee i... ee oe Sud Sue ES BS I DLS MIES ISS oe Se Ee eeRte ee ee 2eeke es ee 4 COS nes eB ee ee eee ee ~~ re ree a ee rr ees Beets Senin ir tener Setter ae ee J =. ee ° ee re eee eee PSE aeee) me oo ee ee 7 a} Tepe NUE SO eee 0, ee ODS ee en COMA ey Wie |re 2 oe ce Wie PSE SS mtorr ee ea UM Ee See ES eee ee DLE SES As|. ES TS ee iRe EES IS EE NS 2 ce es EES esB01 —,rr.— aege oa, ee [ULES SR os OY LEU ERED se eee wear ee ec ene re) iy ee ee me ee OO LC Epa DATE Cte pe ce cnt eee tae ee ee ER ae LCE ee ries EE REE WAN ESS oo lw ge aoe ee=. ee CHEE SSE Ss EN ee ee OQ Sop AEs Ce oe DUS i OEE ES rreeee bod rerES erate sre eee ee areg .Lhr—*EC eefae) 6 LTE 28 ON Se WO a I ee fe ee ee Be ee 8 eos oe etn CERT IA SE Pee _ 7 ce io ee Sy a UES yrs Sieg SEP oo UCI lc a 2 ee eee ee Jigs ee SS Ors oe ee ee CLs ) ee SEES ee ee. CoG EHS a eee |.” ore | ee -CUS ee2 ioSUAS EE oo :Shee ceSD oe |seene Ee USE IS EIS Le FRU DAES eee rea ee PO CS MUI coco ee Se eeBESE eee BREET S Poe NINES ESS |. .SET ore eeeess eeEOS eee eeeSS Pek STi SEWe SST 2 Re ates NOU os RE 8ee ae Din A we SUS ASS A SU AS Se LESS Oe ee SOREL Se ee $8 EEEiSe Se SOROS esmosh Pei cos ani PCT EESes Sa ee | ee ae eeeye ee) READ Sep cS et esSieg BELTS Sa SS Ieet I eee rreeae. a ow) Dole PASS SREP oft De Ee PEER US Ss WP SISEE SESS Eo ee . eee ae ee EEiEe BapePENS sirigeerirene kinesnear reneeee ener a ee ee 2s Hg 2eeBSoT SeEaegg ee Peon eea.ee eee ee ee wd ee Coe ce UE a a ee EES Se peers BN USES ora pasate raion Sosy as PES USSU gg IAEA

- Cae AE ee ee a _ ESS ee eee BSE Re Near eee SUSE per aan na ROLE io PEE SAE STEED Me :

SU nae rae ete ONES S as Ce cal SOUMMMNIMM so 2 eee “RES EERE yy Tt SATS SEIS Eas ge OP PES eA Se, Nap iekN EEG etd’ Este SECURES ENS ES OSIoeMINTZ Ie ee eee ee ge LDS USS EAE ee oe |. ———Crt—aeOO—O—s—C LC

ee SEES eestie ee eeSeene re nee a Se Pe ee ereReeae Ce reeeee eee EE: EAE gi TEE SSE Rd ne oe oe ae . ESSN EO DUR JnSO EeBUA leasDIR oe eee eeBegs Shayne SATS

RE era SAU jo ER Ee SgEReS welds SEs SELES LTS PEASE UES St ses PU SAL SMS SSB WESLEY STATES: EARS Re Be ARES ee * ot

er Pe gE Soar ies Ley oe. Hee Be SENG) Se UE es Oo

oe - ae a CON Ese Os fee Ds oe ISSA aon eae os eat SIASEIASS SEES AT SEEDY TS we ae oie US oi TEESE PE s pereee WTR >) om DYESS BEES GE i HESS SPOR Stee HENS sae SES EEE SESE SEE PESTS PACE SES UTES SUI ROSIN Tepe et ene Cie PES PS ots LET ty

LULL rrt~—~—OOSOSCSC“C“‘#EEUCO#CON#”C*S:C*C*COéié#*C*éC;zéCzédéC =SEES SESE 1)Ee SSNS Ee oeeh BAUS unEP aso fetLS-eRWE RAOUL raed (8 SES gE pesereeprncr aera ae eae pees SOE EE 2 CES URUNEDILI EP Ua SEPT weit Ss CUST EE op eS eeOE ee ee

LD 2 ee iespeeeee SSUES ee pete! seas NYA eb JUSSI ei ROSES EEDA a. oe anes HEeee DSSS fae RTT ESS Se Ss iised i ninieatiiy CUELISE URS Tete ahaUSERS ecg series ide ooee 8cee Ce eee ee eee INSEE ty rnd SAAS Saas ant Cee en Tet -— ee ee ee ee EE SES eee ee BEER ee PEEP WEBRSS Ae GEESE AE AGS oo | oe — ee EE eee arene eeae PEAS Be jE Paes HE, USES

_LU fC Ce et eee PERSE 200 oe Ss BEAT gees, ° eeeeue oer eeeEeeee Ee a! SZ * ee ee PERE eee Be ee— a eee eae EUS eySeeeoe a=} Dee sence eae Peerricn sina.eee {AU NE ee Sr Sneee BE ..oe es ee ee ee eeceeeeeee eecierane eer 2 Chen SSBB ee!eee Es ee EASE ee ae ES SreeSEES, er ee eee ere See Hee pete ye SES ae ESSE ee SESS nee wee Sassyce2) im ce a sseeoeeesES SeoeEERE, 1 UES EESune ee EER SESeaeBoge aesBreen FOES CoE

ear)eeeee SEE eS SEES DIRS EES SEE eonreese enees ee SURES ier TUDES SASS 2 ESR EE!SU INES? a oo ee fe OPUS ES ee A ggoR SEES fetid PTR EEReece See eane eeeDLE CASE EUEEI Petar rs Bie Eee TSUBA DLS eo. : ee PESOS Es ee eee SR Sarre eet pean ctteeisELSES SAGEREAs EY ERS SE eee SHED BREIGA CARTE ES eat Sh ERE SESEMSS A ELSE nTcnn EEEEE REPEL SASS Pe SEE aePs’) TSE RE eM EELS at pees } :

ee eee ee — - |.ee eei ,ee eeWw CCC .eee CE LLeres oe eeaae | ai — IeeGa oo Ee ee

eos URES cree eee eee SE Ts rm ners BE a ae ee es er See eee SEeae ayeeMeee eee a eee TER Sy ee So ee 7... ae PNSe oFCe Coeee © qd ) oe ,Chrrr—Csi‘(‘iSSC* Bes ee |,ern °°EOeee °§#37=72:23&€ mC, eeSIUM ener ee [PSUS OSes pos sie eee ADMOIOR ES CSAS EAERS Bo UATERRE oie CEE nTer NOSE SseEe En ES SU ee | end Ce 8ESOS Fe eeee eee eee \ODE Rea renee RSS SR Bae

eeooLL ee Oe _.,........ |ee ey ee ee Ihr eege 0ee ree eR ,i jay ee Eee ee Fl CL Se He ee ee CC ee a Oo 3 LCC rr oe oo ee Ll (_ © ee Pee ren) ee SUE es eerie ee een eee eee | ee ee Hees ee en RI ee 2 eee eee * , . iCC a lm ee eeerence EE a SOS SEES Ges ee Se oe SS poe ecae ee INS eee i.8EE ae ee ee oe[ Fr? 9)| ee eee ee ee es oe el a ny GOO eee anes EOE ee cate ES Se oo a — Lr ~~ & Oe ee ee OO ee a = 8 Se =ee|hrrrrr—“‘“‘‘C . 2aeeeeee8 oo qee ) ee ee UNS eee ee CL a> Cc __. eearea ee ee ees es

Ee Oe ee | 2 ee i ll 8 i ~=§=—h—CChChUl a = = — CC c rrr CC 8 = 80

ee ee ee a ee ee eee EOIN Noth ueecar ans cea an era ne en ee eee 7 ee Ee ea,

Eerer ee enone ee -—| Ie 7 |.ECa IN rr—C“‘-—”—“—i—tw”w”*w”*”*”C*~CiCSSS oo .oe - ..aMa oe iEO i.ee oo . ve OS age eres .a. CO MMs .cc CI ee CO ee ee lL. Le |.eee ON aers ER I: Va an ee ee |. | CC F,lrsS—s—S=se.——..——r—C—“Ntwz™CUCSs a |ee .erea.| eee ae ReIAOe NOE EEcaulialt (RES ETS BST peas Be ee Co ee ON OtSeeNEA oe eee eeBES ee tens eat ene 8Ce |.Ba |.ERO -rrr—~—“‘=‘CNROCiCORCS(SSNSCC (7 |. SUB OS UO TENN ian Pi eA at Oa Be Re IMG ESBS EES a eae ea DSS ET 2ee)Ge EE ROAnse eTiesas MSs aes 5 Ee operon 6 eee

rrr errs oy Ce. OO ee OO CS ee lr ee ee ee EN oo Oe ee ee ee ee ee I a ge OCT Tl Ce eC 2 lll ee oo eee a an aUhl ae eee ES ee ee ee ee, LU RGN CO AG 0 Cee er ueTEESE eee, eeneS eeeSEE eee PopnatruTn ira5eeehiaias Te a, SOoF aes2. eee ee oo ie oo ee ee ee oe ee ee ee Ce ) , oe a ee ee eee aa sea EG ll Be oe oo rree oe ae ee ee ee ee eens eee|. ee Ooerent on Lr Z Betis eee deer See MEE ae NTT Ce Gena EE UN SN ORGIES RNG ae PAGS GEN Sa ERE PR ESE SER RORE IC SEDER RSG CUE LU SS Be ee

_eee reece pcos bien ana.” .,hrmrr—~—r——CCCiCiC ce reeLES BeatRE ec SESS eter eeSTS SEI .. _( ee oe EOS UU SENS RE SRST PUES ISTEP OEoe ce Oe oe SOE ROE i THOMoo MeIADR ee SEIN Iie SEO Ee ENS oeDSERVE ee erent OES EE MR a Mic ce TESS Ges SA eT CR TGS ce A en NU Re Ga SSO DAMN oa SEI LLES LL SEES ee ee ae SARGERAS SEG eg (| ee eae. ne Oh ea ER ONS Gas) aa EE NUNC ON OU SCE EE ET I

ee | CCl ee aoe eeaeee lr a I a a eee ee ee eee eee Ss

ee ee ee ee Se ee PEN ESSIOSS SRT TO ee eee ee ee oe ae ee Pe eed a - a... a ope as Se oe aS ROSEN eee eee es) Wheres ier PANE Ee Reem Cae ca tae SE Ege

TES RTS Uy oe Pee oe ‘i oo Eire waren raat oneness es DEAN) Mi Nicda ee en a rae & aR ester rre eer eee OES OSE SEAS SE parser to ctey EME

Te TT oes ee eh alll _ee ae pee — a—ua ES ee Pepa Es . m_. 7 ee iiaeeee i eee ae Sea oo eeOe ee aan Be OG # & #E ~~ eee ee eee ee entei SERIES iv RRR ea! i , ee a eae en Ceeee ange eee aSRC TT ~— creer aster erreene

CREA Egeee ee RES ee aee eeae ee aEs=a|.lhGg eeeSe eea... ee mees8 ta eeeeee Po ere eee Dee eT ae ES gags Ee Eee Sa oo Co] See Soe RS oe ek Degen Se OLE ESTEE eee Pape ESE

:oe C= ks ee BREE SE ete gee ae es eae 7 ae et reree BS: EOE DoT LST RT IEBeets, Se hn OT CORI RE)Re ee or eete. ee Reee ie7iiuiibenen Ruel DiasSIR nee eerseee eae 1 arnt SE ie eeBa Pee4 ee oe Su Ne mM CASS SeEE SUES eeae = aii ee _reeaeGO ah SNe OPTED ESPEN SS:iste Oe2aeogg PPE NasBe

a i Une ies )iS —hlUrer—sSCS See eeSESEban Ses EDIE ee PT eeHMI COG 0Seeee; | ane a ear eeSEO [eel af: : AREER eeee eeeRic esr ee eee 2 en MG WASOe. : EE ee es walle Be ES oe eee 8 J LS nnn ON ee oe oe STM nee Sie Sle Eee RREECCennrm RI. (7) ere ain ete eee eee eee et Comme mm Tr eee eee Bee ns Fe asee oSpet ee . ESSE Deen ar aaate ie ONS EE LEO Be ‘ACS OsalaGiR Ce hii re eee ee ee eee oe: ree = “8. ee ee ee COU OSU aca = Ee Serer rater AE eeeAON oe ee ee HEneeTEINS GIN SE ee ae Sith ee£:7 .RDU ae Oe.RUSE BEMEE TOS Gyee oece ae ee OATES oR Ss HEEB be Te : isvent Ve hpi

: JRE: Sos ee ae ae: NO oi gy LS: SOLE 2 vietietels feed LOM SESESET So ee ee ee Cop ST Se SE Sy

FIVE

The Aristocracy

When the day dawned, he said his prayers, took his weapons, mounted his horse and rode out against the warrior. The war-

rior too had risen. He mounted and, turning toward Melik, charged at him. Why prolong the tale? They fought with every weapon, but neither could win. At the end, the warrior grabbed Melik Danismend by the belt and tried to throw him from his

horse, but could not. He tried three times in vain. It was the turn of Melik Danismend: he set his feet in the stirrups, grabbed the warrior by the belt and pulled, saying “In the name of God

and by the pure light of Muhammed-Mustafa!” He threw the man from his horse and, dismounting at the same time, placed his foot on his chest. He took his dagger for the coup-de-grdce. The warrior had fainted; Melik Danismend saw that he was a young man with a face fair as the moon and was seized by pity. The ycung man came to himself, opened his eyes and heaved a sigh. “Become a Moslem,” Melik Danismend said to him, “and I will set you free!” Kissd-i Melik Danismend

OUTSIDE THE CHARMED CIRCLE, THE ARISTOCRACY

Definitions. According to the dominant theory of the Imperial

polity, there could be no aristocracy in Byzantium outside the Center, or outside the definition that the Center made of “best” or “highest.” Honor and rank were allocated through membership in the Sacred Hierarchy by the Emperor, and no aristoi but the members of that Sacred Hierarchy could be possible. These were the “best” and “highest,” as the Emperor might choose.? 1R. Guilland, “Etudes sur Vhistoire administrative de Byzance,” ByzantinaMetabyzantina I(1), (1946): 170-171. 165

166 Imperial Constantinople Constitutionally they were the Senatorial Order, but this term is subject to the usual Byzantine multiple readings and the super-

position of several historical levels over one another. The ceremonial Senate was at all times more significant than the constitutional Senate. There are several working definitions of “aristocracy.” One says

that.an aristocracy is a socio-political phenemenon that works toward apoliticality, basing itself on and drawing sustenance from the countryside as a favorable environment. There its élite status

depends on a generational, blood-carried, agraphic, and antigraphic “history” of dominance.? If this dominance has a material

base—which according to the self-generated definitions of the aristocrat it need not have—this base is land. The traditions of aristocratic stocks, however, usually have as their authenticating foundation the epical rather than the mythical seizure of the land as a battleprize; the beginning of a land-based economic domination by the “best” is the respectable, noneconomic act of war. The

aristocratic founding myth, then, depends on an_ intrusion, whether historical or not; a triumph of victor over vanquished, of effective over ineffective warrior. The line between inner (win-

ner) and outer (loser) is then maintained as a constant, always exposed to pressure.* This aristocracy either conceives of itself as

a warrior class, or conceives of its domination and consequent economic or noneconomic rewards as verifications of a military past. Its service to the State, if it is drawn into service (and often it fails to recognize a higher, politicized sovereignty beyond itself) is limited to a military service or to “arms,” vaguely defined.®

The accidents of Byzantine history seem first to have destroyed the remnants of one aristocracy and then to have created another. The existence of a landed aristocracy is postulated for the late 6th and early 7th century on the basis of the presence of estate-type

or latifundial land tenure. If this nonbureaucratic, landed élite existed in the shifting scene of the Empire of that period, its 2Leo VI, Novel 97 (Dain et Noailles, Les Novelles, 185-187); for the senate in general, L. Bréhier, Les institutions, 181-184. 3 Fisenstadt, Political Systems of Empires, 177-180, 182. 4 As e.g. in the case of Sparta. > Most visible in the “feudal” systems; I am specifically excepting here the so-called “bureaucratic aristocracy,” with its origins in civil service.

The Aristocracy 167 habits of service were extremely circumscribed; the Byzantine army in the late 6th century was still heavily mercenary, and its military command tended to be mercenary as well.® The shattering blows of the early 7th century, which lopped off provinces (like Egypt, which had been heavily latifundial in its system of land use) and emptied others, disrupted all property rights and arrangements and, so far as we can tell, effectively destroyed what was left of estate-type agriculture.’ In the repairs that the soldier-emperors of the 7th and 8th centuries made in the Empire all strata were shaken and mixed, and the structure that was erected eliminated all élites but service élites, and furthermore was predicated on an atomization of landholding, with both the taxload and essential military service tied to small or small-tomedium landholdings. In almost every territory or province remaining to the Empire economic modes, micro-political activities,

and hierarchies of loyalty were replaced or readjusted. Leadership within the reformed system was shifted to the Center, and from the Center came the viceregal generals who held delegated power in the provincial subgovernments.® Whatever tradition or actuality of “aristocracy” had been visible in the early 7th century Empire was totally disrupted, and yet an aristocracy is newly visible in the late 8th and early 9th century.

It seems to have sprung from two conflicting but mutually reinforcing Imperial policies. The Empire, first, searched for and found allies and recruits in several of the isolated, still tribalized or politically primitive cultures that lay near it. The most significant of these was Armenia,

though Khazaria has perhaps been underestimated as a recruiting ground. From these small societies whole classes of élites were

borrowed or transferred wholesale, and these élites brought an arsenal of aristocratic patterns with them: the nakharars of Armenia are a case in point.® Habits and traditions of dominance according to unwritten rules sought outlet in Byzantium, and in 6 E. Stein, Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinisches Reiches, vornehmlich unter den Kaisern Justinus II und Tiberius Constantinus (Stuttgart, 1919), 140 ff. 7 Rouillard, La vie rurale, 90 ff. 8 Zakythinos, “Etatisme byzantin,” 678. 9 P. Charanis, Armenians, 13 ff; S. der Nersessian, Armenia and the Byzantine Empire (Cambridge, Mass., 1945), 15.

168 Imperial Constantinople Byzantium’s frequent wars and other crises. The Empire needed military leadership at all costs, especially in the middle ranges ot command, and a borrowed sword-aristocracy exactly filled the bill.

At the same time, the dangers of a completely heterogeneous, unstabilized, or unordered polity were clear. The social fluxes within the Empire, the massive injections of new immigrants, some under control and many not, the tremendous pressures of war and economic stringency, could have broken the Empire at every seam and pulled it apart into fragments for the Arabs or the Slavs and Turkic tribes to quarrel over. The Imperial cement was strong enough to forestall this, and it was immeasurably aided by the cultural prestige and normalizing radiation of the capital. Adherence to a cultural norm was rewarded by trust and power, and the imported aristocracy was able, if it wished, to dig itself deeper into the Imperial society by adopting a language-carried cultural pattern. There was strong pressure in this direction. Also, the very multiplicity of the groups drawn into service helped the Empire control them. One major migration of a military or tribalmilitary people might have swamped the control points—the city and central administration—but a series of additions and migrations could be and were directed and counterbalanced. A third point involves the relationship of a reconstructed bureaucracy to ambitious exogenous elements. It became clear to the immigrants that ambitious men could find advancement in

this service area, as well as in the military. To a degree, then, the élites who had known only the traditional, ascriptive support of land and family were recruited into a different élite with a dif-

ferent system of support: a structure or regulum of service and reward. Thus it is possible to bureaucratize, to attract and hold men who came out of an aristocratic background, but the converse works as well. In Byzantium’s predecessor (if not progenitor), the older Roman Empire, the Senatorial order, with its vague ambiance of genuine aristocracy, was long the reward of distinguished civil servants. The “native” Roman aristocracy, in fact, was strongly connected to State service—civil service—from

the 1st century 4a.p. In time the temporary and provisional en-

nobling of superannuated bureaucrats grew into something solider and more separate from the apparatus of State. The Ro-

The Aristocracy 169 man civilian-senator had a later parallel in the Byzantine civil servant who tried to convert his service nobility to one carried by hereditary right and somehow freed of the Emperor's choice and supervision. Ordinarily he could not do this in the city, but when he struck his roots into the countryside his élite status could be stabilized and with luck even made permanent. As foreign elements were engrafted onto the bureaucracy and passed out of the feudalized modes they had brought with them, the upper ranks of the bureaucracy often attempted to move in reverse, to hypostasize their positions and at the same time make them concrete and, most important, hereditary." Origins. The growth of an aristocratic élite within a social mix (as compared with a catastrophic intrusion) is extremely difficult to objectify and analyze. The nature of the aristocratic mythology blocks off self-analysis, since in this mythology “history” is extraneous or even dangerous if it involves the test of rationality

(the appeal to written geneology is a proof of the extreme and decrepit old age of any aristocracy). An aristocracy should be secure in an inner knowledge that it is coterminous with the land it holds or, more properly, leads; it requires this fiction more deeply than any other. In Byzantium the advent of a nonbureaucratic, landholding aristocracy is indicated (not proved) in the appearance of true family names in the documents and sources, names that are identifiable because of later distinction and continuation, although the important aspect of their appearance is simply that they are there. The earliest and the most numerous citations are in the Anatolian themes, for good reason: in the eastern provinces were settled most of the imported élites or foreigners with strong feudal inclinations, and here a degree of decentralized power was developed at least a century before the same phenomenon appeared in “Europe’—the Balkan lands and their Greek extension —after that area was believed secure.!! Of the family names extracted from the whole range of sources —historical-chronographic, sigillographic, and documentary, even 10 Fisenstadt, Political Systems of Empires, 176, 284.

11§, Vryonis, “Byzantium: The Social Basis of Decline in the Eleventh Century,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 11.2 (1959), 161.

170 Imperial Constantinople hagiographic—over half are in view by the 9th century: Phokas, Maleinos, Dukas, Argyrus, Scleros, Musele, Botaniates, Malissenus, Tzimiskes, Curcuas, Melias.12 Of these all but Argyrus and Botaniates are identified either positively or with reasonable certainty as Armenian in origin, an identification made sometimes because they are tagged as such in the sources (either Greek or Armenian ), sometimes because of the continued use in the family of Armenian given names, such as Bardas (Vrdat) or Simbatios (Smbat) or saints’ names with Armenian connections (Gregory or David).1* As Armenian by “nationality” the families were certainly descended from the Armenian feudal, petty nobility, the nakharar class and its supporters, which came into the Empire in strength from the 6th century on: the Emperor Maurice was reported as having recruited 30,000 Armenian cavalrymen.’* In the 10th century new names were added to the list (Bourtzos, Comnenus, Diogenes, Dalassenus, Cecaumenos ) and in the 11th others

(Synadenos, Maniaces, Paleologos). The Armenian element in these later arrivals was less marked.'° These were grandees, knightly families, whose military occupation had originally been

provided them by the Emperor. By the time the first of these names appears it is certain that Imperial control in the Anatolian themes was even less complete than it had been when the pur-

posive decentralization and concentration of viceregal power there was begun in the 7th century. The viceregal office itself{— the position of strategos—was taken more and more firmly into the hands of these Anatolian magnates, who might be manipulated more than directly controlled from the Center.’® The aristocracy of the European themes was a later growth and a lesser one. Dynastic aristocratic families had appeared there by the 9th century: Vryonis identifies Rentacios, Tessaracontopechys, Bryennius, Choerosphactes, Monomachus.'” Choerosphactes, we 12 Vryonis, ibid. 13 Charanis, Armenians, 22, 23, 26, 28 e.g.

14 Dolger, Regesten I, 12/94. 15 Vryonis, “Byzantium: The Social Basis of Decline,” 160-161.

16H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Recherches sur ladministration de Vempire Byzantin aux IX—XI siécles (Bulletin de Correspondance hellénique, LXXXIV )

{Athens and Paris, 1960), 36-45. 17 Vryonis, “Byzantium: The Social Basis of Decline,” 161-162.

The Aristocracy 171

know, founded a dynasty on the basis of his prominence in the civil service, but his family had already been prominent in its own place.18 The names and families that are seen from

the 10th century are also few (recalling that this was not a populous or especially prosperous part of the Empire) and three of them—Tornikios, Taronites, Curticius—are definitely Arme-

nian.19 Why the Armenian nobility is prominent in the 10th century rather than earlier is uncertain; perhaps these were pere-

grines from Anatolia who looked for a little more room than their compatriots at home would give them. The European themes were poorer in most respects and some areas were still frontier or nonproductive; there was a real shortage of usable land, even though the population competing for it was smaller. The home grounds or domainal lands of the European magnates were likely to have been in Thrace or Thessaly or the Macedonian plain.

Sources of power. The aristocracy that grew out of the social flux of the early Byzantine period could show no historical continuity, no generation-fed stasis in the provinces where the individual families might have found themselves. The origins of

their strength have to be assigned to Imperial policies of the period of the Empire’s most massive crisis. The Emperor at this instant needed effective, reasonably loyal and committed military lieutenants: men to command in the emergency districts—the new

themes—where in the face of looming peril all authority, civil and military, had to devolve on one representative of the Center.2° The genesis of aristocratic power, then, was an accidental part of an Imperial act, though obviously the new class filled a vital need in the new provincial structure. In any case the developing aristocracy will not make a point of emphasizing its service origins, or, indeed, any artificial origin at all. It conceives of itself in terms of its own timelessness and its own ritual.

The inception of what had to be before the aristocracy could 18 Kolias, Léon Choerosphactes, 16.

19 For Corticius, see Charanis, Armenians, 29, 44-45; for Taronites, N. Adontz, “Les Taronites,” passim; for Tornikios, Charanis, Armenians, 46. 20]. Karyannopoulos, Die Enstehung der byzantinischen Themenordnung (Munich, 1959).

172 Imperial Constantinople define itself as such—the modes of control and a base of opera-

tions—is difficult to reconstruct. The first Imperial act (one spread in time over a century or more) gave immense but devolved or representative power to certain men. The natural logic of the theme system—the system that was the result of that act— worked toward a stabilization of command as a corollary to the stabilization of recruitment and deployment; that is, the troops of the line, settled on the land granted them, could not be officered by total strangers sent from the Center—or not for long. The subformations into which the thematic corps were divided—taxeis, phylla, banda or whatever the terminology was as time went on

—must soon have been led by men settled in the territories which, under ordinary circumstances, they administered as well. Military formations and territorial divisions were inextricably confused, in fact, and this very confusion seems to show the uses to which the subordinate officers were put.”! These underofficers would have been rewarded proportionately to their services. While the ranks of the strategoi were filled from the top, by fiat of the directing Throne, subordinate commands were taken over by “native” officers, and it is just here that we

can look for an aristocracy in the process of being secured in both its resources—land—and its position of military and conse-

quently of political leadership.?? This process must have been perceptibly more rapid in areas, such as Anatolia, where the weight of migration from already feudalized or traditional-hierarchic satellites was felt, and a ready-made chain of command was already in existence. The first move being taken, the proto-aristocratic families were in a position to try to build their second stage or support. This stage has a dimension in space, related to the extent of the landresource that the proto-aristocracy could control and convert to its own uses. Military service continued to be the indispensible justification, insofar as the Emperor's objectives were concerned, for allowing sizable rewards in land to go to this group. In turn the group had no interest at this point in attempting to convert 21 Bury, Imperial Administrative System, 42; Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Recherches. 22 Dendias, “études” 134-136.

The Aristocracy 173 its public service, which supported the survival of the State, to any private military objectives. Its own existence continued to be threatened along with that of the State, and the troops it led were bound to their officers only by the established necessities of military discipline, though possibly more private loyalties could be seen in the germ. The dimension of control in time with which the proto-aristocracy was concerned was partly pragmatic, partly mythic. Their irrepressible aim was to insure the continuation within the family of the rank, prestige, and actuality of leadership, to establish authority as a habit within the family, and to safeguard this habit from intrusion by outside agencies of any sort. The safeguards were principally marriage and personal-familial ties (including adoption, godfather-godchild relationships, and sworn friendships) between themselves and the rest of the group.”* The group was defined as those who governed and held land, at base, yet a more significant judgment probably aimed at a unanimity of

thought and attitude: the group was made up of those who

looked at the world in the same fashion. All aristocracies must finally evolve this fiction of blood-thought, which only becomes ludicrous when the aristocratic élite is senile or superfluous. Every marriage, with its rituals of exchange and familial (not, of course, personal) juncture and consequent fruitfulness, and its all-important dowry and bride-price arrangements, cemented social and economic ties more firmly in and among the group, and

separated it as a distinct social entity from the nonaristocratic person of any level, whether peasant or bureaucrat in the city. The sons of aristocratic families had to expect that their fathers’ positions, or a very near approximation, would come to them as a matter of course, and with the position status, power, and a continuation of the resonance of the family name.”* All this was a very practical concern, but the burgeoning landholding aristocracy also had to deal with its own beginnings—with time in the

historical sense. By inference, substitution, and an exercise in nonhistory, the group obscured the awkward fact that at a point in time (some time in the 7th century, we suppose) the family 23 Eisenstadt, Political Systems of Empires, 177, 181-182. 24 Ibid., 178.

174 Imperial Constantinople or an ancestor occupied an Imperial grant or, in some cases, was elevated from more obscure origins to take a particular command and the estates that accompanied it. The mythicizing of this punctual event erased fact and punctual time by, first, defining use of the land as a literal constant: as the land had existed forever so the family must have always occupied it, and “time out of mind” —out of history—the two were joined. The genesis of the dynasty was taken back into myth-time, to founding fathers or figures who filled out the same part as the god or hero ancestors of the Greek aristocracy of the Archaic period.” The great Armenian houses of the 9th century, to whom many

Byzantine dynasts had direct affinities, claimed to trace their origins to Joshua, David the King, Assyrian’ monarchs and, of course, the Armenian Arsacid line.2* These royal progenitors are

considered by the aristocrat as exactly that, however: founders not of an idea of kingship but of a line, a sacred series of generations; their royalty is measured by their potency in the most direct possible fashion. And, the propaganda of aristocracy claimed not only that blood-time eliminated data-time or history, but also that power—pure or mana-authority—inhered not in mere property or economic base, but in the abstracted Name of the family, expressing a sovereignty, a ruling force, over the abstracted Land —the area within which this power was eternally effective. The result of these processes was the creation of a countermyth to that of the city, a countermyth that opposed its own nonhistoric reading of the significances of time and space. In place of the city’s ritual existence in durative time, measured by eternally reénergized cycles and directed by the always renewed type of the King-Emperor, the aristocratic time-myth substitutes the renewal cycle of the generations, of time measured by blood and semen. In place of the city’s hyperstasizing of its material shell, its

evolution of the iconic formula that allows to every significant mass or matter the means to escape itself, the aristocrat etherealizes his own base, theorizes himself free of the solidity of the land 25 G. Glotz, The Greek City and Its Institutions (New York, 1929), 39 ff, AG ff.

26 L,, Laurent, L’Arménie entre Byzance et Islam depuis la conquéte Arabe

jusquen 886 (Paris, 1919), 69 ff.

The Aristocracy 175 into a dream of naked mana, filled with the reverberations of his Name.

The Byzantine landed aristocracy was never allowed to take a completely feudal stance, and this was true partly because other alternatives were kept open to them—for example, entrance into

and service in the civil bureaucracy.” Still, the “Imperial centuries,” when the dominance of the city and the Emperor in the city were most complexly and completely worked out, showed evidence of other possibilities and the tentative growth of powers other than the Imperial.

(a) The very existence of an identifiable landed aristocracy, the fact that it flourished and could not be uprooted, was significant enough.

(b) The growing antagonism of this nobility to the dominant Center, or more especially to the hierarchy of bureaucrats that operated from there, was visible already in the 10th century.** It was explicit in the acts of the military emperors, of Nicephoras Phokas and John Tzimiskes—both Armeno-Greeks and aristocrats

—and implicit in the attitude of some of the historian-chronographers. Even Basil II, the last effective ruler of the Macedonian house, was enough influenced by the exigencies and mental sets of war and the soldier to be indifferent, if not hostile, to his bureaucracy.

(c) The military posture of the State, at the moment of its greatest successes, was slowly moving off the bases set up in earlier centuries, and was being strongly affected by certain centrifugal social currents.

Any movement toward a feudal decentralization, or a major breakup or fracture of State powers is liable to be seen first in the area where the State mobilizes its armed strength, and both points (b) and (c) bear on this possibility in Byzantium. In the 10th century, after long years in which both the tradition and theory of Imperial warmaking was defensive, the Byzantines went

over to an offensive posture and moved in strength beyond the 27 E. Kantorowicz, “Byzantine Feudalism,” in R. Coulborn, ed., Feudalism in History (Princeton, 1956), 151-152. 28 Dendias, “Etudes,” 137.

176 Imperial Constantinople Taurus and into northern Syria and Mesopotamia. By the end of the century they were campaigning in the north as well, and the

Bulgarian kingdom would be nearly erased before they were done. Byzantine high strategy, in other words, turned 180°, and though the Empire did not seek expansion as an end in itself, it showed marked tendencies in this direction.2® Why was this so?

One reason was the tempting fragmentation of the Caliphate, the Old Enemy, whose northern exposure was less and less well protected by secessionist emirates—and yet Byzantium did not launch a crusade, much less a Holy War, unless the campaigns of the fanatic Nicephoras Phokas fall under this heading.*® The Bulgars to the north were also alternately weak and truculent, and an Emperor-general like Basil II might have been moved by either reaction to rationalize the threatened frontier by giving up an elaborate defensive diplomacy and moving his borders smartly up to the line of the Danube again. But more than strategic con-

siderations were involved. In the case of the Byzantine move southward it is suggested that the military élite of the State, the great families of the border who had guarded the frontier for so long, made their move to increase the land available to them for exploitation.*! The land, in this view, was an area of investment, the only one open in a society where commerce was severely re-

stricted, and so Byzantine expansionism sprang from the land hunger of cramped nobles who also happened to lead the thematic corps—the old militia army. That army itself was changed in composition, in effectiveness, and in its loyalties to the State. By the end of the 10th century, even by the middle of that century, it is clear that the thematic troops of the great Anatolian themes were loyal first to their com-

manders, the representatives of the magnate families of the theme, and then to the Throne. The Macedonian dynasty lost the

battle for the loyaly of its smallholder peasant soldiers; these could not be protected from the land appetite of the nobility by 29 We note that while Antioch was taken, no serious attempt was made on Jerusalem, which had no strategic value in Syria-Palestine. 30 For Nicephoros as “crusader” see CMH IV, 1, 149-150; also G. Schlumberger, Un empereur byzantin au dixiéme siécle, Nicéphore Phocas ( Paris, 1890).

31 C. Neumann, Die Weltstellung des byzantinischen Reiches vor den Kreuzzugen (Leipzig, 1894), 24.

The Aristocracy 177 any functional Imperial legislation, no matter how often the edicts went out against encroachment.*? More, the Imperial house had

lost another battle, for the dynatoi had made their appeal to the imagination of the countryside and won. The famous edict of Nicephoras Phokas, which established the

value of a military estate (stratiotika ktema) at twelve gold pounds rather than four as earlier, shows that the composition of the thematic armies had changed—certainly their armament was

increased, and with it their tactics, and their numbers were fewer.*? In any case their dubious loyalty was decisive in convincing the Imperial house that it must rely on other troops, recruited

in other ways. The tagmata or Guards regiments based in Constantinople had always included foreigners, but not in tactically significant numbers. Basil II, however, resorted to the hiring of foreign mercenaries en masse—the 6000 Slavo-Norse “Varangians”

lent by Vladimir of Kiev—to put down the aristocratic rebel Bardas Phocas, and thereafter professional mercenaries formed the nucleus of the Byzantine army in its declining years.** With the adoption of a mercenary army for the first time in four centuries, the cost of waging war naturally increased, and with it the strain on the treasury. The inefficiency of the new system, especially when combined with the sad and disaffected remains of the old theme system, was seen on the disastrous field of Manzikert

in 1071. The collapse of the military effectiveness of the themes, which began with the alienation from the Center of the smallholder militia, was naturally followed by a collapse of administrative responsibilities in the provinces, and eventually by the appearance of the semifeudal pronoia system of the late 11th century and after, which handed over military responsibilities and administrative action on the estate-sized pronoia to some “knight.”?°

“Byzantine feudalism” will develop as a forced alternative to re32 See especially Romanus I Lecapenus’ novels of 922 and 934 (Dolger, Regesten I, 72, 77); Constantine VII’s edict of 947 (Dolger, Regesten I, 656). 33 Neumann, Welistellung, 56. 34 Vasilievskii, “Druzhina,” passim; Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 293. 35 G. Ostrogorskij, Pour [histoire de la féodalité byzantine (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae, subs. I, Brussels, 1954), 9 ff.

178 Imperial Constantinople sponsible central authority, a makeshift device to shore up the defenses of the State and to provide administrative services— services no longer extended from the Center—in return for freedom from taxation. In the 10th century, the great century of the city, the way was being prepared for this fatal diminution of responsibility. The city was separating itself from its hinterland, leaving that hinterland in the control of a: greedy and ambitious landed nobility. The social and political conditions necessary to produce a true “feudal” hierarchy were not present, but the prejudices and fixed views that would fatally sever country from city were there on the land.*®

Decentralization and rebellion. A centrifugal tendency in a landbased and military aristocracy, its movement away from the core of monarchic power, is most dramatically represented by rebellion and other sure proofs of disaffection. A rebellion, however, is a complex reaction involving a series of motives and ac-

cidents; it may be the culmination of an urge to pull away, to escape the gravitational force of the Center; it may also be an attempt to seize that Center in order to control it. Insofar as the developing aristocracy expressed itself in rebellion, we can see a pendular movement from one motive to the other, a hesitation, but the important fact is the aristocracy’s willingness to undertake apostasia—the “standing away.” This thrust of the aristocracy toward the perverse release of rebellion is clear enough in the 9th and 10th century sources. In the century between the accession of the Macedonian house and the accession of the aristocrat Nicephoras Phokas, the Imperial domestic peace was shattered, generation after generation, by the gentry. The patrician Romanus Curcuas, of the Armenian warrior family, rebelled, failed, and was blinded in 877;37 Nicephoras Phokas (ancestor of the Emperor ) in 897;38 Andronicos and Constantine Dukas and Eustathios Argyros;3® Leo Phokas,*® Bardas

Boelas (Strategos of Chaldia),*! Basil Pateinos and his fellow 36 Jhid., 14. 37 Cedrenus II, 213. 38 Thid., 256-257. 39 Thid., 263-264, 267-269, 278. 40 Tbid., 288-295. 41 Thid., 302.

The Aristocracy 179 conspirators—ranked as patricians, one of the family of Lips.* This list does not count the successful coups, as when Marianos Argyros, Nicephoras and Leo Phokas, and two of the Tornikios family overthrew the sons of Romanus I Lecapenus and replaced

Constantine VII, of the legitimate Macedonian line, on the throne**—or pseudo-aristocratic uprisings, such as that led by Basil “called the Macedonian” who pretended to be the lost but risen Constantine Dukas and gathered support on these grounds alone.** Nor does the list include the reign of Basil I, when the great rebellions of Bardas Skleros and Bardas Phokas wrecked the theme system forever. Admittedly the centrifugal tendency of the aristocratic defection remains to be proved. Other attempted coups aimed directly at the Center and were staged by disgruntled or ill-rewarded bureaucrats such as Anastasius the Sacellarius in 920,*° or John Mystikos and Cosmas the Logothete in 925.**® The Dukades struck

directly at Constantinople, and we can take it that in no case did

a rebel plan de jure secession from the Empire: there was no vocabulary to describe secession or the territorial dissolution of the body politic. In most cases, also, our information is extremely scanty; we have merely the names of ringleaders, their rank, and the disposition of their cases when they failed—mutilation, exile, forced entry into a monastery, sometimes death—but we do not have the slogans they used or what, if anything, they intended to reform.

It must be true that rebels who were identifiably connected with the administration of the themes used the thematic troops to

back their rebellion, and when this occurred (as in the case of Bardas Boelas, and later Bardas Skleros and Bardas Phokas) a rupture of any effective political linkage between city and theme was clear. The thematic troops may have marched to readjust what their leaders saw as deficiencies in the Imperial headquarters, or to enforce a different reading of the will of God, in 42 Thid., 327.

43 Ibid., 324; see S. Runciman, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign (Cambridge, 1963), 232-237. 44 Cedrenus I, 315. 45 Thid., 298. 46 Tbid., 307.

180 Imperial Constantinople the time-honored Byzantine fashion, by changing Emperors. This

was “constitutional,” in the Byzantine sense. But the act of rebellion must also be a celebration of a separate mode of power, and every aristocratic rebel-general pulled his men farther from the Imperial idea of a unitary state. The great double rebellion of Phokas and Skleros was the most dramatic representation of aristocratic centrifugism, for the houses of the dynatoi, their appetites whetted by their compeers, the Emperors Nicephoras Phokas and John Tzimiskes, had no intention of being excluded from the exercise of power: when Basil II obstructed them and, later, the civil service occupied and monopolized the places of power, the magnates strengthened their position on the land and dismantled the last remnants of the old loyalty of the theme to the provident city. When the magnates moved back into the city and into power again after Manzikert—a disaster they helped to prepare—the defensive and administrative network in the Anatolian provinces was moribund; the ganglial network of government no longer operated, because a great part of the society no longer responded to impulses from the Center.*? The decentralizing movement of the landed nobility went for-

ward on a number of levels: one was more purely economic, involving the agglomeration of smaller holdings into larger estates

by whatever means, and the accompanying reduction of the smallholders (whether peasant militiamen or members of the communes) to a sort of dependence, in the face of Imperial legislation and the Imperial plan and will.*® Land, in this fashion,

was converted to power, power separated from its theoretical source in the Throne. Another level was administrative, as the strategoi of the themes readapted their offices to their own private

or socially separate purposes, using their delegated power as absolute power within their jurisdiction.*® A third level was emotional: the myth of the city was opposed by other myths, the propaganda of Imperial solidarity and unity was opposed by appeals to family and name, a warrior ethic, a noncity or anticity 47 R. Jenkins, The Byzantine Empire on the Eve of the Crusades (London, 1953), 17. 48 Ostrogorskij, Pour Vhistoire, 12 ff. 49 Kisenstadt, Political Systems of Empires, 177, 180, 183.

The Aristocracy 181 behavioral pattern and way of life and thought. This is an important separate problem in itself. The allies of the aristocracy. The separatism of the aristocracy,

as it acted against the concentrative and unitary instincts and actions of the Imperial office, was dangerously reinforced when joined with other dissident elements. The problem here does not center so much on those groups within the Byzantine structure that were attracted by the aristocracy and, because of this, moved “outward’—to the periphery of the society, as it were—into temporary or permanent alliance. The fact that the landed aristocracy

did at last absorb the loyalties of the smallholder is important, and also that the bureaucracy, or segments of it, would occasionally be tempted by the panache and visible power of the nobility. These groups provided mass support, or valuable skills, but they did not themselves pull the aristocracy away from the core of the society. Other groups might do this, especially “national” minorities—groups partially defined by their own, consciously received cultural heritage, and partially defined by labels attached to them by the Center, of which the most inclusive was exotikoi—strangers. The unrealistic arrogance of such a label was

particularly threatening to the health of the Empire when the “strange” people were as closely interwoven into the fabric of Empire as were the Armenians. The flow of Armenians into Byzantium from the 6th century

onward, and their energetic intervention in the history of the Byzantine state has been often underscored: the Empire of the 9th and 10th centuries has even been labeled “Graeco-Armenian,”

because of the numbers and the prominence of Armenian personalities, or, more precisely, of identifiable Armenian names and families.°° Researches aimed at outlining or filling out an Arme-

nian prosopography in Byzantium, however, merely touch the surface of a problem at once social and “national.” The degree of acceptance or assimilation of a strong Armenian minority depended on a number of conditions, one of the most consequential being the social level of the migrant—if it can be determined. An Armenian of a lower social stratum, once he had broken his traditional familial ties, would accept a culture that promised him 50 Charanis, Armenians, 57.

182 Imperial Constantinople upward mobility—would Hellenize—more rapidly and completely

than an Armenian of, for example, the nakharar class, whose status was already set by his adherence to the forms and attitudes of Armenian feudalism. No social formula can be cut and dried

when our data are as illusive and fragmentary as they are, but it is probable that Armenians—especially the nakharar cavalry— who passed over into the Empire and were settled in the hinter-

land, in the embattled themes, could and would maintain their national-cultural identity and with it their imported social hierarchy more easily than other groups. In this group germinated the great Armenian families who began to dominate the Anatolian, and later the European, theme governments: the Phokades, Dukades, Skleroi, Tornikioi. Armenians of lower status were more

likely to be attracted to the Imperial capital, where they had nothing to lose and much to gain by entering the city-centered bureaucracy, or otherwise adapting themselves to the cultural and political schema of the Empire. Most prominent among these were, of course, the two adventurers Basil, founder of the Macedonian line, and Romanus Lecapenus, both of whom rose from obscure (but definitely Armenian) origins to the Imperial office, and stood for the most comprehensive Byzantine autocracy and statism.*!

If there was, as is likely, a social or socio-economic determinant

in the separation of Armenian immigrants into more or less assimilable types, this determinant was not absolute. The Mace-

donian house did not abjure its Armenian connections; on the contrary, Armenians found good positions under Basil—who had himself been befriended by an official of Armenian extraction— and the rest of his house.®? Armenians in the central bureaucracy, as we know in at least one instance, kept up their own language.™* Armenians of the military aristocracy also were found in the city, and took up positions there. The point is that Armenian connections, when combined with aristocratic birth and the likelihood

of high provincial office that was increasingly associated with 51 Der Nersessian, Armenia and the Byzantine Empire, 21. 52 Charanis, Armenians, 25 n. 70. 53 The case of Krikorikios: Charanis, Armenians, 41; Adontz, “Les Taronites,” 535-540.

The Aristocracy 183 aristocratic birth, added another divisive element to those already

deforming the relationship between countryside and city. Romanus Lecapenus, who had outmaneuvered one Armeno-Greek aristocrat, Leo Phokas, to gain the throne, soon faced a serious rising under the strategos of the Chaldian theme, Bardas Boelas, an Armenian in a heavily Armenized territory, whose revolt was assisted by Adrianos the “Chaldian” and Tatzates the Armenian.°*

The revolts of Bardas Skleros and Bardas Phokas were heavily dependent on Armenian troops, especially that of Skleros.*> Some

years before the Byzantine elimination of the independent Armenian principalities and the transfer of masses of Armenians to Cappadocia and Cilicia—an event often blamed for the enmity that burst out between the two cultures—the Armenian minority was expressing its hostility to the State, especially in border areas where the degree of assimilation into the Imperial society of that minority was slight, and Armenian nationality most resistant. This

mutual hostility reinforced, if it did not cause, the separatist gestures of a landed military aristocracy that was largely Armenian. The response of the government to this dangerous inclination was, in part, to assure a system of rewards to those who did

show loyalty to the Throne, but also, it seems, to recruit more widely among other minorities, especially Syrian Arabs and Turks. We have the examples in the 10th century of Samonas, the Byzantine Fouché; also the admiral Nasar,** the patrician Abessalom, son of Arotras,°’ the Hetairarch Theodore Zuphinezer,°® while Turkic names become more common in the lower

bureaucratic ranks, and at least one Governor-General was known to have been of Turkish origin (John Bogas, strategos of Cherson ) .59

The exclusive but expansive nature of Byzantine civilization, its arrogant political egocentrism, guaranteed that the more culturally complex or resistant minorities would rebel from time to

time if leadership were generated or made available. At the 54 Cedrenus II, 302. 55 Charanis, Armenians, 34. 56 Theophanes Cont., 298 ff. 57 Cedrenus II, 281. 58 Ibid., 291. 59 See G. Moravesik, Byzantinoturcica Il, 92, s.v.

184 Imperial Constantinople beginning of the 9th century the great rebellion of Thomas the Sclavonian drew on every minority in Anatolia—Saracens, “Indians,” “Medes,” Assyrians, “Egyptians,” Abasgians, Zichs, Chaldoi, “Vandals,” “Getae,” Alans, Armenians, and heretical minorities

such as Paulicians and Athinganoi.*° Thomas was no dissident magnate and his rebellion was more in the nature of a class war, a jacquerie, which is said to have traumatized and dispossessed the lower classes so severely that the spread of aristocratic domainal holdings in Anatolia was sharply accelerated. Following

on Thomas rising the separatistic feelings of minorities—especially the Armenians—shifted and recoalesced around the rising

military aristocracy. The Macedonian dynasty fought for the loyalty of these minority groups—again, especially the Armenians —as it fought for the smallholders and the peasant militia, offer-

ing the protection of the Imperial system against the landlust of the Powerful, offering the opportunities and upward mobility within the city, and opposing a counterpropaganda to the attractions of the aristocratic ideal. Their offers were eventually rejected—not by a “nation” of Armenians, but by individuals who felt that the Greek Empire, and the great capital of that Empire, did not welcome them, or exacted too high a price for its welcome.

Another minority that stood outside the city and in its own way recruited adherents for the cause of the military aristocracy, was the mixture of heretical sects whose base was in Anatolia. Armenians who kept allegiance to their own faith do not fall into this

category, though the non-Chalcedonian Armenian church was regarded by the Greeks as nonorthodox and nonorthodox Armenians were segregated within the city like the other nonorthodox sects.6! The most dramatic opponents to oecumenical—Orthodox

—Christianity in the eastern themes were dualistic Paulicians, mentioned with the smaller group of the Athinganoi in the roster of Thomas the Sclavonian’s rebels. The Paulicians were recognized as an enemy of the Empire in the early 8th century, and in their main breeding ground on the upper Euphrates were accused of “poisoning the Armenians”; and they were anathematized by 60 Theophanes Continuatus 55. 61 See Chapt. 1, footnote 37.

The Aristocracy 185 each successive Armenian catholikos as well as by the Orthodox

hierarchy. As in the case of most heresies, their doctrines are difficult to reconstruct out of the welter of orthodox polemic that

was directed against them; they were certainly dualist, antisacramentarian, iconoclastic, and puritanical.®? Unlike most dual-

istic or Manichaean sects they appealed to the sword, and with resounding success. They created a flourishing network of fortress-towns in the Zwischenland between the territories of the Empire and those of the Caliphate, and when the Empire, in the 9th century, attempted to reduce them they fought back with ferocity and considerable success. The Paulicians allied themselves with the Arabs, and only a series of major campaigns (and the death of their most brilliant general) broke their resistance. Remnants of their sect lingered along the border for a century, until John Tzimiskes transferred them to Thrace.® There is no direct and provable tie between the Paulician heresy and the rise of the feudalizing military aristocracy in Anatolia. The Paulicians fell in with the classes that supported Thomas the Sclavonian in the early 9th century, and presumably the terrible persecution that pursued them had the same effect as the social war waged against Thomas: that of emptying the countryside, impoverishing the smallholders, and aiding the spread of large-estate holdings. Many of the Paulicians were certainly Armenian, but their appeal reached the Greeks as well: both Carbeas and Chrysocheir, the great warchiefs of the sect, were of Greek ancestry.** Nor is there any, way to determine whether or not the dualistic puritanism of the Paulicians appealed to the military aristocracy. If we can assume that the military classes of Anatolia were infected through and through with iconoclastic poisons, which is not at all certain, then some sympathy for the iconoclastic Paulicians may have lingered along the border and among the bordering nobles. The parallels between the Anatolian military aristocracy and the militant sect are found in ideas and attitudes. Both removed 62S$. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy (Cambridge, 1955), 49-51. 63 Thid., 44.

64 Ibid., 41.

186 Imperial Constantinople themselves far from the Center dominated by the Emperor and his bureaucracy; both found the borders, the inaccessible frontier zones, congenial; both found relations with their fellow frontiersmen on the Arab side of the border easy and attractive. Some sort of fellow-feeling is certain, for in the epic-balladic celebration of aristocratic mores and virtues in, especially, the cycle called Akritic, involving the archetypal border noble, Digenes Akritas, the Paulicians appear, and their resistance to Imperial power, if not their doctrines, is indirectly praised. Aristocratic Culture

City myth and country epic. The secession of the military aristocracy from the city, their creation of a detached, decentralized political mode and a separate societal view, was not possible

without widespread support. To gain this support the landed Powerful had to build and maintain their own topos and mode of

life; they then had to create a myth as well, one of their own devising celebrating their values and accomplishments. This myth

moved to counter the myth of the Center: the myth of Imperial unity, supreme and unquestioned power in the oecumene, sacred and secular excellence. The literature that powerfully prepared the way for the popular

acceptance of aristocratic mores was not disseminated as propaganda, however well it succeeded as propaganda. Its origins are

obscure, springing from the country courts held by provincial magnates and, more important, from the land itself, from the peasant communes and frontier villages. Eventually balladic and epic fragments might be combined to make a whole, by unknown “authors.” The source of this literature is not as important to this study, at least, as what it says and when it appears, and the effect it obviously had on the popular consciousness of Byzantium.® The chronology of the so-called “heroic age” of Byzantium can be deduced from the epic songs; identifiable events and identifiable figures place the first of them in the early 9th century, when great blows were being struck at one another by both Islam and the Empire across the Anatolian massif. The dramatic and trau65 See J. Mavrogordato’s introduction to Digenis Akritas (Oxford, 1956), Xv, xxvi, xxix ff.

The Aristocracy 187 matic siege of Amorium is one epic incident, and later the expedition of Michael III across the Euphrates.*® Michael III, assiduously slandered and his memory damned by the Macedonian house-historians, had his revenge in the developing epic, for after him the Emperor-hero retreats to a subsidiary rdéle, replaced

by a protagonist who is of noble family and who upholds a knightly ideal. The family of the Argyri is already seen in one of

the early ballads, but the aristocrats most beloved of the epic poet-bards were the Dukades. The adventurous lives and tragic fates of Andronikos and Constantine Dukas, who rebelled against

Leo VI, formed the core of several ballads: Constantine was transmogrified into the “foe of the tyrant,” who fought and lost and became the Prisoner.®” Constantine’s fate was obviously the

stuff of legend, so that another rebel (Basil, a “Macedonian” ) could rally popular support by claiming to be Constantine returned from death. The arch-noble family of Dukas also has a leading rdle in the great Akritic cycle: the epic of Digenes the Borderer. Digenes himself is a Dukas (or a Kinnamos, another aristocratic family name) on his mother’s side: her father is Andronikos, her brother, Constantine. Digenes’ wife too is a Dukas, daughter of “Dukas the General.” On his father’s side the “[wy-Born” Digenes is Arab, though two of his uncles have been tentatively identified not as Arabs but as Paulician generals (Chrysoberges or Chrysoherpes=Chrysocheir; Karoes=Carbeas ).°° Another historical figure

who resurfaces in a strange guise in the Akritic ballads is the great Armenian general Melias (Mleh), here called Melimitzes.™ There is also an Emperor (Basil or Romanos) in a very subsidiary role.

The importance of the Digenid cycle does not lie in names and

identifications; these are deceptively readable points in the palimpsest. The cycle describes attitudes and, if not a way of life, a knightly dream of a way of life, which deserts the city and its materialized rituals for a separated state, one ruled by other im66 H. Gregoire, “L’Age héroique de Byzance,” Mélanges offerts d M. Nico-

las Iorga (Paris, 1933), 388. 67 Tbid., 390-395.

68 See the geneology of Digenes; Mavrogordato, Digenes Akrites 254-255. 69 Digenes Akrites, 189, line 2888; see Intro., liii.

188 Imperial Constantinople peratives. Digenes is a noble (ex eugenon Romaion) and his epic

existence is a reprise of aristocratic dream-images.’? Even his Christianity sits lightly on him, for spiritually as well as physically

he crosses the border between Orthodoxy and Islam; he is certainly no crusader. His life is spent hobnobbing with Saracen and Christian alike, and his funeral draws mourners from both sides of the frontier: “Charzanians, Kappadokians . . . Tarsites, Marounites .. . Elect Bagdadis . . . Nobles from Babylon, many from Amida ....°"! More Moslem than Christian placenames are mentioned in this list, and one observer has said that most of Digenes’ named opponents are “nominally” Christian.”* The Paulician influence detected in the poem is certainly not doctrinal, and there

is no dualistic influence at all.” Digenes’ life is, in fact, Arabized without being Islamized; his attitude toward religion is that of the Anatolian frontier nobleman who fled to the Caliphate at need and had been known to apostasize. Conversion in the epic is casual. Digenes defends his own territory against all comers, and the combats take place between warrior-knights, not ideologues. Though the Type of the “bor-

derer,” Digenes is barely effective as such; he is assigned a territory but nowhere in the epic does he actually protect the frontier against the raging hordes of Islam. Digenes is first an aristocrat, then a knightly warrior. As an aristocrat, he is defined by his bloodline—placed in a generational context, according to

kinship ties—then provided with a task: a working out of the individualized areté of the noble. The Borderer chooses a life far from any city; for most of his brief life he lives in a tent, in the middle of a vaguely paradisical wilderness. He challenges and is challenged to knightly combat. He carries off and marries a noble Girl, who provides little more than a slight erotic edge to the tale. He is given two opportunities to stray sexually and takes reasonably prompt advantage of both, but in neither is any emotional complexity visible (whatever the psychic roots of the Amazon who appears in the tale), and abso70 The phrase “well-born” is repeated some fifty times in Mavrogordato’s edition. 71 Digenes Akrites, 245, lines 3741-3746. 72 Digenes Akrites, Intro., xvi. 73 Digenes Akrites, Intro., Ixiv.

The Aristocracy 189 lutely nothing of the love-death neuroses of the chivalric literature of the medieval West—quite the contrary.” His adventures are carried out with superhuman brio but he has only one supernatural foe, and there are no allegorical convolutions. In the text that survives to us he eventually builds a noble mansion, loses both parents, then his wife, and dies.

The aristocratic dream existence described in the Digenid sounds trifling when briefly outlined; it seems to be condensation of uncomplex, dramatically naive fantastications. So it undoubtedly is. The epic quality, however, is there: a virility and cheerful bloodlust, a warrior ethos and a moral simplicity. And, as a fantasy of the military nobility of the frontier the Digenid and its fellows had an impact that both reflected and reinforced

the centrifugal currents of the 9th and 10th centuries. In the Digenid the young hero-aristocrat, whose fame has spread everywhere, is visited by the Emperor—Digenes himself does not go to the city. He lectures the monarch on the responsibilities of king-

ship, performs a feat or two, and leaves the storybook king marveling. He receives the wardenship of the marches as his reward.”® Other than this Digenes has no contact with the abstractions of power; his aristocracy is implicit and confident, without any hint of tragic confrontations or alternative possibilities.

The Digenid epic obviously shows a nobility firmly entrenched in its own self-defined cosmos. Authority in this cosmos comes with birth and blood and is recognized, not generated or authenticated, by a monarchy that is distant and exotic. Place and status are ascriptive and implicit, and are reinforced by personal excellence—there is a fine epic recollection of the old Greek confusion of physical and moral beauty. The aristocratic definition replaces any idea of citizenship or nationality as membership in a state. There is no opposition between Romaios and Sarakenos; the epic itself is known to borrow from Arab types, especially the Gesta

of the frontier hero Sidi Battal, but in the Digenid a true amalgam is reached between a tone of relaxed sensuality and the 74D. de Rougemont, Love in the Western World (New York, 1956), 32— 35, 42 ff. 75 Digenes Akrites, 133-141, lines 2050-2168.

190 Imperial Constantinople muscular and athletic obsessions that are more typically Greek.’ The aristocratic definition also eliminates the confrontation between Christian and Moslem. The culture of nobility is tolerant, sensual, athletic—often bilingual (both Digenes and his father use both Greek and Arabic, and no one has much difficulty communicating with the opposition).7” The relaxation shown in the

Digenid was not to continue forever, of course, and could be called a victim of the passing of power from Arabic to Turkic Islam in the 11th century. The point to be remembered about the Digenes poems and the

rest of the literature connected to an aristocratic culture is this: the poetry was popular, and the images it drew were impressed on the imagination of the mass of Byzantines, rivaling, overshadowing, and even replacing the myths that emanated from the Center. The decline of the city’s attractive myths had to weaken

the city itself, and the attraction of a noncity ethos for the country population had to push city and village even farther apart. This process could go on only so far before the rupture of vital lines of reinforcement and efficient power doomed both city and village and the unity of Empire they constituted. 76 Digenes Akrites, Intro., |xii ff. 77 Tbid., \xxix.

Epilog: The Failure of the City

A difficulty—perhaps the difficulty—in recreating the modular structure that approximately represents the forces and objects, the ideas and institutions of some state-in-history, is that once recreated this modular structure claims a place of its own, a real existence we as its contrivers are reluctant to deny. Students of Byzantine history and civilization are pressed or impressed even more strongly by their recreations, because the state and society they examine was declared invalid and immaterial by modern Western historiography as that historiography made its first assumptions. Byzantium was debunked before it began; its growth was attached in advance to the decline, the long regretted degenerescence, of the Antique World. By the time the fate of the “Later Roman Empire” or “Bas-empire” was reexamined and began to claim its own specialists, the damage was nearly done. Byzantium received only a little more justice from the liberal historiographical schools of the 19th century than it had from Gibbon, and by the mid-20th century, despite the accumulation

of a respectably vast number of data and analyses of data, historians concerned with the Empire still have to push aside or patiently explain away dense masses of pseudo-metaphors and plain misconceptions about their subject: the noncreativity and

cultural nullity of the Empire, its theological rigidity and absurdism, its unmanly diplomacy, its sly and subtle—un-Western —social and cultural tone, and so on and so on. Defending themselves from these prejudices against the Realm of Blood, Byzantinists can easily become petulant and intellectually resistant and crossgrained. Their recreations or models become more fragile and more precious than all others, and are defended with more scholastic—or Byzantine—ferocity. I hope I have avoided this. 191

192 Imperial Constantinople This study has tried to describe the organism of a great city, the

capital of a great Empire, at the top of its historical parabola, at a time when its shapes and powers were clearest. Implicit in the description of this organism is its fallibility or failure, its failure to endure in time, for Constantinople—and Byzantium—declined from the preéminence it held in the oecumene of what I have vaguely called the 10th century, and it declined catastrophically. As an historical datum, composed of perceivable and evidential fact, the catastrophic decline is deceptively easy to describe, and

has been frequently described.t It is also easy to produce, by simple description, a rich dramatic coda: the majesty and preéminent power of the Empire at the death of Basil II, in 1025, can be put over against the equally manifest inability of the same Empire to recover from the pressures exerted on it as the century

wore on. “Suddenly” all the vital juices are gone. The Empire slips from its prime to senility without any intervening stages. If this cannot be accepted, then the “prime” of the Empire becomes suspect. Was Byzantium under Basil really as strong as it appeared to be? Obviously not, and we have to ask why not. If the parabolic pattern of Byzantine historical development is somewhat flattened a fair amount of drama escapes. Certainly the tenacity of the truncated and mutilated Empire after 1071, and again after the Latin occupation of 1204-1269, has to be admitted, together with the cultural vitality that always seems to have returned, to produce rich things in a small space. Nor was this tenacity simply the stubborn inertia of senile dissolution. Byzantium made its way between the neurotic strength of the Medieval West and the new powers of Asia by showing more flexibility and inventiveness than a senile society should or could have shown. But as this is recognized, the accomplishments of the 1C, Neumann, Die Weltstellung des byzantinisches Reiches vor den Kreuzzugen (Leipzig, 1894); J. Hussey, “The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century: Some Different Interpretations,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series (XXXII, 1950), 71-85; P. Charanis, “The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century,” A History of the Crusades,

ed. Setton and Baldwin, I (Philadelphia, 1958), 177-219; Sp. Vryonis, “Byzantium: The Social Basis of Decline in the Eleventh Century,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 2 (1959), 159-175; R. Jenkins, The Byzantine Empire on the Eve of the Crusades (London, 1953).

Epilog: The Failure of the City 193 10th century too must be reevaluated and diluted, and it is especially necessary to see the unfortunate long-range results of the aggressive expansionism of the soldier-emperors, and the reality of the insufficient base of resources that was supposed to support

this expansionism and could not. This fault lies on the level of policy of state, and there are others. To return to the subject of this study: it might be profitable to examine the hypothesis that the failure of the Empire depended strongly on the failure of the city. The most singular construction of Byzantine civilization was its city, a point that metaphorically compressed and included all, and recapitulated the Empire. As both a synchronic and diachronic historical phenomenon the city drew into itself so much of the life of the Empire that it must not have been merely a capital, an administrative and cultural center, but a synecdoche—or at least this is what it aimed to be in a healthy state. When the state was not healthy, the city must bear responsibility to some degree. How true is this in Constantinople’s case? How did the Myth of the City fail? Constantinople was conceived as a city-icon, where mass and spirit reinforced one another. Its material power and its spiritual force were regarded both from within the city and from the Empire at large, as perfected and central. But the centrality of the city gradually hardened and became sclerotic; the icon began to be worshipped in its own right by those who lived in it; even more, by those—specifically the bureaucracy—who felt that the city was not so much an icon, vibratory and luminescent, but a mechanism, a machine that they operated, a series of techniques that they commanded. These city dwellers gladly acted to sepa-

rate the city from what they regarded as the inert matter outside it. The attitudes of Michael Psellos are typical enough of bureaucratic group feeling and snobbery, though Psellos added a hyperintellectualism and egoism all his own. The bureaucrat could ignore the nonurban population, but he could not ignore another power group, the military aristocracy. These he resented, schemed against, hoped to drive from the seat of power. The bureaucracy of the 10th century had been forced to the side while the soldiers marched and the boundaries of the Empire moved outward. Then, at Basil II’s death, the bureaucrats did their best to dismantle the military machine that had gained

194 Imperial Constantinople

the victories. The fact that the frontiers were not secure, that there were as always new enemies, was kept from them by their isolation in the impregnable city. The lines of communication to

the hinterland had atrophied, the living pulse that had tied province and capital together was weak and thready.

The very culture of the city, nurtured by the bureaucratic obsession with graphic patterns, received traditions, more or less

subtle rhetorical statement, proved too precious, in the wrong sense, to keep a broad attractive value. Byzantine high culture was never, of course, widely disseminated, any more than any high culture is, but the mandarinesque rigidifying of cultural attitudes visible in men like Psellos marked a new level of inwardness and resistance to change or influence. The Greek emphasis of this culture was probably no more notable than in other periods in the Empire's cultural life, but it was less tolerant, less accessible, more organized. Hellenisticism—‘scholastic” Hellenism—stood more and more as a barrier, rather than acting as a lure, to peoples who at other times had found more welcome in Byzantium.

The most important exogenous element in the Empire, the Armenians, encountered such antagonism in the half-century between Basil’s death and the battle of Manzikert that “race war” between Armenian and Greek has been seen.? Undoubtedly much

of the abrasion between the two groups came from massive Armenian migration—many times forced—into rural areas where they soon came to dominate, but there was also rioting in Constan-

tinople, and the antimilitary reaction of the bureaucratic clique that took power after 1025 was certainly tainted by anti-Armenian feeling. This feeling was based on more than cultural exclusivism; it stemmed from resentment and fear of the Armenian military dynasts who had won almost undisputed control of the great Anatolian themes and were potent in Europe as well. Thus the absorptive, transmuting power of the Imperial City was decreased, and the unitary civilization that had added the Christian definition of citizenship to older Imperial patterns, stiffened its back against new recruits and retreated deeper into the citadel. 2 Jenkins, The Byzantine Empire, 11-12; Vryonis, “Byzantium, The Social Basis of Decline,” 167-173.

Epilog: The Failure of the City 195 Michael Psellos opposed to politikon—the civic, bureaucratic élite—to to stratiotikon—the military arm—and in this opposition there is more than a hint of a primitive racism.? The “city” Greek felt that he could afford to despise the “county” Armenian. The economic policies that commanded in the Imperial City led to isolation by another way: by cutting or helping to cut the strands of economic interrelationship that gave the capital its resources. Put very simply, when the loyalty of the theme govern-

ments failed, or when for whatever reason administration in the provinces passed beyond the purview of Imperial authority, the

smallholders and stratiotai threw in their lot with the landed gentry, and the Imperial tax-base failed as well. More, the old antagonism of the Center to native commerce brought in more

and more merchant-adventurers, mostly Italians, who from their privileged position reduced this area of economic vitality to an enclave controlled by them. The decline in the native mercantile

class cut back the tax-base even further; it naturally reduced economic opportunity, and eventually made the city almost a colonial dependency of foreign commercial interests. Economic dependence bred more antagonism against the exploiting outsider, and Byzantium could not make up the absolute economic loss involved, even from its fabulous storehouse of treasure. The

noneconomic imperatives that directed Imperial policy—the actualization of the desire to harmonize and ritualize the human

cosmos—were too successfully carried out, for after a certain crucial point the drained and insufficiently replenished Sacred Treasury was not able to sustain the necessary, real expenses of Empire. The city as Eden had a number of snakes, but a particularly venomous one was economic stringency—and eventually Eden went broke.

The sudden debilitation of the city’s responses has been explained, pleonastically, as a result of the “onset of exhaustion.” This explanation might be better supported by referring directly to the anticausal Spenglerian schema of human-organic (or botanic) growth: civilizations are born, grow, metastasize, and die: in the midst of life we are in death. But in Byzantium’s case 3 Psellos, Chronographia, VW.1. 4 Jenkins, The Byzantine Empire, 7.

196 Imperial Constantinople there is insufficient evidence for exhaustion, or at least for exhaustion visible throughout the entire Imperial structure. Energy seems to be plentifully available, but it is more and more either uncontrolled or overcontrolled, and if this is true the city, which sets itself up as the point of spatial and temporal control, has failed. If the vast vitality that had fueled the Empire during darker days than would follow the disaster at Manzikert was no longer effective, it was because this vitality was either drained off

into self-contained, provincial channels, modes, objectives—or was isolated and overrarified in the city, whose myth had finally collapsed in on itself. The collapse of the city’s myth must be closely involved with some fatal weakness in the Imperial figure himself, who was so closely bound up with the crystallized power of the city. Yet the fault that appeared in the Imperial control of all aspects of Empire does not seem to come from the Byzantine tradition of omnipotent, autocratic responsibility, but from a digression from this tradition. We might say that the very success of the Macedonian dynasty proved to be the undoing—however temporarily—of the Imperial office at a crucial point in time. The very establishment of a true dynasty, of an acceptance of the descent of authority in one family, interrupted the normal process of selection and testing. The Byzantine autocratic office that was in God's gift—a prize luring every sort of adventurer seeking to prove himself the new instrumentality of God—still had given space to astonishing talents, especially when the supporting élites of the State, civil and military, remained responsive and to some degree dependent.

The isolation and futile gestures of the last remnants of the Macedonian house and their associates, then, stemmed partly from Byzantine overconfidence in a “lucky” house, partly from

the self-separation of the bureaucratic élite from its essential loyalty and from its service roles—all added to the disaffection of the native military aristocracy. Perhaps the burden of total responsibility, total control of all modes of creativity, was too much to ask of any one man, and yet this responsibility was accepted with singular results throughout the life of the Empire, and when the responsibility was diluted the fabric of the Empire could not be kept intact. The universalism of the Byzantine theory of state was not itself

Epilog: The Failure of the City 197 incapable of competing with and withstanding “the plurality of the middle ages.”> Universalism was not peculiar to the Empire; the medieval West had its own universal dreams. The cultural exclusivism of the Byzantines undoubtedly rasped foreign nerves, but it was also immensely attractive. The weakness at the heart of the Byzantine system was in a hardening—whether avoidable or not we cannot say—of the iconic image, a stopping down of the

systolic and diastolic flow of vitality between Center and periphery. The walls of the city had grown too high, too impermeable, and the city itself became merely a miser’s horde, a store of

treasure that could not move or create, waiting for the more active power that would come and seize it. 5 Ibid., 8-9.

Bibliography PRIMARY SOURCES Greek

Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De administrando imperio, ed. Moravesik. Translated by Jenkins. Budapest, 1949. ———.. De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. Reisk. Bonn, CSHB, 1829. —_——. Le livre des cérémonies, ed. and trans]. A. Vogt. 2 vols. and Commentaire. Paris, 1935. ro exapxixov BiBAtov. “The Book of the Prefect.” Translated by A. E. R.

Boak. Journal of Economic and Business History 1 (1929), 547-619. ———. Ed. Nicole. Geneva, 1893. Eusebius of Caesarea. Triakontaeterikos, ed. Haekel. Leipzig, 1902.

Eustathius of Thessalonike. Oratio ad manuelem imperator, ed. Regel. Fontes rerum byzantinarum 1.1, Petropoli, 1892. Fourny, M.-H. and M. Leroy (transl.). “La Vie de S. Philaréte.” Byzantion 9 (1934), 85-170. Geoponica sive Cassieni Bassi Scholastici de re rustica eclogae, ed. Beckh. Teubner, Lipsiae, 1895. George Cedrenus. Historiarum compendium, ed. Bekker. 2 vols. Bonn, CSHB, 1838-1839. John Cinnamus. Historia, ed. Meineke. Bonn, CSHB, 1836. John Malalas. Chronographia, ed. Dindorf. Bonn, CSHB, 1831. Karlin-Hayter, R. (transl.). “Vita S. Euthemii.” Byzantion 25-27 (195557), 1-172, 747-778. Leo Diaconus. Historiae libri decem, ed. Hase. Bonn, CSHB, 1828. Mavrogordato, J. (ed. and transl.). Digenes Akritas. Oxford, 1956. Michael Psellos, Chronographia, ed. Sathas. London, 1899. ———. Chronography. Translated by Sewter. London, 1953. ————. De omnifaria doctrina, ed. Westerink. Utrecht, 1948.

———. De operatione demonorum. Migne, PG 122. ———. Michael Psellos Chronographie, ou Histoire @un siécle de Byzance (977-1077), ed. Renauld. 2 vols. Paris, 1926. Noailles, P. and A. Dain (transl.). Les Novelles de Leon VI le Sage. Texte et traduction publiés. Paris, 1944. Photius. The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople. Translated by C. Mango. Cambridge, Mass., 1958. 199

200 Imperial Constantinople Procopius of Caesarea. Buildings, ed. Haury. Translated by Dewling. (Loeb Classical Library, 1954). Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum: Pseudo-Codinus origines continuens; adiecta est forma urbis Constantinopolis. II fasc. Alter. Teubner, Lipsiae, 1907. Stethatos, Niketas. “Un grand mystique byzantin: Vie de Simeon le Nou-

veau Theologien, par Nicetas Stethatos.” Orientalia Christiana 45 (July-September, 1928). Suidas. Suidae Lexikon, ed. Adler. 5 vols. Leipzig, 1928-1938. Theophanes. Chronographia, ed. de Boor. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1883. Theophanes Continuatus. Chronographia, ed. Niebuhr. Bonn, CSHB, 1838. Zepos, J. and P. (eds.). Jus graecoromanum. 8 vols. Athens, 1931. Other Sources

Al-Husain, in Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes Il, 425-426. Amalarius of Metz. Versus marini. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. PLAC I, 427, 1. 38-40. Arculfus. The Pilgrimage of Arculfus. (Palestine Pilgrim Text Society, 3). London, 1897.

Harun Ibn-Yahya, in A. A. Vasiliev, “Harun Ibn-Yahya and his Description of Constantinople,” Seminarium Kondakovianum 5 (1932), 149163.

Liutprand of Cremona. Legatio and Antapodosis, in The Works of Liutprand of Cremona. Translated by Wright. London, 1930. Marvazi, in V. Minorsky, “Marvazi on the Byzantines.” Mélanges Grégoire II. 445-469. Melikoff, I. (transl.). Kissd-i Melik Danigmend. La Geste de Melik Déanis-

mend, (Bibliothéque Archéologique et Historique de Institut Francais d’Archéologie d'Istanbul, X). Paris, 1960. Michael the Syrian. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, patriarche jacobite de Antioche: 1166-1199. Translated by Chabot. 6 vols. Paris, 1899-1910. Sebeos. Histoire universelle. Translated by Macler. Paris, 1904.

Sherbowitz-Wetzor, O. P. and S. H. Cross (eds. and trans].). The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text. Cambridge, Mass., 1953. SECONDARY SOURCES

Abel, A. “L’Apocalypse de Bahira,” Annales de [Institut de Philologie et d Histoire Orientales et Slaves de VUniversité de Bruxelles THI (1935), 1-12. Adams, R. W. The Evolution of Urban Society. Chicago, 1966. Adontz, N. “Les Taronites en Arménie et a Byzance.” Byzantion X (1935), 531-551. Andreadeés, A. “Byzance, paradis du monopole et du privilege.” Byzantion

IX (1934), 171-181. ——_——. “The Jews in the Byzantine Empire.” Economic History If, No. 9 (January 1934), 1-23.

Bibliography 201 ———. “De la population de Constantinople sous les empereurs byzantines.” Metron I, 2 (1920), 1-56. Andreava, M. A. “Politicheskii i obshchestvennii element Vizantiiskoslavyanskikh gadatel’nikh knig.” Byzantinoslavica II (1930), 47-73. Antoniades-Bibicou, H. Recherches sur les Douanes a Byzance. Paris, 1963. Bach, E. “Les lois agraires byzantines du Xiéme siécle,” Classica et Medie-

valia V (1942), 70-91. Barker, E. Social and Political Thought in Byzantium. Oxford, 1957. Baynes, N. Byzantine Studies and Other Essays. London, 1960. ———. The Hellenistic Civilization and East Rome. Oxford, 1946. ——— and E. Dawes. Three Byzantine Saints. Oxford, 1948. ——— and H. S. B. Moss. Byzantium. Oxford, 1948. Beck, H.-G. “Der byzantinische ‘Ministerprasident’.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 48 (1955), 309-338. Bellinger, A. R. “Coins and Byzantine Imperial Policy.” Speculum XXX) (1956), 70-81. Bloch, M. Le roi thaumaturge: étude sur le caractére surnaturel attribué a la pussance royale particuliérement en France et an Angleterre. Paris, 1961.

Bratianu, L. “Empire et ‘démocratie’ a Byzance.” Etudes byzantines d histoire économique et sociale. ( Universitea mihaileana din Iasi, IV. Paris, 1938), 93-128. ———.. “Etudes sur l’approvisionnement de Constantinople et le monopole du blé a ’époque byzantine et ottomane.” Etudes byzantines, 129-154.

——.“La politique fiscale de Nicéphore Ier ou Ubu Roi a Byzance.” Etudes byzantines, 183-216. Bréhier, L. “La femme dans la famille a Byzance.” Mélanges Grégoire I (Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire orientale de ]Université de Bruxelles IX, 1949), 105-108. ——_—. “La marine de Byzance de VIlIle au XlIe siecle.” Byzantion 19 (1949), 1-16. ——__—.. Le monde byzantin. La civilisation byzantine. Paris, 1950. ————. Le monde byzantin. Les institutions de [Empire byzantin. Paris, 1949.

———. “Notes sur histoire de Penseignement supérieur a Constantinople.”

Byzantion If (1926), 73-94. Boak, A. E. R. The Master of Offices in the Later Roman and Byzantine’ Empires. New York, 1919. Bury, J. B. The Constitution of the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, 1910.

———-. The Imperial Administrative System in the Ninth Century. New York, 1959. ———.. Romances of Chivalry on Greek Soil. (Romanes Lectures for 1911). Oxford, 1911.

Charanis, P. The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire. (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Armenian Library.) Lisboa, 1963.

———. “The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century.” Setton and Baldwin, eds., A History of the Crusades. Philadelphia, 1958.

202 Imperial Constantinople ———. “Some Aspects of Daily Life in Byzantium.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review VIIM/1, 2 (Summer 1962—Winter 1962-63): 53-70.

————. “Some Remarks on the Changes in Byzantium in the Seventh Century.” Zbornik Radova 8, 1 (1963). ———-. “The Transfer of Populations as a Policy in the Byzantine Empire.” Comparative Studies in Society and History III (2) January, 1961, 140-154.

Child, V. Gordon. “The Urban Revolution.” Town Planning Review 21 (1950), 3-17. Choisy, A. L’Art de batir chez les Byzantins. Paris, 1883. Cohen, G. “Epopée byzantine et épopée francaise.” Mélanges Grégoire II

(Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire orientale de lUniversité de Bruxelles X), Brussels, 1950, 143-160. Cousin, M. Histoire de Constantinople jusqu’a la fin de [Empire. Translaté sur les Originals grecs de M. Cousin. 4 vols. Paris, 1672-1674.

Da Costa-Louillet, G. “Saints de Constantinople aux VIIIe, [Xe et Xe siécles.” Byzantion 25-27 (1955-57), fasc. 2, 783-852; Byzantion 24 (1954), 179-264. De Beylie, L. L’Habitation byzantine: Recherches sur Varchitecture civile des Byzantins et son influence en Europe. Grenoble-Paris, 1902. Delahaye, H. “Byzantine Monasticism.” In Baynes and Moss, Byzantium. Delatte, A. and Ch. Josserand. “Contribution a l'étude de la démonologie byzantine.” Mélanges Bidez (Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire orientales et slave) 1933/34. Demus, O. Byzantine Mosaic Decoration. London, 1948. Dendias, M. “Etudes sur le gouvernement et l’administration 4 Byzance.” Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini (Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici V), Roma, 1939, 122-140. Der Nersessian, S. Armenia and the Byzantine Empire: A Brief Study of Armenian Art and Civilization. Cambridge, Mass., 1945. De Rougemont, D. Love in the Western World. New York, 1956. Diehl, Ch. “De quelques croyances byzantines sur la fin de Constantinople.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1929-1930), 192-196. Délger, F. Beitrage zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Finanzverwaltung, besonders des 10. und 11. Jahrhundert. (Byzantinisches Arkhiv, Heft 9) Leipzig-Berlin, 1927. ———-. Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und des Neuern

Zeit. Reihe A: Regesten. Abt I: Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Reiches. 1 teil: Regesten von 565-1025. Munchen-Berlin, 1924.

Dumezil, G. Mitra-Varuna: essai sur deux représentations indo-européennes de la souveraineté. Paris, 1948. Dvornik, F. “The Circus Parties in Byzantium.” Byzantina-Metabyzantina I (1946/1), 119-133.

———. Les Légendes de Constantin et de Méthode: vues de Byzance. (Byzantinoslavica Suppl. I). Prague, 1933.

Bibliography = 203 Ebersolt, J. Les arts somptuaires de Byzance. Paris, 1923. Eisenstadt, S. N. The Political Systems of Empires. Glencoe, Ul., 1963. Hisler, R. Orphisch-Dionysisch Mysterein-Gedanken in der christlichen Antike. Hildesheim, 1966. Eliade, M. “Centre du monde, Temple, Maison.” Le Symbolisme cosmique des monuments religieux. (Serie Orientale Roma XIV), Roma, 1957. ——. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. New York, 1959.

———. Images and Symbols. London, 1961. ————. Patterns in Comparative Religion. New York, 1958. Engnell, I. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Uppsala, 1943.

Frances, E. “L’Empereur Nicéphore Ier et le commerce maritime byzantin.” Byzantinoslavica XXVII (1/1966), 41-47. Frankfort, H. Kingship and the Gods. Chicago, 1962. Freud, S. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York, 1962. Gadd, C. J. Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East. (Schweik Lectures in Biblical Archaeology, 1945), London, 1948.

Gaster, T. Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East. 2nd ed. New York, 1961. Gerland, E. “Das Wohnhaus der Byzantiner.” Burgwart 16 (1915), 10-19. Ghirshman, R. Iran (Penguin) Baltimore, 1961. Glotz, G. The Greek City and Its Institutions. New York, 1929. Glykatzi-Ahrweller, H. Recherches sur Tadministration de lempire byzantin aux IX~XIe siécles (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, LXXXIV), Athens-Paris, 1960. Gorianov, L. Sbornik dokumentov po sotsia?no-ekonomicheskoi istorii Vizantii. Moskva, 1951.

Grabar, A. Byzantine Painting. (Skira) New York, 1953. ———. L’Empereur dans lVart byzantine. Recherches sur lart officiel de empire d Orient. Paris, 1936. ———. L’Iconoclasme byzantine: dossier archéologique. Paris, 1957. Granet, M. Chinese Civilization. New York, 1930. Grégoire, H. “L’age héroique de Byzance.” Mélanges offert ad M. Nicolas Iorga. Paris, 1933, 383-397. ————. “Nouvelles chansons épiques des IXe et Xe siécles.” Byzantion XIV (1939), 235-263. ————. “Notes on the Byzantine Epic.” Byzantion XV.

Grierson, P. “Coinage and Money in the Byzantine Empire.” Moneta e Scambi nelfalto Medievo (Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto Medievo; Settimani di Studio VIII), Spoleto, 1961, 411-453. Guilland, E. “La collation et la perte ou la déchéance des titres nobiliaires a Byzance.” Revue des Etudes Byzantines IV (1946), 24~69. ———. “Etudes sur Hippodrome de Byzance.” Byzantinoslavica XXVI (1/1966), 289-307; Byzantinoslavica XXVII (2/1966), 26—40.

———. “Etudes sur histoire administrative de Byzance.” ByzantinaMetabyzantina Y (1) (1946), 165-179.

204 Imperial Constantinople ———. “Les eunuques dans |’Empire byzantin.” Revue des Etudes Byzantines I (1943), 197-238. ———. “Fonctions et dignités des eunuques.” Revue des Etudes Byzantines II (1944), 185-225. ———. “Vénalité et favoritisme 4 Byzance.” Revue des Etudes Byzantines X (1952), 35-46.

Gylii, Petri. De topographia Constantinoplis, liber TI, in Banduri, Imperium Orientale, sive Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae, t. 1. Venice, 1720.

Handlin, O. and C. Burchard (eds.). The Historian and the City. Cambridge, Mass., 1963.

Hauteceour, L. Mystique et architecture: symbolisme du cercle et de la coupole. Paris, 1954. Hobsbawm, E. L. Primitive Rebels. Manchester, 1959. Hocart, A. M. Kingship. Oxford, 1927. Hussey, J. “The Byzantine Empire in the Eleventh Century: Some Different Interpretations.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, XXXII (1950), 71-85. ———. Church and Learning in the Byzantine Empire: 867-1185. Oxford, 1937.

Iorga, N. “Constantinople et la thalassocratie byzantine.” Etudes byzantines I (Bucharest, 1939), 51-65. ———. “L’Homme byzantin.” Etudes byzantines I, 313-325. ———. “La vie de province dans lempire byzantin.” Etudes byzantines I (Bucharest, 1940), 147-171.

———. Histoire de la vie byzantine. Empire et Civilisation; daprés les sources, illustrée par les monnaies. I. Bucharest, 1934. Janin, R. Constantinople byzantine: Développement urbaine et répertoire topographique. 2iéme ed. (Institut Francais d’Etudes Byzantines). Paris, 1964. Jenkins, R. J. H. Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries: 610-1701. New York, 1966.

———. The Byzantine Empire on the Eve of the Crusades. London, 1953. ———. “The Flight of Samonas.” Speculum 23 (1948), 217-235. Joannou, P. “Psellos et le monastére ta Nagtov.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951), 283-290. Kaegi, W. “The Byzantine Army and Iconoclasm.” Byzantinoslavica XXVIII

(1/1966), 48-70. Kantorowicz, E. “Byzantine Feudalism.” In Coulborn (ed.), Feudalism in History. Princeton, 1956. ———. Selected Studies. Locust Valley, New York, 1965. Kazhdan, A. P. “Sotsialnii sostav naseleniya vizantiiskikh gorodov v IX—X vv.” Vizantiiskii Vremennik VIII (1950). ———. “Vizantiiskie goroda v VII-XI vekach.” Sovietskaya Arkheologiya

21 (1954), 164-183. Kirsten, E. “Die byzantinische Stadt.” Berichte zum XI Internationalen Byzantinischen-Kongres. Munich, 1958.

Bibliography 205 Kolias, G. Léon Choerosphactés, Magistre, Proconsul et Patrice. (Texte und Forschungen zur Byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie, no. 31). Athens, 1939. Koukoules, Ph. Bufavtivaev Bios xat ILoAttiopos. 5 vols. Athens, 1948-55.

———. “1 hovted tv Putaviwov.” Epiteiris Eteiris Byzantinén Spoudon. XI (1935), 192-238. Laurent, L. L’Arménie entre Byzance et VIslam depuis la conquéte Arabe jusquen 886. Paris, 1919. Lechner, K. “Hellenen und Barbaren im Weltbild der Byzantiner. Die alten Bezeichnungen als Ausdruck einer neuen Kulterbewutzseins.” Dissert. Munchen, 1954. Lipshits, E. Ya. “K izucheniyu ekonomiki prigorodov Konstantinopolya v X v.” Vizantiiskii Vremennik XIV (1958), 81-85. ———. “K voprosu o gorode v Vizantii VIII-IX vv.” Vizantiiskii Vremen-

nik VI (1953). ————. Ocherki istorii vizantiiskogo obschestva i kultury VII pervaya polovina IX v.” Moskva-Leningrad, 1961. Lopez, R. S. “The Crossroads Within the Walls.” In Handlin and Burchard,

The Historian and the City. ———. “Silk Industry in the Byzantine Empire.” Speculum XX, 1 (January, 1945), 1-42. Luckenbill, D. D. Ancient Records of Assyria. 2. vols. Chicago, 1927. Lynch, K. “The Form of Cities.” Scientific American 190-191 (1954), 5563.

——_——. The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass., 1960.

Macri, C. M. L’Organization de l'économie urbaine dans Byzance. Paris, 1929.

Malafosse, J. de. Les lois agraires a lépoque byzantine. Traduction et exégése. Toulouse, 1949.

Malinin, V. Starets Eleazarova Monastyrya Filofei i ego poslaniya. Kiev, 1901.

Manojlovi¢é, M. “Le peuple de Constantinople de 400 4 800 aprés J.C. Etude spéciale de ses forces armées, des élements qui le composaient et son

réle constitutionnel pendent cette période.” Byzantion 11 (1936), 617-716. Mathew, D. Byzantine Aesthetics. London, 1963. Melaart, J. Earliest Civilizations of the Near East. London, 1965.

Miller, D. A. “The Logothete of the Drome in the Middle Byzantine Period.” Byzantion 36 (1966), fasc. 2, 438-470. Monnier, H. Les Novelles de Léon le Sage. Bordeaux-Paris, 1923. Moravesik, Gy. Byzantinoturcica. 2 vols. Berlin, 1958. Miller, W. Die heilige Stadt: Roma quadrata, himmlischen Jerusalem und die Mythe vom Weltnabel. Stuttgart, 1961. Mumford, L. In City Invincible: A Symposium on Urbanization and Cultural Development in the Ancient Near East. Chicago, 1960, 224-246. ———. The City in History. New York, 1961.

206 Imperial Constantinople Neumann, C. Die Weltstellung des byzantinischen Reiches vor den Kreuzzugen. Leipzig, 1894. Onians, R. Origins of European Thought. Cambridge, 1951. Ostrogorsky, G. “Agrarian Conditions in the Byzantine Empire in the Middle Ages.” Cambridge Economic History I (Cambridge, 1966), 205234,

————. “Byzantine Cities in the Early Middle Ages.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959), 45-66. ——_——. History of the Byzantine State. New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1957.

———. Mélanges G. Ostrogorskij I. Paris, 1963. ———.. Pour Vhistoire de la féodalité byzantine. Translated by H. Grégoire. (Corpus Bruxellense Historiae Byzantinae. Subs. I). Bruxelles, 1954. ———. “Das Steursystem im byzantinischen Altertum und Mittelalter.” Byzantion XI (1931), 229-240.

Pargoire, J. “St. Mamas: le quartier russe de Constantinople.” Echos d’ Orient XI (1908), 203-210. Pasini, A. Il tesoro di San Marco. Venice, 1889. Pedersen, J. Israel, Its Life and Culture. 2 vols. Oxford, 1926. Poéte, M. Introduction @ TUrbanisme: L’Evolution des Villes: La Lecon de lAntiquité. Paris, 1929. Redfield, R. Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago, 1956.

———. The Primitive World and Its Transformations. (Cornell) Ithaca, New York, 1957. Reik, T. Ritual: Psycho-analytic Studies. New York, 1958. Rice, D. T. The Art of Byzantium. London, 1959. Robinson, H. S. and Weinberg, S. “Excavations at Corinth: 1959.” Hesperia XXIX/3 (July-September 1960), 225-253.

———. “Excavations at Corinth: 1960.” Hesperia XXXI/2 (April-June 1962), 95-133. Roheim, G. “Die Wilde Jagd.” Imago XII (1926), 401-450. ————. Gates of the Dream. New York, 1952. Rouillard, G. La vie rurale dans empire Byzantin. Paris, 1953.

Runciman, S. The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy. Cambridge, 1955. ———-. The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign. Cambridge, 1963.

Schlumberger, G. Un empereur byzantin au dixiéme siécle, Nicéphore Phocas. Paris, 1890. Sebillot, R. Le Folklore de France. 4 vols. Paris, 1900-1907. Segré, A. “Essays on Byzantine Economic History.” Byzantion XVI (194243), 393-444. Seidler, G. L. Soziale Ideen in Byzance. (Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten, bild 24). Berlin, 1960. Setton, K. M. “On the Importance of Land Tenure and Agrarian Taxation

in the Byzantine Empire, From the Fourth Century to the Fourth Crusade.” American Journal of Philology LXXIV (1953), 225-259.

Bibliography 207 Skyllitzes Matritensis, t. 1: Reproducciones y miniaturas. Comm. S. C. Estopanan, Barcelona-Madrid, 1965. Sorlin, I. “Les traités de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe siécle.” Cahiers du Monde Russe et Soviétique II (3) (1961), 313-360, (4), 447-475. Starr, J. The Jews in the Byzantine Empire: 641-1204. (Texte und Forschungen zur byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie, XXX). Athens, 1939.

Stein, E. Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinisches Reiches, vornehmlich unter den Kaisern Justinus II und Tiberius Constantinus. Stuttgart, 1919.

———. Untersuchungen zur spatbyzantinischen Verfassungs- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Hanover, 1925. Syuzyumov, M. Ya. “Ekonomika prigorodov vizantiiskikh krupnikh gorodov.” Vizantiiskii Vremennik XI (1956), 55-81.

Tarn, W. W. Hellenistic Civilization. 3rd ed. London, 1952. Tatakis, B. La philosophie byzantine. 2iéme fascicule supplément de E. Bréhier, Histoire de la Philosophie. Paris, 1949. Teall, J. L. “The Grain Supply of the Byzantine Empire: 330-1025.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959), 87-139. Texier, C. and Pullen, R. P. Byzantine Architecture. London, 1864. Thompson, J. A. K. Greeks and Barbarians. New York, 1921.

Thrupp, S. “The City as the Idea of Social Order.” In Handlin and Burchard, The Historian and the City. Treitinger, O. Die ostromische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im hofischen zeremoniell. Jena, 1938.

Van Millingen, A. Byzantine Constantinople. The Walls of the City and Adjoining Historical Sites. London, 1910. Vasiliev, A. A. Byzance et les Arabes. Iliéme partie: Le dynastie macédonienne. Brussels, 1936. ————.. “Harun Ibn-Yahya and His Description of Constantinople.” Seminarium Kondakovianum V (1932), 1, 149-163.

———. “Medieval Ideas of the End of the World East and West.”

Byzantion XVI (1942-43), 462-502. Vasilievskii, V. G. “Varyago-russkaya i varyago-angliiskaya druzhina v Konstantinopolye XI i XII vv.” In his Trudy, I, St. Petersburg, 1908. Vogt, A. “Etudes sur le theatre byzantin.” Byzantion VI (1931), 37-74, 623-640. von Falke, O. Decorative Silks. New York, 1936.

Vryonis, Sp. “An Attic Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins (668-741) from the Thomas Whittemore Collection and the Numismatic Evidence for the Urban History of Byzantium.” Mélanges G. Ostrogorskij I (1963), 291-300. ————. “Byzantium: The Social Basis of Decline in the Eleventh Century.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 1, 2 (1959), 159-175. Weber, M. The City. Glencoe, IIl., 1958. Webster, H. Magic: A Sociological Study. Stanford, 1948.

208 Imperial Constantinople Wittvogel, K. Oriental Despotism. New Haven, 1957.

Wolff, R. L. “The Three Romes: The Migration of an Ideology and the Making of an Autocrat.” Daedalus 88 (1959), 291-311. Yakobson, A. L. “O chislennosti naseleniya srednovekogo Chersonesa.” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 19 (1961), 154-165. Zakythinos, D. “Etatisme byzantin et expérience hellénistique.” Annuaire de VInstitut de Philologie et d'Histoire orientales et slaves X (1950), 667-680.

INDEX

Abasgians, 184 185, 187

Abstractions, political, 142 Architecture, 5, 9, 112, 120 Acclamation, 27, 35, 132, 134 church, 113

of new ruler, 134 Arete, 188

Action, political, 8, 79, 132 Aristocracy, 8, 86, 96, 97, 98, 106,

Activity, mercantile, 45 138, 146, 151, 165—190

Actors, 128—129 definition, 166 Administration, 80, 81, 86, 87, 103, Greek, 174 146, 147, 148 and the group, 173

provincial, 195 military, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185,

Advancement, 84, 99—100 186, 193, 194, 196

Adventus, 16 origins of, 169-171 Age, Hellenistic, 5, 82, 132 and war, 166 Agon, 80 “Aristocracy of labor,” 56, 73 Agoraioi (““market-place people’), 147 Armenia, 167, 181

Agriculture, 43, 46f Armenians, 20, 92, 98, 123, 144,

estate-type, 167 148, 170, 171, 174, 181-183,

tenant-farm, 145 184, 187, 194, 195 Aid, social, 69 Army, 31, 34, 51, 90, 134, 140, 149, Aix-la-Chappelle, 60 167, 176, 177

Alans, 184 Art, 110-114 Alexander the Great, 81 civic, 188

Amelioration, social, 138—139 cosmomimetic, 113

Amida, 188 Hellenistic, 112 Amorian dynasty, 97 religious, 110, 112 Amorium, 187 spiritual, 112

Analyses, historical, 83 Artisans, 57, 124, 141; see also Guilds Anatolia, 25, 92,111, 144, 145, 169, Artisanry, 60

170, 172, 184, 185, 186 Artopoleia (Bakers’ Street), 71

Ancient world, 46 Ascension, Feast of, 36—37

Angeli, 26 Ascesis, 145, 154 Angels, 94 Asia, 44, 192 Anthropology, 152 Asia Minor, 48

Antique world, 191 Assembly, popular, 134 Apocalypticism, 161 Assyria, 24, 174

Apostasia, 178; see also Rebellion Assyrians, 184

Arab, 35, 45, 81, 133, 148, 149, 168, Athens, 4, 106, 120 209

210 Index

Athinganoi, 184 Border, 11, 97, 185, 186

Athletics, 127 Borderer, 187—190 Athos, Mt., 145 Bosporus, 11, 20 Attitudes, cultural, 194 Boundary, sacred, 144 national, 150 Bourgeois, 146, 150 Augusti, 4 Brabeion (insigne), 89, 98 Authority, 9, 11, 25, 27, 65, 134, Braka (Ebraika; Jew’s Quarter), 77

151, 196 Brumalia, 99

aristocratic-familial, 173, 189 Brusa, 121

divine, 23 Building, act of, 27

Imperial, 83, 128, 195 basilicate, 17, 121

mana-authority, 174 residential, 120f secular and sacred, 130 sacred, 26

sword-authority, 132 Bulgaria, 45, 48, 176

Autobiography, 109 _ Bulgars, 11, 20, 32, 35, 58, 67, 104, Autocracy, 38, 82, 136, 149, 182 148, 151, 176

196 Bureaucracy, 5, 14, 53, 62, 79-114,

Autokrator, 38, 41, 82, 84, 132 119, 136, 138, 141, 142, 145, 146, 150, 151, 168, 169, 173, 174, 179,

Babylon, 188 181, 182, 183, 186, 193, 194, 196

Bagdadis, 188 in the city, 86 Baghdad, 92, 121 clerical, 145

Ballads, 137, 186, 187 dynastic, 96, 97, 98 Barbarians, 30, 31, 58, 64, 91, 92, effectiveness of, 103

126, 148, 149, 150-151 eunuch, 93—95 Bardas, Caesar, 97, 160 history of, 80—86

Barker, Ernest, 39 Late Roman, 80-83 Basil (an ‘“‘emperor’’), 187 military, 89

Basileia, 142 recruitment, 95—100, 103 Basileion Rhomaion, 37 and religion, 106

Basileus, 32, 38, 41, 82, 94, 132 structure of, 84, 86, 87f, 112

Basilika, 62 training, 80

Basiliké, 18 Byzantium, 4, 6, 17, 21, 22, 23, 29, 34,

Basilikoi, 90 37, 45, 46, 47, 65, 73, 74, 81, 85, 87,

Baths, 130f 95, 100, 106, 110, 112, 119, 126,

Beasts (signs of the wild), 25, 29, 30, 128, 132, 144, 148, 150, 151, 152,

31, 128, 149 153, 162, 165, 167, 168, 169, 176,

Behavior, political, 88 181, 186, 191, 192, 194, 195 Bethlehem, 35—37

Biography, 101 Caesar, 40

Black Sea, 11, 44, 51 Caliphate, 45, 104, 176, 185, 188 Blattia, 58 Canons, 131

Blood (blood-line), 86, 138 Capital, 7, 9, 11, 23, 45, 50, 51, 82, 84,

Book of Ceremonies (De ceremoniis}, 102, 113, 118, 147, 151, 168, 184,

33, 35, 87, 88 192, 193, 194, 195

Book of the Prefect, 54, 56, 59, 60 Carbeas, 185, 187 61, 62, 63, 68, 69, 71, 73,74, 75 Carthage, 45

Index 211 Catholikos of Armenia, 185 Circle, circuit, 8

Cavalry, 90, 170, 182 Circus, 127 Cement, social, 8 Circus factions, 132; see also Demes Centenaria, 54 Citizen/subject, 5, 7, 14, 17, 18, 30, Center, 9, 11,15, 46, 50,56, 113, 118, 45, 46, 54, 56, 61, 64, 65, 96,

144, 145, 165, 167, 170, 171, 117, 118, 124, 126, 131-142, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 143, 147, 148, 149, 161

186, 190, 195, 197 Greek, 4

social and cultural, 193 Citizenry, organic, 141 Ceremony, ceremonies, 7, 24, 27, 35, Citizenship, 139, 147, 189, 194

37, 58, 59, 62, 89, 142 cultural, 82

Chain of command, 84, 88, 103, 172 City, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14,

Chaldoi, 184 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,

Chancery, 86, 104, 107 26, 27, 28, 36, 37, 43, 46, 48, Change, social, 147, 171 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, Chaos (opposed to Order), 3, 12 67, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 80, 83,

Character, Hellenistic, 109 85, 86, 95, 96, 103, 112, 117, Chariot-races, 30, 127, 135. 118, 122, 123, 125, 130, 132, paganos (ordinary), 127 136, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146,

solemn, 127, 133 147, 149, 151, 152, 158, 159, Chartularios, chartularii, 90, 91, 92 160, 161, 168, 169, 173, 175, Charzanians, 88 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, 186,

Cherson, Crimean, 120, 183 187, 188, 190, 192, 193, 194,

Childe, V. Gordon, 1 195, 197 China, Imperial, 22 as artifice, 5

Choregos, 30 Christian-Imperial, 8 Christ, 23, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, creation of, 7, 21f

36, 37, 40, 104, 105, 153 as Empress, 25

AlltRuler /pantokrator), 41, 113 as fortress, 11, 13

as Helios, 127 Hellenic, 3

Christianity, 17, 150, 152, 153, 161, Hellenistic, 3, 121, 130

184, 188 Imperial, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17, 19, 44, 50,

popular, 152 79, 179, 194, 195 Chrysobull, 59 Judaic, 24 Chrysocheir, 185, 187 life in, 6

Church, 41, 59, 130, 131 as market, 46

Armenian, 184 planned, 5, 119 feasts of, 106 as sacred place, 8, 21

Churches, Haghia Sophia, 17, 19, 25, as shelter, 21

113, 120, 130, 158 City-dwellers, 17, 19, 55, 145, 152

Church of St. Diomedes, 122 Cityscape, 117

Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 35 Civil servants, mentality, 110

Church of the Theotokos, 33 Roman, 80

a church of the Theotokos, 26 service, 79, 80, 84, 87, 95, 97, 99,

Kievan, 113 102, 103, 105, 107, 111, 112, 146, Sicilian, 113 168, 169, 180 Cicero, 3 Class, classes, 8, 67, 114, 124, 166

212 Index

curial, 96 71, 99, 196

divisions, 119, 140 bureaucratic, 79, 80

literate, 142 economic, 64

lower, 122, 124, 138, 141, 151, 184 Conversion, 188

merchant, 50, 51, 73, 195 Corinth, 120

middle, 63, 95, 101, 124, 141, 142, Coronation, 14, 22, 23, 34, 35, 99, 134

146 Corpus juris civilis, 38

rural, 52, 95 Cosmesis, 144

structure, 136 Cosmos, cosmic order, 3, 4, 5, 39, 112 urban, 96, 108, 124, 146 aristocratic, 189

war, 184 human, 195 Classicism, 29, 104, 105, 106, 109, Council of State, 91, 93, 99; see also 111, 112, 113, 150, 154, 158 Sekreton

Climate, 119, 122 Councils, church, 38 Coins, gold, 65 Counterfeiting, 69, 73 minted, 57 Countryside, hinterland, 11, 25, 95, 96, see also Nomisma 121, 143, 144, 145, 146, 158, 166,

Column of Arcadius, 32 169, 177, 178, 182, 183,185, 194 Column (monument) of Trajan, 32 Couriers, 91

171 Court Fool, 129

Command, military, 89, 94, 166, 170, Court, 51, 57, 82, 96, 98

Commerce, 50, 55, 56, 64, 66, 67, 69, Courts, 40

Trade Crete, 45

71, 73, 148, 176, 195; see also Couvade, 22

Commune, peasant, 52, 180, 186 Cross, monumental, 16, 33

Community, 52 victory-bearing, 31—32 of language, 123 “Crossroads,” 15, 44, 46 mercantile, 73, 74 Crown (government), 67

secular, 128 Crown (regalia), 58 Comneni, 26, 170 Imperial, 30 Competition, 44, 50, 69, 71f, 80, 148 Crusade, 176

Composition, social, 140 Fourth, 11

Concentration, 11, 12, 14f, 69 Cult, 69, 152, 153, 154

Consciousness, popular, 186 Hellenistic, 154 Constantinople, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, 44, of martyrs, 17 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 59, 62, 64, 65, Culture, 11, 23

67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 85, aristocratic, 190 102, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120, Christian, 82 121, 122, 125, 129, 130, 136, of the city, 85,,168, 194 143, 146, 148, 151, 152, 158, 159, civilization of culture, 103

160, 162, 177, 179, 192, 194 Hellenic, 4, 82, 84

Roman, 121 Hellenistic, 85, 100, 147, 148

Constitution, 39, 134, 180 literate, 1O0f, 111, 194

Consumer, 19, 138 pagan, 82 Consumption, conspicuous, 69 Custom, 38

Contracts, 61, 62, 68 Customers, 69, 71 Control, 6, 12, 14, 18f, 28, 47, 48, 69, Customs (douane), 74

Index 213 Customs-posts, Abydos, 51 Dioscorides, 105

Hieron, 51 Diplomats, diplomacy, 20, 51, 57, 58, Cyrenaica, 81 59, 66, 85, 91, 92, 104, 139, 148, 176 Danube, 176 Discipline, military, 173

186 Dome, 4

Decentralization, 145, 170, 178-181, Dogma, orthodox, 106

Decision-making, political, 110 Dragon (snake, serpent), 28—29

Decline, 192 Dream, aristocratic, 187, 189 Defense, 64, 118 Dromos (Public Post), 84, 91 Definition, economic, 66 Dualism, 185, 188

Demes (factions), 33, 37, 127, 140, Dukas, Ducades, 98, 137, 170, 182, 187

141, 142 Andronicus, 178, 187

as civic organizations, 135 Constantine, 146, 178, 179, 187 “colors,” Blues, 90, 133, 135, 136, Dumezil, Georges, 22

142 Dynasties, aristocratic, Anatolian, Argy-

Greens, 90, 133, 135, 136, 142 ros, 107, 170, 187

Reds, 133 Botaniates, 170 Whites, 133 Bourtzos, 170

as constitutional people, 131—140 Cecaumenos, 170

controls on, 136-140 Comnenus, 170

history of, 132 Curcuas, 170

as militia, 15, 132, 135, 136 Dalassenus, 170

rights of, 133—136 Diogenes, 170

Democracy, 111, 132, 133 Kinnamos, 187

Demoi, 133, 140 Lips, 179

Demokratia, 131 Maleinos, 170

136 Maniaces, 170

Demokratoi (Demarchs), 70, 133, 135, Malessenus, 170

military, 133, 135 Melias, 170, 187

Demon, demons, 7, 16, 25, 29, 39, Musele, 170

31, 129, 144, 154-162 Paleologus, 170

Evil One, 156 Phocas, 170, 182, 189 ghost-demon, 154 Skleros, 170, 182 iliness-demon, 155 Synadenos, 170

names of, 157 Tzimiskes, 170

as poltergeist, 156 European, Bryennios, 170 as possessor, 156 Choerosphactes, 170; see also Leo

Demonology, 108, 154, 155 Choerosphactes

Demos, 133, 141 Curticius, 170

Determinants, social, 182 Monomachus, 170 Determinism, economic, 2 Rentakios, 170 Development, economic, 19 Taronites, 170

Dialectic, 102 Tessaracontopechys, 170 Digenes Akrites (Digenes the Borderer), Tornikios, 170, 179, 182

186, 187, 188 Dynasty (Imperial), 86, 137, 138, 196 Diocletian, 80 Dynasty (royal), Armenian Arsacids, 174

214 Index East, as abstraction, 111 as creator, 5, 9-11, 21f, 34, 37, 79; 113

Easter, 98 Emperor-hero, 187 Ecclesia, 154 in law, 37-41 Economy, 13, 14—77, 149, 195 light-bearing, 37

controlled, 46 as magician, 87, 138, 161

local, 74-77 as protector, 21

pelagic, 76 as provider, 13, 20—21, 54

ritualized, 44, 64f in ritual, 34—37 Eden, 36, 37, 87, 195 as savior, 37 Education, 100 soldier-emperor, 31, 81, 167, 176, 193 higher, 100, 101 triumphing, 32, 128

primary, 101 as vicegerent, 5, 47, 82

secondary, 101, 102 Emperors, Alexander, 93

Egypt, 46, 64, 81, 82, 167 Basil (an ““emperor’’), 187

Egyptians, 184 Basil II, 31, 38, 97, 100, 104, 122, 182 Elites, 167—168 150, 175, 176, 177, 179, 192, 193,

Eidola (images), 158-161 Basil II Bulgaroctonos, 26, 32, 54, 149,

administrative, 99 194

aristocratic, 169, 173 Constantine the Great, 9, 12, 16, 25

bureaucratic, 195 26, 34, 58, 82, 121, 158, 161 intellectual, 152 Constantine V, 26, 27

landed, 166 Constantine VI, 26 military, 176, 196 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, 32, ruling, 137 35, 58, 60, 64, 92, 179 service, 167, 196 Constantine VIII, 26, 150

social, 126 Constantine IX Monomachus, 150 Embolé, 70 John Tzimiskes, 175, 180, 185 urban, 8, 122, 146, 195 Heraclius, 65, 81, 83

Great Embolé, 71 John VII Paleologos, 26 Emboloi, 119 Justin II, 26 porticoes, 122 Justinian, 9, 25, 26, 38, 80, 81, 83, 94, Emirate, of Cordova, 148 118, 158

Emirates, 176 Leo III, 26, 27 Emperor, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 25, 29, Leo IV, 26

30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 44, 45, 47, 53, Leo VI, 38, 39, 98, 104, 121, 151, 187

54, 58, 60, 65, 66, 73, 80, 82, Maurice, 170 84, 86, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, Michael J Rhangabe, 160 96, 97, 98, 99, 107, 126, 127, Michael ITI, 31, 187 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 140, Michael IV Paphlagonian, 150 149, 151, 165, 169, 170, 171, Michael V Caliphates, 131, 146

172, 175, 180, 186, 189 Nicephoras I, 45, 54

as benefactor, 17 Nicephoras II Phocas, 138, 146, 175, as bureaucrat, 86—87, 103 176, 177, 178, 180

as charioteer, 30, 127 Romanus I Lecapenus, 98, 138, 160, 179,

Christ-crowned, 32 182, 183

Christ-imitating, 23, 26, 28, 37, 40, Romanus II, 31, 138

126 Theodosius II, 9, 26, 27, 38

Index 215

Theophilos, 26, 54 Farmers, 48

Empire, 4, 7, 9, 25, 26, 33, 34, 37, 48, 50, poultry, 61 52, 56, 58, 66, 82, 83, 85, 88, 93, 101, truck, 60 103, 104, 111, 112, 118, 120, 134, Fathers of the Church, 106 137, 145, 147, 150, 160, 162, 166, Gregory Nazianzenos, 106

167, 168, 170, 171, 176, 179, 181, John Damascene, 41 182, 185, 186, 190, 192, 193, 194, Festivals, 119, 123, 126

195, 196 Feudalism, 169, 172, 175, 177-178, Empire-in-the-City, 151 182, 185

Greek, 184 Figura, 33, 37 Roman, 32, 52 Figure, Imperial, 27, 96, 99, 196 Empress, 25 Finance, 86, 90

Irene, 26, 53-54 Fisc, 47, 50, 51 Theodora, 138 Focus, social, 130 Zoe, 138 Foodstuffs (in the city), 61-62, 123 Energy, Imperial, 29 bread, 124 Entertainment (recreation, leisure), 126— fish, 124—125

131, 139 garden truck, 125

Environment, urban, 7 meat, 48, 123, 124 Epanagoge, 38, 40, 41 milk products, 125 Epic, Byzantine, 186—189 olive oil, 124

Epiphany, 106 poultry, 125

Estates, 64, 174, 180 Forces, economic, 43

Imperial, 47, 145 Forgers, 65

military, 77 Foreign affairs, 91

monastic, 145 Foreigners(ethnoi, Gentiles), 45, 50, 56, 58,

Etatisme, 133 66,67, 74,92, 107,137,139,147—152,169

statism, 182 merchants, 67, 74, 147, 148

Ethos, warrior, 189—190 in military, 148

Eucharist, 126 in trade, 45, 195

Eunuchs, 93—95, 150 Formation, urban, 43 Euphrates, 184, 187 Formations, military, 172 Euripides, 104, 129 Forms, social, 8

Europe, 44, 169, 194 Fortune (tyche), 27, 54, 127, 131, 138,160 Exclusivism, cultural, 197 fate, chance, 131, 158

Exorcism, 155, 157 Forum, fora, 16, 18, 126

Exotikoi, 66, 67, 72, 181; see also Amastrianos, 16, 70, 123, 128

Foreigners Augusteon, 16, 18, 19, 36 of Constantine, 16, 18, 19, 33, 161 Fabric, social, 35 Strategion, 70, 160 Fabrics, sacred, 44, 58 Tauros (of Beef), 70, 123, 162

Faerie, Realm of, 30 Theodosian, 14, 16

Faith, Christian, 113, 121 Franks (Italians), 12, 20, 45, 148, 195

181 sea-frontiers, 44

Family, 121, 168, 171, 172, 174, 180, Frontier, frontiers, 176, 183, 188, 189, 194

extended, 124 Function, bureaucratic, 80, 84, 88, 89, 93,

Imperial, 47, 53, 89 94,97

216 Index

Gambling, 130—131 jewelers, 19, 59, 62, 63, 71, 72

Games, 30 lead, workers in, 55 Gaster, T., 28 nailmakers, 55 Gate, 4, 12, 13, 27 oarmakers, 55

Adrinople, 14 perfumers, 19, 22, 63, 68, 69, 71 Chalke, 71 shoemakers, 55 Golden Gate, 15, 16, 27, 37 sievemakers, 55

Gé basiliké, 47 soapmakers, 55, 61, 63, 69, 70, 72

Gentry, 47; see also Aristocracy tanners, 63, 68

Geometry, 102 provisioning, 60f Getae, 184 bakers, 60, 61, 63, 69, 70, 72

Gifts (tribute), 57 butchers, 60, 61, 63, 68, 70, 72 God-king, 24, 36, 64 fishmongers, 60, 63, 71, 72 Sun-god-king, 46 porkdealers, 60, 61, 63, 68, 70, 72 Gods, pagan, 159 tavernkeepers, 60, 63, 69, 72

Gold, 65—66 victualers, 60, 61, 63, 68, 69, 70,

Golden Age, 27 71-72, 77

Golden Horn, 11, 12, 15, 20, 55, 61, 125 service, 60f, 70, 73

Goods and services, 13, 59, 63, 123 bankers, 61, 62, 63, 68, 70, 73

Gospels (Evangels), 4, 105, 106 cattlemarket inspectors, 63 Government, Imperial, 45, 140 notaries, 61, 62, 63, 68, 70, 71

Grades, bureaucratic, 89 ordinary teachers, 62

military, 89 teachers of law, 62, 68 senatorial, 89 silk, 55—58, 68

“Grain,” of city, 117, 119 demosia somata (Imperial guilds),

Grain, grain supply, 13, 48, 61, 124 55,57, 71 ,

price of, 138 ; gold embroiderers, 57

Grammar, 101—102 purple-dyers, 56 Grammata, 59 weavers and tailors, 56—57 Granaries, 14, 82 somata (ordinary guilds), 55 Greek Fire, 64 prandiopratai, 56, 63, 68, 71 Greeks, 194, 195 rawsilk, 56, 63, 70, 72 and Armenians, 181, 184, 185 silkspinners, 56, 63, 68, 72 Guard, Bodyguard, 18, 64, 126 weavers, 56, 63, 68 foreign guard, 90, 149, 177

Varangians, 92, 149, 162, 177 Hagiographers, 88 Guilds, crafts, 60, 63, 68, 69, 71, 73 Hagiography, 101, 144, 170

bronzeworkers, 19. Harmony, 40, 46, 47, 57, 59, 68, 73,

72 in art, 112

candlemakers, 55, 61, 63, 68, 69, 70, 137, 140

combmakers, 55 Hellenism, 194

copperworkers, 55 Heritage, cultural, 109, 181

construction workers, 61, 63 Hero, 28, 137, 138, 153, 174, 189 dyers, 55 Heroic age, 186

furriers, 55, 71 Hetaireia (foreign guard), 149

harness-and-strapmakers, 55, 61, 63, Heterodoxy, 18, 20, 123, 147, 184

68, 72 heresy, 161, 185

Index 217 heretics, 184; see also Athinganoi; icon-worship, 41

Paulicians Iconoclasm, 9, 26, 41, 106, 110, 111, 112, dierarchy, 7 145, 153, 185 bureaucratic, 79, 83, 87, 89, 93, 175 Idea, Imperial, 96, 98, 138, 147, 180

court, 86 Ideal, knightly, 187

cultural, 182 Identity, cultural, 182

demonic, 158 Images, Imperial, 159, 160, 161 of dress, 65 Imagination, popular, 159 ecclesiastical, 57 Imperatives, economic, 44

Orthodox, 185 noneconomic, 69 sacred, 88, 94, 113, 126, 133, 150, 165 Incantations, incantatory magic, 155, 157 Hill, cosmic, 4 Incarnation, 35 Hippodrome, 15, 17, 30, 33, 127, 128, Indians, 189

129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 159 Industry, 71, 75 Historians, 13, 88, 175, 187, 191 heavy industry, blacksmithing, metal Continuator of Theophanes, 160 working, glassworks, charcoa-burning,

Eusebius of Caesares, 25, 26 tanning, brickmaking, stoneworking,

Gibbon, Edward, 191 ropewalks, cooping, milling, wine and nue Cremona, 129, 135, olive pressing, ceramic industry, 75—77 Antapodosis, Legatio, 151 Industry, sumptuary, 58-59

109 Inspectors, 91

Michael Psellos, (q.v.), Chronography, Inscriptions, 76

Procopius of Caesarea, 25, 26 Interchange, economic, 59—60

Historiography, 191 Interpreters, 91—92 History, 8, 9, 32, 35, 109, 161, 162, Great Interpreter, 92 166, 169, 174, 191 Investment, 176 Hoarding, 72 tran, 29 Homer, 101, 102 Islam, 9, 45, 81, 111, 186, 188, 190

Homiletios, 105 Israel, 3

Honor, honors, 80, 84, 88, 165 Istanbul, 77, 119, 121 cursus honorum, 107, 113, 141 Italy, 151 Horloge (Great Clock), 17, 36

House, Imperial, 98, 138, 147, 149,177 Jerusalem, 25, 106

Household, Imperial, 90, 94 New Jerusalem, 4, 8 Household Regiments, 13, 90, 126, 139 Jews, 20, 76, 77, 123, 148, 149

Houses, housing (city), 117—122 John Bogas, strategos of Cherson, 183

Humanism, 106, 108, 109 John Vestis, judge, 107

Hunt, 28f Joshua, 174 mock hunts, 127 Judah, 25

Wild Huntsman, 30 Julio-Claudian house, 80 Hunter-King, 23, 28—31 Jus, 38 Justice, 39, 40, 41, 135 Icon, iconic mode, 6, 29, 32, 34, 57, 60, 65, 82, 112, 113, 144, 153, 154, 158, Kathisma, 30, 33

174, 193, 197 King, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 41

icon-viceroy, 23

218 Index King-Emperor, 13, 21, 28, 29, 34, 35, Leisure, 126, 130

37, 39, 85, 174 Lent, 72

King Arthur, 31 Lese majeste, 30, 73

King David, 105, 134 Letters, Imperial, 26 Kingship, 22, 82, 154, 174, 189 Leviathan, 28

Mesopotamian, 82 Life, civic, 61 Knight, 137, 177, 188 economic, 74 Kommerkiarioi, 51 patterns of, 117f

Kleterologion (of Philotheos), 88, 89 common, 117-162

Kratos orthodoxon, 142 Lighting, 120, 122

Krinites, 92 Lion, 29

Lion-Satan, 29

Laconia, 147 Literacy, 101-102

Land, 46, 47, 48, 86, 143, 145, 146, 166, Literati, 96, 106, 129 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, Literature, 102, 186, 190

180 Liturgies (services), 64

grants, 47, 172, 173, 174 Liturgy, Christian, 153

tenure, 52, 166, 167 Lives of the Saints, 152, 156 use, 167 Livestock, 63 Landholders, large, 184, 185, 195; Loyalty, 167, 173, 176, 177, 195, 196

see also Aristocracy Ludi, 29, 30, 127

small, 52, 180, 181, 184, 185, 195

Language, 81, 150, 182 Macedonia, 48, 107, 108

Arabic, 190 Macedonian dynasty, 9, 26, 57, 65, 97,

Greek, 4, 190 98, 107, 109, 111, 113, 137, 138,

Latin, 83 175, 176, 178, 179, 182, 184, 196

Laos, 126, 132, 133, 136—137,140,142 | Machine, military, 193

Largess, 53, 98, 139 Magic, 7, 22, 23, 28, 34, 57, 87, 131, Law, 22, 23, 37—41, 62, 68, 69, 77, 132, 157, 159, 160

113, 135 Magistrate, 23, 140 codes, 37, 38 176, 180, 184, 186

“blue laws,” 72 Magnate, magnates, 92, 96, 137, 171, economic, 44, 68, 73, 75 Majority, 142

faculty of, 101 Mana, 174, 175

‘laws of piety,” 39 Mandate, divine, 132

martial, 139 Mandatores, 91 rule of, 87 curator of the, 64, 90 natural, 39, 40 Mangana (arsenal), 64

sumptuary, 69 Manicheeism, 185

supply and demand, 93 Manpower, 82, 83, 143, 144 Manual of Law, 62

Leadership, 167, 173, 183 Manufacturing, 54—60, 64, 74, 75

military, 168, 172 dangerous, tabooed, 75—77

Learning, secular, 112 Manzikert, 177, 180, 194, 196 Legend of Basil, 97 Market, 43, 44, 51, 56, 59, 66, 70, 71

Legislation, Imperial, 180 barley, 71

Index 219

charcoal, 71 Monastery, monasteries, 102, 108,

local, 119 109, 123 slave, 71 Moneylending, 149

Marounites, 188 Mongolians, 148

Marriage, 97, 124, 173 Monks, 8, 109, 111, 112, 117, 145,

Imperial, 34 153, 154 settlements, 62 Monopoly, governmental, 48, 57, 64f

Mass, urban, 137 guild, 68f

Master of Offices, 80, 83 Mores, aristocratic, 186 Materialization, 6, 27 Moslems, 20, 123, 149, 190

Mathematics, 108 Mountain, holy, 24

Mediterranean, 11, 15, 44, 45, 51, 81, Movement, popular, 133

118 Mumford, Lewis, 6

Megaloi Emboloi (Great Porticoes), 61 Museum, 103 Megalopolis, megalopoleis, 121, 132 Mystery, Christian, 112

Melimitzes (Melias, Mleh), 187 Mysticism, 154, 156

Mentality, peasant, 143 Myth, 28

Mercenary, mercenaries, 81, 149, 177 aristocratic, 166, 174 Merchants, 45, 50, 51, 142, 145, 148, of Christ, 153

195 of the city, 23, 79, 137, 174, 180,

Mercy, magical, 135 186, 190, 193, 196 Mesopotamia, 24, 26, 29, 107, 176 Urmythos, 138 Michael (Constantine) Psellos, 107f,

141, 142, 146, 150, 151, 193, 194, Nakharars, 167, 170, 182

195 Name, family, 86, 169, 171, 173,

De omnifaria doctrina, 108 174, 175, 180, 181, 187 De operatione daemonum, 155 Narses, 94

**Middle Age,” Byzantine, 83—85 Nationality, 123, 170, 183, 189 Migrants, immigrants, 122, 123, 144, Nativity (Christogennos), 35—37

145, 168, 181, 182 Nature, 1, 2, 3, 33, 40, 131 peasant-migrants, 122 Navy, Imperial, 13, 45

Migration, pattern of, 122f, 172, 194 Near East, 5, 15, 28, 43, 81, 118, 121

Miliaresion, miliaresia, 72 Neighborhood, 15, 70, 75, 122

Milion, 16, 161 streets of, 119

Minorities, national, 181, 183, 184 village-neighborhood, 123

Mint, 53, 65 Neo-Platonism, 155, 158 minting, 54, 66, 69 Neuroses, civic, 143

Mitaton, 67 Nikulitzas, 39—40

Mithra, Mitra, 23, 28 Nobility, 80, 84, 86, 97, 98, 99, 106,

Mob, 6, 13, 141, 147 113, 121, 170, 175, 176, 178,

okhlos, 136, 141 180, 181, 187, 189, 190 Modii, 159 Nomisma (solidus), 65, 66, 67, 71,

Mobility, social, 85, 131, 182, 184 Nomena, 2

Monarch, 146 72, 149 Monarchy, 134, 189 Nomos empsychos, 39—40 absolute, 131 North Africa, 81

220 Index

Notarioi, 89 Baanes, 93

Novels, of Leo VI, 121 Protoasekretes (First or Imperial Secretary), 90, 93, 107

Obelisque of Theodosius, 33 Michael Psellos, 107

Occupation, Latin, 192 Philaretos, 107 147, 186, 192 Protovestiarios (Chief of the Palace

Oecumene, 20, 23, 31, 32, 110, 134, Protonotarios of the Drome, 91

Office, 84, 86, 96, 98, 99, 119, 126, Wardrobe), 94

150 Quaestor, 90, 94

Imperial, 21, 32, 38, 181, 182, 196 Rector, 90, 93, 99

legal, 86, 87 Sakellarios (Comptroller General), 52,

Office for Barbarians, 91, 92 53, 90

Offices, Count of the Stables, 90 Sekretikoi (Treasurers), 90 Cubicularius (Gentleman of the Stratarchs, 90

Bedchamber), 98 Strategoi (military governors), 89,

Samonas, 98 167, 172, 180

Domestics, 89-90 strategos, 82, 170, 183

of the Arithmoi, 90 strategos ek prosopou, 89

of the Excubitors, 90, 135 Synkellos, 90

of the Hikanitoi, 90 Vestarch, 107

of the Schools, 90, 93, 94, 135 Michael Psellos, 107 Drungarius tou ploimou (Lord High Warden of the Envoy’s Quarters, 91

Admiral), 90 Officials, state, 80, 141

Epi tou kanikleiou, 104 Oikos-oeconomie, 19, 59 Michael] Psellos, 104 Old Testament, 106 Kritai (judges), 40, 90 Olga, Grandduchess of Kiev, 59

53 88, 92

Logothetai (treasurers), 84 On the Administration of the Empire tou eidikou (of the Private Funds), (De administrando imperii), 58, tou genikou (General Logothete), Opposition, aristocratic, 137

51, 52, 90 Order, 3, 23, 34, 35, 41, 44, 68, 87,

tou stratiotikou (of the Soldiers), 137, 144, 147

52, 90 Imperial, 114, 148 Logothete of the Drome, 74, 84, 90, mimetic, 24 91—93, 97, 139 moral, 2 Philotheos, 88 Orient, 81, 111

Master of Ceremonies, 88, 90 Organization, popular, 136

Orphanotrophos, 90, 123 Orientation, cultural, 85, 111 Paracoimomenos, 93, 94 Orphanage, Great, 90

Basil, 93 Orphism, 153 Joseph Bringas, 93, 138, 146 Orthodoxy, 106, 111, 152, 187

Paradynasteion, 107 Outline, material, 12, 112

Michael Psellos, 107 Outsider, 56, 79, 146, 149, 195

Prefect of the City, 18, 51, 60, 62,

63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 84, 90, Paganism, 130

93, 94, 99, 139, 140 Pagans, 106

Prepositos, 93 Palace, Blachernae, 12

Index 221 Sacred Palace, 14, 16, 18, 19, 53, 57, nightguard, 139 59, 63, 64, 71, 76, 94, 117, 119, Policy, economic, 195

129, 130, 139, 158 Imperial, 148, 167, 171, 177, 195 Palestine, 81 Polis, 17 Paradise, 7, 14, 36, 139, 188 Politics, 132 Parkinson, C. Northcote, 110 Politikon, to, 195

Parties, political, 133 Polity, 96, 134, 136, 152, 165, 168, Passion, Christian, 34, 129 body politic, 179

Patria of Constantinople, 159-162 politeia, 147

Patriarchs, 33, 90, 156 polity, Imperial, 44, 46, 47, 88, 165,

Pattern, city, 15 184 Imperial, 194 Population, 6, 13, 43, 46, $51, 118,

Paulicians, 184-186, 187, 188 120, 171

Peasants, 8, 52, 143, 145, 146 densities, 6, 119 peasant-soldiers, 173, 176, 180, 184 loss, 9, 118

Peloponnesus, 144 rural, 48, 145, 190, 193 People, 13, 17, 34, 37, 80, 129, 133, transfer of, 48, 118, 144, 183 134, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142,160 urban, 48, 67, 138, 145

choral, 142 Populus, 131, 137

common, 126 populus romanum, 141

constitutional, 131, 132, 140 Position, social, 63, 181

“of the marketplace,” 141 Posture, military, 175 Perquisites, bureaucratic, 84 Potlatch, 60 Persia, 29, 35, 81, 82, 133 Power, powers, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18,

Medes (Persians), 189 26, 51, 56, 65, 71, 84, 94, 95, 106,

Petra, 104 108, 110, 119, 147, 151, 168, 180,

Phaedrus (of Plato), 104 189, 190, 197 Philanthropia, 14, 40, 53, 135, 138 aristocratic, 171-178, 181 Philosophy, 108, 110 centralized, 9, 96 Pico della Mirandola, 108 of the city, 103, 162, 193

Pindar, 105 container of, 22

Pirates, piracy, 45 demonic, 154—155, 156, 157, 159

Place, sacred, 14 divine, 27, 31

Plato, 104, 108 female, 22

Plebs, 141 186 Plethes, 136f, 141 legislative, 39

Plays, mystery, 129 Imperial, 26, 39, 40, 110, 112, 134, demotikon plethes, 140, 141 male, 22

Pliny the Elder, 108 moral, 64

Plurality (opposed to unity), 137 place of, 21, 180, 193

Poetics, 102 of ritual, 35 Poetry, 190 royal, 29, 38, 178

religious, 106 of the State, 149, 175

Police, police function, 13, 14, 15, 18, viceregal, 170

19, 72, 86, 139, 149 Praetorion, 18, 19, 140, 149

inspectors, 139 Prefect, Praetorian, 80, 83

market, 139 Prefecture, 60, 63

222 Index Price, prices, 44, 48, 66, 71f Quadrivium, 102 Priests, 102, 127, 131, 156 Quarters, 14, 18, 19, 20, 119, 132, 147

clergy, 130 metier-quartier, 69, 71

priesthood, 154 residential, 119, 122 Prince of Peace, 34 subquarters, 123

Prisons, 18, 140 Processions, 17, 32, 35, 36, 37, 57, 126 Race (racial characteristic), 46, 123, 147

proeleusis, 89 Race course, 132, 134

Profit, 13, 44, 46, 50, 71, 72 Races, 127 Proletariat, 136, 141 Rank, Ranks, 80, 84, 86, 88, 89, 100, Prometheus (of Aeschylus), 109 119, 150, 165 Pronoia, 177; see also Feudalism bureaucratic, 141, 142, 169

Propaganda, aristocratic, 186 consular, 95

Imperial, 137 magister, 95 private, 47 protospathar, 92, 95

Property, 47, 167, 174 patrician, 89, 92, 95, 179

Prophecy, 3 spatharios, 89

Prophet, Elijah, 129 spatharocandidatus, 96 Propontos, 11 Rebellion, 11, 128, 132, 137, 140, 146,

Prostitutes, 130 177, 178-181

Protection, Imperial, 12—13 Rebels, Adrianos “the Chaldian,” 183 Protectionism, economic, 138 Anastasius the Sakellarios, 179

Protocol, 134 Argyros, Eustathios, 178

Provinces, 9, 51, 52, 65, 81, 82, 83, 86, Basil “the Macedonian,” 179, 187 97, 102, 112, 118, 167, 171, 177, Boelas, Bardas, 178, 183

194; see also Themes Cosmas the Logothete, 179

Bithynia, 123 Dukas, Andronicus, 178, 187

Cappadocia, 123, 183 Dukas, Constantine, 146, 178, 179, 187

Cilicia, 183 Pateinos, Basil, 178 ,

Hellas, 123 Phokas, Bardas, 179, 180, 183

Macedonia, 171 Phokas, Leo, 178, 182, 183 Mesopotamia, 107 Phokas, Nicephoras, 178 Provincials, 56, 66 John Mystikos, 179

Provision, provisioning, 12, 13—18, 60, Skleros, Bardas, 179, 180, 183

159 Tatzates the Armenian, 183

plenitudo, 159 Thomas the Sclavonian, 184—185

Psalms, 25, 105 Rechtstaat, 38, 39

Psychoses, civic, 149 Recruitment, 68, 167, 172

Ptolemies, 46, 67 bureaucratic, 95—102 Punishment, 65, 127 guild, 68, 74

blinding, 140 Redfield, Robert, 2, 143 execution, 16, 127, 128, 140, 179 Reflorescence, commercial, 148 exile, 104, 105, 179 Regalia, 66 mutilation, 127, 140, 179 Regents, 93

scourging, 140 Regulation, discriminatory, 67

tonsure, 127, 140 economic, 50, 51

Index 223

guild, 54 Rome, 3, 4, 8, 12, 17, 45, 64, 73, 81,

moral, 72f 127, 129, 141, 161, 168

of price, 48 New Rome, 4, 25, 158 sanitary, 61 Russians, Rus, 11, 35, 45, 58, 59, 67, Religion, 152, 153 74, 148, 162 Greek popular, 152 pagan, 20 peasant, 152

Renaissance, 85, 106, 109 Sacrality, 3

Requisition, 47 Saint, saints, 69, 101, 113, 153, 155, Resources, 43, 46, 47, 48, 53, 64, 79, 156

82, 84, 87, 131, 193, 195 Armenian, 170 Restrictions, commercial, 74 St. Augustine, 3

economic, 67, 74, 139 St. Helena, 16 Revolt, popular, 160 St. Nicephoras, 156

Revelation, 4 St. John the Psichaite, 101

urban, 1 156

Revolution, agricultural, 43 St. Symeon the New Theologian, 154,

Rewards, economic, 166 St. Terasius, 156 Rhetoric, 85, 102, 105, 108, 114, 194 St. Theodore of Sicyon, 156

Righteousness (dikaiosyne), 40 Salaries, 84, 98 Rights, citizens’, Hellenic, 135 Sale, 46, 62, 67, 72

commercial, 74 Salvation, 24, 154, 155

regalian, 65 Samonas, 98, 99, 151, 183

Ritual, 9, 11, 32, 34, 43, 46, 57, 98, San Marco, Venice, 59 129, 132, 134, 139, 161, 173, 187 Saracens, 184, 188

aristocratic, 171 sarakenos, 189

body, 140 Savior (Emperor), 36 combat, 31 Scapegoat, 150 definition, 144 Scarcity, 65

hunting, 31 Science, Hellenistic, 101, 113 and King-Emperor, 34 Scriptures, 38, 101, 102 movement, 16 Sea of Marmora, 11, 125 neighborhood, 126 Seapower, Arab, 45 ritual-fortress, 96 Secularism, 111 ritual of state, 34, 88, 152, 161 Security, 2, 47 ritual order, 147 internal, 92, 98, 139 ritual witnessing, 133 Sed festival, 24 social, 154 Segregation, economic, 19

time-ritual, 36 Sekreton, 53

topocosmic, 28 Senate, 89, 166

Robes, of honor, 58 Senatus consultum, 39 of office, 113, 126 Sense, economic, 54 of state, 57, 58, 60, 94, 99 theatrical, 129

Role (of people), ceremonial, 140 Separation (of heterodox), 20

constitutional, 140 Separatism, aristocratic, 181 Romanitas, 37, 81 Service, 8, 15, 17, 19, 60, 69, 73, 86,

224 Index Service (Cont’d), 109, 143, 166, 167 policy of, 193

168, 171, 172—173, 178 theory of, 196 military, 132, 166, 167 States, Hellenistic, 64, 81

Shape, cosmic, 4 Statues, 29

Shipping, 12, 50 pagan, 16

Shops, 15, 69, 70, 123 statue demons, 158f

Sicily, 45 Status, 40, 52, 60, 63, 80, 147, 173,

Sidi Battal, 189 182, 189 Siege-state, 82 bureaucratic, 112

Silention, 84 elite, 169 Silk, 55—58, 64, 74 Straits of Gibraltar, 26 kekolymena (forbidden), 19, 53, 55, Strategy, 176

56, 57, 66, 76 Stratiotai, 48, 52, 146, 195 Simonides, 104 Streets, 15, 16, 70, 117, 123, 124, Syrian, 19, 56, 63, 67, 70, 123, 148 Stratiotikon, to, 195

Sin, 155 126, 139, 140 Singularity (unity), 141, 142, 180, 186 craft-streets, 69

Sisyphus, 104 Hellenistic, 118

Skylitzes (manuscript), 121, 140 “of Maurianos,” 15

Slaves, 63, 67, 72, 73, 74 residential, 118

Slavs, 81, 144, 168 sacred, 117

Slums, 119 Stringency, economic, 82, 168, 195 Society, 6, 34, 48, 67, 80, 83, 87, 124, Structure, bureaucratic, 81, 103

129, 135, 136, 180, 181, 183, Imperial, 196

191, 192 Style, bureaucratic, 103f

commercial, 63 Suburbs, 6, 55, 60, 118, 122, 123, 125

Imperial, 168 faubourgs, 75, 77, 118, 124 traditional, 124, 128, 131, 135, 152 ktima (District), 75-77, 125, 145 Sophian Harbor, 71 Subversion, 92

Sophrosyne, 53, 123 Superstition, 131, 137, 152—158, 160 Sovereignty, 23, 58, 65, 69, 131, 134, Surplus, surpluses, 48, 52

166, 174 Svyatoslav, of Kiev, 162

Varunal, Mitral, 22—23 Sykai (Galata), 77

Space (as abstraction), 7, 9, 23, 30, Symeon, Tsar, 58, 104, 160

36—37, 172, 174 Synkletikoi (civil bureaus), 89 concentrative, 119 Synkletikoi (Senatorials), 93 Spengler, Oswald, 195 Syria, 81, 82, 92, 120, 176

Standard of living, 48, 56 Syrians, Samonas (s.v.), Nasar, admiral, State, 41, 46, 48, 53, 57, 59, 63, 64, 183 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 80, Abessalom, patrician, 183 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 95, 124, Theodore Zuphinezer, Hetairarch, 183 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 149, 153,

166, 173, 175, 176, 178, 180, 183, Taboo, tabooes, 61, 73, 74, 75, 77,

191, 193 93, 129, 157 apparatus, 150, 168 Tagmata, 89, 135, 177

in history, 191 Taktika, 88

Index 225

Tarsites, 188 Titulature, titles, 80, 88, 91, 98, 99, Taurus, 81, 176 126 Taverns, 130 eunuch, 94—95 Taxes, taxation, 46, 47, 50—54, 66, see also Ranks

83, 139, 143, 167, 178 Tone, cultural, 191

allelengyon, 52 Totalitarianism, 47 dekata, 51 Tourists, 88, 148 Kapnikon, 52 Tower, towers, 4, 12, 13

kommerkion, SOf, 74 Trade, 44, 45, 46, 50—54, 57, 60, 66,

land tax, 46, 47 67, 68 praktikon, S1 free trade, 67

synone, 52 import-export, 46, SOf, 74

Taxis, 89, 91 and the state, 46 Telchines, 105 Imperial, 79

Teachers, see Guilds Tradition, Graeco-Roman, 3

Tenement, 120—121 Judaeo-Christian, 158, 194 Textiles, 55, 58, 59; see also Guilds of learning, 107

Texture, economic, 19 legal, 38 Thalassocracy, 44 peasant, 143, 145 Theaters, 17, 126, 128, 129 Treason, 30

Themes, theme system, 9, 45, 83, 89, Treasure, 53-54, 57, 58, 65, 66, 71,

125, 171, 172, 177, 179, 180, 94,195, 197

182, 195 Treasury, 19, 54, 98, 177, 195

Anatolian, 169, 170, 176, 180, 182, General Treasury, 52

184, 194 Palace Wardrobe, 53, 94

European, 144, 171, 182 Privy Purse, 53, 57, 66 Theodore of Studios, 41, 154 Wardrobe, 53

Theology, 17, 102, 108, 109, 145, 153, Treaty, treaties, 57, 67, 75

158, 191 Triumph, 32, 33, 34, 128

political theology, 104 Turks, 20, 148, 168, 183 Theophilaktos (Guarded of God), city, Avars, 81

13, 23, 27, 152 Ferghanese, 20, 149

Empire, 144 Khazars, 20, 149

walls, 118 Ottomans, 130

Theory, political, 131 Pechenegs, 58 Thessalonike, 67 Type, 14, 34, 41, 160, 174, 188 Thessaly, 171 Tyrant, tyrannos, 22, 132, 187 Thrace, 123, 171, 185 Tzani, 25 Throne, as government, 24, 50, 60, 64,

68, 84, 90, 99, 133, 137, 176, 180, Universalism, 196-197

183 Universe, 68, 132, 134

Time (abstraction), 7, 9, 21, 23, 27, 30, | University of Constantinople, 100—

35, 36, 135, 153, 161, 173, 174 102

blood-time, 173—174 Usurpers, 138

Christian view of, 161 Utopia, 8 prophetic, 161 space of time, 36, 37 “Vandals,” 184

226 Index

Varangians, see Guard theory of, 175

Vassalage, 58 Water, water supply, 13-14

Vassals, 148 aqueduct, 14, 122 Venality, 99 baths, 14, 17, 130 Venice, Venetians, 51, 59, 74, 148 cisterns, 14 Via Ignatia, 16 nymphaia, 14

Victory, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, Way, Sacred, 15, 119

127, 194 Mese, 15f, 18, 19, 71, 128

Village, 1, 7, 186, 190 Regia, 16 Virgin (theotokos, chora}), 23, 26, 35, Weber, Max, 59 36, 37, 113 Weights and measures, 69, 71f

Vitality, cultural, 192 West (Western medieval civilization), Vladimir, Grand Duke of Kiev, 177 11, 57, 59, 60, 82, 148, 189, 192,

Vocabulary, political, 141 197

Vryonis, Sp., 170 Will, Imperial, 17, 100, 180 Wills, 62

Wall, walls, 4, 8, 11, 13, 18, 21, 26f, Wine, 125

71, 103, 118, 135, 143, 197 Women, 101, 124, 130

land walls, 11, 12 Workers, day, 119

Long Walls, 125 expert, 67

sea-walls, 12, 26 nonguild, 63, 68

War, 33, 34, 48, 64, 149, 166, 168, 175

Arab wars, 149 Year, 34, 153

Christ-directed, 25 New Year, 37, 127, 135 Holy, 176

race war, 194 Zichs, 184 social war, 133, 185