Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:58:57.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divine Diplomacy in the late Eleventh Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Rosemary Morris
Rosemary Morris*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The subject of the XXIV Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies was Byzantine Diplomacy and many of the papers dealt with high-level contacts between Byzantium and other medieval states. But although Byzantines often made use of churchmen and monks as ambassadors and although there was usually a religious dimension to Byzantine diplomacy, it is worth noting that powerful monastic figures and influential houses often engaged in diplomacy on their own account.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 16 , 1992 , pp. 147 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Miklosich, F. and Müller, J., Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi Sacra et Profana, 6 vols (Vienna 1860-90) VI, 65 (henceforward MM).Google Scholar

2. Mullett, M.E., ‘Byzantium: a Friendly Society?’, Past and Present 118 (1988) 3–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Macrides, R., ‘The Byzantine Godfather’, BMGS 11 (1987) 139–62.Google Scholar

3. The best survey of St Christodoulos’ life remains Vranoussi, E., Ta hagiologika keimena tou hosiou Christodoulou (Athens 1966)Google Scholar. The archives of the Monastery of St John the Theologian on Patmos are in the process of edition and publication. See, so far, Vranoussi, E., Byzantina Engrapha tes Mones Patmou, I, Autokratorika (Athens 1960)Google Scholar; Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, M., Byzantina Engrapha tes Mones Patmou, II, Demosion Leitourgon (Athens 1980)Google Scholar (henceforward BEMP).

4. BEMP, I, no. 4 (March, 1085).

5. Examples of imperial ‘reconfirmations’ are Actes de Lavra, edd. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, D. Papachryssanthou, I, no. 7 (978), which although issued by Basil II, recalls the generosity of John Tzimiskes. See JGR, Appendix, Doc. XX (1072), for the confirmation by Michael VII Doukas of his overthrown predecessor Romanos IV Diogenes’ chrysobull for the Nea Mone on Chios.

6. BEMP, no. 5 (May-June, 1087).

7. For the influence of Stoudite customs on St Athanasios, see Leroy, J., ‘La conversion de S. Athanase l’Athonite à l’idéal cenobitique et l’influence Studite’, Le millénaire du Mont Athos, 2 vols. (Chevetogne 1964)Google Scholar I, 101-20. Though there is some room to question Leroy’s conclusions (especially on the matter of the type of monasticism decreed by Athanasios for the Great Lavra) he was surely right to point to the widespread influence of the Stoudite customs — a matter ripe for further research. For the Monastery tou Panagiou at Constantinople, see Vitae duae antiquae Sancti Athanasii Athonitae, ed. Noret, J. (Corpus Christianorum, series graeca, 9, Louvain 1982) cxxiii–cxxiv Google Scholar. Noret suggests that the Lavriotes did not have a metochion at Constantinople before 1204, since they were able to stay in this sister monastery, possibly founded by Anthony himself. For the site, see Janin, R., La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, I, Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarchat oecuménique, iii, Les églises et les monastères, 2nd ed. (Paris 1969) 385–6 Google Scholar.

8. JGR, I, Appendix, Docs. VII (1046) and VIII (1047) 631-2, 632. Janin, Eglises et monastères, 71, for the arrangements for the reception of visiting monks at the property of ta A ngouria in Constantinople belonging to the monks of the Monastery of St George of the Mangana.

9. For the patriarchal relationship with the monasteries on Mount Latros, see Janin, , Géographie ecclésiastique, IV, Les Églises et les monastères du grands centres byzantins (Paris 1975)Google Scholar 219 and the documents in Appendix 3. The Latros libraries are discussed by Vokotopoulos, P.L., ‘Latros’, EEBS 35 (1966-7) 69–106 Google Scholar, see 102. For the question of the books (a matter of dispute between Christodoulos and his erstwhile charges), see his Diatheke, MM, VI, 87. Vokotopoulos cites a possible late reference to the metochion in Constantinople of the Monstery of St Paul on Latros, op. cit., 93 and n.2.

10. For Athonite metochia in Thessalonika, see, for example, the houses held by Iviron, : Actes d’Iviron, edd. Lefort, J., Oikonomidès, N., Papachryssanthou, D. and Métréveli, H. (Paris 1985) I, 86 Google Scholar. Most of the other important Athonite houses also had bases there.

11. There is a flurry of official documents, happily preserved in official copies in the Patmos archives, dealing with this matter: a) BEMP, I, no. 5 (May, 1087): chrysobull of Alexios Komnenos approving his mother’s earlier action and summarising the past history of the lands on Leipsos and Leros. The document clearly states that Christodoulos requested the property; b) BEMP, I, no. 47 (15 June, 1087): pittakion of Anna Dalassena confirming the donations made by her son and asking the officials of the Myrelaion (who witnessed the document) to take note that the lands were to go to Christodoulos and not, as originally arranged, to the Monastery of the Pantepoptes; c) BEMP, II, no. 52 (1087-9) contains a series of imperial commands to Eustathios Charsianites, the strategos of Samos, and documents of his own concerning the allocation of the lands and their measurement, imperial tax exemptions, the noting of donations in the sekreton ton oikeiakon and, significantly, a pittakion of Anna Dalassena (June, 1088) ordering the strategos to investigate complaints by Christodoulos’ monks on Leros of lay encroachments and to finally establish the boundaries. A pittakion of Eustathios Charsianites himself (after April, 1089) summarises action taken so far and describes the properties on the two islands in detail. It also includes the reports of the officials who drew up the boundaries; d) BEMP, I, no. 18 (July, 1099), is a copy of an imperial lysis of Alexios Komnenos granting twelve paroikoi to the lands on Leipsos.

12. Diatheke, 82,23-83,7 for the appointment of Theodosios Kastrisios as Christodoulos’ successor if his first choice, his old ally Arsenios Skenoures, did not come and 83,18, 84,11, where he is characterised as the charistikarios. The family name of Kastresios and variants is known from at least as early as 1264, see PLP, fasc. 5, 145-6, nos. 11392-11399. When prosopography for the earlier period has been done, doubtless more members will turn up. I am most grateful to Margaret Mullett for assistance with the hunt for the Kastrisios family and their offices. Vranoussi, BEMP, I, 6*, n. 6, suggests that, contrary to the ed. of MM, we should read Theodosios the kastresios, indicating an office rather than a surname. But the kastresios, the official in charge of the provisioning and ceremonial of the imperial table, was (at least in the tenth century) a eunuch, see Oikonomidès, N., Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles (Paris 1972) 306 Google Scholar. Would such a person also be likely to be a chartoularios and patriarchal notarios, a remarkable career change if so? Since, if the kastresios was still a eunuch in the eleventh century, we cannot translate ‘Theodore, son of the kastresios’, it might be that we should look to his uncle Basil for the holder of this post. Further clarification must await the publication of new editions and facsimiles of Christodoulos’ personal documents.

13. Apotaxis of Theodosios Kastrisios (5 March, 1094), MM, VI, 90-4. He also returned his copies of Christodoulos’ Diatheke and its Kodikellos as well as other documents concerning the rights of the monastery on Patmos, an interesting indication that charistikarioi were given copies of important documents to aid them in preserving the legal rights of the houses under their protection. This charistikarios, at least, does not seem to have been of the ‘asset-stripping’ variety beloved of patriarchal propaganda.

14. Thomas, J.P., Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 24, Washington D.C. 1987) 219 Google Scholar. See Diatheke, 82,23-5 where Theodosios is described as ‘my spiritual son, the chartoularios and patriarchal notarios, the Lord Theodosios Kastrisios, the nephew of the late Basil’, and Apotaxis, 90,16-91,2, where he designates himself (in a slight deviation from the words of the Diatheke which he is quoting) as ‘my [sic] spiritual son, the chartoularios and patriarchal notarios, Lord Theodosios, the nephew of the late Lord Basil Kastreisios’. His signature reads ‘Theodosios, chartoularios and patriarchal notarios, the nephew of the late Basil Kastreisios’: ibid., 93,1617.

15. Nystazopoulou, M.G., 1 (1966) 76–94 Google Scholar.

16. ibid., 94.

17. Laurent, V., Le corpus des sceaux de l’empire byzantin (Paris 1963-72), II, 101–8 Google Scholar, deals with seals of the holders of the post of epi tou kanikleiou variously described as proedros, protoproedros, protos etc. For Gregory, holder pre-1094-5 in Laurent’s view, who was also a krites tou velou and the patrikios Manuel Philokales, datable to 1094-5, see 105, nos. 223-4.

18. Thomas, , Private Religious Foundations, 219 Google Scholar: ‘the conditions imposed on Theodosios clearly limit him to the status (if not the title) of ephor on the analogy of existing arrangements with the Lavra monastery on Mount Athos’. There is no analogy at this period and Thomas is glossing over the legal niceties (of which the Byzantines were aware) of the different terms used to indicate the varieties of lay protection. See Morris, R., ‘Legal Terminology in Monastic Documents of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, Akten des XVI. Interkdfionalen Byzantinistenkongresses, II/2 (Vienna 1981) 281–90, espec. 285–6.Google Scholar

19. See Nystazopoulou, , , 86 and Thomas, , Private Religious Foundations, 218 Google Scholar.

20. For the duties of the epi tou kanikleiou, see Oikonomidès, , Les listes de préséance, 311 Google Scholar.

21. Enumerated in sordid detail in the so-called Diegesis Merike, a compendium of reports, letters and other documents dating from the late eleventh century and which is in dire need of re-edition and commentary. See Meyer, P., Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athos-Kloster (Leipzig 1894) 163–84 Google Scholar.

22. loc. cit., 172,20-24.