DOCSLIB.ORG

The Death of Constantine V Marked the End of O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Death of Constantine V Marked the End of O CHAPTER FOUR CONFLICT AND CONTACT, 775–802 4.1 The Byzantine Empire under Leo IV (775–780) The death of Constantine V marked the end of one of the more martial phases in Byzantine-Bulgar relations.1 His campaigns had thrown the khan- ate into internecine strife and a prolonged period of instability, which con- tinued during the brief reign of his successor Leo IV. However, the latter, faced with a new wave of Arab attacks in the east, had little choice but to turn his back on the Balkans, and as a result, the Bulgars were gradually able to recover from this crisis. Before we can observe these events, let alone interpret them, it is necessary to introduce the reader to the broad outlines of the political history of the empire under Leo IV. Leo IV came to power in September 775.2 Although Theophanes’ attitude towards the new emperor is relatively hostile, the latter deserves credit for trying to moderate the divisions left behind by his father.3 An iconoclast by conviction, Leo kept the decrees of the Council of Hiereia in force, but aban- doned the measures taken by Constantine V against both monasticism and the invocation of the Virgin and the Saints, in an attempt, no doubt, to build up a broader range of support.4 According to Agapios of Menbidj, in the beginning of his reign Leo allowed all those exiled or arrested by his father to return home.5 He is also said to have appointed abbots to major bishoprics, and some of his appointees may well have been secret iconophiles.6 This is probably true of Paul of Cyprus, the successor of the patriarch Niketas the Slav, who died early in 780.7 Some hagiographical sources have attempted to 1 For a summary of these events, see above 2.3. 2 Rochow 1996, 5. 3 Ostrogorsky 1968, 175. 4 . οὓτος τῆς μὲν τοῦ πατρὸς αἱρέσεως ἢν μέτοχος, τῆς δὲ πράξεως ἀμέτοχος; Constantine of Tios, Encomium, c. 10; Vita Nicetae Med., c. 30; Speck 1978, 70–73, 99–101. 5 Agapios, 547. 6 Theoph., 449.14–16; Theod. Stud., Laudatio Plat., 821B–C. 7 Some sources claim that Paul was initially a supporter of iconoclasm. Still, the author of the Chronographia calls him “venerable” and “most holy patriarch”; Theoph., 453.7, 457.14–15; Rochow 1996, 15. 144 chapter four portray the emperor as an active iconoclast, but the reports of violent perse- cutions of monks they provide have been rejected as fictitious.8 Early in his reign, Leo’s position on the throne was insecure. His half- brothers, Christophoros and Nikephoros (Constantine V’s eldest sons by his third wife Eudokia), presented a serious threat.9 Indeed, Constantine V had crowned Christophoros and Nikephoros Caesars, and given Niketas and Anthimos, Eudokia’s third and fourth sons respectively, the next-highest rank of nobilissimus.10 This had apparently given the impression that Leo’s younger brothers would have some claim to rule alongside him. In response, the emperor took certain steps to consolidate his hold on power. In the Holy Week of 776, he encouraged troops from the tagmata and the themes to demand the coronation of his five-year old son Constantine as his heir, and eventually extracted a written oath by which the Senate, senior military offi- cers, the city Guilds and the citizens, all swore that they would accept no emperor other than Constantine VI and his descendants.11 One month later, in May 776, Leo stripped the Caesar Nikephoros of his title for allegedly plot- ting against him with the support of certain imperial dignitaries and officers.12 The text is unclear, but it appears that he then exiled all his half-brothers, along with the other conspirators, to the Crimea.13 Although some of Constantine V’s generals, including Michael Lacha- nodrakon and Anthony the patrikios, remained in imperial service, most senior military commands seem to have gone to men who had not previ- ously held high office.14 The strategos of the Anatolics Artavadz Mamikonian, the new commander of the Boukellarion Tačat Anjevacʿi (Tatzates), as well as the strategos of the Armeniakon Varaztirocʿ (Baristerotzes) all owed their positions to Leo, hence their loyalty to him was guaranteed.15 The emperor also sought to establish tighter control over the two tagmata in Constanti- nople, the Scholai and the Exkoubitores, which, since the reign of his father, had functioned both as the personal guards of the emperor and the nucleus of a mobile and efficient field force.16 These units were formed of especially 8 Rochow 1996, 14f, 29; Speck 1978, 101ff. 9 Constantine’s third marriage took place ca. 752. For Christophoros and Nikephoros, see PmbZ #1101 and 5267 respectively. 10 Theoph., 443.28–444.4; Nikeph., c. 87.1–5. 11 Theoph., 450.13–23; Treadgold 1988, 9–11. 12 Theoph., 450.23–26; 454.15. 13 Theoph., 450.26–451.2; Mango and Scott 1997, 622 n. 9; Rochow 1996, 11 n. 72. 14 Theoph., 440.27, 442.24–26, 451.13–16. For Lachanodrakon, seePmbZ #5027; for Anthony, patrikios and commander of the Scholai, see PmbZ, #531. 15 Theoph., 451.14–16; Łewond, 129–130, 140, 142. 16 Haldon 1984, 231–234..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger – the First One Not to Become a Blind Man? Political and Military History of the Bryennios Family in the 11Th and Early 12Th Century
    Studia Ceranea 10, 2020, p. 31–45 ISSN: 2084-140X DOI: 10.18778/2084-140X.10.02 e-ISSN: 2449-8378 Marcin Böhm (Opole) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5393-3176 Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger – the First One Not to Become a Blind Man? Political and Military History of the Bryennios Family in the 11th and Early 12th Century ikephoros Bryennios the Younger (1062–1137) has a place in the history N of the Byzantine Empire as a historian and husband of Anna Komnene (1083–1153), a woman from the imperial family. His historical work on the his- tory of the Komnenian dynasty in the 11th century is an extremely valuable source of information about the policies of the empire’s major families, whose main goal was to seize power in Constantinople1. Nikephoros was also a talented commander, which he proved by serving his father-in-law Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) and brother-in-law John II Komnenos (1118–1143). The marriage gave him free access to people and documents which he also enriched with the history of his own family. It happened because Nikephoros Bryennios was not the first representative of his family who played an important role in the internal policy of the empire. He had two predecessors, his grandfather, and great grand- father, who according to the family tradition had the same name as our hero. They 1 J. Seger, Byzantinische Historiker des zehnten und elften Jahrhunderts, vol. I, Nikephoros Bryennios, München 1888, p. 31–33; W. Treadgold, The Middle Byzantine Historians, Basingstoke 2013, p. 344–345; A.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Conquests in the East in the 10 Century
    th Byzantine conquests in the East in the 10 century Campaigns of Nikephoros II Phocas and John Tzimiskes as were seen in the Byzantine sources Master thesis Filip Schneider s1006649 15. 6. 2018 Eternal Rome Supervisor: Prof. dr. Maaike van Berkel Master's programme in History Radboud Univerity Front page: Emperor Nikephoros II Phocas entering Constantinople in 963, an illustration from the Madrid Skylitzes. The illuminated manuscript of the work of John Skylitzes was created in the 12th century Sicily. Today it is located in the National Library of Spain in Madrid. Table of contents Introduction 5 Chapter 1 - Byzantine-Arab relations until 963 7 Byzantine-Arab relations in the pre-Islamic era 7 The advance of Islam 8 The Abbasid Caliphate 9 Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty 10 The development of Byzantine Empire under Macedonian dynasty 11 The land aristocracy 12 The Muslim world in the 9th and 10th century 14 The Hamdamids 15 The Fatimid Caliphate 16 Chapter 2 - Historiography 17 Leo the Deacon 18 Historiography in the Macedonian period 18 Leo the Deacon - biography 19 The History 21 John Skylitzes 24 11th century Byzantium 24 Historiography after Basil II 25 John Skylitzes - biography 26 Synopsis of Histories 27 Chapter 3 - Nikephoros II Phocas 29 Domestikos Nikephoros Phocas and the conquest of Crete 29 Conquest of Aleppo 31 Emperor Nikephoros II Phocas and conquest of Cilicia 33 Conquest of Cyprus 34 Bulgarian question 36 Campaign in Syria 37 Conquest of Antioch 39 Conclusion 40 Chapter 4 - John Tzimiskes 42 Bulgarian problem 42 Campaign in the East 43 A Crusade in the Holy Land? 45 The reasons behind Tzimiskes' eastern campaign 47 Conclusion 49 Conclusion 49 Bibliography 51 Introduction In the 10th century, the Byzantine Empire was ruled by emperors coming from the Macedonian dynasty.
    [Show full text]
  • BYZANTINE CAMEOS and the AESTHETICS of the ICON By
    BYZANTINE CAMEOS AND THE AESTHETICS OF THE ICON by James A. Magruder, III A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland March 2014 © 2014 James A. Magruder, III All rights reserved Abstract Byzantine icons have attracted artists and art historians to what they saw as the flat style of large painted panels. They tend to understand this flatness as a repudiation of the Classical priority to represent Nature and an affirmation of otherworldly spirituality. However, many extant sacred portraits from the Byzantine period were executed in relief in precious materials, such as gemstones, ivory or gold. Byzantine writers describe contemporary icons as lifelike, sometimes even coming to life with divine power. The question is what Byzantine Christians hoped to represent by crafting small icons in precious materials, specifically cameos. The dissertation catalogs and analyzes Byzantine cameos from the end of Iconoclasm (843) until the fall of Constantinople (1453). They have not received comprehensive treatment before, but since they represent saints in iconic poses, they provide a good corpus of icons comparable to icons in other media. Their durability and the difficulty of reworking them also makes them a particularly faithful record of Byzantine priorities regarding the icon as a genre. In addition, the dissertation surveys theological texts that comment on or illustrate stone to understand what role the materiality of Byzantine cameos played in choosing stone relief for icons. Finally, it examines Byzantine epigrams written about or for icons to define the terms that shaped icon production.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Icon in Byzantine Piety by LENNART RYDEN
    The Role of the Icon in Byzantine Piety By LENNART RYDEN In February 754, the bishops of the Byzantine Empire met in the imperial palace at Hiereia, a peninsula on the Asiatic side of the Sea of Marmora, not far from Chalcedon. The council had been convened by the Emperor Constantine V (741-75), who wanted the bishops to examine the scriptures and express their opinion on the "deceitful painting of likenesses, which draws away the human mind from the service which is sublime and befits the Divinity to the grovelling and material service of creatures"1. As the phrasing shows, the assembled bishops were not expected to discuss whether the making of icons2 was justified or not. The emperor had already examined this question and found that there was no such justification. The purpose of the council was rather to remove unorthodox elements from the emperor's argument, to give it a theological finish and to put it into a historical context. The proceedings lasted six months. In August a horos (definition) was approved, which may be summarized as follows3. In order to separate man from God, Lucifer made man worship the crea- ture rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. i,25). God, who wanted to save man, sent him the Law and the prophets. When man failed to return to his former state, God at last sent His own Son and Logos. Christ saved man from idolatry and taught him to worship in spirit and truth (cf. John iv ,24). The Christian apostles and teachers passed on the true faith to later generations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Developmentof Early Imperial Dress from the Tetrachs to The
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. The Development of Early Imperial Dress from the Tetrarchs to the Herakleian Dynasty General Introduction The emperor, as head of state, was the most important and powerful individual in the land; his official portraits and to a lesser extent those of the empress were depicted throughout the realm. His image occurred most frequently on small items issued by government officials such as coins, market weights, seals, imperial standards, medallions displayed beside new consuls, and even on the inkwells of public officials. As a sign of their loyalty, his portrait sometimes appeared on the patches sown on his supporters’ garments, embossed on their shields and armour or even embellishing their jewelry. Among more expensive forms of art, the emperor’s portrait appeared in illuminated manuscripts, mosaics, and wall paintings such as murals and donor portraits. Several types of statues bore his likeness, including those worshiped as part of the imperial cult, examples erected by public 1 officials, and individual or family groupings placed in buildings, gardens and even harbours at the emperor’s personal expense.
    [Show full text]
  • Iconoclasm: a Christian Dilemma
    ICONOCLASM: A CHRISTIAN DILEMMA - A BYZANTINE CONTROVERSY By STEPHEN CHARLES STEACY •• Bachelor of Arts Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 1969 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS December, 1978 ICONOCLASM: A CHRISTIAN DILEMMA - A BYZANTINE CONTROVERSY Thesis Approved: '. ~- Dean of the Graduate College 1019541 ii P~F~E This thesis is concerned with Iconoclasm, the religious upheaval which troubled the Byzantine conscience for over a century. There have been numerous theories adduced by his­ torians to account for this phenomenon. It is the purpose of this study to view the varying interpretations, analyze their shortcomings, and to put forth a different view of the controversy, one that more adequately expresses the deeply rooted religious nature of the movement, a movement not only of the eighth and ninth centuries but an idea which was nurtured in fertile soil of the Old Testament and Apostolic Christianity. The author wishes to express heartfelt appreciation to his thesis adviser, Dr. George Jewsbury, whose unflagging solicitude, support, and inspiration were instrumental in the preparation of this work. A note of thanks is given to Mrs. Karen Hoyer, whose typing expertise, in the final analysis, made the difference between success and failure. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 1 II. THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL COURSES OF THE CONTROVERSY. • • . • . • • . • . 13 Genesis of the Cult of Icons .•.• 13 The Scriptures as the Foundation of Iconoclasm. 26 Precursors of ·the Iconoclast Movement . 30 Origen . 31 Eusebius .
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831
    Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831 East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450 General Editor Florin Curta VOLUME 16 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/ecee Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831 By Panos Sophoulis LEIDEN • BOSTON 2012 Cover illustration: Scylitzes Matritensis fol. 11r. With kind permission of the Bulgarian Historical Heritage Foundation, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all rights holders to any copyrighted material used in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful the publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sophoulis, Pananos, 1974– Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775–831 / by Panos Sophoulis. p. cm. — (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450–1450, ISSN 1872-8103 ; v. 16.) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-20695-3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Byzantine Empire—Relations—Bulgaria. 2. Bulgaria—Relations—Byzantine Empire. 3. Byzantine Empire—Foreign relations—527–1081. 4. Bulgaria—History—To 1393. I. Title. DF547.B9S67 2011 327.495049909’021—dc23 2011029157 ISSN 1872-8103 ISBN 978 90 04 20695 3 Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Critiques of Monasticism in the Twelfth Century
    A “Truly Unmonastic Way of Life”: Byzantine Critiques of Monasticism in the Twelfth Century DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Hannah Elizabeth Ewing Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Professor Timothy Gregory, Advisor Professor Anthony Kaldellis Professor Alison I. Beach Copyright by Hannah Elizabeth Ewing 2014 Abstract This dissertation examines twelfth-century Byzantine writings on monasticism and holy men to illuminate monastic critiques during this period. Drawing upon close readings of texts from a range of twelfth-century voices, it processes both highly biased literary evidence and the limited documentary evidence from the period. In contextualizing the complaints about monks and reforms suggested for monasticism, as found in the writings of the intellectual and administrative elites of the empire, both secular and ecclesiastical, this study shows how monasticism did not fit so well in the world of twelfth-century Byzantium as it did with that of the preceding centuries. This was largely on account of developments in the role and operation of the church and the rise of alternative cultural models that were more critical of traditional ascetic sanctity. This project demonstrates the extent to which twelfth-century Byzantine society and culture had changed since the monastic heyday of the tenth century and contributes toward a deeper understanding of Byzantine monasticism in an under-researched period of the institution. ii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my family, and most especially to my parents. iii Acknowledgments This dissertation is indebted to the assistance, advice, and support given by Anthony Kaldellis, Tim Gregory, and Alison Beach.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Vita of St Stephen the Younger George Huxley
    On the "Vita" of St Stephen the Younger Huxley, George Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1977; 18, 1; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 97 On the Vita of St Stephen the Younger George Huxley HEN GIBBON noted that the Acta Sanctorum of the Bollandists W had not advanced beyond the seventh day of October, the historian was moved to remark that "the suppression of the Jesuits has most probably checked an undertaking, which though the medium and fable of superstition, communicates much historical and philosophical information."! The problem of separating historical fact from pious fiction in hagiography continues to exercise historians, and in no field of study is the need to sift out the truth in saints' lives more necessary, or more difficult, than in Byzantine iconoclasm. Because the sources for imperial Roman history of the eighth and ninth centuries are so few and of such uneven quality, the evidence of hagiography offers hope of additional knowledge; but with hope comes the temptation to demand from any source more than it can offer. In this paper I examine statements in one Vita in order to illustrate some of the difficulties in treating Byzantine iconodule saints' Lives as historical documents. The Vita of St Stephen the Younger, who suffered martyrdom in the reign of the emperor Constantine V, was written by Stephen the Deacon. The hagiographer states (PG 100, lOne) that he was writing after the forty-second year from the martyrdom had passed, and he claims to have taken the facts he reports from persons who had known the saint as well as from confidants of the emperor: Ta EKAEXO€VTeX , .........
    [Show full text]
  • Within the Second Iconoclastic Controversy. Nikephoros of Constantinople
    A Byzantine Logician’s “image”Scrinium 13 (2017) 291-308 291 Journal of Patrology and Critical Hagiography www.brill.com/scri A Byzantine Logician’s “Image” within the Second Iconoclastic Controversy. Nikephoros of Constantinople Oksana Yu. Goncharko Goncharko and Goncharko Saint-Petersburg Mining University, National Research University Higher School of Economics [email protected] Dmitry N. Goncharko Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, St. Petersburg State Technological Institute [email protected] Abstract The article is devoted to the study of the single example of logical education in Byzantium – the famous two pages from the hagiography of Patriarch Nikephoros (†829) containing the list of chapter headings copied by Ignatios the Diacon from an elementary textbook of logic. It is argued that, during the disputes of the second icono- clastic controversy, Patriarch Nikephoros implemented almost all the elements of logi- cal knowledge listed by Ignatios. The article represents a short overview connecting the standard logical topics from the 8th- and 9th-century education program with the vari- ety of arguments and techniques used by Nikephoros in the Major Apology and the Antirrhetics. The authors try to reconstruct the “image” of Patriarch Nikephoros as a logician and to describe the logical educational standard of his epoch. Keywords Byzantine theology – history of logic – Nikephoros I of Constantinople * We would like to thank our colleagues Lydia Spyridonova, Andrey Kurbanov, and Dmitry Chernoglazov for their wonderful collaboration. We are also grateful to Claudia R. Jensen for useful stylistic comments. The present study is a part of a larger project, Nr 16-18-10202, “History of the Logical and Philosophical Ideas in Byzantine Philosophy and Theology,” imple- mented with the financial support of the Russian Science Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Byzantine Empire.Pdf
    1907 4. 29 & 30 BEDFORD STREET, LONDON . BIBLIOTECA AIEZAMANTULUI CULTURAL 66)/ NICOLAE BALCESCU" TEMPLE PRIMERS THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE bY N. JORGA Translated from the French by ALLEN H. POWLES, M.A. All rights reserved AUTHOR'S PREFACE THIs new history of Byzantium, notwithstanding its slender proportions, has been compiled from the original sources. Second-hand materials have only been used to compare the results obtained by the author with those which his pre- decessors have reached. The aim in. view has not been to present one more systematic chronology of Byzantine history, considered as a succession of tragic anecdotes standing out against a permanent background.I have followed the development of Byzantine life in all its length and breadth and wealth, and I have tried to give a series of pictures rather than the customary dry narrative. It may be found possibly that I have given insufficient information on the Slav and Italian neighbours and subjects of the empire.I have thought it my duty to adopt the point of view of the Byzantines themselves and to assign to each nation the place it occupied in the minds of the politicians and thoughtful men of Byzantium.This has been done in such a way as not to prejudicate the explanation of the Byzantine transformations. Much less use than usual has been made of the Oriental sources.These are for the most part late, and inaccuracy is the least of their defects.It is clear that our way of looking v vi AUTHOR'S PREFACE at and appreciatingeventsismuch morethat of the Byzantines than of the Arabs.In the case of these latter it is always necessary to adopt a liberal interpretation, to allow for a rhetoric foreign to our notions, and to correct not merely the explanation, but also the feelings which initiated it.We perpetually come across a superficial civilisation and a completely different race.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (324–802)’ Gender & History, Vol.12 No
    Gender & History ISSN 0953–5233 Leslie Brubaker and Helen Tobler, ‘The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (324–802)’ Gender & History, Vol.12 No. 3 November 2000, pp. 572–594. The Gender of Money: Byzantine Empresses on Coins (324–802) Leslie Brubaker and Helen Tobler Coins played different roles in the ancient and medieval worlds from those that they play in the economy today. In the late antique and early Byzantine world – that is, roughly between 300 and 800 – there were in a sense two currencies: gold coins and base metal (copper) coins. Both were minted and distributed by the state, but the gold solidi (in Latin) or nomismata (in Greek), introduced in 309, were by the end of the fifth century in practice used above all for the payment of tax and for major transactions such as land sales, while the copper coins (nummi, replaced in 498 by folles) were broadly the currency of market transactions.1 Another striking difference is that late antique and Byzantine coin types changed with great frequency: as an extreme example, Maria Alföldi catalogued over seven hundred different types for a single emperor, Constantine I the Great (306–37, sole ruler from 324).2 There are many reasons for this, but one of the most import- ant has to do with communication: centuries before the advent of the press, images on coins were a means to circulate information about the state. This is particularly true of the first three and a half centuries covered by this article. While the extent to which coins were used in daily exchange transactions is still uncertain, and was very variable, the frequency with which they appear in archaeological excavations of urban sites throughout the former eastern Roman empire until 658 indicates their wide diffusion.
    [Show full text]