DOCSLIB.ORG

Περίληψη : Theodore II Lascaris, Son of John III Vatatzes, Was Born in 1222 and Died in 1258

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Περίληψη : Theodore II Lascaris, Son of John III Vatatzes, Was Born in 1222 and Died in 1258 IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Μπάνεβ Γκέντσο Μετάφραση : Κούτρας Νικόλαος Για παραπομπή : Μπάνεβ Γκέντσο , "Theodore II Laskaris", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=8487> Περίληψη : Theodore II Lascaris, son of John III Vatatzes, was born in 1222 and died in 1258. As Emperor of Nicaea (1254-1258), he managed to maintain the empire’s territorial integrity and favored the rise of local lineages in the state's administrative hierarchy at the expense of the aristocratic families of Constantinople. A scholar and prolific writer, he was the embodiment of the ideal of the philosopher-king; he contributed greatly to the flowering of the letters and the sciences, and rendered Nicaea the most important Greek-speaking cultural centre of the time. Άλλα Ονόματα Theodore Doukas Lascaris, Theodore Comnenus Lascaris Τόπος και Χρόνος Γέννησης Early 1222, Nicaea Τόπος και Χρόνος Θανάτου 16th of August 1258, Nymphaeum Κύρια Ιδιότητα Emperor 1. Biography Theodore, the only son of John III Vatatzes, was born in 1222, the year his father was proclaimed emperor.1 His mother, Irene, was daughter of the emperor Theodore I Laskaris. During his childhood he resided in the empire’s military capital, the city of Nymphaeum (modern Nif, Kemalpasa). He suffered from acute hereditary epilepsy, which had arisen in his early childhood, a fact that greatly affected the formation of his character. According to the sources, Theodore was fidgety, irritable, but also sensitive; he also had a great predilection for reading and studying. During the period the symptoms of his condition remained mild, he systematically studied the letters and the art of war. His mother undertook his upbringing, while the emperor saw to his education. Under the guidance of the scholar Nikephoros Blemmydes –who was probably a co-tutor– and officially of George Akropolites,2 Theodore received a remarkable education, acquiring deep knowledge in the field of the exact sciences, as well as in that of philosophy and theology. His studies were completed at a rather early age, possibly in the late 1230s. In 1233, at the age of 11, he was betrothed to the 9-year-old daughter of Ivan Asen II, the Bulgarian tsar, in the context of the rapprochement between the two states aiming at the formation of an anti-Latin alliance. The marriage ceremony was held in Lampsacus in the spring of 1235, following the signing of the relevant agreements between the two states. The young bride was placed in the care of Empress Irene. Theodore had five children with Helen: John –the future Emperor John IV Laskaris–, Irene,3 Maria,4 Theodora5 and Eudocia.6 Helen died prematurely in 1254, and her husband was overwhelmed by gried.7 From a young age Theodore was actively involved in the affairs of the State. In 1238, and later in 1241, during his European campaigns, John III Vatatzes entrusted the administration of the eastern part of the empire to his son, possibly appointing him deputy regent, i.e. a coemperor.8And although Theodore did not participate in any military operations, it seems that the army, as well as the aristocracy, actually loved him. After his father’s death, on the 3rd of November 1254, Theodore was proclaimed emperor at the age of 32, bearing his mother's family name, Laskaris. In accordance to custom, the proclamation took place while Theodore was carried on a shield in the presence Δημιουργήθηκε στις 4/10/2021 Σελίδα 1/15 IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Μπάνεβ Γκέντσο Μετάφραση : Κούτρας Νικόλαος Για παραπομπή : Μπάνεβ Γκέντσο , "Theodore II Laskaris", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=8487> of the army and the senate. His coronation was postponed for the next year, until the election of the new patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos. As an emperor, the scholarly Theodore II Laskcaris proved a man of action, exhibiting significant administrative and military virtues. During his four year reign he made a series of reforms aimed at curtailing the role of the aristocratic families. He was aware of the significance of the imperial office, and he personally administered the state. Notwithstanding his deep religiosity, he did not allow the clergy to intervene in state affairs, while he did not hesitate to promote his political goals through the Church. Influenced by the ideals of his time, which are vividly captured mainly in the works of Blemmydes, he aspired to embody the ideal of the philosopher-king. In the summer of 1258 Theodore II’s health deteriorated rapidly. A few days before his death he was tonsured a monk, keeping the name Theodore. On August 16th 1258, after successive epileptic crises, Theodore II Laskaris died in Nymphaeum and was buried in the monastery of Sosandra in the area of Magnesia, like his father, John III Vatatzes.9 Before his death, Theodore II, concerned for the future of his eight year old son, appointed his close friend and high ranking official George Mouzalon and the patriarch Arsenios as regents until John’s coming of age. His fears concerning the reaction of the aristocratic families, which coalesced around Michael Palaiologos, were soon confirmed. The Mouzalon brothers were murdered, and Michael (VIII) Palaiologos ascended to the throne, Arsenios was removed from the patriarchate, while later John IV Laskaris was imprisoned and blinded. 2. External policy During his short reign, Theodore II attempted to continue his father’s external policy. Although no essential changes occurred in the area such that would bring the Byzantines closer to their ultimate goal, the recapture of Constantinople, the Empire of Nicaea managed to preserve its position vis-à-vis its adversaries, who after John III’s death attempted new attacks and made new demands. His most important successes were the conclusion of a peace treaty with the sultan of Rum İzzedin Kaykauş II (1246-1257), as well as the securing of the empire’s European possessions at the expense of Bulgaria and the Despotate of Epirus. 2.1. War against the Bulgarians The first military operations aimed at repulsing the troops of the Bulgarian tsar, and brother-in-law of Theodore II, Michael Asen (1246-1256), who in January 1255 crossed the river Evros, the south border of his kingdom, and swiftly captured large areas of Thrace and Macedonia. Theodore II brought back from exile his uncles on his mother’s side, who were banished from the empire during the reign of John III Vatatzes, and called a council to decide the measures that were to be taken. With the support of chiefly the megas domestikos, George Mouzalon, the emperor moved immediately to the north and soon managed to defeat the Bulgarian troops. He returned to this region in May 1256, when the Bulgarian tsar was forced to retreat and sign a peace treaty with favourable terms for Nicaea, ceding the cities of Prilapo (Prilap), Velessa (Veles), Dibra (Debar) and Tzepaina. The Bulgarian danger diminished after Michael Asen’s death and the internal disorder that ensued. Nicaea’s relations with Bulgaria were finally normalized after the accession to the Bulgarian throne of the Serbian noble Constantine Tich (1257-1277), who married the daughter of Theodore II, Irene. 2.2 Relations with the state of Epirus In the Despotate of Epirus, the despotes Michael II Doukas (1231-1271), observing the Bulgarians’initial successes in early 1255, begun planning an attack on the Balkan territories of Nicaea and proposed alliances to the Albanians and the king of Serbia, Stefan UrošI (1243-1276). Theodore II reacted swiftly and, after ratifying the Albanians’privileges conceded by his father John III, he pre- empted the eventuality of an alliance against him. After the unsuccessful outcome of the Bulgarians’war against Theodore II, Michael II thought it wise to maintain peaceful relations with Nicaea. The warming up of the relations between the two states was sealed in October 1256 in Thessalonica with the marriage of Nikephoros, son of Michael II, to the daughter of Theodore II, Maria. This peace was not to last, however. During the negotiations, Theodore II, by holding Michael II’s son, Nikephoros, and his wife, Theodora, Δημιουργήθηκε στις 4/10/2021 Σελίδα 2/15 IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Μπάνεβ Γκέντσο Μετάφραση : Κούτρας Νικόλαος Για παραπομπή : Μπάνεβ Γκέντσο , "Theodore II Laskaris", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=8487> essentially as hostages, imposed extortionate terms, demanding the surrender of Dyrrachium and the Macedonian fortress of Serbia as an affirmation of the marriage and the alliance. Then, the Byzantine emperor, fearing internal disorder following the defection of Michael Palaiologos to the Sultanate of Rum, rushed back to Nicaea. The relations between the two Greek states deteriorated. This confrontation led in 1257 into a ferocious and vacillating war. Michael II brought into effect his plans for an alliance against Nicaea. With the help of the Albanians and the support of the Serbs, he ousted the military forces of Theodore II from Albania and Macedonia and captured Kastoria and Veroia. The general governor of Macedonia, George Akropolites, could not contain the situation. He found himself besieged in Prilapo and was finally led captive to Arta. On the order of the emperor, John Palaiologos, brother of the megas konostaulos Michael Palaiologos, marched into the area leading a small army. The most competent Byzantine general, however, was not able to intercept the forces of Michael II, who now apparently sought to seize Thessalonica, where the Byzantine guard resided, under the command of Theodore II’s uncle, Michael Laskaris. These failures in the western front threw the Byzantine emperor into despair. Frustrated and gravely ill, Theodore II blamed the losses on his military commanders and took a series of extreme measures against them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Of Masters and Servants: Hybrid Power in Theodore Laskaris
    ANDRIA ANDREOU - PANAGIOTIS A. AGAPITOS Of Masters and Servants Hybrid Power in Theodore Laskaris’ Response to Mouzalon and in the Tale of Livistros and Rodamne Abstract The present paper examines two Byzantine texts from the middle of the thirteenth century, ostensibly unrelated to each other: a political essay written by a young emperor and an anonymous love romance. The analysis is conducted through the concept of hybrid power, a notion initially developed by postcolonial criticism. It is shown that in the two texts authority (that of the Byzantine emperor and that of Eros as emperor) is constructed as hybrid and thus as an impossibility, though in the case of the political essay this impossibility remains unresolved, while in the romance it is actually resolved. The pronounced similarities between the two texts on the level of political ideology (e.g. the notion of friendship between master and servant, the performance of power relations, shared key concepts) informing the hybrid form of authority and its relation to its servants is a clear indication that they belong to the same socio-cultural and intellectual environment, namely the Laskarid imperial court in Nicaea around 1250. * The present paper is a substantially The aim of this study* is to examine two ostensibly unrelated Byzan- revised and expanded version of a talk tine texts. The first is a ‘political essay’ by the emperor Theodore II given at a workshop on Theodore Doukas Laskaris (1254–58) on the relation of friendship between Laskaris as emperor and author, organized by Dimiter Angelov and rulers and their close collaborators; it can be plausibly dated between Panagiotis Agapitos in Nicosia with 1250 and 1254, at the time when the author was crowned prince.
    [Show full text]
  • Περίληψη : Manuel Laskaris Was a Member of the Laskaris Family and One of the Six Brothers of Theodore I Laskaris (1204-1222)
    IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Γιαρένης Ηλίας Μετάφραση : Βελέντζας Γεώργιος Για παραπομπή : Γιαρένης Ηλίας , "Manuel Laskaris ", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=7801> Περίληψη : Manuel Laskaris was a member of the Laskaris family and one of the six brothers of Theodore I Laskaris (1204-1222). In the years of John III Vatatzes (1222-1254), he was in disgrace, while when Theodore II Laskaris assumed the throne (1254-1958), he was recalled along with the rest of his relatives. He became an important trusty counselor of the emperor and was honoured by him with the notable title of protosebastos. He was not a successful fighter in the battlefield, though. After Theodore II died in 1258, he did not support the election of Michael Palaiologos as the regent of John IV Laskaris and, as a result, was exiled in Prousa. Άλλα Ονόματα Manuel Komnenos Laskaris, Manuel Tzamanturos, Maximos Τόπος και Χρόνος Γέννησης late 12th / early 13th century Τόπος και Χρόνος Θανάτου third quarter of the 13th century Κύρια Ιδιότητα protosebastos 1. Βiography Manuel Laskaris was the youngest brother of the emperor of Nicaea Theodore I Komnenos Laskaris, and the last of all six Laskaris brothers. The Laskaris brothers from the eldest to the younger were: Isaac, Alexios, Theodore (I Komnenos Laskaris, emperor in the exile of Nicaea), Constantine (XI Laskaris, uncrowned Byzantine emperor), Michael and Manuel.1 The activity of Michael Laskaris is also mentioned by George Akropolites, Theodore Skoutariotes and George Pachymeres, who calls him ‘Tzamanturos’( Tζαμάντουρος).2 There is information about his life and work until Michael VIII assumed the throne; Michael Laskaris must have died in exile in Prousa.
    [Show full text]
  • A Chronological Particular Timeline of Near East and Europe History
    Introduction This compilation was begun merely to be a synthesized, occasional source for other writings, primarily for familiarization with European world development. Gradually, however, it was forced to come to grips with the elephantine amount of historical detail in certain classical sources. Recording the numbers of reported war deaths in previous history (many thousands, here and there!) initially was done with little contemplation but eventually, with the near‐exponential number of Humankind battles (not just major ones; inter‐tribal, dynastic, and inter‐regional), mind was caused to pause and ask itself, “Why?” Awed by the numbers killed in battles over recorded time, one falls subject to believing the very occupation in war was a naturally occurring ancient inclination, no longer possessed by ‘enlightened’ Humankind. In our synthesized histories, however, details are confined to generals, geography, battle strategies and formations, victories and defeats, with precious little revealed of the highly complicated and combined subjective forces that generate and fuel war. Two territories of human existence are involved: material and psychological. Material includes land, resources, and freedom to maintain a life to which one feels entitled. It fuels war by emotions arising from either deprivation or conditioned expectations. Psychological embraces Egalitarian and Egoistical arenas. Egalitarian is fueled by emotions arising from either a need to improve conditions or defend what it has. To that category also belongs the individual for whom revenge becomes an end in itself. Egoistical is fueled by emotions arising from material possessiveness and self‐aggrandizations. To that category also belongs the individual for whom worldly power is an end in itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Roman Empire Roman Empire
    NON- FICTION UNABRIDGED Edward Gibbon THE Decline and Fall ––––––––––––– of the ––––––––––––– Roman Empire Read by David Timson Volum e I V CD 1 1 Chapter 37 10:00 2 Athanasius introduced into Rome... 10:06 3 Such rare and illustrious penitents were celebrated... 8:47 4 Pleasure and guilt are synonymous terms... 9:52 5 The lives of the primitive monks were consumed... 9:42 6 Among these heroes of the monastic life... 11:09 7 Their fiercer brethren, the formidable Visigoths... 10:35 8 The temper and understanding of the new proselytes... 8:33 Total time on CD 1: 78:49 CD 2 1 The passionate declarations of the Catholic... 9:40 2 VI. A new mode of conversion... 9:08 3 The example of fraud must excite suspicion... 9:14 4 His son and successor, Recared... 12:03 5 Chapter 38 10:07 6 The first exploit of Clovis was the defeat of Syagrius... 8:43 7 Till the thirtieth year of his age Clovis continued... 10:45 8 The kingdom of the Burgundians... 8:59 Total time on CD 2: 78:43 2 CD 3 1 A full chorus of perpetual psalmody... 11:18 2 Such is the empire of Fortune... 10:08 3 The Franks, or French, are the only people of Europe... 9:56 4 In the calm moments of legislation... 10:31 5 The silence of ancient and authentic testimony... 11:39 6 The general state and revolutions of France... 11:27 7 We are now qualified to despise the opposite... 13:38 Total time on CD 3: 78:42 CD 4 1 One of these legislative councils of Toledo..
    [Show full text]
  • The Byzantino-Latin Principality of Adrianople and the Challenge of Feudalism (1204/6–Ca
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography The Byzantino-Latin Principality of Adrianople and the Challenge of Feudalism (1204/6–ca. 1227/28) Empire, Venice, and Local Autonomy Filip Van Tricht n the aftermath of the conquest of Constantinople in designated or recognized by Venice as ruler of the city I1204 during the Fourth Crusade, one of many new of Adrianople, the author convincingly argues that political entities that took shape was a relatively short- the principality was no independent state, but a feu- lived principality centered on the city of Adrianople in dal principality within the framework of the (Latin) Thrace. Until recently not much attention had been Empire of Constantinople, a conclusion that for non- devoted to its history or position within the Byzantine Greek authors such as Jean Longnon had been rather space in the first decades of the thirteenth century.1 A self-evident.3 few years ago, however, Benjamin Hendrickx wrote an Along the way Hendrickx also makes some state- article with as starting point the observation that most ments that in my opinion raise new questions and war- Greek scholars until then had always maintained that rant further investigation. First, the author considers the principality in question was an independent state the mentioned Pactum to be an illustration of “Venice’s in the sense of a so-called Territorialstaat or toparchia independent policy in Romania” vis-à-vis the Latin as defined by Jürgen Hoffman.2 Through a renewed emperors.4 I will argue however that there are good rea- analysis of the so-called Pactum Adrianopolitanum sons to challenge this proposition.
    [Show full text]
  • MARKOPOULOS 1.7.2020.Indd
    https://doi.org/10.26262/par.v10i0.7724 THEOPHANES CONTINUATUS AND MICHAEL PSELLOS A DISCREET RELATIONSHIP ATHANASIOS MARKOPOULOS – CHRISTINA SIDERI As is widely known, during the tenth century, the “official history” of the rul- ing house of the Macedonians, conventionally called Theophanes Continuatus (henceforth ThCont), was composed at the court of Constantine VII Porphyro- gennetos (945-959), most probably at the behest of the emperor himself. This historical work – being certainly a great innovation in Byzantine historiography, as it employs the biographical form – covers the years 813-886, encompassing the reigns of five emperors, i.e. Leo V (813-820), Michael II (820-829), Theophi- los (829-842), Michael III (842-867) (included in books I-IV respectively), and Basil I (867-886), the founder of the Macedonian dynasty, to whom is dedicated book V, the famous Vita Basilii (henceforth VB); the narrative of this last book acquires a clearly laudatory character.1 1 For the relevant bibliography, the reader can refer to the following works: Vita Basilii, ed. I. Ševčenko, Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur liber quo Vita Basilii Imperatoris amplectitur (CFHB, 42). Berlin/Boston 2011, 36*-55*; ThCont (I-IV), ed. M. Featherstone – J. Signes Codoñer, Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur libri I-IV (CFHB, 53). Boston/Berlin 2015, 33*-36*; Ch. Sideri, Νεωτερικές τάσεις στην ιστοριογραφία των Μακεδόνων: η περίπτωση της Συνέχειας Θεο- φάνη (βιβλία α´-δ´), Athens University 2017, 397-439 (unpublished doctoral thesis). See also more recently J. Signes Codoñer, The author ofTheophanes Continuatus I-IV and the Historical Excerpts of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, in: L.
    [Show full text]
  • © in This Web Service Cambridge University
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-00962-2 - Land and Privilege in Byzantium: The Institution of Pronoia Mark C. Bartusis Index More information Index Aaron on Zavorda Treatise, 35 archontopoulos, grant recipient, 348 Aitolia, 231 Theodore, apographeus, 627 Akapniou, monastery in Thessaloniki, 307, Achaia, 234, 241 556, 592–94, 618 Acheloos, theme of, 233 Akarnania, 333, 510 Achinos, village, 556, 592–94 akatadoulotos, akatadouloton, 308, 423–24, 425 Achladochorion, mod. village, 451 akc¸e, 586, 587 acorns, 228, 229, 364, 491, 626 Akindynos, Gregory, 255 Adam akinetos (k©nhtov) see dorea; ktema; ktesis Nicholas, grant recipient, xxi, 206, 481 Aklou, village, 148 official, xv, 123 Akridakes, Constantine, priest, 301 syr, kavallarios,landholder,206, 481 Akropolites, George, historian, 15, 224, 225, Adam, village, 490, 619 284, 358 adelphaton,pl.adelphata, 153 Akros see Longos Adrian Akroterion, village, 570, 572, 573 landholder in the 1320s, 400 aktemon (ktmwn), pl. aktemones, 70, 85, 86, pronoia holder prior to 1301, 520 139, 140, 141–42, 143, 144, 214, 215, Adrianople, 330, 551 590 Adriatic Sea, 603, 604 Alans, 436, 502 Aegean Sea, 502, 510, 602, 604 Albania, 4, 584 aer, aerikon see under taxes, specific Alexios I Komnenos, emperor (1081–1118), xl, agridion, xxii, 466, 540–42, 570 xlii Ahrweiler, Hel´ ene,` 7 chrysobulls of, xv, xvi, 84, 128, 129, 134, on Adrian Komnenos, 137 140, 160, 255 on Alopos, 197 and coinage, 116 on appanages, 290, 291, 292, 293 and gifts of paroikoi, 85 on charistike, 155 and imperial grants, 29, 30, 58, 66, 69,
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Books in the Byzantine World
    EIKASMOS Quaderni Bolognesi di Filologia Classica Studi Online, 2 MEDICAL BOOKS IN THE BYZANTINE WORLD EDITED BY BARBARA ZIPSER BOLOGNA 2013 Medical books in the Byzantine world edited by BarbaraZipser Bologna 2013 o Eikasmós Online II ISSN 2282-2178 In memoriam David Bennett y Table of Contents Acknowledgments . vii List of figures. .xi List of abbreviations . xii 1. Prefatory note: the uses of medical manuscripts Peregrine Horden (RHUL and Oxford). .1 2. Byzantine medicine, genres, and the ravages of time Vivian Nutton (UCL) . 7 3. Disease and where to treat it: a Byzantine vade mecum Dionysios Stathakopoulos (KCL) . 19 4. Two Latin Pre-Salernitan medical manuals, the Liber passionalis and the Tereoperica (Ps. Petroncellus) Klaus-Dietrich Fischer (Mainz) . 35 5. The fate of a Greek medical handbook in the Medieval West: the Intro- duction, or the Physician ascribed to Galen Caroline Petit (ICS) . 57 6. Aristotle and the Caliph's Dream. Aspects of medical translations David Bennett (formerly NHS and RHUL) . 79 7. `Syriac' plant names in a fifteenth century Greek glossary (From the Wellcome Library Books and Manuscripts) Nikolaj Serikoff (Wellcome Library). .97 8. The Reception of Galen's Art of medicine in the Syriac Book of medicines Siam Bhayro (Exeter) . 123 9. Medieval hospital formularies: Byzantium and Islam compared Peregrine Horden (RHUL and Oxford) . 145 10. Cancerous cells, Neanderthal DNA and the tradition of Byzantine me- dicine. Textual criticism in philology and genomics Florian Markowetz (Cancer Research UK Cambridge and University of Cambridge) and Barbara Zipser (RHUL) . 165 Acknowledgements This volume originates from a conference on Byzantine Medical Manuals in Context, held in central London on the 19th of September 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Constantinople 1 L Shaped H
    The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople? Paper I An analysis of the L Shaped markings on the Shroud of Turin and an examination of the Holy Mandylion and Holy Shroud in the Madrid Skylitzes © Pam Moon Introduction This paper begins by looking at the pattern of marks on the Shroud of Turin which look like an L shape. The paper examines [1] the folding patterns, [2] the probable cause of the burn marks, and argues, with Aldo Guerreschi and Michele Salcito that it is accidental damage from incense. [3] It compares the marks with the Hungarian Pray manuscript. [4] In the second part, the paper looks at the historical text The Synopsis of the Histories attributed to Ioannes (John) Skylitzes. The illustrated history is known as the Madrid Skylitzes. It is the only surviving illustrated manuscript for Byzantine history for the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries. The paper looks at images from the Madrid Skylitzes which relate to the Holy Mandylion, also known as the Image of Edessa. The Mandylion was the most precious artefact in the Byzantine empire and is repeatedly described as an image ‘not-made-by-hands.’ [5] The paper identifies a miniature in the Madrid Skylitzes (fol.26v; see below) which apparently shows the procession of a beheaded emperor Leon V in AD 820 and suggests that there could be a scribal error. The picture seems to show the Varangian Guard who arrived in Constantinople after AD 988, 168 years later. The picture may instead depict the procession of AD 1036, where the Holy Mandylion (and in some translations Holy Shroud) were carried though the streets of Constantinople.
    [Show full text]
  • 0584-98881249243K.Pdf
    Zbornik radova Vizantolo{kog instituta HßÇH, 2012 Recueil des travaux de l’Institut d’etudes byzantines XßIX, 2012 UDC: 94:355.426Š(495.02)"12/13" DOI:10.2298/ZRVI1249243K SAVVAS KYRIAKIDIS (University of Johannesburg, South Africa) THE IDEA OF CIVIL WAR IN THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH-CENTURY — BYZANTIUM This paper discusses thirteenth and fourteenth-century Byzantine perceptions of civil wars, which were a common feature in the late Byzantine period. It investi- gates how the most important authors of the period understood and defined the idea of civil war. It explores the Byzantine understanding of the differences between mil- itary conflicts which were fought between subjects and employees of the emperor and wars the empire fought against its external enemies. In addition, it examines the views the imperial authorities and the authors of the period express about wars against enemies with whom the later Byzantines shared a common cultural, ethnic and religious background. Key words: Civil war, Nicaea, Pachymeres, Kantakouzenos, Akropolites This article will examine thirteenth and fourteenth-century Byzantine con- cepts of armed conflicts which can be defined as civil wars (emfulioi polemoi). Wars between aristocratic clans and between members of the inner imperial fam- ily were a common feature in the later Byzantine period. However, not many scholars have attempted to provide a definition of the idea of civil war in late By- zantium. In his discussion of Byzantine attitudes towards warfare, W. Treadgold suggested ‘as a working definition of Byzantine civil war an armed conflict in which a significant number of Byzantine soldiers fought on both sides with a sig- nificant number of casualties.’1 This is a reasonable definition and, possibly, ap- plicable to most internal conflicts in Byzantium before 1204.
    [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]
  • 6 X 10.Long.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-85703-1 - Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330 Dimiter Angelov Index More information Index abiotikion 288–89, 297, 302–03 Aphthonios 18, 54–55, 56, 73, 92, 200 Agapetos theDeacon 154, 185–87, 194–95, 230 Apokaukos, John 187, 192, 357 Ahrweiler,He´le`ne 5–6, 10–11 Apros, battle of (10 July 1305) 292, 316 Akindynos, Gregory 297 Aquinas, Thomas 24 Akropolites, George 43, 49, 50, 57, 67, 69, 84, Argyropoulos, John 63 93, 99, 124, 136, 137–38, 167, 207–08, Aristides, Aelius 57, 58–59, 126 209, 246, 255, 257, 258, 345 aristocracy 9 Alanmercenaries 291, 303, 316 as constitutionalformofgovernment 200–01, Alexios I Komnenos, emperor 4, 62, 118, 119, 323 126, 167, 331 nature andpolitical clout of 4–5, 109–10 Alexios III Angelos, emperor 2, 119, 120, 125, 129, opposition against 5, 105–07, 179, 209–12, 412 234, 303 Andronikos I Komnenos, emperor 137, 282, 284 see also nobility (eugeneia), conceptof Andronikos II Palaiologos, emperor 7, 30, Aristotle 8, 9, 24, 69, 195, 227, 260, 345, 421 45–47, 56–57, 109, 118, 127, 130–32, 136, Nicomachean Ethics 23, 197, 220–22, 250 148, 169, 177, 262, 268, 278–79, 280, 282, Politics 23, 202–03, 251, 321 290–92, 299, 301, 302, 303, 311, 313, 314, Rhetoric 55 316, 318, 338–40, 342, 354, 369, 371, 395, Arsenios Autoreianos, patriarch of 397–401, 407, 412 Constantinople (in Nicaea during his portrait in court rhetoric 101–02, 103, 110–12, first term inoffice) 44, 296, 329, 366–69, 113–14, 136–40, 141–43, 152–53, 165, 170 374–75, 380–81, 382, 383, 393, 394–95
    [Show full text]