Studia Ceranea 7, 2017, p. 9–25 ISSN: 2084-140X DOI: 10.18778/2084–140X.07.01 e-ISSN: 2449-8378 Symeon Antonov (Veliko Tărnovo) The Byzantine Office of ἘΠῚ ΤῶΝ ΚΡΊΣΕῶΝ and Its Holders (in the Light of Sphragistic Evidence and Written Sources) the middle of the 11th century, the Byzantine Empire began to experience In the difficulties that eventually culminated in the catastrophe of the 1070s. Meanwhile, the state administration evolved in an attempt to adjust to the new conditions. One of the firm steps towards this goal was the creation of the office (σέκρετον) of ἐπί τῶν κρίσεων by emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (1042– 1055) somewhere between 1043 and 1047. This institution is the topic of the cur- rent paper, which aims to summarize the evidence from primary sources and the major contributions from the end of the 19th century to the present day. The main part, however, consists of a list of officials in this position, compiled using the available data from different sources – rhetorical, epistolary, documentary and sphragistic. The only historical source for the establishment of theepi ton kriseon and its initial functions is the History by Michael Attaleiates1. According to this account, the newly founded office was to deal with private legal cases (δικῶν ἰδιωτικῶν); furthermore, provincial judges (τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν δικασταί) were supposed to send copies or notes (τῶν σχεδαρίων) to inform the official about their decisions, in order to be free of any suspicion concerning their equity. The institution under discussion has been studied quite thoroughly for more than a century. Among the most important contributions are those by Karl Edu- ard Zachariä von Lingenthal2, Helene Ahrweiler3, Nikos Oikonomidès4, Michael 1 Michael Attaleiates, History, ed. A. Kaldellis, D. Krallis, Cambridge MA–London 2012, p. 36: Ἐκαίνισε δὲ καί σέκρετον δικῶν ἰδιωτικῶν, ἐπί τῶν κρίσεων κακέσας τὸν τούτου προέχοντα· ἐν τούτῳ οἱ τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν δικασταί καί συντάττουσι τὰ ποιητέα ἐγγράφως καί τὰ τῶν σχεδαρίων ἐνα- ποτιθέασιν ἴσα δι’ ὑποψίας ἀπαλλαγήν. 2 K.E. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Geschichte des griechisch-römischen Rechts, Berlin 1892, p. 374–378. 3 H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Recherches sur l’administration de l’empire byzantin aux IX–XIe siècles, BCH 84, 1960, p. 70–71. 4 N. Oikonomidès, L’évolution de l’organisation administrative de l’empire byzantine au XIe siècle (1025–1118), TM 6, 1976, p. 134–135. 10 Symeon Antonov Angold5, Aikaterine Christophilopoulou6, Stauroula Chondridou7, Andreas Gkoutzioukostas8. Two major suggestions dominate the secondary sources as regards the primary function of these civil servants. Partly, at least, they coincide and complement one another; the chief difference between them is whether the epi ton kriseon is taken as a purely judicial position, overseeing the legal activity of provincial judges, or as one related to provincial administration in a more gen- eral sense9. It is widely accepted that the official in question was a supreme judge of sorts, one of four in Constantinople at that time, the others being the droun- garios tes viglas (δρουγγάριος τῆς βίγλας), the eparch of the City10 (ἔπαρχος τῆς Πόλεως) and the quaestor (κοιαίστωρ)11. In a mid-12th century source, the Ecloga Basilicorum, the epi ton kriseon is mentioned among the ‘great judges’ (μεγάλους δικαστές)12. The judicial activity of these officials is well-attested in sources from the 11th–12th century13. Ahrweiler points out that, with the available data, it is impossible to specify the nature of the dependency of the thematic kritai (θεματικοί κριταί) on the epi ton kriseon. A useful piece of information is found in a passage from the work of Kekaumenos; here, once again, we read about the notes (σχεδαρίων) that a the- matic judge was obliged to dispatch to his colleagues in the capital (τῶν πολιτικῶν δικαστῶν). Unfortunately, the original text breaks off, which makes it impossible to reconstruct the rest14. However, Ahrweiler implies that the epi ton kriseon prob- ably did not have the right to veto the decisions of thematic judges, although they were subordinate to him in a certain way. Furthermore, the scholar advances the 5 M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025–1204. A Political History, London–New York 19972, p. 62–66. 6 ΑΙ. ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΙΛΟΠΟΎΛΟΥ, Τα βυζαντινά δικαστήρια κατά τους αιώνες Ι’-ΙΑ’, ΔΕΒΜΜ 4, 1986/1987, p. 174–176. 7 Σ.Δ. ΧΟΝΔΡΊΔΟΥ, Ο Κωνσταντίνος Θ’ Μονομάχος και η εποχή του, Αθήνα 2002, p. 127–140. 8 Α.Ε. ΓΚΟΥΤΖΙΥΚΩΣΤΑΣ, Η απονομή δικαιοσύνης στο Βυζάντιο (9ος–12ος αιώνες). Τα κοσμικά δικαιοδο- τικά όργανα και δικαστήρια της πρωτεύουσας, Θεσσαλονίκη 2004, p. 202–207 [= BKΜε, 37]. 9 Karl Eduard Zachariä von Lingenthal confuses τῶν ἐπαρχιῶν δικασταί in Attaleiates’ text with the judges of the velon and the Hippodrome in the capital, suggesting they were both responsible to the epi ton kriseon, which is obviously not true (K.E. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Geschichte…, p. 374). Rather, the Byzantine text refers to provincial judges. For a very short survey of the issue, cf.: A. Kazhdan, R.J. Macrides, Epi ton kriseon, [in:] ODB, vol. I, p. 724–725. 10 I.e. the new Rome – Constantinople. 11 These four court officials appear together in the scholia on the Basilika dating from the reign of Constantine X Doukas (1059–1067). Cf. K.E. Zachariä von Lingenthal, Geschichte…, p. 374, fn. 349. 12 R.J. Macrides, The Competent Court, [in:] Law and Society in Byzantium. Ninth–Twelfth Centuries, ed. A.E. Laiou, D. Simon, Washington D.C. 1994, p. 119–120; Α.Ε. ΓΚΟΥΤΖΙΥΚΩΣΤΑΣ, Η απονομή δικαιοσύνης…, p. 207. 13 Α.Ε. ΓΚΟΥΤΖΙΥΚΩΣΤΑΣ, Η απονομή δικαιοσύνης…, p. 206–207. 14 КЕКАВМЕН, Советы и рассказы, Поучение византийского полководца XI в., ed., trans. Г.Г. Ли- таврин, Санкт-Петербург 22003, p. 148, 8–10. The Byzantine Office of Ἐπὶ τῶν κρίσεων and Its Holders… 11 idea that this official was more of an administrator than a judge in the pure sense of the word, which relates to the second hypothesis concerning his main functions – that of combined judicial and administrative powers15. Another renowned Byzantinologist, Nikos Oikonomidès, suggests that epi ton kriseon assisted thematic judges in resolving more complicated cases, which was indeed necessary in view of their insufficient legal competence and education16. His explanation is rational and could be indirectly corroborated by the informa- tion about the deficiency of specialist education among thematic judges. This was one of the main reasons behind the establishment of a law school in Constanti- nople by Constantine IX, presided initially by nomophylax Ioannes Xiphilinos17. Angold takes a similar stance, linking the creation of the epi ton kriseon with the need for stricter control of the activity of provincial judges, whose lack of proper education had led to an unequal treatment of otherwise identical cases. However, he thinks of this office as more than simply law-related, involving authority over the thematic judges as well18. Christophilopoulou suggests that the primary impulse behind the foundation of the institution was the need to impose the authority of the central adminis- tration over provincial judges. The main purpose was to prevent legal offenses – a common issue at the time, it would seem. Despite that, the epi ton kriseon was one of the σεκρετικαί, who were state officials distinct from judges19. Chondridou views the establishment of this position in a wider context, as part of a reform project initiated by emperor Constantine IX himself and backed by the court dignitaries and intellectuals around him. Theepi ton kriseon had the authority to dismiss provincial judges and to impose other penalties. He was main- ly concerned with the schedarion in order to thwart illegal actions, mostly matters of property appropriation and financial fraud. Thus, according to Chondridou, he would also deal with economic and fiscal issues20. The most recent approach to this topic comes from another Greek scholar, Andreas Gkoutzioukostas, who summarizes all of the previous theories. The author implies that the epi ton kriseon was an official with various functions; how- ever, there are scarce (if any) data confirming his alleged non-judicial powers. This dearth of evidence opens the way for different speculations, so that the issue is bound to remain uncertain21. 15 H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, Recherches sur l’administration…, p. 70–71. 16 N. Oikonomidès, L’évolution de l’organisation administrative…, p. 134–135. 17 As an example, we may mention Michael Psellos, who was still very young when appointed the- matic judge in several themata in Asia Minor; he had just finished his education and his overall legal knowledge was rather limited. Cf. M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire…, p. 64–66. 18 Ibidem, p. 61–65. 19 ΑΙ. ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΙΛΟΠΟΎΛΟΥ, Τα βυζαντινά δικαστήρια…, p. 174–175. 20 Σ.Δ. ΧΟΝΔΡΊΔΟΥ, Ο Κωνσταντίνος…, p. 127–140. 21 Α.Ε. ΓΚΟΥΤΖΙΥΚΩΣΤΑΣ, Η απονομή δικαιοσύνης…, p. 202–207. 12 Symeon Antonov In order to make all these statements more consistent with the facts, we have to review some of the principal developments of the theme military and administra- tive system after the death of emperor Basil II (976–1025). The theme system, established as early as in the late th7 –8th century as a purely military-related enterprise, eventually resulted in both military and civil author- ity being concentrated in the hands of one person – the thematic strategos22. It remained very much this way until the reign of Basil II, when most of the internal themata were deprived of their military population (the so called stratiotai), which came to be concentrated predominantly in the peripheral military administrative units near the empire’s borders23. This inevitably undermined the power of the strategoi in their own regions, raising the significance of the civil administrators, and of the judges in particular. This process proceeded even further once Basil II was gone, when military expeditions and the pressure on the borders were carried out by professional units (tagmata) in the capital and the provinces, as well as by the military population in the borderlands of Southern Caucasus, Asia Minor, Syria, the Balkans and Southern Italy.