John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium

FIrstpublished 2016
by Routledge
2 ParkSquare, Milton Park,Abingdon,Oxon OX144RN
and by Routledge
711ThirdAvenue, NewYork, NY 10017
Routledge isan imprintof theTaylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016The Centre for HellenicStudies,King's CollegeLondon
The rightof Alessandra Bucossi and AlexRodriguez Suarezto be identified
as the authorsof the editorialmaterial, and of the authorsfor their individual
chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designsand PatentsAct 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book maybe reprintedor reproduced or
utilisedin anyform or byany electronic, mechanical, or other means,now
knownor hereafterinvented, includingphotocopying and recording, or in
anyinformation storageor retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Productor corporatenamesmaybe trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used onlyfor identification and explanation
withoutintent to infringe.
BritishLibraryCataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue recordfor this book is available from the British Library
LibraryofCongrm Cataloging in Publication Data
Names: Bucossi,Alessandra, 1974-editor.1Suarez,AlexR.,editor.
Title:John II Komnenos, emperorof Byzantium : in the shadowof father
and son/ editedbyAlessandra Bucossi and Alex Rodriguez Suarez.
Description: Farnham,Surrey, England: Ashgate, [2016] 1Series:
Publications of the Centre for HellenicStudies,King's CollegeLondon I
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015044187 (print) 1ISBN 9781472460240 (hardcover)
Subjects: LCSH:John II Comnenus,Emperorof the East, 1087 or
1088-1143.1 Byzantine Empire-History-John II Comnenus,
1118-1143.
Classification: LeC DF606.J642016 (print) I DDC 949.5/03092-dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.1oc.gov/2015044187
ISBN 978-1-4724-6024-0 (hbk)

ISBN 978-1-3155-9054-7 (ebk)
Typesetin Adobe CaslonPro

by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon,UK
THE CENTRE FOR HELLENIC STUDIES:

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON, PUBLICATIONS 17
I;) MIX
P.per from
-.....
FSC
reeponllbl. IOUrcea
FSe- C013985
Printedin the UnitedKingdom
by HenryLingLimited
Contents
List offigures vii

List ofcontributors x
Preface xiii
List ofabbreviations xvi
Map ofthe Byzantine empire underJohnIl Komnenos xviii
Life and reign ofJohn 11Komnenos (1118-1143): a chronology xix
Alex Rodriguez Suarez
1. John Il Komnenos: a historiographical essay 1

Dionysios Stathakopoulos
2. John II Komnenos before the year 1118 11

Vlada Stankovic
3. Narratives ofJohn Il Komnenos'wars: comparing Byzantine

and modern approaches 22
Ioannis Stouraitis
4. The political ideology ofJohn Il Komnenos 37

AngelikiPapageorgiou
5. The triumph of 1133 53

PaulMagdalino
6. Emperor John Il's encounters with foreign rulers 71

Martin Marka Vucetic
7. From Greek into Latin: Western scholars and translators in

Constantinople during the reign ofJohn II 91
8. Literary trends in the Constantinopolitan courts in the

1120s and 1130s 110
ElizabethJe.ffreys
v
vi CONTENTS
9. Seeking a way out of the impasse: the Filioque controversy

during John's reign 121
Alessandra Bucossi
10. Architecture and patronage in the age ofJohn II 135

RobertOusterhout
11. Imperial impersonations: disguised portraits of a Komnenian

prince and his father 155
Kallirroe Linardou
12. Coinage, numismatic circulation and monetary policy under

John II Komnenos (1118-1143) 183
Pagona Papadopoulou
Bibliography 201
Index 230
Figures
10.1 Istanbul, Zeyrek Camii (Monastery of Christ Pantokrator), plan

(author, redrawn, with modifications, after A.H.S. Megaw) 137
10.2 Istanbul, Zeyrek Camii (Monastery of Christ Pantokrator),
view from east (author) 138
interior of south church, looking south-east (author) 138
lOA Istanbul, Zeyrek Camii (Monastery of Christ Pantokrator),
plan of the south church (Phase I) with hypothesized north aisle
(author, redrawn, with modifications, after A.H.S. Megaw) 139
plan of south and central churches showing the opus sectile floor
and probable positions of imperial tombs (author, redrawn, with
modifications, after A.H.S. Megaw) 140
10.6 Istanbul, Kariye Camii (Monastery of the Chora), hypothetical
reconstruction of the twelfth-century church, with approximate
location of tomb ofIsaac Komnenos (author) 143
10.7 Istanbul, Kariye Camii (Monastery of the Chora), naos looking
east (author) 143
10.8 Istanbul, Kariye Camii (Monastery of the Chora), Deesis mosaic,
detail: portrait ofIsaac Komnenos (photo: C. Wales, courtesy
Dumbarton Oaks Visual Resources and Fieldwork Archives) 144
10.9 Pherrai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, plan showing probable location
ofIsaac's tomb (author) 149
10.10 Pherrai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, seen from south-east (author) 149
10.11 Pherrai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, interior, looking north-west
toward probable location ofIsaac's tomb (author) 150
10.12 Pherrai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, painting of an unidentified military
saint bearing a resemblance to Isaac (courtesy of C. Bakirtzis) 152
11.1 The Deesis Mosaic in the esonarthex of the katholikon of the

Chora Monastery (photo by T. Tanoulas) 160
11.2 Detail ofIsaac sebastokrator from the Deesis Mosaic
(photo by T. Tanoulas) 161
11.3 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. T. inf. 1. 10
(Codex Ebnerianus), f. 231v, portrait of Luke with an
anonymous imperial figure introducing the opening ofActs
(The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford) 165
vii
viii FIGURES

(Codex Ebnerianus), f. 312v, author portrait of Paul introducing the
Pauline Epistles (The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford) 168
(Codex Ebnerianus), f. 23v, author portrait of Matthew and the
scene of the Nativity introducing the homonymous Gospel
(The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford) 172
11.6 Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi Library, MS G. 1. 8, f. n-,
Demetrios of Phaleron drafting the memorandum and king Ptolemy
ordering the dispatch of the letter (Kurt Weitzmann Archive,
Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University) 174
11.7 Katholikon of the Virgin Kosmosoteira Pherrai (Thrace),
St Theodore Teron, north wall of the nave (by the permission of
the Evros Ephorate of Antiquities, Greek Ministry of Culture) 175
11.8, Citta del Vaticano, BAV, MS gr. 666, f. 2v, detail of portrait
of Alexios I Komnenos presenting the Panoplia Dogmatica to
Christ (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana) 177
11.9 Katholikon of the Virgin Kosmosoteira Pherrai (Thrace),
St Merkourios, south wall of the nave (by the permission of
the Evros Ephorate ofAntiquities, Greek Ministry of Culture) 181
12.1 Hyperpyron ofJohn Il Komnenos (1118-43), Thessalonica

(second coinage). DOC4, 5 (BZC.1948.17.3724; Peirce 1948
from Raymond ii. 28) 184
Hyperpyron ofJohn III Vatatzes (1222-54), Magnesia.
DOC4, 6a.3 (BZC.1948.17.3729; Peirce 1948) 184
12.2 Hyperpyron of John Il Komnenos, Constantinople
(first coinage). DOC 4, la.l (BZC.1948.17.3394; Peirce 1948
from Schulman i.30) 186
12.3 Hyperpyron ofJohn Il Komnenos, Constantinople
(second coinage). DOC 4,2.5 (BZC.1948.17.3411; Peirce 1948
from Kellad 3.iii.30) 186
12.4 Hyperpyron ofJohn Il Komnenos, Constantinople (third coinage).
DOC4, 3a.5 (BZC.1948.17.3384; Peirce 1948) 186
12.5 John Il'S hyperpyra production (absolute numbers) 187
12.6 John Il'S hyperpyra production (annual average) 187
12.7 Trikephalon ofJohn Il Komnenos, Constantinople (first coinage).
DOC 4, 8e.l (BZC.1948.17.3420; Peirce 1948 from Andronikos) 189
12.8 Trikephalon ofJohn Il Komnenos, Constantinople
(second coinage). DOC 4, 8a.l (BZC.1967.6; from Spink 27.iii.67
from the Nicosia/ca 1920 hoard) 189
12.9 Trikephalon ofJohn Il Komnenos, Constantinople (third coinage).
DOC 4, 8c.l [BZC.1948.17.3416; Peirce 1948 from Egger 24(?)] 189
FIGURES ix
12.10 John Il's trikephala production (annual average) 190

12.11 John Il's hyperpyra and trikephala production in comparison
(annual average) 191
12.12 Twelfth-century hoards and single finds (hyperpyra and
trikephala) 192
All illustrations of coins in Chapter 12 © Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection,

Washington, D.C. Please note that the coins are not illustrated to scale.
Contributors
Alessandra Bucossi is a Research Fellow and Lecturer at Ca' Foscari University

of Venice. She worked as Sophia Research Fellow in Byzantine Studies at KCL
between 2011 and 2014. She studied Classics at the University of Genova and was
awarded an MA in Late Antique and Byzantine Studies at King's. She holds a
doctorate from Oxford University and a Diploma in Greek Palaeography from the
Vatican School of Greek Palaeography. She was also a Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks
and a Research Fellow in the Ars edendi research programme based at Stockholms
Universitet. Her critical edition of Andronikos Kamateros'SacrumArmamentarium
was published in the Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca - Brepols in 2014.
ElizabethJeffreys is Bywater and Sotheby Emerita in the University of Oxford,

and Emeritus Fellow of Exeter College. Her numerous publications include the
important editions of Digenis Akritis (1998), the thirteenth-century verse romance
The war ofTroy (1996), as well as of Iacobi Monachi Epistulae (2009). She recently
published Four Byzantine novels (2012), a translation of the twelfth-century
Komnenian tales of romance and adventure.
Kallirroe Linardou lectures on Byzantine Art as a faculty member in the

Department of Theory and History of Art at Athens School of Fine Arts. She
has published on Byzantine illuminated manuscripts and co-edited a book on
Byzantine eating and dining culture: Eat, drink, and be merry (Luke 12:19) - Food
and wine in Byzantium (2007).
Paul Magdalino was Bishop Wardlaw Professor of Byzantine History in the

University ofSt Andrews, Professor ofByzantine History at KoS; University, Istanbul,
and a Fellow of the British Academy. His research interests include Byzantine his-
tory: the society, culture and economy of the Byzantine world (sixth-thirteenth
centuries); the city of Constantinople; prophecy, scientific thought and the forma-
tion of Byzantine religious Orthodoxy. He is well known for his monograph on the
Byzantine Empire during the reign"of Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180), which
challenged Niketas Choniates' negative appraisal of the ruler.
Robert Ousterhout teaches Byzantine Art and Architecture at the University of

Pennsylvania, where he directs the Center for Ancient Studies. He taught previ-
ously at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1983-2006), where he
received his PhD in 1982. He also directs the 'Cappadocia in Context' site seminar
for Koc University.
x
CONTRIBUTORS xi
Pagona Papadopoulou is a Lecturer at the Aristotle University ofThessaloniki.

She has published on Byzantine and Medieval numismatics, coin iconography and
sigillography.Her monograph From unity tofragmentation: Money and its use in the
Byzantine world (1092-1261) is forthcoming in the series Monographies du Centre
d'bistoire et civilation deByzance.
Angeliki Papageorgiou has been a Junior Lecturer in the Department of Slavic

Studies of the University of Athens since 2008. Her research interests lay in the
transition from the Middle Byzantine to the Late Byzantine period, especially the
Komnenian era, and revolve around issues of ideological, social, military and dip-
lomatic history, as well as the relations between the Byzantine Empire and the
Slavs. She published a monograph entitled To Chronikon touIerea tis Diokleias (The
chronicle ofthepriest of Duklja), Athens 2012. Her PhD thesis John 11Komnenos and
his era (1118-1143) is under publication.
Vlada Stankovic is a Professor of Byzantine Studies and Director of the Centre

for Cypriot Studies at the University of Belgrade. He taught at the University of
Ioannina in 2008 and at the Open University of Cyprus in 2009/2010. From 2009
he is a member of the Editorial Board of Byzantiniscbe Zeitschrift. His main inter-
ests are Byzantine history and literature (ninth-fourteenth century), the Balkans
and Cyprus in the Middle Ages.
Dionysios Stathakopoulos is a Senior Lecturer in Byzantine Studies at King's

College London. He studied in Munster, Vienna and Birmingham and taught in
Vienna and Budapest. His research is focused on charity and remembrance, the
history of medicine and its practitioners as well as the environmental history of
Byzantium.
Ioannis Stouraitis is a Research Associate and Lecturer at the Institute for

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies of the University of Vienna. His research
interests focus on questions of war ethics, ideology and social identity in the
Byzantine social order. His main publications include a monograph and a co-edited
collectivevolume on Byzantine war ideology.He is also creator and administrator of
the research website ByzIDeo, which promotes scholarly dialogue and information
on issues of ideology and identity research in the Middle Ages.
Alex Rodriguez Suarez holds a PhD from the Centre for Hellenic Studies of
King's College London. His thesis focused on the Western presence in Byzantium
and its impact during the reigns ofAlexios I and John Il. He studied History at the
Universitat Autonoma of Barcelona and was awarded an MA in Late Antique and
Byzantine Studies at Royal Holloway University of London. He was the convenor
of the international workshop 'In the shadow offather and son: John Il Komnenos
and his reign'.
xii CONTRIBUTORS
MartinMarko Vucetic is a Research Assistant at the Department of History at

]ohannes Gutenberg Universitat in Mainz. He studied Medieval and Modern
History, Byzantine Studies and Political Sciences in Mainz, Vienna and Glasgow.
From 2009 he was a research assistant at the Institute for Byzantine and Modern
Greek Studies at the Westf:ilische Wilhe1ms Universitat in Munster. Recently he
wrote a PhD dissertation entitled Encounters of Byzantine emperors with foreign
rulers (395 to 1204): Preparation - composition -jUnctions. Since 2012, he has been a
member of the Priority Programme 1630 'Harbours from the Roman Period to the
Middle Ages' of the German Research Foundation (DFG).
Preface
This book is dedicated to the reign of the Byzantine emperor John II Komnenos
(1118-1143), also known asJohn the Good, who ruled as the second emperor ofthe
Komnenian dynasty (1081-1185). His reign has not received much scholarly atten-
tion, unlike those of his father and his son. In fact, the only publication focusing on
his reign is the second volume on the Komnenian emperors written by Ferdinand
Chalandon, Jean 11 Comnene (1118-1143) et Manuel I" Camnene (1143-1180),
which was published a century ago (1912). Unlike his father Alexios and his son
Manuel,John has not been the subject of any recent monograph and so his reign
is discussed briefly in studies dealing with the Komnenian dynasty in general. The
main reason for this lack of scholarly interest is the absence of a chronicle of the
period addressing his rule in detail. A further explanation for this apparent lack of
interest is the fact that no major political events took place during his reign; for
instance, John did not have to face the passage of a Crusade through Byzantine
territory. Because of the lack of studies focusing on this period, we believe that this
book will fill an important gap in the history of the Byzantine Empire.
The origins of the present book go back to the international workshop dedicated
to the reign ofJohn II that took place in the Centre for Hellenic Studies, King's
College London, on 12 January 2013. Entitled 'In the shadow of father and son:
John II Komnenos and his reign', the conference presented a fresh and varied look
at the reign ofJohn, providing an opportunity to reconsider what we know about
this emperor and his period. The success of the conference encouraged the Centre
and the editors to publish a volume of essays derived from that initiative. This book
includes seven chapters based directly on papers presented at the conference plus
five new contributions, three of them by scholars who did not attend the workshop.
The articles offer an insight into different aspects of Byzantium during the reign
ofJohn II, which are frequently studied separately by specialists in their respective
fields: literature, religion, numismatics, architecture, artistic patronage and others.
Dionysios Stathakopoulos introduces the volume by exploring the written
sources - accounts, panegyrics and poems - concerning John and the ideas which
these provide about the emperor. In addition, Stathakopoulos looks at the key stud-
ies that have dealt with the period and reviews their authors' approaches. Vlada
Stankovic sheds light on the most obscure period ofJohn's life, that stretching from
his birth to his accession in 1118. By putting together the scarce evidence available
about John as prince and co-emperor, Stankovic provides a picture of the years
in which John seems to have played no significant role and also faced the threat
represented by his sister's ambitions. Ioannis Stouraitis deals with military aspects.
John spent most of his reign on campaign; however, Stouraitis goes beyond the
xiii
xiv PREFACE
descriptions of conquests and compares the different existing narratives in order to

understand the background to John's military actions and their goals.The chapter by
Angeliki Papageorgiou looks at the political ideology of the emperor. She gives an
overview of the means - from triumphs to coins - employed by John to display his
political ideals to both subjects and foreigners. Paul Magdalino looks at one of the
most famous events ofthe reign, the imperial triumph of1133. Magdalino provides
a fresh view of the occasion by analysing in detail the poems that were written by
Theodore Prodromos to commemorate the triumph and also provides a new trans-
lation of them. Martin Vucetic focuses on the encounters between John and foreign
rulers throughout his reign. While these were not numerous, their analysis shows
that this period witnessed the introduction of new elements in the arrangement of
certain diplomatic meetings. Alex Rodriguez Suarez looks at the Western presence
in the Byzantine Empire through the case studies offour individuals from the Italian
peninsula: Cerbano Cerbani, James of Venice, Moses of Bergamo and Burgundio
of Pisa. He shows that the presence in Constantinople ofWesterners with literary
and scholarly interests, two of whom had positions at court, predate the reign of
Manuel 1. Elizabeth Jeffreys explores the literary circles of Constantinople during
the 1120s and 1130s. She focuses on four authors, Nikephoros Basilakes, Michael
Italikos, Nikephoros Bryennios and Theodore Prodromos, who received the patron-
age of court individuals, and shows that the reign ofJohn was also an innovative
period for literary creation. Alessandra Bucossi examines the Filioque controversy
during this period of growing contacts between the Byzantine and Latin churches.
By looking at the dialogues written by Niketas of Thessalonica and the treatises
of other Komnenian theologians, she traces the changing approaches - and their
tools - to the procession of the Holy Spirit. Robert Ousterhout examines church
architecture through imperial patronage. By analysing three major monastic com-
plexes, the Pantokrator, the Chora and the Kosmosoteira, Ousterhout investigates
architectonic developments in relation to their use as burial sites of their patrons.
Kallirroe Linardou examines the artistic patronage ofjohns brother, the sebastokra:
tor Isaac. Through a series ofrepresentations commissioned by the Porphyrogennetos,
she sheds light on how Isaac used portraiture in order to display his political ambi-
tions. Finally, Pagona Papadopoulou examines the Byzantine coinage of the period.
By looking at finds dated to the reign ofJohn, she concludes that a new monetary
polieywas implemented in the south-eastern territories of the empire.
The inclusion of this wide range of topics provides a more complete picture of
this period of Byzantine history, whjch is usually reduced to a list of military cam-
paigns and the construction of the Pantokrator Monastery. In general terms, the
secondary bibliography has treated the reign ofJohn as a simple and brief paren-
thesis between the reign of his father Alexios and that of his son Manuel. While
this period has previously been seen as uneventful and stable, many of the present
contributions highlight its innovative character. Thus, the aim of this volume is to
reassess not only the figure ofJohn as emperor, but also to examine the changes and
developments that took place in Byzantium during the period of his rule. The reign
PREFACE xv
of John II merits its proper place within Byzantine history, and we hope that the
publication ofthis book will contribute to rediscovering the period in its own right.
This present book complements the recent volume on the Pantokrator
Monastery edited by Sofia Kotzabassi (2013). The Pantokrator indeed was the most
important imperial foundation in twelfth-century Constantinople and the present
book contributes to the understanding of the period that witnessed its construc-
tion. Together, these two edited volumes significantly revise our understanding of
this underestimated period of the history of the Byzantine Empire. They also show
that scholars of the Byzantine world are starting to look more seriously at the evi-
dence of the period. The international conference held at the Central European
University in Budapest in 2015, entitled 'Piroska and the Pantokrator: Dynastic
memory, healing and salvation in Komnenian Constantinople', follows this trend of
recent research.That conference focused on the figure ofJohn's wife, the Hungarian
princess Piroska-Eirene, and her role as founder of the Pantokrator, which was
completed by John after she died in 1134. All of these current publications and
academic events contribute to a growing scholarly interest in the neglected reign of
John II Komnenos.
We would like warmly to thank the director of the Centre for Hellenic Studies,
Professor Roderick Beaton, for his expertise and advice in editing the volume.
His cooperation has been invaluable and indeed very much appreciated. Also, our
thanks go to our colleagues at King's College London, Dionysios Stathakopoulos
and Tassos Papacostas, for their continuous encouragement and support.
Alessandra Bucossi and Alex Rodriguez Suarez
Abbreviations
AHDlMA Archivesd'bistoire doctrinale et Iitteraire du moyen age

AB AnalectaBollandiana
ANS Anglo-Norman Studies
BB OS Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies
BF ByzantiniscbeForschungen
BMFD J. Thomas and A. Constantinides Hero, with the assistance
of G. Constable (eds.), Byzantine monasticfoundation docu-
ments. A complete translation ofsurvivingfounders'typika and
testaments (5 vols., Washington, D.C., 2000)
BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
BNJ Byzantinisch-neugriechischeJahrbUcher
Boil Grott Bollettinodella Badia Greca di Grottaferrata
BSFN Bulletin de la Societefranfaise deNumismatique
BZ Byzantinische ZeitschriJt
CA Cabiers Archtologiques
CBM Corpus der byzantinischenMiniaturhandschriften
CCCM Corpus Christianorum ContinuatioMediaeoalis
CCSG Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca
CH Coin Hoards
CHFB Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae
CSCOSyr Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium:Scriptores Syri
CSHB Corpus Scriptorum HistoriaeByzantinae
DChAE Lleit'rlov ,,[TJ<; XpulnavLK7J<; ApxawiioyLK7JC; Etaioeica;
DOC4 M.F. Hendy, Catalogue ofthe Byzantine coins in the Dumbar-
ton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection (Vol. 4,
Washington, D.C., 1999)
DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers
DOS Dumbarton Oaks Series
EEBS Ettetnpu; Etcaoetca; Bv'avnvwv LnovDwv
EHR English HistoricalReview
EO Echos d'Orient
GOThR The Greek Orthodox Theological Review
lRAIK Izoestiia Russkago Arkeologicheskago Instituta v Konstantinopole
(Bulletin deI1nstitut archtologique russe a Constantinople)
JHS Journal ofHellenic Studies
JMH Journal ofMedieval History
JOB Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik
xvi
ABBREVIATIONS xvii
JWarb Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes

MGHSS Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores
MGH SS rerGerm Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptores rerum Germani-
carum in usumscholarum separatim editi
Mitteilungen SABK Mitteilungen zur spiitantiken Archiiologie und byzantinischen
Kunstgeschichte 4 (2005)
NC The Numismatic Chronicle
NE Neot; 'Eititryvoflv~flUJV
NCirc The Numismatic Circular
ODB OxfordDictionary ofByzantium, ed. A Kazhdan (3 vols., Oxford,
1991)
PG Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Graeca, ed. J. P. Migne,
161 vols. (Paris, 1857-66)
PL Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, ed. J. P. Migne,
221 vols. (Paris, 1844-80)
REB Revue des Etudes byzantines
RDAC Report of the Department ofAntiquities Cyprus
RHCocc Recueildes Historiens des Croisade, historiens occidentaux (5vols.,
Paris, 1844-1895)
RHCarm Recueildes Historiens des Croisades, documents armeniens (2 vols.,
Paris, 1869-1906)
RHCor Recueildes Historiens des Croisades, bistoriens orientaux (5 vols.,
Paris 1872-1906)
RBN Revue BeIge deNumismatique
RHM Rdmiscbe Historische Mitteilungen
RN Revue Numismatique
SK Seminarium Konakodoianum
TM Trauaux et Memoires
Varzos, Genealogia K. Varzos, 'H yeveaitoyia 'rwv Kouvuvcov (Thessaloniki,
1984)
vv Vizantiiskii Vremennik
Map of the Byzantine empire underJohn 11 Komnenos
Beroia
Philippopolis •
•
SYRIA
N CRUSADER
W+E S
Crete Tyre
STATES
"""m
Designed by Elena Rallo
The life and reign ofJohn 11 Komnenos
(1087-1143): a chronology
Alex R odriguez Suarez

1087 O n M onday 13 September John Komnenos is born to emperor
Alexios I and Eirene Doukaina; he is th e couple's thi rd child and
eldes t son after princesses Anna and M aria.
1092 John is proclaimed co-emperor.
1097 During the sojourn of the First Crusade in Constantinople, Alexios
otTers his ten- year-old son John as captive to Gudfrey of Bouillon.
A Turkish boy captu red during the conquest of Nicaea is given as a
gift 10 Alexios, who makes him John's compan ion. The boy is named
John (Axouch) and becomes John Il 's best friend.
1104-11 05 Presumed dates for the diplomatic marriage between Joh n and th e
H ungarian princess Piroska. She is the daught er of the H ungarian
king Ladislaus I (1077- 1095) and the cousin of the H ungarian king
Colom an (1095- 1116). On her arrival to Constantinople Piroska is
renamed Eirene.
1106 John's first children, the twins Al exios and M aria, are born in Vala-
vista (Macedo nia). Joh n and Piroska- Eiren e go on to have six mo re
children, three girls and thr ee boys.
1108 T reaty of Devol between Alexios I and Bohemond .john Kom nenos
is menti on ed as co - emperor.
1118 O n 15 August, Alexios dies at th e M onastery of St George in the
M angana, and John ascends to th e imperial th rone. John invests his
brother Isaac with the rank of sebastokra to r for his support dun ng the
successio n. John Axouch receives the office of megoJ domestikos.
1119 John's sister An na Com nena attempts a coup against him , but her
husband - C aesar Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger - hesitates and
the plot fails. M ilitary campaign against the Turks in south-west Asia
Min or; John takes Laodicaea (spring) and returns to Constanrinople.
John cancels the commercial privileges granted to th e Venetians by
his father Alexios in 1082. Between John 's accession and O ctober
1119, John's eldest son Alexios is created co-emperor.
1120 John sets out on campaign again in south-west Asia M inor. H e takes
Sozopolis, the fortress of H ierakokoryphites and othe r locations near
Analei a (spring).
1121 John sets out for M acedonia after the Pechenegs have crossed the
D anube . The Byzantine army wi nters around the city of Beroia.
xix
xx ALEXRODRIGUEZ SUAREZ
11~ Battle ofBeroia. With the crucial intervention ofthe Varangians, the
Pecheneg enemy is defeated after a hard-fought battle in which John
is wounded in the leg by an arrow. The Pechenegs cease to be an
independent military force. The Venetians agree to intervene in the
East and send a fleet to support the Crusader States. On their way
they besiege Corfu as a punishment for the cancellation oftheir com-
mercial privileges. They eventually abandon the enterprise and leave
for Palestine (1123).
1123 Military campaign against the Serbs. After they capture the fortress
ofRason, the Serbs are defeated and many are settled in the region of
Nicomedia.
1124 The Venetian fleet helps the Crusaders to conquer Tyre and then
returns home. On their way back to Venice the fleet launches a series
of attacks against the Byzantine territory (1124-1125).
1126 John II renews the Venetian privileges.
1127-1129 War between Hungary and the Byzantine Empire. After John had
given asylum to the Hungarian prince Almos, duke of Croatia, the
Hungarian king Stephen II (1116-1131) crosses the Danube and
invades the empire. The war, which also includes hostilities with the
Serbians (1129), results in a victory for the Byzantine army. After this
war John does not campaign in the European provinces again.
1130 Military campaign against the Danishmendid Turks in northern Asia
Minor. While John is away, his brother Isaac and some magnates in
the capital plot against him. Once the conspiracy is discovered,John
returns to Constantinople and Isaac flees to Asia Minor.
1132 John leads a military campaign against Turks and Armenians. Constan-
tinopolitan magnates attempt a second plot to make Isaac emperor;
John returns to the capital.
1133 Death of Eirene Doukaina. John leads another military campaign
against the Turks which results in the temporary conquest ofKastamon,
the ancestral home of the Komnenian clan. The victory is celebrated
with a triumphal procession through the streets of Constantinople.
1134 Piroska-Eirene dies in Bithynia on 13 August after having become a
nun with the name ofXene (the Foreigner). She is buried at the Pan-
tokrator Monastery. The loss of Kastamon encourages John to make
an alliance with the sqltan of Rum against the Danishmendids.
1135 John reconquers Kastamon and takes Gangra.
1136 In April, Anselm of Havelberg, the envoy of the German emperor,
visits Constantinople in order to negotiate an alliance against the
Normans. Anselm and the Metropolitan ofNicomedia Nikeras hold
a theological discussion. In October John drafts the Typikon for the
complex of the Pantokrator Monastery, which must have been near
completion.
THE LIFEAND REIGN OFJOHN11KOMNENOS xxi
1137-1138 John leads the Byzantine army against Armenians and Franks in
Cilicia and the Frankish Principality of Antioch. During the expe-
dition Nikephoros Bryennios falls ill and dies (1137) while John is
reunited with his brother Isaac (1138?). In Cilicia the Byzantine army
conquers Mopsuestia, Tarsus, Adana and Anazarbos. Leo, prince of
Armenia, and his two sons are captured and taken to Constantinople.
After a brief siege of Antioch, John enters the Syrian capital (1137).
He agrees with the prince of Antioch, Raymond ofPoitiers, and the
count ofEdessa, Joscelin II, to lead an expedition against the Muslims
around Antioch. The joint expedition takes some minor locations
and the city of Shaizar, but not the latter's citadel, which repels the
assault. The expedition also fails to take Aleppo (1138). Back in
Antioch, Raymond refuses to surrender the citadel and joscelin
instigates an urban riot that forces John to leave the city and return
to Constantinople.
1139-1140 Military campaign in north-east Asia Minor. The independent
regime of Constantine Gabras in Trebizond is subjugated. Battle of
Neocaesarea against the Danishmendid Turks, during which John -
the son of the sebastokrator Isaac - defects to the Turks.
1142 John conquers the islands on the Lake of Po usgouse (Asia Minor).
Bertha of Sulzbach, the sister-in-law of the German emperor
Conrad, arrives in Constantinople as the bride-to-be of the sebas-
takrator Manuel. John leads the Byzantine army in a second military
campaign against Crusader Antioch. On 2 August the co-emperor
Alexios dies near Attaleia, and soon after, John's second son, the
sebastokrator Andronikos, also dies. Their bodies are taken back to
Constantinople by John's third son, Isaac, and buried at the Pan-
tokrator Monastery. John reaches Antioch and the Byzantine army
ravages its surroundings. The Byzantine army withdraws in order to
winter in Cilicia.
1143 On 1 April, John is victim of an accident while hunting in Cilicia and
dies a few days later (8 April). Before dying he designates his young-
est son Manuel as Byzantine emperor over his elder brother Isaac,
who is in the Byzantine capital. Manuel is proclaimed emperor by the
Byzantine army (5 April). John's body is sent to Constantinople and
buried at the Pantokrator Monastery.
1
John 11 Komnenos: ahistoriographical essay
Dionysios Stathakopoulos
In the case ofJohn II Komnenos it seems that the pen was mightier than the sword.
I am referring to the quite deafening and awkward silence to which Anna Comnena
condemned her brother, repaying him for the treachery of being born, of being a
son, and of succeeding her beloved father on the throne. Mentions ofJohn in the
A/exiasare sparse: his birth is recorded together with a description ofthe infantJohn
which is ambiguous at best (at least compared to the description ofherself as a child
prodigy), then the birth of his first children is recorded, the fact that he campaigned
together with her husband, and that while Alexios was dying, John was away trying
to secure the Great Palace. Finally, Anna accuses her brother (and his son) of keep-
ing everyone away from her for thirty years.' What she does not disclose is how she
tried at least twice to usurp John's throne with the help of her mother and husband
and how these failed attempts resulted in her house arrest.' Anna writing in the
1140s must have known that there was no contemporary author writing about her
brother," Since her A/exias is one of the key texts of the period and she is the only
contemporary historian who actually knew him personally, it is perhaps pardy down
to her silence about him that John's reign has been largely perceived as somewhat
less important than those of his father and his son," The present volume aims to
revisit and perhaps redress this. The modest scope of this introductory chapter is to
review the primary sources as well as the key scholarly views onJohn's reign.
We are not served well by Byzantine historians on John. The two historians that
recorded his time in power,John Kinnamos and Niketas Choniates, were too young
to know him personally.Their portrayal ofhim resembles that ofMichael Psellos for
I Anna Comnena, Alexias, 00. D.R. Reinsch and A. Kambylis (BerlinlNew York, 2001), 185-6
(John'sbirth),370 (birth of hischildren),7 (campaigns), 501 (Alexios' death),452 (keepingpeopleaway).
2 B. Hill,'Actionsspeaklouder than words:Anna Komnene's attempted usurpation', in T. Gouma-
Peterson (ed.),Anna Komnene and hertimes (NewYork/London, 2000),45-62.
3 P. Magdalino,'The pen of the aunt: Echoesof the mid-twelfthcenturyin the Alexiad, in Gouma-
Peterson,Anna andhertimes, 15-43.
4 SeeJeffreys in this volume.
FromJohnII Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium:In the Shadow of Father and Son. Copyright © Dionysios
Stathakopoulos. Publishedby Roudedge,2 Park Square,Milton Park,Abingdon,Oxon OX14 4RN.
1
2 DIONYSIOSSTATHAKOPOULOS
Basil II: propped up as a model, a perfect emperor, in portraits that are somewhat
lifeless, a 'John imaginaire'.'
John Kinnamos (before 1143-after 1185), who wrote under John's son, Manuel
I, dedicated around a tenth of his Epitome to the reign of'john.! He acknowledges
that his account is brief and second hand.? The largest part of the narrative is an
almost breathless concatenation of John's numerous campaigns," Like his father
before him, the emperor led his armies personally and is portrayed as a cunning
tactician - not least when conducting numerous sieges. Kinnamos supplies little else
that could be useful in characterizing John: he was sometimes prone to anger? and
was pious" - trivial facts, hardly comparable to Anna's masterly portraits ofAlexios
I, his family and key members of his court as well as his enemies.
Like Kinnamos, Niketas Choniates (c.1160-1217) devotes just one book of
his lengthy History to John's reign.'! He equally states that his treatment of this
emperor will be short and based on second-hand accounts." In fact, his account
follows closely that of Kinnamos, who is evidently his source: the same events are
related and appear in the same order,'! The only major difference from Kinnamos is
Choniates'reference to the political problems caused by John's siblings, Anna and
Isaac, who at different times posed a threat to his reign."
The two texts nevertheless read very differently because Choniates is by far the
better writer; in fact, it becomes clear that he occasionally embellishes and enhances
the original account in order to present his own views. In one case, for example,
Choniates records that John's measure of diverting contributions from ship-money
levies into the treasury (instead of being used for the upkeep of the fleet) resulted
in the flourishing of piracy.1S The most creative of Choniates' interventions in the
narrative, however, is certainly his treatment ofJohn's dying speech. His text is sig-
nificantly longer than that of Kinnamos, who reports it as well, principally because
it includes a section in which John proclaims what an ideal emperor should be
like." Bearing in mind that Choniates text was reworked by the author to reflect
5 The phrase 'John imaginaire'is taken from S. Efthymiades, 'Niketas Choniates: The writer', in
A Simpson and S. Efthymiades (eds.), Nikaas Choniates: A historian and a writer (Geneva, 2009), 45;
on this view ofJohn (byNiketas Choniates) see A. Simpson,Niketas Choniates:A historiographicol study
(Oxford, 2013),148,223.
6 John lGnnamos, Epitome rerum abIoanne etAlexio Comnenisgestarum, ed. A Meineke (Bonn, 1836);
John Kinnamos, 1he deeds ojjohnandManuel Comnenus, tr, C.M. Brand (New York, 1976).
7 Kinnamos, Epitome, 5,20.
8 See the chapter by Papageorgiou in this volume.
9 Kinnamos, Epitome, 12,21.
10 Kinnamos, Epitome, 13-4,25-6.
11 Niketas Choniates, Historia, ed. J.-L. van Dieten (Berlin/New York, 1975),4-47. See Slmpson,
A historiographicalstudy, 139, see also the very useful table of events narrated by Choniates on 30(}-1.
12 Choniates, Historia, 4.
13 Simpson, A historiographicalstudy, 217-24, with earlier bibliography.
14 Choniates, Historia, 1(}-1 (Anna) and 32-3 (Isaac); see Simpson,A historiographical study, 199,
223,232.
IS Choniates, Historia, 55-6; see Simpson,A historiographicalstudy, 205.
16 Choniates, Historia, 42-6; and see Stouraitis in the present volume.
JOHN11KOMNENOS:A HISTORlOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 3
with hindsight what had brought on the conquest of Constantinople in 1204,17

such instances are more revealing about Choniates than they are about John II.
'IheImage ofJohn conveyed by Choniates is primarily that of a soldier's emperor
characterized by military prowess, but who seemed to have disregarded the strain
he put upon his armies as a result of constant campaigning." In his final portrait of
the emperor,John is described as a restrained and pious man, but also as charitable
and munificent in his Imperial largesse." Whether Choniates drew his information
from individuals who had known John or whether this is merely an ideal portrait
must remain open, but the latter option seems the more sensible one.
A Western historian completes the bulk of information on John William of n.
Tyre (c.1130-1185) had no personal experience of the emperor, but met with his
son Manuel in 1168 and kept contact with him throughout the following years,
even visiting Constantinople in 1171 as well as being a close supporter ofManuel's
grandniece, Maria, the queen ofjerusalem." William records John's campaigns in
the East with ample information which seems based on oral informants or accounts
that have not been preserved elsewhere." as such his testimony is important.
Williarn's attitude towards John is very positive. He is presented as a man of great
courage and considerable military abilities who takes an active part in battles and
inspires his troops with his tireless fighting." Furthermore, he is the emperor of a
mighty and very wealthy state and quite conscious of his imperial dignity, which-
according to William - the Latin princes in the Levant constantly tried to under-
mine." William also includes a description ofJohn: 'a man ofmedium height, with
black hair and swarthy skin, and for this reason is still called "the Moor". Though
insignificant in appearance, he was distinguished for his lofty character and famous
for his prowess in war.'24
Apart from works of history there are a number of extant imperial encomia
written to celebrate John's achievements as well as important moments in the life
of the imperial family: two in prose by Nikephoros Basilakes and Michael Italikos
as well as two dozen in verse by Theodore Prodromes." These are texts written and
17 A. Simpson,'Beforeand after 1204: The versions ofNiketas Choniates'Historid,DOP 60 (2006),

189-221; Simpson,Ahistoriographica! study, 263.
18 Choniates,Hlstoria, 15 (militaryvirtues),30 (criticism of pressure on armies).
19 Choniates,Hlstoria, 46-47; seealso]effreysin this volume.

20 P.W.Edbury and]. Gordon Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian of theLatin East (Cambridge, 1988),
16,18-9,130,144.
21 Edbury and Rowe,Willlam of Tyre, 46.
22 William of Tyre, Chronicon, ed. R.B.C. Huygens,Identification des sources historiques et deter-
mination des dates by RE. Mayer et G. Rosch (2 vols.,Turnhout, 1986), Il, 674-675; William of Tyre,
A history of deeds done beyond thesea, tr, E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey (2 vols., New York, 1943), Il, 95.
23 William ofTyre,Deeds, Il, 97-8, 123, 126.
24 William ofTyre,Deeds, Il, 129.
2S Nikephoros Basilakes, Orationes etepisto!ae, ed.A.Garzya(Leipzig,1984),49-74; MichaelItalikos,
Lettres et discours, ed, P. Gautier (Paris, 1972),245-70; Theodore Prodromos, Historiscbe Gedichte, ed.
W. Horandner,Wiener Byzantinische Studien 11 (Vienna,1974), poemsnos.1-21; 24. All three authorsare
discussed by]effreysin this volume, and thereforeI will not offeranybiographical factsabout them here.
4 DIONYSIOS S'E1THAKOPOULOS
performed in John's presence (at least so much can be assumed) apart, naturally
from Prodromos' epitaphs intended for his grave. I cannot do justice to these quite
complex poetical works in the short space of this overview, and in any case they
have already been masterfully discussed by Paul Magdalino,26 but I would like to
draw attention to some important traits. There is a common stock of key features
and themes that emerge from all of them, despite the fact that each individual
author used them in a different manner placing emphasis on different aspects. Even
a cursory reading reveals that the core theme of all these texts is John's wars and his
achievements in battle. One may be surprised to find that the language used to do so
is quite gory and that the blood of the empire's enemies amply (and justly, accord-
ing to the texts) shed by John and his armies is a recurring topic. Michael Italikos,
more than the other two authors, offers some very specific details on the various
campaigns, but all three enumerate the places reconquered and enemies vanquished
by John, who is often likened to Alexander the Great as well as to a myriad other
heroic figures from the Biblical and Greco-Roman past. Prodromos specifically
hammers home the image of the tireless and almost superhuman emperor whose
deeds have spelled the demise of enemies and the protection of his people. Another
important theme of these texts is the glorification of the Komnenian bloodline
with John being apostrophized as the most brilliant offshoot of the Komnenian
stock countless times. Apart from these two dominant themes the usual imperial
virtues are duly ticked offin these laudatory works but without a sense ofsomething
specific that is worth mentioning. For example, the emperor's philanthropia is very
frequently mentioned, but without providing any specific examples to support it. 27
Around half a dozen contemporary poems mention John H. In a poem by the
court physician Nicholas Kallikles we are given the description of a mosaic cycle
adorning the Palace which displayed Alexios' victories over various enemies and
showed John in mourning." It has been convincingly argued that this cycle must
have been an early effort by John to cement his succession to the throne, which
had not been smooth, and to assert himself as his father's true heir - a fact which
his sister devoted considerable space to refuting in her work. In the famous manu-
script Marcianus Graecus 524 there are a number of other poems, mostly dedicatory
epigrams, that touch on John's reign, though they were written during that of his
son Manuel.P'Ihe information we obtain from them on john is slight: some poems
26 P.Magdalino, The empire ofManuelI Kamnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge, 1993),419-34.

27 Philanthropia:Prodromes,Historische.Gedichte, no. 16, vv. 204,209; no. 17, v. 25; no. 19,v.71; no.
20, v. 3; no.24, v.45;Italikos,Lettres et discours, 251,263,268;Basilakes, Orationes, 10, 11, 15,22,25,26.
2lI P.Magdalinoand R.S.Nelson,'The emperorin Byzantineart of the twelfthcentury',BF8 (1982),
149-51.
2P "0 MaQKlaVOC; Kwlil~ 524',ed. S.P.Lampros,NE 8 (1911),3-59,123-92.1 am greadyindebted
to Foteini Spingou,who is currentlypreparingan edition of the poemsfor Oxford University Press,for
kindlyallowing me to look at her edition.Until her work is published, one can consulther dissertation:
FoteiniSpingou,'Words and artworks in the twelfthcenturyand beyond:The thirteenth-century manu-
script Marcianus gr. 524 and the twelfth-centurydedicatoryepigrams on worksof art', DPhil disserta-
tion (University of Oxford,2013),as well as her recent article'The anonymous poets of the Anthologia
JOHNII KOMNENOS:A HISTORIOGRAPHlCAL ESSAY 5
describe images in which he was depicted together with his father and son," while
one poem refers to a votive golden lamp that he had intended to donate to the
Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem but that was actually only dedicated after his death
by Manuel 1.31
A number ofdocuments issued by John II have been preserved either in the orig-
inal or in later manuscript copies.P In 1119 he confirmed privileges granted by his
father to the Monastery ofStJohn at Patmos." There are also three extant legal texts
(novels) by the emperor: one dealing with ecclesiastical matters and two regarding
family law.34 All these are rather standard texts and preserve nothing extraordinary
which could be useful in providing information on the emperor. On the contrary,
what is quite unusual in terms oftheir accident ofpreservation are the two chrysobulls
sent to Pope Innocent II in 1139 and 1141 still extant in the Varlcan." Though
they contain nothing spectacular as such in terms of their content, the documents
confirm the close ties ofJohn and the Pope regarding the subject of Church union:
the emperor received at least two papal embassies and confirmed his interest in
pursuing the reunion, not least by dispatching Byzantine envoys to Rome." The
documents, which contain the Greek text as well as a Latin translation," are lav-
ish pieces of visual propaganda: they are huge (around four meters long), written
in gold ink on purple parchment, and the elongated letters used together with the
sumptuous gifts sent to the Pope produce an image of the Byzantine emperor that
is powerful and magnificent." A further document is preserved by Otto ofFreising
(c.1111-1158): a letter sent by John to the German emperor Conrad III in 1142 or
1143. 39 The context of the correspondence is the alliance against the Normans, but
the presence of German knights in the service ofthe Byzantines is discussed as well.
Marciana: Qpestlons of collection and authorship',in A. Pizzone (00.), the author in MiddleByzantine
literature: Modes.funaions, and identities (Berlin,2014),139-53.
30 Depictions:'O MaQlCIaV~ lCwbll; 524', ed. Lampros,nos.72,111,224,318.
31 '0 MaQlClavoc; lCWblf; 524', ed. Lampros,no. 266.
32 See Regesten derKaiserurkunden des Ostromischen Rekbes. Part 2: Tell: Regesten von 1025-1204, ed.
F.Dolger and P.Wirth (Munich,1995),186-99.
33 Bv~avTtva eyypaepa 'n]t; }1ovijt; ITCt7:J1Ov, Vol.l;Ail'roKpaoropUcCt, ed.E.L. Vranousi, (Athens,
1980),no. 8, 78-88.
301 Jusgraeco-romanum, OO.J. and P. Zepos (8 vols.,Athens, 1931-1936),I, 428-32.
3S S.P. Lampros, 'AlYt:olCQa't6Qwv 'to\} B\}~avor(o\} XQUa<)~O\}Ma Kal XQooa YQaflfla'ta
ava<j>E{l6flEva Ell; 'tT]V EVu)(nV 'tWV ElClCATJ<7lwv',NE 11 (1914),94-128, at 106-12, but the firstone
has nowbeencritically editedbyO. KrestenandA.E. MUlier, 'Die Auslandsschreiben der byzantinischen
Kaiser des 11.und 12.Jahrhunderts:SpecimeneinerkritischenAusgabe', BZ 86/87 (1993-1994),422-9.
36 See the chapter by Bucossi in this volume.
37 See the chapter by Rodriguezin this volume. •
38 H. Hunger, 'Schriftiisthetik in den drei originalen kaiserlichen Auslandsschreiben der
Komnenenzeit', RHM 40 (1998),187-96; Krestenand Muller,'Die Auslandsschreiben', 422-9.
39 Otto ofFreising, Ottonis etRahewiniGesta Friderid L imperatoris, ed. G. Waltz and B.De Simson,
MGH SS rerGerm (Leipzig,1912,3rd ed.),lib.I, cap.25,37-40; seeC. Gastgeber, 'Das SchreibenKaiser

Ioannes'II. Komnenos an Konig KonradIll. in der 'Oberlieferung bei Otto von Freising',in C. Scholz
and G. Makris (OOs.), IToA6nAevpot; Nove;: Miscellanea fir Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag
(MunichILeipzig, 2000),17-36.
6 DIONYSIOS Sli1THAKOPOULOS
Surely the document that has attracted most scholarly attention from the reign
of John II is the Typikon for the Monastery of Pantokrator and the charitable
institutions under its auspices." Especially the regulations for the hospital (xenon)
included in it have been the object of numerous studies and have monopolized
attention to a large degree." It is unfortunate that the proemium of the document
is mutilated with one or two folia missing.f 'This was an autobiographical section
as the remaining text makes clear - whether composed by John himself or a ghost-
writer at his instigation is not particularly important for our purposes. Anyone who
reads the entire document can hardly miss the fact that at its heart lay John's anxi-
ety. First of all it is an anxiety about this life: John recounts how after he ascended
the throne God 'destroyed the cunning plots of my visible and invisible enemies
and rescued me from every trap subjecting all my enemies under my feet'." But
later, too, there were 'ambushes of those within and those without, destroying and
binding hand and foot those of my friends and relations who stood against me and
wickedly distanced themselves from brotherly concord'." 'This is a none too veiled
accusation against his scheming siblings, Anna and Isaac, the two persons who are
prominently absent from the very lengthy and detailed list of family members that
were to be commemorated at the monastery.
Anxiety about his earthly life goes hand in hand with John's care about the
fate of his soul after death. 'The entire document - and thus the entire founda-
tion complex - is destined to address this and ensure in the best possible way, no
expenses spared, with an almost obsessive attention to detail, that John's salvation
would be secure.
Obviously the lion's share in this is taken up by the foundation of the monastery-
a large one by contemporary standards - with some eighty monks and fifty members
of the clergy along with another sixty monks living in the six dependencies of
Pantokrator, under the leadership of its superior," 'The text is very detailed on how
the liturgical services were to be performed and again the largest part is taken up
by commemorative services for John and his family, both alive and dead. 'Therewere
daily,weekly and annual services for over thirty members of the Komnenoi: John's
grandparents, parents, siblings and their spouses, children and their spouses and
children as well as uncles and aunts and their spouses."
<0 'Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator', ed. P. Gautier, REB 32 (1974), 1-145, and its English
translation by R.Jordan in BMFD, Il, 725-81.
41 See now S. Kotzabassi (ed.), 1J:Je Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople, ByzantinischesArchiv 27
(Boston/Berlin, 2013).
42 M. Hinterberger,Autobiographische Traditionen in Byzanz (Vienna, 1999), 270.
43 Gautier, 'Le Typikon Pantocrator', 28; BMFD, Il, 737; Hinterberger,Autobiographische Traditionen,
270, suggests that John is using here a modesty topos where the active subject is God and the emperor
a recipient of his favour.
44 Gautier, 'Le Typikon Pantocrator', 29; BMFD, Il, 738.
45 Gautier, 'Le Typikon Pantocrator', 62-4; BMFD, Il, 749.
46 Gautier, 'Le Typikon Pantocrator', 33-47. See the important study by E. Congdon, 'Imperial com-
memoration and ritual in the Typikon of the Monastery of Christ Pantokrator', REB 54 (1996), 161-99.
JOHN 11KOMNENOS:A H1STORlOGRAPH1CAL ESSAY 7
Mter outlining the functioning of the monastery, the text of the Typikon turns
to the three charitable institutions that were to function under its auspices.F The
hospital (xenon) is regarded as the crowning achievement. There were to be five
wards, each for a different type of ailment, with fifty beds, each ward fitted with
one additional bed for emergencies, and there were six additional beds with pierced
mattresses, for those patients who were unable to move." All in all the hospital
could cater for sixty-one patients - the Typikon specified that they were to be bed-
ridden sick people and of course destitute. The medical and paramedical personnel
that was assigned to care for the inmates reaches the unbelievable ratio of almost
1:1. Surely this had little to do with providing efficient medical help - it is there to
impress his contemporaries and more importantly to show God the seriousness of
the emperor's commitment to charity. The amount of detail in the Typikon's provi-
sions is again staggering - nothing is left to chance. From the overall admonition
that no bed should be left empty, to matters of bedding and clothes for the sick,
food, heating, drugs and medical equipment, to the very detailed work plan and
hierarchy of medical and paramedical personnel - no aspect of the life and well-
being of the inmates was left unaddressed.
To ensure that the monastery and the charitable institutions would function long
after his passing.john endowed them with considerable property, a substantial part
ofwhich is appended to the Typikon, while we are not aware of additional revenues
that were outlined in the emperor's secret testament, mentioned by the Typikon, but
not preserved." Furthermore, John placed his son Alexios and after him a leading
member of the family as protectors. Thus, so long as the Komnenoi should live, they
would ensure that John's stipulations were observed - ideally in perpetuum, though
in reality the hospital does not seem to have functioned for more than a generation,
while the leprosarium may in fact have never been realized at all.50
The Pantokrator Typikon has been called by Anne Wharton Epstein 'an endow-
ment document oflegalistic and bureaucratic ilk ... concerned with the protection
of a large monetary investment'J' Indeed it is hard to overlook this aspect given
the amount of prescriptive detail outlined above. If we compare this document
to the Typiluz issued by John's mother Eirene for the convent of Kecharitomene
47 Gautier, 'Le Typikon Pantocrator', 83-109 (hospital), 109-11 (old age home), 111-3 (leprosarium).
48 On the hospital see P. Horden, 'How medicalised were Byzantine hospitals?',Medicina e Storia 10
(2005),45-74; T.S. Miller, The birth ofthe hospital in theByzantineempire (Baltimore, 1997, 2nd edn.),
12-29 and passim.
49 Gautier, 'Le Typikon Pantocrator', 115-25 (list of properties) and 127 (secret testament).
so On the fact that the charitable institutions were short lived see E. Kislinger, 'Der Pantokrator-
Xenon, ein triigerisches Ideal?' JOB 37 (1987),173-9. See also J. Thomas, 'In perpetuum: Social and
political consequences of Byzantine patrons' aspirations for permanence for their foundations', in
M. Borgolte (ed.), Stiftungen in Christentum, [udentum und Islam vor derModerne: aul derSuche nach
ibren Gemeinsam}uiten und Unterschieden in religiosen Grundlagen, pralltischen Z'Wecken und historischen
Transformationen (Berlin, 2005), 123-35.
SI A. Wharton Epstein, 'Formulas for salvation: A comparison of two Byzantine monasteries and
their founders', Church History 50 (1981),392.
8 DIONYSIOS STATHAKOPOULOS
and to that by his brother Isaac for the convent and hospital, or old age home, at
Kosmosoteira (all three produced within the first half of the twelfth century), the
Pantokrator stands out in that respect, despite the many similarities among the
three documents. 52
Summing up, while the material we have on John II is not negligible in quantity,
it is somewhat unimpressive in terms of the amount and quality of the informa-
tion it provides, given that so much of what I have surveyed above is either not
contemporary with the emperor or is quite short and mostly topical. It is therefore
not entirely surprising that the discussion ofhis reign in modern scholarship reflects
these constraints: John is deemed a very important emperor on the one hand," and
yet apparently not worthy ofbeing the subject of a dedicated monograph. The clos-
est we have to this is the first part ofthe second volume of Chalandon's monumental
study of the Komnenoi.f This is a work very much based on sources, and since no
major new source has surfaced since its publication, it is still relevant. Chalandon's
verdict is wholly positive, praising John's love of austerity and moral order, charity
towards his subjects, courage and tireless drive. His reign was 'a perpetual cam-
paign'; he was a very successful commander who had 'all the qualities that make a
successful general without a soldier's coarseness'. 55 The largest part of Chalandon's
narrative on John is devoted to his campaigns; the rest is made up ofsections on his
family: his wife and children, his siblings and other relatives. In a way the author's
rather matter-of-fact way of looking at John does not depart in any significant way
from that of his Byzantine sources; this is a solid fact-based account that does not
aim to provide a critical evaluation. John II is portrayed as building on his father's
achievements and paving the way for those of his son. In a way this uncontroversial
view has been dominant in the bibliography on John, especially since Ostrogorsky's
very influential History of theByzantine State cemented it into orthodoxy:
The verdict ofboth contemporaries and posterity has acclaimed John (1118-1143) as
the greatest of the Comneni. As a ruler he combined clever prudence with purpose-
ful energy, while at the same time he was a man of upright, steadfast character and
high principled far beyond his day. Moderate, yet firm and forceful in pursuing his
52 'Le typikon de la Theotokos Kecharitemene', ed. P. Gautier, REB 43 (1985),5-165, and its
English translation by R. Jordan in BMFD, Il, 649-724; 'Typikon du monastere de la Kosmosoteira
pres d'Ainos (1152)', ed, L. Petit, IRAIK 13 (1908),17-75, and its English translation by N. Sevcenko
in BMFD, n,782-858.
53 'The greatest of the Comneni' according to Ostrogorsky in his History of the ByzantineState, tr,
J. Hussey (Oxford, 1980), 77, a phrase discussed by M. MuIlett, 'Constructing identities in twelfth-
century Byzantium', in C. Angelidi (ed.), Byzantiummatures: Choices, sensitivities, andmodes ofexpression
(eleventh tofifteenth centuries) (Athens, 2004), 133: john's image as "the greatest of the Komnenoi" is
almost entirely military: no laws have survived, no patronage, no evidence of personal piety.'
54 F.Chalandon, LesComnene, IL'Jean 11Comnin« (1118-1143) etManuelIer Comnine (1143-1180)
(Paris, 1912; repr, New York, 1960), with a little less than 200 pages dedicated to his reign (half of what
is dedicated to his father and son).
ss Chalandon,Les Comn~neII,2, 9-10.
JOHN11KOMNENOS: A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 9
goal, he carried on his father's policy with iron determination, never losing sight of
the bounds of possibility.56
The topic received new impetus in the 1980s and 1990s with the publication of
major works on the Komnenian period. In Michael Angold's the Byzantine Empire
1025-1204 only a very short but densely written chapter is devoted to John's reign.57
Though it does not significantly change the established view it offers a much more
nuanced reading ofthe period and suggests a unifying strategy behind the emperor's
military and diplomatic endeavours. A similar outlook is evident in the treatment
ofJohn by Paul Magdalino in the empire ofManuelI Komnenos. 58 The author shows
clearly that despite seemingly departing from the policies of Alexios' later years
John in fact followed a similar pattern. One ofMagdalino's major contributions to
the understanding ofJohn's reign is his interpretation of the emperor's alliance with
the German king against the Normans (sealed, inter alia, with the betrothal of his
fourth son, Manuel, to Conrad's sister-in-law Bertha) as opening the way for a more
direct involvement in southern Italy that was to become a reality under Manuel.
To these studies that look - rather succinctly - at John's rule as a whole, one can
juxtapose those concerned with some of its more specific aspects: the Church and
the army. In Michael Angold's Church and Society in Byzantium underthe Comneni,
1081-1261,John hardly makes an appearance. The emperor 'was preoccupied with
campaigning and foreign affairs and had little time for the church'." As far asJohn's
relations to his own Church go, this view is linked to the absence of sources and is
therefore bound to remain stable. Looking at relations with the papacy, however, and
given the little-explored material ofJohn's overtures in the direction of Union, we
can expect new ground to be broken in the future." Angold emphasizes the role of
the empress Eirene-Piroska in setting the tone ofhis court. Despite the fact that her
portrait in the gallery ofthe Hagia Sophia is one ofthe most recognizable Byzantine
images, Eirene was a shadowy figure at best, but this is changing as a result ofrecent
scholarship. Her role in sponsoring, conceptualizing and building the Pantokrator
Monastery has been emphasized as well as the fact that she was venerated as a saint
and therefore served as a model for appropriate female aristocratic behaviour. 51
S6 Ostrogorsky, History, 377.

S7 M. Angold, the Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A political history (London, 1984; 2nd edn.
New York, 1997), 181-90.
S8 Magdalino, Manuel, 35--41.
S9 M. Angold, Churchand society in Byzantium under the Camneni, 1081-1261 (Cambridge, 1995),
75-7.
60 See the chapter by Bucossi in this volume.
61 See four chapters in Kotzabassi, the Pantokrator: 1. Vassis, 'Das Pantokratorkloster von
Konstantinopel in der byzantinischen Dichtung', 203-49; M. Loukaki, 'Empress Plroska-Eirene's col-
laborators in the foundation of the Pantokrator Monastery: The testimony of Nikolaos Kataphloron',
191-201; S. Kotzabassi,'Feasts at the Monastery of Pant okrator', 153-89; and P.Magdalino, 'The foun-
dation of the Pantokrator Monastery in its urban setting', 33-55 (with translation of texts edited by
Kotzabassi in her chapter); see also Mullett, 'Constructing identities', 131-3, 138.
10 DIONYSIOS STATHAKOPOULOS
Ifthere is one area thatJohn excelled in, this was undoubtedly his military record.
John W. Birkenmeier explored this in his book 'Ibe development ofthe Komnenian
army, 1081-1180. Expectedly, the image of the emperor that emerges from this
study is that of an astute strategist with clear and coherent goals, but also that of
a cautious supreme commander who preferred besieging cities, while his son more
often opted for pitched battles that could (and did often) go disastrously wrong.P
The current consensus on John II and his reign is summed up by Paul Magdalino
in his chapter on the Komnenoi in the Cambridge history ofthe Byzantine Empire.
The emperor's constant campaigning is presented as 'indicative ofhis need to com-
mand the loyalty of the army and prove himself worthy of his inheritance' rather
than as a reaction to actual threats; the victories he secured (which were duly and
impressively celebrated) were the main reason for his comparatively secure hold on
power," His ambitious plans in the East were cut short by his untimely death, but
Magdalino persuasively argues that despite controlling a well-trained and effective
military force, what John achieved may well have been at the limit ofwhat was pos-
sible. Within his empire John's reign is characterized as 'conspicuously uneventful';
his attitude towards the Church 'remarkably non-Interventionist'."
The constraints of the available source material and the scholarly consensus in
the assessment ofJohn's reign would make one wonder what the aim of the present
volume could possibly be - given that a major, transformative re-evaluation ofJohn
II is not likely.Given the sophisticated modern accounts on the reigns of his father
and son, the period in the middle has been oddly passed over. The little attention
this period has received and the way it has been presented (obligatory for reasons of
completeness but quite half-heartedly) leave ample room for our effort to tackle the
reign from various angles, to shed light on every nook and cranny, and to produce
an image ofJohn and his reign that is much more complete and complex. John II
may remain in the shadow of his father and son, but hopefully this will be now in a
chiaroscuro space with texture and nuance.
6.l J.W: Birkenmeier, !he development of the Kamnenian army, 1081-1180 (LeidenIBostonlCologne,
2002),85-99.
63 P. Magdalino, 'The empire of the Komnenoi (1118-1204)', in J. Shepard (ed.), 'Ibe Cambridge
history of the Byzantine Empirec.50o-1492 (Cambridge, 2008),627-63, on John, 629-34.

64 Ibid., 634.
2
John 11 Komnenos before the year 1118
V/ada Stankovit
Our knowledge of John II Komnenos is as scarce as are the surviving visual

likenesses of him.' It is limited regarding many important aspects of the fifty-five
Years of his life, but we are particularly poorly informed about the thirty-one years
he spent in the shadow ofhis father, Alexios I Komnenos, before becoming emperor
on 15 August 1118, on the eve of the great feast of the Dormition of the Virgin
Mary. Since he lacked a contemporary historian, as his father did - although Anna
started writing only after Alexios' death - most ofthe facts about John II Komnenos'
life and achievements has been conveyed by historians from later generations,John
Kinnamos and Niketas Choniates.Their opinions and world views were inevitably
distorted by politics and general circumstances of their time, and they both treated
the reign ofJohn II Komnenos simply as a prelude to that of his son, regardless of
how significant and successful his own reign had been. That perspective is particu-
larly evident in Choniates' assessment of the disastrous consequences of Manue1's
policy,in contrast to his short but resounding praise ofJohn II and his reign.'
1 The mosaic panel in the south galleryof Hagia Sophia and the miniature from the manuscript
Citta del Vaticano, BAV,MS Urb,gr.2,fo1. 10' arethe onlycertainvisualrepresentations of] ohn Il, apart
from coins and seals, on which see note 23 belowand Pagona Papadopoulou's chapter in this volume.
To them, two other possible depictions ofJohn Il shouldbe added:(1) the miniaturefrom the Barberini
Psalterof an imperialcouplewith the youngco-emperor, which would represent- in the casethe iden-
tification of the imperial couple as Alexios I Komnenos and Eirene Doukaina is accepted - the only
portrait of'[ohn Il before1118,and wouldchronologically coincidewith the so-calledcoronationseries
of coins from 1092jsee 1. Spatharakis, 1heportrait in Byzantine illuminated manuscripts (Leiden,1976),
26-34jJ.C. Anderson,'The date and purposeof the BarberiniPsalter', CA 31 (1983),56. I am thankful
to Alex Rodriguez for this reference; (2) the 90-centimetre-wide marble roundel in Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection (Byzantine Collection,Washington,D.C., BZ.1937.23). On the last
object,and a similarone in Venice, see H. Peirceand R. Tyler,'A marble emperor-roundel of the XIlth
Century', DOP 2 (1941),1-9.
2 Kinnamos, Epitome, I, 3-29; Choniates, Historia, 4-47. For Choniates'judgment of John Il
Komnenos, see Magda1ino, Manuel, 13-26; Simpson, 'Before and after 1204', 189-221; Simpson and
Efthymiades,Ntketas, andin particular Simpson,'NiketasChoniates:The historian', 13-34jand A Kaldellis,
'Paradox, reversal and the meaningof History', 75-99; Simpson,Niketas Choniates:A historiographicalstudy.
From John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son. Copyright ©
V1ada Stankovlc, Publishedby Routledge, 2 Park Square,Milton Park,Abingdon,Oxon OX14 4RN.
11
12 VLADA STANKOVIC
While the highly biased Alexiad of John's eldest sister Anna provides a few
glimpses into John's life prior to their father's death, the most significant contem-
porary sources for the last decade ofJohn's reign - the rhetorical texts, and in par-
ticular the occasional poetry - remain completely silent about the first and longer
part of the emperor's life.The authors ofthese works deemed John's life before 1118
a politically irrelevant past from the perspective ofthe time in which and for which
they were writing.! A significant part ofJohn's life therefore remains not only almost
completely unknown, but surprisingly and paradoxically unexplored by modern
scholarship, with Anna Comnena's authoritative historical narrative strongly influ-
encing the related historiography"
Here I will try to look beyond the basic information provided by the very lim-
ited source material covering the first thirty-one years of John II Komnenos'life
to discern and explain, when possible, John's status and role within the imperial
family and particularly in relation to his father's policies. A sketch of the portrait
of this intriguing figure will also be offered, placed within the historical context of
the years 1087-1118. A lingering dilemma in the scholarship regarding whether
John II Komnenos was a usurper or a defender oflegitimacyon the night ofAlexios'
death, on 15-16 August 1118, will be re-examined since the attitude of scholars
towards the role he played in those defining moments has influenced their over-
all judgment of his position during his father's lifetime and his legitimacy in the
years that followed. At least some parts of the 'puzzle ofJohn II Komnenos'should
become clearer, if! may paraphrase one ofAlexander Kazhdan's more esoteric arti-
cles entitled 'The Komnenian Puzzle' - one of Kazhdan's rare papers that has never
been translated into or even quoted in English - and adapt its title to the Komnenos
whose life, reign and epoch this volume is devoted.'
3 Among rhetorical texts, the most important is the opus of Theodore Prodromos and his politi-
cal poetry, Prodromos, Historische Gedichte, I, Ill-XXVIII; P. Magdalino, ~spects of the twelfth-century
Byzantine Kaiserkritik', Speculum 58 (1983), 326-46; R. Macrides and P. Magdalino, 'The Fourth
Kingdom and the rhetoric of Hellenism', in P. Magdalino (ed.), the perception of thepast in twe(fth-
century Europe (London, 1992), 117-56; Magdalino, Manuel; 413-34; V.Stankovic, Komnini u Carig;radu
(1057-1185). Evolucijajedne uladarske porodice (Belgrade, 2006), 179-269.
• Some ofAnna Comnena's peculiar attitudes in the Alexiad caught the attention of careful 'readers'
not long after its completion, such as the common characterization of the rebellion of the Komnenoi
brothers as an altou1:aula, which was dutifully amended to a more neutral paraphrase, D.R. Reinsch,
'Zum Text der Alexias Anna Komnenes',jOB 40 (1990),233-68, especially 245-7. A cursory look at
the information about John II Kornnenos before 1118 in K. Varzos, 'H revEaAoyia tdiv KOllvT/vdiv
(2 vols., Thessaloniki, 1984), I, 203-5, reveals the complete neglect of this period- of John II's life.
Similarly, the information about John II in the Alexiad is not analysed in B. Skoulatos, Lespersonnages
byzantinsde1'Alexiade (Leuven, 1980), where a strange statement that Anna Comnena 'n'exprime aucun
sentiment a legard de son frere Jean' can be found on page 310. Disappointingly, a superficial analysis is
presented in P. Buckley, the Alexiad ofAnna Komnene: Artisticstrategy in the mak.ing a myth (Cambridge,
2014),140-1 and 277-84.
5 A. Kazhdan, 'Zagadka Komninov (oplt lstoriografii)', VV25 (1964),53-98. In this historlographi-
cal experiment Kazhdan presented a detailed account of the opposing, and often controversial, views in
scholarship about many issues of the Komnenian time, quietly putting forth the argument that the truth
lies in the eye of the beholder.
JOHN11KOMNENOS BEFORE THE YEAR 1118 13
John's quite 'shadowy' personality stands in many ways in sharp contrast with the
evident successes of his governance, his firm and clearly stated political goals, and
his innovative approach, particularly regarding the way in which the extensive
and ramified imperial family should be reorganized, creating a sharp distinction
between the dynasty - his own family and heirfs) - and the rest of the porphyrogen-
netoi Komnenoi, his siblings and their progeny. Conscious of the growing internal
antagonism among the widening circle of the purple-born Komnenoi and their
offspring, and threatened by the ambitions of his closest relatives (his elder sister
and his younger brother Isaac) which had remained unchecked during the reign of
his father Alexios, John was the creator and the most active advocate of the idea of
the supremacy of the narrower imperial branch ofthe Komnenoi - his own lineage.
Having successfully rebuffed the pretensions of both the eldest among the first
generation of the Komnenian porphyrogennetoi, Anna Comnena, and his once clos-
est ally among his siblings, the 'second' sebastokrator Isaac, John was wary that the
position of his heir Alexios and the precedence of his own lineage within the huge
family of the Komnenoi would be threatened in the same way that his own had
been in the 1130s, when Isaac and his son John openly rebelled against him." In the
Typikon of the Pantokrator Monastery John three times repeats his hope that his
son and eo-ruler will follow his policy and help to strengthen the idea of creating a
distinctive dynastic line by choosing to be buried in the mausoleum (heroon) of the
Archangel Michael in his richly endowed foundation. This highly unusual wish, at
times paternally emotional, resounded both with the emperor's resolution to estab-
lish an undisputed dynastic lineage and with his concerns over the success of such
an endeavour in the antagonistic atmosphere that pervaded the imperial family. In
October 1136, when the Typikon of the Pantokrator was issued, John had become a
political realist: at forty-nine, having lost his wife and the strongest supporter in his
life two years earlier, his lifelong experience ofthe growing rivalry among his closest
6 This was the most serious challenge to the emperor's authority since the beginning of the reign
of Alexios in 1081, for all practical purposes more dangerous than Anna Comnena's attempt to dispute
John II's right to the throne and his authority. As understandable as Isaac's ambition might appear, there
had been no evident sign of it in the development of relations within the Komnenoi up to that point, nor
in the internal distribution of power among the imperial family.It was ultimately based on Isaac's and his
eldest son John's unwillingness to accept and comply with the new order in the ruling genos that John II
was imposing by making a clear distinction between his lineage and all other branches ofthe Komnenoi,
even the purple-born ones, as Isaac himself was. While Isaac eventually half-heartedly conformed to
the established political hierarchy in the second half of the 1130s, his son John could not accept his
uncle's absolute prevalence and chose exile over the subordination to the leader of the genos, Prodromos,
Historiscbe Gedicbte, no. 2, lines 25-28; nos. 40-42; Isaac's Typikon for the Kosmosoteira Monastery (and
references to his unfortunate destiny and eventual defeat by his eldest brother), 'Typikon du monastere
de la Kosmosotira', ed. Petit, 63-4, chapters 89-90; new edition edited by G.K. Papazoglou, TV1t!KOV
laaaKwvliAe';lov Kouvttvoi: T~t; /l-0~t; E>eoToKov T~t; Koouoodneuxu; (Komotini, 1994), 119-27;
seeJ.-C. Cheynet, Pouooir etcontestation aByzance (963-1210) (Paris, 1990), 105; V.Stankovic, 'Tipikon
manastira Bogorodice Kosmosotire sevastokratora Isaka Komnina (1151/1152): specificnostl teksta i
istorijski kontekst', Crkvene studije 8 (2011),279-94 (reprinted in V.Stankovic, Putovanjakroz Vizantiju
[Belgrade, 2014], no. XV). See in this volume K. Linardou's contribution.
14 VLADA STANKOVI6
relatives had persuaded him that disputes and quarrels over precedence within the
Komnenian family would likely never cease,"
Birth
In the following sections, I will analyse the information of the sources on John's
birth and coronation whose scarcity stands in sharp contrast with the significance
ofthese events for John's position before and after 1118.This is especially true in the
case ofJohn's coronation about which Byzantine sources remain completely silent.
However, unlike many other examples from the Byzantine millennium, we are in
a fortunate position to know the exact day - and even the hour - of the birth of
John Komnenos and his siblings. The list of the dates ofbirth of all the children of
Alexios Komnenos and Eirene Doukaina was meticulously complied and preserved
in a single manuscript," John Komnenos was born on Monday 13 September 1087,
the third child of the imperial couple and almost four years younger than the first
Komnenos born in the purple, Anna, and two years younger than Maria, born on 19
September 1085. The entry on John's birth is precise: 'On the thirteenth day of the
month of September, during the eleventh indiction, the purple-born emperor John
was born, on the second day ofthe week [Monday], during the tenth hour ofnight."
It should be noted that John was named 'emperor', a clear indication that the list in
the form in which it came down to us was composed sometime later, probably from
an earlier list (dating originally from the second half of the tenth or the beginning
of the eleventh century). The scribe or the compiler of the list, the one who wrote
the entries from John onwards,'? knew that the only emperor among Alexios' and
Eirene's children was their oldest son, and he made a clear and unequivocal distinc-
tion between John and his siblings.
In a similarly dispassionate manner,John Zonaras, writing in the twelfth century
and probably during the first half of]ohn's reign, briefly records the birth ofthe first
son of emperor Alexios: 'And then a son was born to the emperor, who was hon-
oured with the holy baptism in the holy church of Hagia Sophia by the Patriarch.
He was named John and his father then crowned him with a diadem."! In spite of
its brevity, Zonaras' notice is relevant because the author emphasized the special sig-
nificance that the birth of a son had for emperor Alexios Komnenos, and he closely
tied John's birth to the question of the heir to the throne. Having the advantage
7 Gautier, 'Le Typikon Pantocrator', 1-145, at 27-31; Kotzabassi, The Pantokrator.
a Die byzantinischen Kleincbroniken, ed. p. Schreiner (Vienna, 1975), I, 54-6, Chronik 5.

9 Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken, ed. Schreiner, 55, Chronik 5 (~TJvt ae7l't:ef.l~Q(CfJ LY',
tVbLK'tLWVCX; la', tyew~eTJ 6 ltoQ<PuQoytwTJ'tOC; Kat ~aav\eUc:; KUQ lwavVTJC;, ti~tw W, GJQ~
'tijc; VUK'tOc; L'). All translations from Greek are mine.
10 Die byzantinischen Kleincbroniken, ed. Schreiner, 54, Chronik 5, is doubtlessly correct in stating
that the uniqueness of this list, as well as the dating of the entries only with the indiction, point to its
official character. The first two entries, on the births ofJohn's older sisters Anna and Maria were written
by one hand, and the entries from John onwards by another (with a possible third hand for the last two
notices), even though nothing more concrete can be deduced from that fact.
11 John Zonaras, Epitomae Hlstoriarum, ed. T. Biittner-Wobst (3 vols., Bonn, 1841-1897), Ill, 739.
JOHN 11 KOMNENOS BEFORE THE YEAR 1118 15
of hindsight, but also detached from the interfamilial struggle of the Komnenoi,
Zonaras left little doubt that immediately after his birth John was seen as and was
proclaimed Alexios' heir.
Far from providing sound documentary evidence, Anna Comnena's account of
her own and her brother's births is not only strongly subjective but emotionally
charged too, as is the case with all the passages of the Alexiad that recount her
personal history and allegedly present her recollections.P Leaving aside Anna's
comparison between her perfection and baby John's almost repulsive physical
characteristics.P the actual focal point of this passage is her attempt somehow to
equate her position and that of her younger brother regarding the question of the
inheritance of the imperial crown. A closer look, however, reveals the essential dif-
ferences that Anna ski1fu11y hid by narrating the thematically similar episodes that
supposedly occurred shortly after their respective births:
• Anna was honoured with a crown (a'tecj:>o~) and the imperial diadem by both
parents at an undisclosed location; John was baptized and honoured with a
crown (a'tecj:>o~) in Hagia Sophia, by an unknown hand."
• Anna connects her 'crowning' with the position of her fiance Constantine
Doukas as her father's co-emperor; on the other hand, unnamed persons (plural)
wanted to elevate John to the dignity of the autokrator, and regarded him as the
heir of the empire of the Romans."
The shortcomings and internal contradictions ofAnna's purposefully misleading

account, as well as the care she takes not to directly connect emperor Alexios with
John - which Zonaras explicitly does - should not impede the implicit but obvious
conclusion that John was regarded as the heir to the throne from the moment of
his birth."
12 Comnena,Alexias, 183-86; see V. Stankovic, 'Lest we forget: History writing in the Byzantium of
the Komnenoi and the use of memories' in A Milanova, V. Vatchkova and T. Stepanov (eds.), Memory
andoblivion in Byzantium (Sofia, 2011), 59-65.
13 Comnena, Alexias, 185, 11. 31-45. See M. Hatzaki, Beauty and the male body in Byzantium:
Perceptions andrepresentations in artandtext (BasingstokelNew York,2009), 25-7; and a detailed analysis
in L. Vlllmonovtc, 'The structure and the characteristics ofthe Atexiad: Creating a personal history', PhD
dissertation (University of Belgrade, 2014), in Serbian.
14 Comnena,Alexias, 184,11.11-18 (Anna); 185,1. 45-186, 1.48 (John).
15 Comnena, Alexias, 184,1.18-185, 1. 28 (Anna and Constantine Doukas); 185,1. 45-186,1. 48
(John).
16 One of the most complex literary works of Byzantine millennium, the Alexiad remains in many
aspects and in surprising measure unsatisfactorily studied. Anna Comnena's persuasiveness and her
detailed narrative have often led scholars to accept her information too easily,as is the case with Kambylis'
paraphrase of Anna's account examined here, Comnena, Alexias, 3"-4": 'Nur wenige Tage spiiter kronten
die Eltern die Neugeborene mit dem Diadem zur Mitkaiserin'. Anna does not mention that she was
crowned as co-empress, and in any case it is difficult to fathom what such a tide would imply. On the
Alexiad, Gouma-Peterson, Anna and hertimes, and in particular D.R. Reinsch, 'Women's literature in
16 VLADA STdNKOVIC
The coronation
The Basilikas logos ofTheophylaktos of Ohrid, probably performed on or prepared
for Epiphany 1088, is the clearest announcement of the new political realities,
realistically reflecting the contemporary balance of power in the imperial house
among emperor Alexios, his mother (who preferred to be known as 'the mother
of the emperor', even signing her documents with this unofficial title)" and the
twenty-two-year-old empress Eirene Doukaina." Anna Dalassene, Alexios' mother,
still absolutely dominated and firmly controlled family policy and, along with the
emperor, was the main recipient ofTheophylaktos' praise. Empress Eirene Doukaina
was completely sidelined. In the sole brief reference to her, Theophylaktos offers
only a lukewarm description of the empress as 'the one whom [Alexios] had loved
from the beginning, good among women and a wife worthy of the empire'. The
rhetor almost apologizes for having included Eirene Doukaina at all in his lengthy
composition, since she was, in spite of all her political baggage, the mother of baby
John Komnenos, to whom his attention immediately turns."
The main goal of the Komnenian policy,which Theophylaktos had publicly pro-
claimed only three and a half months after the birth of the first male Komnenian
porphyrogennetos, was to establish unequivocally the genos of the Komnenoi as the
new imperial line. It was a policy that Theophylaktos strongly advocated, undoubt-
edly having ascertained the unconcealed intentions ofAnna Dalassene and Alexios
Komnenos. By asking emperor Alexios 'finally'to proclaim his first purple-born son
as his undisputed heir, Theophylaktos essentially announces the emperor's inten-
tions and his imperial programme, even if more than three and a half years would
pass before little John was officially crowned as his father's eo-ruler,
The coronation of]ohn II Komnenos is not mentioned explicitly in any Byzantine
text,20 but thanks to documents from the archive of Naples it is certain that the
official ceremony took place sometime between 1 September and the beginning
of November 1092, since the first act dated under the joint rule of Alexios and his
purple-born son John, during the first year of the latter's reign, was issued on 15
Byzantium? - The case of Anna Komnene', 83-106; Magdalino,'The pen of the aunt', 15-45; and R.
Macrides,'The pen and the sword:Who wrote the Alexiad?', 63-81.
17 On Anna Dalassene's 'tide', see Vranousi, BV4avnva eyypaepa, I, no. 47, no. 49; Actes
de Docbeiarou, ed. N. Oikonomides (Paris, 1980), no. 2; J.-C. Cheynet and J.-F. Vannier, Etudes
prosopographique (Paris, 1986),97-98.
18 Theophylaktos of Ohrid, Discours, !rajtes, poesies, ed. P. Gautier (Thessaloniki, 1980),215-43, no. 5.
Cf. M. Mullett, 'The imperial vocabulary of AlexiosI Komnenos',in M. Mullett and D. Smythe (eds.),
Alexios I Kamnenos: Papers of the Second Belfast ByzantineInternational Colloquium, 14-16 April 1989
(Belfast, 1996),363-5.
19 Theophylaktos, Discours, 235 (reference to Eirene Doukaina and babyJohn); 237-41 (eulogyof
Anna Dalassene).
20 Niketas of Ankara refers to little John Komnenos as God-crowned emperor (Documents inedits
decclesiologie byzantine, ed.]. Darrouzes (Paris, 1966),274-5), but the dating of this text is based on the
supposeddate of'johns coronation (1092), establishedfrom the documents from the archive of Naples
(seethe following note).
November 1092.21 Konstantinos Varzos proposed 1 September 1092, the beginning

of the new year, as a possible date for the coronation, and it seems reasonable that
some time must have elapsed before the news reached Naples. Another likely date
would be 13 September John's fourth birthday.22
A series of special coronation coins dates from that time, bearing an unusual
composition with the imperial parents on the reverse and young John Komnenos
crowned by Christ on the obverse." These special issues are the only examples of
Alexios'coins on which his son and co-emperor is represented.
John's status in the years 1092-1118

In the aftermath of the First Crusade, emperor Alexios I Komnenos inaugu-
rated a new phase in Byzantium's relations with its European hinterland. Aware
of the limited military potential of the empire within the changed balance of
power in both Europe and the East, Alexios recognized the importance of alli-
ances through marriages with foreign powers. In an attempt to create a barrier
against the Normans and Venice, Alexios forged a political alliance with Hungary,
sealed by the marriage of his eldest son John to the Hungarian princess Piroska,
named Eirene in Byzantium, in 1104 or early 1105. Alexios' diplomacy and the
alliance with Hungary became the decisive step towards the empire's dominance
over south-eastern Europe during the reigns of both Alexios and John. The new
Byzantine ally conquered the north Dalmatian coast as early as 1105, securing
the empire's interests in the Adrlanc." The eighteen-year-old John Komnenos
thus became a significant political bargaining-counter in the hands of his father
Alexios. His role became more serious, and his importance to his father's policies,
and the empire in general, grew significantly. Even if only two examples ofJohn's
status and position in the years 1105-1118 can be analysed in some detail, they
both confirm the young emperor's deep involvement in major events and his close
connection with his father.
The first example takes us to the year 1106, when John was just nineteen years
old, and his wife Eirene-Piroska, roughly the same age, was pregnant. Emperor
Alexios, awaiting and preparing for a possible confrontation with Bohemond,
21 Regii Neap~fjtani ArchiviMonumenta (6 vols.,Naples,1845-1861), V, 146, no. 457; see also e.g.,
174,no.467.John Il's coronationis mentioned brieflyby P.Frankopan,'Kinship and the distributionof
power in Komnenian Byzantium', EHR 122/495 (2007),17, in the context of its being a decisive and
broadlyrecognized step toward the precedence of Alexios' lineage, especially over the familyline of his
olderbrother Isaacand Isaac'soffspring, which is certainlycorrectevenif the author's overall argument
is somewhatproblematic.
22 Varzos, Genealogia, 204,without referringto the documentsfrom the Naplesarchive.
2J DOG 4,224-6, no.21, no.24; cf.192-5. ForJohn Il's seals seeG. Zacosand A. Veglery, Byzantine
leadseals (Basel, 1972),1.1,no.104.
24 G. Moravcsik, Byzantium and the Magyars (Amsterdam, 1970), 70 If.j F.Makk, 1J:Je Arpads and
the Gomneni: Political relations between Hungaryand Byzantium in the 12th century (Budapest,1989),
12 If.; P. Stephenson, Byzantium's Balkan frontier:A political study ofthe Northern Balkans, 900-1204
(Cambridge, 2000),180 If.
18 VLADA STANKOVIC
warred on the Serbs who had defeated Byzantine troops under the command of
John, the eldest son of the first sebastokrator Isaac. On his way north, the emperor
visited the Monastery of the Mother of God Full ofMercy on the Strumitza River,
in whose Praktikon of 1152 this visit and the campaign against the Serbs in 1106
were recorded.l' In all probability, John accompanied his father on this campaign,
together with his wife, who gave birth to the twins, Alexios and Maria, in the small
town ofValavista (later Siderokastron), even if questions arise as to the reasons why
the young empress preferred the difficulties of travel and the Macedonian province
to the comfort of Constantinople. Why were the emperor Alexios' first grandchil-
dren by his eldest son not born in the capitalr"
It is not unusual for empresses to follow their husbands on their campaigns -
Eirene-Piroska would die on one such campaign eighteen years later, and Anna
Comnena praised her mother Eirene Doukaina for doing exactly the same - but
it is unusual for a pregnant empress, about to give birth to a possible heir to the
throne, to travel away from the capital and to risk her own and her child's life
without a sound reason. Something must have prompted John and his wife to
decide that it was safer to stay by each other's side than to separate. John seems to
have been reluctant to leave the pregnant princess in the capital, where his mother
Eirene, at the time most probably finishing the building of her Monastery of the
Mother of God Full of Grace, was the strongest and the most influential figure.
The young imperial couple must have had little confidence that Eirene-Piroska
would be treated with the required care. Whatever the real reasons were, it is clear
that Anna wanted to convince posterity that there were those in Constantinople
who believed that her brother John and his lineage were not predestined for
imperial dignity."
Because the source material from these years is very scarce and circumstantial, it
is of some importance that at about the same time, probably in 1108 or 1109,John
and Eirene-Piroska were mentioned in the Typikon of Empress Eirene Doukaina's
Monastery of the Mother of God Full of Grace. The provisions for their memorial
services,to be celebrated on the anniversary ofthe death of each, were halfthe value
of those of the imperial couple, the monastery's foundress and Emperor Alexios
Kornnenos." Of more importance was that John and Eirene-Piroska were officially
named, leaving no room to question the status of the young imperial couple: John
25 L. Petit, 'Le monastere de None-Dame de Pltie en Macedoine', lRAIK 6 (1900-1901), 3;

Comnena,Alexias, 369,1. 32-370,1. 46.
26 Comnena, Alexias, 369, 11. 32-38. Following the logic of Anna's narrative it would seem that
John accompanied Alexios in his Balkan campaigns in 1106, that Alexios then returned to Thessalonica,
where he received news on the birth of his firstborn son's child, and that, after celebrating the feast of
St Demetrios on 26 October there, he returned to the capital- probably in 1106, and not in 1107 as is
proposed in the commentary in the edition of the Alexias.
27 Stankovic, Komnini u Carigradu,99-106, 229-32; Vilimonovic, 'The structure and the character-
istics of the Alexiad'.
28 P. Gautier, 'Kecharltomene', 121.
JOHN 11KOMNENOS BEFORE THE YEAR 1118 19
was. referred to as the 'beloved son of my kingship', 'the purple-born emperor', and
the senior empress used the same official formula for her daughter-in-law."
The second example, also from 1108, relates to the so-called 'Treaty of Devol'
between Alexios I Komnenos, accompanied by John, and the Norman leader
Bohemond. By reporting the exact wording ofBohemond's oath to emperor Alexios
after the peace of Devol in September 1108, Anna Comnena provided the surest
confirmation ofJohn's position in the years before 1118.
Anna's account of emperor Alexios' meeting and negotiations with Bohemond is
very curious, a mixture of conscious attempts to emphasize the role of'her Caesar',
Nikephoros Bryennios, in persuading the Norman leader to accept the emperor's
conditions, and of unintentional verification ofJohn's special status as their father's
co-emperor. Her subjective portrayal of Bryennios stands in sharp contrast to the
strict and objective manner in which she reports the text of the treaty of Devol, a
long and detailed document that spreads over twenty-seven chapters of the Alexiad
and more than nine printed pages in the modern edition." In the document, which
Anna obviously repeated verbatim, it was John II Komnenos whom the Norman
leader explicitly named as Alexios' undisputed eo-ruler, in a form that must have
faithfully echoed the officialformula of the imperial chancery:
• Bohemond swears that he will be 'a faithful servant of your kingship and your
thrice-loved son and Emperor KyrJohn, born in the purple';"
• He pledges allegiance 'to your [plural] empire, both yours [singular], [that is to
say] of the great Emperor Kyr Alexios Komnenos and of your thrice-loved son,
Emperor KyrJohn born in the purple'."
Conclusions
The discrepancy between the official title and position ofJohn II Komnenos and
Anna Comnena's somewhat derogatory reference to her brother as just 'the heir
to the Empire' (6 rrfie; ~amAelaC; buiboxoC;) in her lengthy and almost tearful
description ofAlexios' deathbed presents the best testimony that there is a distorted
29 Empress Eirene Doukaina could have exploited her position as the monastery's foundress to
express her negative attitude, as she did in the case of her own mother-in-law Anna Dalassene, the only
person whose name the Empress did not wish to mention in her Typikon, Gautier, 'Kecharltomene', 125.
30 Comnena, Alexias,413-22.
31 Comnena, Alexias, 414, 11. 15-17 ('tfj~ m;~ ~aolAe!a:~ Kat 'tou 'tQlll06~'to\! \!LOU 00\! Kat
~aolAew~ K\!QOU 1wawo\! 'tOU 1l0Qq,\!Qoyew~'to\!).
32 llQO~ '!1)V uflwv ~aolAe!a:v, aou 'te, 'tOU fleyat\o\! aU't0KQa'toQO~ K\!QOU AAel;lo\!
'tOU Kouvnvov, Kat 'tOU 'tQlll06~'t0\! \!iou 00\! 'tau ~aolAew~ K\!QOU 1wavvou 'tau
1l0Qq,\!Qoy~'tO\!, Comnena, Alexias, 414, 11. 34-37. Similarly, Comnena, Alexias, 422, 11. 16-18:
Bohemond swears to be faithful to 'our mighty and holy Emperor Kyr Alexios Komnenos and to your
eo-Emperor thrice-loved son Kyr John born in purple' (7tQo~ oi, rov KQa'tlo'tov Kat aYlov TJflWv
~aolAea KUQlV AAel;lov rov KOflVl"JvOV Kat 'tOYaUflf3aalAeuov'ta cor 'tQl1l66TJ'tov ULOV KUQlV
1wavVl"Jv'tOY1l0Qq,\!QoyewTJ'tov).
20 VLADA STANKOVIG
image ofJohn's life before the year 1118. 33 John and Anna shared an understanding
of the importance of the real and perceived connection with their father, and both
had insisted on the exclusivity of their bond with Alexios. Anna's attempt in the
Alexiad to drive a wedge between John and their father or, rather, to position herself
as close as possible to Alexios, is fairly obvious, while John's literary response to the
threat presented by his sister after their father's death, chronologically preceding
Anna's Alexiad, is still not adequately recognized. The Musai, although attributed
to Alexios I Komnenos, could have been composed only during the reign ofJohn,
with its distinctive, strongly politicized terminology that unmistakably and pre-
cisely underscores the connection ofJohn to his father and therefore corroborates
his legitimacy - terminology that was later emphatically and conspicuously echoed
by Anna Comnena in the Alexiad.34
John's importance before 1118 was most visible in his marriage to Eirene-Piroska
and the diplomatic success that this union carried: John was the first Komnenos,
and among the first Byzantine princes, to marry a foreign princess - a practice he
himself would insist on when choosing brides for his sons. As a peculiar reaction
to the significance ofJohn's marriage, Anna Comnena manages to avoid naming
Eirene-Piroska a single time in her Alexiad, even when she described the birth of
the twins, Eirene-Piroska's first two children. However, a glimpse of the importance
that this marriage alliance with the Hungarian kingdom had for Alexios and the
Byzantines can be inferred from the information Anna Comnena conveyed, that
among the witnesses of the Devol peace treaty with Bohemond in September 1108
were also two zhupans, envoys of the (Hungarian) king, the emperor's son-in-law
('tou KQMll Kat GU!-11t€vOeQou 'tfJ<;; [3ami\.€£ac;).35
John's marriage to Eirene-Piroska was not only important for Byzantine foreign
policy and diplomacy; the personal relationship of the couple needs to be consid-
ered too. John's father Alexios had married Eirene Doukaina, a decade his junior,
and was never a young father (he was already twenty-seven or twenty-eight when
his eldest child, Anna, was born, while Eirene Doukaina was only seventeen; she
was twenty-one in 1087 when John was born). John on the other hand was barely
nineteen when he became a father. It seems that, unlike his own father - and in due
course his son Manuel- John relied greatly on his wife during the three decades
J3Comnena,Alexias, 52-3.
34Stankovic, Komnini u Carigradu, 148-65; 184-88; contra], Shepard, "Father" or 'scorpion"? Style
and substance in Alexios's diplomacy', in Mullett and Smythe,Alexios1, 68-132. See now M. Mullett,
'Whose Muses? Two advice poems attributed to Alexios I Komnenos', in P. Odorico (ed.), Laface cachee
dela Iitteratur« byzantine. Le texteen tant que message immtdiat. Actes du col/oque international, Piu, 5-7
juin 2008 (Paris, 2012),195-220, who is also inclined (along with Magdalino, 'The Pen of the Aunt',
and D.R. Reinsch, 'Abwelchungen vom traditione11en Kaiserbild in Byzanz in 11. und 12.Jahrhundert'
in P. Odorico [ed.], L'tducation augouvernement et ala vie. La tradition des "regles devie"del'Antiquiteau
Moyen Age. Actes du colloque international; Pise, 18-19 mars 2005 [Paris, 2009], 115-28) to place the texts
in the reign ofJohn n. However, I remain sceptical about a possible influence of Anna's work on the
composition of these highly problematic poems.
35 Comnena,Alexias, 423,11. 45-46.
they were married, seeking her support, maybe even advice, and finding in her an
ally whose loyalty he never doubted. John II Komnenos behaved more like a family
man than any other emperor did during these times, keeping his children close to
him and fighting to keep the future of the dynasty within his immediate lineage. It
should come as no surprise then that the only two visual images ofJohn II that have
survived underscore exactly that dynastic idea.
If all this borne in mind, the question of John's role in the events of 15-16
August 1118 and the doubts regarding his legitimacy- mentioned at the beginning
of this chapter -lose their significance.There can be no doubt that John II was the
only choice of Alexios I Komnenos, his official, undisputed and constant eo-ruler
from the last third of 1092 onwards.
It was the brilliance of Anna Comnena's historiographical masterpiece that
persuaded, at least to a certain degree, generations of scholars that John was an
unemotional, power-hungry usurper. Their reasoning when reading the opening
lines of Niketas Choniates' Historia was further influenced by Anna's narrative,
since Choniates does not actually accuseJohn ofusurping the throne. In Choniates'
narration,John pragmatically defended Alexios'will, that unwavering will that had
been known to all for more than a quarter of a century and was confirmed on the
old emperor's very deathbed.
3
Narratives ofJohn 11 Komnenos'wars:

comparing Byzantine and modern approaches
Ioannis Stouraitis
IfJohn II Komnenos has remained in the shadow of his father Alexios and his son
Manuel, this is certainly not due to his insignificance as an emperor. It is rather due
to the fact, already noted elsewhere in this volume, that unlike the other two great
Komnenian emperors, John II did not have a Byzantine historian focusing on his
reign. Both the histories ofKinnamos and Choniates, the main Byzantine accounts
ofJohn's reign, begin with the statement that the narration of the emperor's deeds
will be brief, because the authors had not witnessed the events of this period.'
Nonetheless, modern-day historians have paid due attention to the information of
both Byzantine and non-Byzantine sources in an effort to illuminate the foreign
and military policies of the imperial city-state of Constantinople under John II
during the first half of the twelfth century-
In Georg Ostrogorsky's view,John II should indeed be seen as the greatest of
all Komnenian emperors, in accordance to the statement of Niketas Choniates,3
because his successful campaigns increased the prestige of Constantinople as well
as its military power, and expanded imperial rule in the East and the Balkans." On
the other hand, Ioannis Karayannopoulos claimed that the emperor's foreign policy
failed because his military goals were obviously ill-chosen. Instead of concentrating
his warring activity on the reconquest ofAsia Minor from the Seljuk Turks by seek-
ing to secure the cooperation, or at least the neutrality, of the Christian powers of
the Crusader states and the Armenian principality of Cilicia, he chose to pursue an
ambitious policy on many fronts, which the state's financial and military capacity at
the time could not support.'
I Kinnamos, Epitome, 5, ll. 4-6; NiketasChonlates,Historia, 4, 11. 13-20.

2 C£ the classic work of Chalandon,Les Camnene 11,35-193; see also R.-J. Lilie, Byzantium and
the Crusader states, 1096-1204, tr, byJ.C.l.'v1orris and j.E. Ridings (Oxford,1993),96-141; M. Angold,
ByzantineEmpire, 181-90; Stephenson, Byzantium~ Balkanfrontier, 187-210.
3 Choniates,Historia,47,n.17-20.
4 Osttogorsky, History, 379-80.
5 1. Karayannopoulos, latopia Bv~aV'rtVoV Kpa1:ov" Vo!. 3: lirtopia Ya1:Epa, Bv~aV'tlv~,

Uepl660v (1081-1453), Part 1: Tei\w1:afe, Aapt/Jeu; (Thessaloniki, 1990), 108-9, 122-3.
From John 11 Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son. Copyright ©
Ioannis Stouraitis. Publishedby Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon,Oxon OX14 4RN.
22
NARRATIVES OFJOHN11KOMNENOS' WARS 23
RalfJohannes Lilie and Paul Magdalino have chosen another path in their respec-
tive insightful analyses ofJohn's foreign policy.Instead of approaching the emperor's
military and diplomatic activities in East and West in terms of success or failure
measured against standards of hindsight, they have tried to demonstrate what the
emperor did achieve, and how, within the framework of a complex geopolitical con-
text. According to Lilie,John's effort to create a dynastic appanage including Antioch,
Cilicia, Attaleia and Cyprus under the suzerainty of his youngest son Manue1 could
have opened the way for Byzantine overlordship in all the territories conquered by
the Crusaders, while it could also have enhanced Byzantium's potential to reconquer
Asia Minor." Magdalino elaborated some aspects of this argument, especially with
regard to the character of the Byzantine-German alliance that opened the way for
John's campaigns in the East. He also stressed the point that for John the subjugation
ofthe Latin principality ofAntioch seems to have had priority over the reconquest of
Asia Minor and that his plans for overlordship in the Latin East probably stretched
as far as Jerusalem?
In Karayannopoulos' criticism of John's foreign policy, the recovery of the lost
parts ofAsia Minor does not emerge arbitrarily as a plausible political and military
goal. The area west of the virtual boundary roughly running through Trebizond,
Caesarea and Tarsus had constituted the territorial core ofthe post-seventh-century
fluctuating imperial realm of Constantinople and had represented the cradle of the
Byzantine military aristocracy, whence the Komnenoi dynasty had originated.! Its
recovery from the Turks had been one of the military aims of Alexios I Komnenos
and had played an important role in the initiation of the movement of the First
Crusade," Moreover, this was an area with mainly Greek-speaking Chalcedonian
populations, whose identity is alleged to have informed their politicalloya1ty to the
imperial city-state of Constantinople. This favours a view of them as a more ade-
quate target group for reintegration into the imperial order than the Monophysite,
mostly non-Greek-speaking, Christian populations of Cilicia and Northern Syria.
Apart from that, the Latins of Antioch represented a more distant and therefore
lesser threat than the Danishmendids and the Turks ofIkonion to the core areas of
the current Byzantine realm. Their crusading ideology provided, at least in theory,
good potential for military cooperation, since common Christian identity could
always be raised as an argument to ask for Latin support for a Byzantine war of
'reconquista' against the infidel in territories other than those under Crusader rule. If
to these we add the demonstrated strength and effectiveness ofJohn's army in siege
6 Lllie, Byzantiumandthe Crusader states, 140--1.

7 Magdalino,Manuel, 37, 41.
• Cr. S. Vryonis, 'Ibe decline ofMedievalHellenism inAsiaMinorand theprocess of'Islamizationfrom
the eleventh through thefifteenth century (Berkley/Los Angeles/London, 1971), 24-5; R. Beaten, 1he
Medieval Greek. Romance (Cambridge, 1989),46.
9 ]. Shepard,'Cross-purposes: Alexius Comnenusand the First Crusade',in]. Philips (ed.), 1heFirst
Crusade: Origins and impact (ManchesterlNewYork, 1997), 107-29, esp. 113-22.

24 IOANNIS STOURAITIS
warfare," the reconquest of Asia Minor appears as a more feasible and, therefore,
more plausible strategic aim.
Nevertheless, this all too apparent plausibility of the military goal in present-day
hindsight was obviously not self-evident when the emperor made his own decisions
that were by no means exclusively forced upon him by external factors. John II
inherited a far more stable and strong imperial realm from his father than Alexios I
had done before him." Of the wars that he conducted, those really forced upon him
were the campaigns ofroughly the first decade ofhis reign, mainly those against the
Seljuk Turks that were pressing his realm's borders in Western Asia Minor, as well
as those against the seditious Serbs and the offensive Pechenegs and Hungarians
respectively.J2The defensive war against the Venetians was a different matter, since
it was the result of the emperor's decision not to renew their financial privileges.P
Taking all this into account, it is evident that the emperor was relatively free of
external pressure, and militarily strong enough, after 1130, to choose his future mili-
tary goals on his own terms. Therefore, his decision to carry out an offensive in the
East on two fronts, which prioritised the subjugation of territories under Christian
rule - the Armenian principality of Cilicia and the Latin polity ofAntioch - while
large parts of Asia Minor were still under Turkish rule, was a conscious strategic
choice, both from an ideological as well as a political point ofview.
Within this framework, Karayannopoulos' analysis of what the emperor could
and should have done differently in order to be successful seems to be informed
by an anachronistic view of the military policies of a medieval imperial city-state
and the ideology that circumscribed the geopolitical interests of its ruling elite. In
the present chapter, I propose to attempt an alternative approach to the scrutiny of
the soclo-ideological background that determined John's choice of military goals.
Instead of dwelling on retrospective assumptions based on certain modern-day pre-
conceptions about how certain things should have been done, one should rather
focus on a different issue. What do John's actual military policy decisions tell us
about the socio-ideological background that contributed to their configuration -
that is, about the social order that produced them?
IfJohn's offensive activity against the Turks was mainly conditioned by the need
to protect the core areas of his reduced realm from their attacks, this cannot be said
about his campaigns against the Crusaders. In this regard, the emperor's choice to
downgrade the allegedly more feasible goal of driving the infidel conquerors out of
Asia Minor and to make the subjugation of the Christian principality of Antioch
and potentially ofthe other Crusader polities in the East a central, ifnot the primary,
goal of his offensive foreign policy can be taken to indicate two things:
10Blrkenmeier, Komnenian drmy, 1081-1180,86.

11Cf R.-J. Lilie, HandelundPoH/if< zwischen demByzansinisdien Reichund denitalimischen Kommunen
Venedig, Pisa und Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen und derAnge/oi (1081-1204) (Amsterdam, 1984),
367.
12 Chalandon, Les Camnnu Il, 35-76; Angold, ByzantineEmpire,184-5.
13 Lilie, Hande/, 367 if.
NARRATIVES OFJOHN 11KOMNENOS' WARS 25
• First, the actions of the ruling elite of Constantinople were not determined by
a crusading ideological schema that targeted the enemy primarily in religious
terms. The vision of Crusade marginalised political boundaries and dictated
common action of Christian forces against the infidel enemy. Conversely, East
Roman statecraft made military goals principally dependent upon the interests
of the imperial office and the boundaries of its political authority. This concerns
the issue of the different function of Christian proto-ideology in Byzantine and
Western Latin societiesrespectively. Therefore, it is directly related to the ques-
tion of the Byzantine elite's reception of the crusading movement and attitudes
toward religiouslyjustified warfare."
• Second, the Komnenian ruling elite and, in particular, John II were nei-
ther politically nor ideologically inspired by an ethno-political vision that
would incite them to pursue a policy of recovery of a common patria, that
is, of areas that had once belonged to a Roman 'homeland' inhabited by a
mainly Greek-speaking Christian population with an allegedly homogenous
Roman identity.
Using these two observations as a point of departure, we can attempt a critical

analysis of the portrayal of John II in the Byzantine historiographical accounts of
the late twelfth century in order to measure modern-day assessmentsofhis military
policies against the assessment of his near-contemporaries.
Both of the Byzantine historians that report on the emperor's warring activ-
ity wrote their accounts towards the end of the twelfth century. This means that
they also had the benefit of a degree of hindsight about a period which they had
not experienced themselves.IS Kinnamos' account has a strictly informative and
more detailed character about the motives for John's campaigns, while it lacks
any general concluding assessment of his reign. Choniates, on the other hand, is
the historian who clearly sought to apportion to the reign ofJohn II an organic
role in his Hlstoria by providing an overall positive, if not glorifying, judgement
of the emperor's deeds at the end of his brief account. According to the author's
concluding remarks,
He (Le. John II) had governed the empire most excellently, and his life was well pleas-
ing to God ..., he had been deemed praiseworthy by all, even to our own times, the
crowning glory, so to speak, of the Komnenian dynasty to sit on the Roman throne,
14 On generic differences in the ideological instrumentalisation of religion in warfare between
Byzantines and Crusaders, see I. Stouraitis, 'Jihad and Crusade: Byzantine positions towards the notions
of "Holy War"', Bv~av'rtva I;vj.lj.lE£K'ra 21 (2011),11-63, esp, 17-26; Idem, just War" and "Holy
War" in the Middle Ages: Rethinking theory through the Byzantine case-study' ,JOB 62 (2012),229-50.
IS Kinnamos' work was probably written shortly after Manuel 1's death (1180), whereas Chonlates
started writing his work after 1185, see A. Karpozilos, Bv~avnvol lirtoptxo! leat Xpovoypa</>ot,
xouo; T' (11 0 , -12 0 ' at,) (Athens, 2009), 627, 704-5. On Choniates' Historia, see now A. Simpson,
Niketas Choniates: A Historiographical Study (Oxford, 2013).
26 lOANNIS STOURAITIS
and one might say that he equalled some of the best emperors of the past and sur-
passed others.l''
'These concluding remarks are preceded by a long speech by the emperor on

his deathbed." 'This speech is also reported by Kinnamos." Whereas the latter's
version is shorter and, with regard to content, strictly confined to the emperor's
effort to justify his decision to name his younger son Manuel as his successor,
Choniates'version is longer and, in the initial part, presents the emperor as mak-
ing a personal assessment of his deeds in war. In this regard, irrespective of the
authenticity ofa core part ofthe deathbed speech, Choniates' longer version calls
for further critical analysis. Considering this author's tendency to incorporate
into his narrative speeches which are fictitious and which represent his own
rhetorical Invention,'? the initial part of the emperor's speech could be regarded
as primarily reflecting the author's own assessment. 'This makes the speech an
important source ofinformation on Choniates' authorial intentions and the role
that he assigned to the emperor's military activity in the construction of his
narrative plot.
Choniates has the emperor begin his speech with a self-critical comment per-
taining to his failure to fulfil his military goals, a failure which he attributes to God's
inscrutable judgement." As failed goals, he names the conquest of Syria, expansion
as far as the Tigris and Euphrates, and the march towards Jerusalem. This makes
the whole statement interesting for many reasons. First, it indicates that Choniates'
positive assessment of John II as the best of the Komnenian emperors had very
little to do with the acquisition of large-scale territorial gains, which the emperor
admittedly had not achieved. Second, it implicitly presents as main failed aims of
the emperor's military activity in the East the subjugation of the Principalities of
Cilicia and Antioch and the Kingdom ofJerusalem. 'Thereconquest of the lost core
territories ofAsia Minor is conspicuously absent from the emperor's critical reflec-
tion upon his own military deeds.
In the next part ofthe speech, Choniates presents what the emperor has achieved.
As a son and successor, he had succeeded in preserving everything that his father
had given over into his hands. East and West had seen him making war and he
had confronted the peoples of both continents. He had spent little time in the
16 Choniates, Historia, 46, I. 22 and 47,Jl. 17-20: Kat ri]v aQxt)v aQl<1'm bl.CjJKTJKW<; Kat SlOcf>
lOuaQEO'tw<; ~lO~LWKW<; .•• E7ralvlO'tO<; e<; blOuQO naqCt na<1l i\£J\6ylO'tal Kat KOQWVi<; W<; elxslv
'twv O<1Ol 'Pwfla(wv eK'tou 'twv KOIlVTJvWV yEvOU<; unlOQlOmSl<1aV, Iva Ill'] i\tyOllll w<; Kat
noMoL<; 'tWv av6nlv aQmwv 'tOL<; Il£v TJflLi\i\T]<1a'to, 'tou<; be Kat naQT]veyK£v; cf. Niketas
Choniates, 0 CityofByzantium, AnnalsofNiketasChoniates, tr. H. Magoulias (Detroit, 1984),27.
17 Choniates, Historia, 42, I. 1-46, I. 2.
18 Klnnamos, Epitome, 26,1.5-28, I. 16.
19 Cf. the case of the invented speech of the Crusader King Louis VII: H. Hunger, Diehochsprachli-
cheprofane Literatur derByzantiner (2 vols., Munich, 1978),I, 438.

20 Choniates, Historia, 42,11. 13-18.
palace and had lived nearly his whole life out of a tent." These statements indicate
that Choniates' overall assessment ofJohn II as an excellent administrator of state
affairs was related to the relentless waging of warfare. The primary gain of this
warring activity, however, was not large-scale expansion, but the more modest goal
of preserving the state inherited from his father. In the last part of this personal
account, Choniates has the emperor referring to his two major campaigns in the
East. These are presented as primarily directed against Turks and Arabs, that is,
again the infidel. The emperor boasts about his success in subjugating cities that are
now governed by the decrees of the Romans and asks for God's favour in Heaven
for his deeds as the supreme leader of the Christian people."
Choniares is probably the Byzantine historian with the most favourable attitude
towards the crusading movement before the events of 1204.23 It has already been
noted that, in his account, he downplays the emperor's offensive disposition toward
the Crusader polities. This has been explained as a possible result of his narrative
strategy to promote a generic image of the Byzantines as victims of the Latins."
This hypothesis certainly makes sense, yet it does not satisfactorily explain the posi-
tive image of the Crusader kings Louis VII and Frederick Barbarossa in Choniates'
text. The representation of these two leaders of the Second and the Third Crusade,
respectively, as role models does not fully correspond with an intention to defame
the Crusaders as unjust aggressors. Considering this, the author's effort to depict an
image ofJohn II as a leader of the Christian people, whose campaigns in the East
were directed against the infidel, could be taken to imply an effort to attribute to
him a Crusader image.2s
But, if Choniates' assessment ofJohn as an excellent emperor was to be related
with the latter's alleged crusading ideology, this is again hardly supported by the
reports of the emperor's deeds in the East even in this author's biased account.
Choniates not only was well aware of the real objectives of John's campaigns
in Syria, but he actually reports on the emperor's goal in 1142 to subjugate the
Christian Principality ofAntioch. He also knew the account of Kinnamos, in which
John's plans for the creation of a dynastic appanage are clearly stated." Moreover,
John's self-critical reflection upon his failure to subjugate Syria at the beginning of
his deathbed speech, which mainly referred to his campaign against the Crusader
state ofAntioch, hardly corresponds to an effort by Choniates to depict a Crusader
portrait of the emperor. Instead, it rather provides further verification that John's
military policies were far from what anyone bearing the crusading ideals would
21 Ibid. 41,1. 28-43, 1. 1.

22 Choniates, Historia, 43, 11.6-7.
23 On Choniates'reception of the crusading movement, see Stouraitis, 'Jihad and Crusade', 34-49.
24 Lilie, Byzantiumandthe Crusader states, 280-4.
25 See Papageorgiou in this volume.
26 Choniates, Historia, 39,11. 3-14; Kinnamos, Epitome, 22,1. 22-23, 1. 3. C£ Lilie, Byzantiumand
theCrusader states, 112, 135.
expect of an emperor who was a fellow Christian, namely to support the Crusaders
in their fight against the infidel, whereas john's aim was to subjugate them."
Read in this light, John I1's reported claim that he was acting as the supreme
leader of the Christians in the war in the East had very little to do with any inten-
tion on the part of Choniates to construct the image of a Byzantine Crusader. The
initial laudatory statement about the emperor's relentless military activity in East
and West, directed against Christian and non-Christian enemies alike, indicates
that Choniates rather thought within the framework of normative Roman impe-
rial ideology ofjustified warfare that was fought on behalf of the Christian empire
on various fronts against all enemies. This ideology pragmatically justified warfare
directed towards the reconquest of former Roman territory against any enemy of
the imperial city-state of Constantinople, irrespective of religious background. At
the same time, though, it was pervaded by a schematic ideological binarism that
axiomatically juxtaposed the Christian peoples as irenic with the infidel as war-
mongering." This normative religious-political discourse of the Byzantine elite
was instrumentalised to serve a twofold goal: first, to precondition the justifica-
tion of all imperial warfare that for centuries had been fought primarily against
infidel enemies in the East. Second, to reserve the position of head and pacifier
of the whole Christian Oecumene for the sole Roman emperor, the emperor of
Constantinople, thus reasserting New Rome's claim to (at least nominal) overlord-
ship over all Christian peoples.
Within this ideological framework,]ohn's offensiveactivity against the Crusader
states did not fit well into Choniates' narrative plot. In the author's mentality,
warfare against the warmongering infidel was a righteous cause, even when it was
fought by the Latin barbarlans." Therefore, if the image ofJohn II as the embodi-
ment of the ideal Christian Roman warrior-emperor was to be impeccable, the
emperor's offensive activity against Christians who were fighting to protect other
Christians and their lands from the attacks of infidel barbarians needed to be
downplayed and smoothed over.In this respect, the portrayal of]ohn II as 'the best
emperor' of his age, who had waged war as 'the supreme leader of the Christian
people', that is, as the head of the Roman-Christian Oecumene," needs to be fur-
ther scrutinised in regard to Choniates'intention to instrumentalise the emperor's
ideal figure in his account.
In the Historia, Choniates makes extensive use of the narrative topos of the
king who gives up the luxuries of his palace for the rigours of the campaign.
This topos, which bears influence .from both the Homeric image of Achilles as
Z1 On the gulf between Byzantine attitudes towards the Crusaders and Latin expectations, cf.
Magdalino, Manuel, 40.
28 1. Stouraitis, Krieg undFrieden in derpolitischen undideologischen Wahrnehmung in Byzanz, 7.-11.
Jahrhundert (Vienna, 2009),197-208,232-60.
29 See Stouraitis, ']ihad and Crusade',34-4l.
30 Cf notes 16 and 22 above.
well as the contemporary crusading version of the notion of imitatio Dei,31 can
be documented in the speech that John is portrayed as making to his officers
before his death, in the speech that Louis VII allegedly held in front of his army
before the battle against the Turks at the river Maeander in the course of the
Second Crusade, and in Choniates' positive assessment of Frederick Barbarossa
after his report of the latter's death during the 'Third Crusade.P If a shared crusad-
ing vision is certainly not what John II had in common with the other two rulers
in the author's perception, then it was not the image of the Byzantine emperor
that Choniates was trying to fit into the image of a Crusader king, but rather the
figures of the Crusader kings that were instrumentalised by the author in order
to serve as further exemplars of the ideal figure of a warrior-emperor that was
principally embodied by John 1I.
'This becomes evident if we take a closer look at the deployment of the warrior-
emperor topos in John's reported deathbed speech. Mter presenting the emperor as
boasting that East and West had seen him at war and that he had remained little
in the palace, Choniates has him highlighting the qualities of his ideal successor by
alluding, among other things, to this very topos:
God should grant to the Romans a sovereign who is not a devourer of the people and
does not give the lie to his name, capricious by nature, bent forward over the table with
his hands ever on the wine ladle, and never tearing himself away from the palace like
those portraits on walls in coloured mosaics; who enjoys arranging all affairs according
to his own inclinations.P
Immediately after this statement comes the emperor's justification for his deci-
sion to overrule the claims of his elder son Isaac and to pass the throne to the
younger,Manuel, instead. Evidently,the employment ofthe topos was here intended
to demonstrate that Manuel better fulfilled the ideal criterion ofa warrior-emperor,
namely that he, just like the best of the Komnenian emperors, John 1I, could suc-
cessfullyundertake the pains of the battlefield.
Besides this positive deployment of the warrior-emperor topos, Choniates
also uses it as a point of reference, against which the image of certain Byzantine
emperors was to be measured and harshly criticised. A search for emperors that are
openly juxtaposed to the ideal image ofJohn II as the best warrior-emperor of his
era in the Historia demonstrates that the author's strongest counter-examples are
the two emperors of the Angelos dynasty, Isaac II and Alexios Ill, whose reigns
Choniates witnessed. Even though Isaac II led numerous expeditions against the
31 On the crusading notion ofimitatio Deicf.N.Jaspert,1heCrusades (NewYorklLondon,2006), 29.

32 Choniates,Hlstoria, 42, I. 28-43, 1. 1; 68,11. 18-27; 416,11.32-40.
33 Ibid. 43, 11. 13-19: Kat tlYEflwV ufllv 8E68EV bo8"uE'[al flTJ b"flo~6Qo~ Kat ,[TJV KAijULV
\jJE\.lMflEV~ tl 'to ~8o~ dvwflaAo~ KaLltEQt '[QaltECaV KE1<Uq,~ Kat oXWv del '[o~ baK'[uAo~
rov Kua80v Kat 'tWV dva1<:'t6QWv fl"bctflW~ d1tOUltWflEV~, ooa KaL ol Av '[o~ '[O(XO~ bliX
°
\jJTJq,lbwv Kat XQwfla'[WV EiKOVll:6flEVOL, ml Kat q,LAei: ltW':; 'tf,j Ka'teX '[ov iiv8QW1tOV bta8euEl
ovvbta'[(8ea8ctl '[eX ltav'[a Kat Eltea8at.; cf.Choniates, CityojByzantium,25.
enemies of his realm and, therefore, does not really fit into the defamatory scheme
of an emperor that did not leave the luxuries of his palace to go on campaign, the
historian subtly makes this accusation against him in the course of his narrative. In
his report on Isaac's campaign against the Vlachs in the spring of 1188,34 the author
criticises the emperor for leaving the battlefield to return to Constantinople after
three months of unsuccessful warfare:
The delights of the Propontis, the pleasurable resorts along her shores, the chase, and
horsemanship captivated Isaac, preventing him from remaining long in the field, and
like one who throws away his shield in battle, he was induced to desert to them. 35
To amplify this negative counterpart of an ideal warrior-emperor, Choniates

reports that, after Isaac II had blinded the rebellious general Constantine, a suc-
cessful defender of the Vlachs, the latters'leaders prayed that the Angeloi would be
granted a reign of many years so that in this way the Vlachs would capture foreign
cities and provinces."
This image of military incompetence reappears in the depiction of Alexios Ill.
Choniates points out that, before this emperor came to power, his reputation was
that of a bellicose man, and that everyone expected that he would stretch out
his lance against the enemies of the empire. However, after he had risen to the
throne, this turned out not to be the case." This criticism is later underpinned again
through the employment of the counter-topos that Alexios III found it difficult to
drag himselfaway from the luxuries ofthe localities ofPropontis and march against
the enemy (on this occasion the Turks), thus pointing once again to a life spent in
the palace,"
This biased deployment of the topos of the ideal warrior-emperor in the con-
struction of this later part of his account highlights Choniates' authorial strategy
of presenting John II as the embodiment ofwhat an emperor ought to be, an ideal
against which the military failures of the emperors of the Angelos dynasty were
to be measured and found badly wanting. Choniates, after all, had witnessed the
deterioration of military affairs during the period of the Angeloi, and it was at this
time that he probably composed the initial version of his text." This, then, would
become the point of departure for his assessment ofprevious emperors. In this light,
the Byzantine author suggests different standards for an assessment of the military
policies ofJohn II than those often highlighted by modern-day hindsight.
34 Choniates,Historia, 398,1.16-399,1.4.
35 Ibid. 399, 11. 4-8: A[ yCtQ 't~<:; IIQOnov'tlbo<:; XaQL't£<:; Kat 'tCt e1tl't£Q~ Ka't' airtl'Jv
U1CT]vwJ.la'ta 'ta 'tE KuvTJyema Kat [nnaaLa, MuaLbouV'ta olov 'tOY laaaKLov, OUK dwv Ent
J.lLtl<QOv eUQauAElv, aM'w<:; {mjJaanLba YLv6J.lEVOV €nELeOV airtoJ.lOAElv e<:; ama; cf. Choniates,
o City ofByzantium, 219.
36 Ibid. 437,11. 1-8.
37 Ibid. 483,11. 9-14.
38 Ibid. 496,11.10-16.
39 A. Simpson,'Before and after 1204',202-5.
Michael Angold has observed that, even though at the time of John's death
his military policies must have seemed successful, with the benefit of hindsight it
is easy to detect in this period the signs that led Byzantium to ultimate decline,
since the territorial gains after years ofintensive campaigning had been very few.40
It is worth asking why Choniates did not notice this too, since he wrote many
decades after John's death and he was experiencing the effect of that decline at
the time when he was writing his text. In my view, the answer is that Choniates
was not measuring the success ofJohn's, or of the other great Komnenian emper-
ors', military policies against the size of their territorial gains. Rather, he judged
the emperors of his era according to their demonstrated ability to maintain the
internal coherence of the imperial system and to avoid large territorial losses that
reduced the Constantinopolitan regime's military strength and consequently also
its imperial prestige.
It is useful to bear in mind that the deterioration of state affairs in the period
from the death of Manuel I onwards, in particular under the Angeloi, has been
attributed to their lack of charisma that caused provincial dissension." The phe-
nomenon of provincialism that reached its climax in this period points, however,
to a lack of charisma not only on the part of the emperors but also, and probably
foremost, of the institution of the imperial office itself." Internal armed conflict
represented a structural element of the Byzantine system of empire that for cen-
turies had played a fundamental role in the system's reproduction.P Up to the late
eleventh century, large-scale rebellious movements had almost always aimed at pos-
session of the imperial throne. Throughout this period, therefore, it was primarily
the charismatic power and appeal of the imperial office, and not of the emperor's
person, that held the system of empire together."
The phenomenon of provincial dissension in the late twelfth century marks a
regression from this politico-ideological trait. This development was the result of a
process that had gradually undermined the relationship between imperial centre and
provincial periphery - it had affected the loyalty ofthe provinces. The beginnings of
this process precede the period of the Angeloi, when this phenomenon reached its
40 Angold, ByzantineEmpire, 189.

41 J. -C. Cheynet, Pouvoir, 434-50.
42 On the transition ofcharismatic power from the person of the emperor to the imperial office dur-
ing the early phase of the Roman Principate, see C. Ando, Imperial ideology andprovincial loyalty in the
RomanEmpire(BerkleylLos Angeles/London, 2000), 27 ff.
43 On various arguments about the structural role of rebellion in the Christian Roman system
of empire, see E. Flaig, 'Fur eine Konzeptionalisierung der Usurpation im Spatromischen Reich', in
F.Paschoud and J. Szidat (eds.), Usurpationen in derSpiitantike (Stuttgart, 1997), 15-34; Cheynet, Pouvoir,
177-90; T.M. Fogen, 'Das politische Denken der Byzantiner', in I. Fetscher and H. Mtmkler (OOs.),
Pipers Handbuch derpolitischen Ideen, Vol. 2: Mittelalter, oon denanflingen des [slams biszur Reformation
(Munich/Zurich, 1993),72-8,80-2; H. -G. Beck, Senatund Volk von Komtantinopel. Probleme derbyzan-
tinischen Peifassung.rgeschichte(Munich, 1966); Idem, Respublica Romana. Vom Staatsdenken derByzantiner
(Munich, 1970); Idem, DasByzantinischeJahrtausend (Munich, 1978, repr. 1994),33-86.
44 C£ I. Stouraitis, 'Roman identity in Byzantium: A critical approach', BZ 107 (2014), 181.
32 IOANMS STOURAITIS
peak, and can be traced as far back as the battle of Mantzikert and the subsequent
Turkish occupation ofAnatolia in the late eleventh century. In contrast to the previ-
ous period, almost every Byzantine emperor from the late eleventh century on had
to face serious unrest in the provinces, which bore traits of political emancipation
from the centre." For instance, Alexios I Komnenos had dealt successfullywith the
rebellions ofthe Doux of Crete Karykes and the Governor of Cyprus Rapsomates."
The brief reports ofAnna Comnena provide hardly any information about the real
goals of these rebels, but the revolts hardly seem to have been intended as move-
ments ofusurpation of the imperial throne. Their leaders seem rather to have aimed
at regional autonomy by taking advantage of distance from the imperial centre at
a period (the early 1090s), in which the latter found itself under immense pres-
sure from foreign enemies." Similarly, the campaign ofJohn II in 1139 against the
Turks in northern Asia Minor was simultaneously directed against the autonomous
regime of Constan tine Gabras in Treblzond."
During the last years of the twelfth century, Choniates had experienced the fail-
ure of the Angeloi not only to maintain the empire's prestige on the frontiers that
had been established by the military policies ofJohn II and Manuel I Komnenos,
but also to maintain imperial authority within the imperial realm itself In this
period, imperial power found itself confronted by a large number of rebellions,
many of which did not really aim at the imperial throne, but instead led to the
secession of previously Byzantine territory. Faced with this reality while he was
writing his history, the author highlighted the image ofJohn II as an ideal warrior-
emperor whose primary achievement had been the preservation of the fairly coher-
ent imperial system that had been handed down to him by his father," As an insider
with a good knowledge of the functioning of the imperial system as well as of the
geopolitical realities of the twelfth century, Choniates did not measure an emperor's
success by comparing the actual extent of reconquest to the glories of the past, but
rather against his ability to maintain the imperial city-state of Constantinople, the
'New Rome', as a competitive player on the current geopolitical scene. A sine qua
non for the accomplishment of this task, as Choniates saw it, was the emperor's
ability to maintain the authority of the imperial office within the borders of the
current realm. That meant keeping firm control over the provincial elites, and the
means to that end was war - in particular, the emperor's ability to personally lead
the army with success in order to impose internal peace and unity.
45 J. Hoffinann, Rudimente von Territorialstaaten im Byzantinistben Reich (1071-1210) (Munich,

1974),5-76; R-J. Lilie, 'Des Kaisers Macht und Ohnmacht. Zum Zerfal1der Zentralgewalt in Byzanz
vor dem vierten Kreuzzug', in R-J. Lilie and P. Speck (eds.), IIoLlciAa Bv'avTlva 4, Varia I (Bonn,
1984),9-120; Cheynet, Pouvoir, 379-404, 446-74.
46 Comnena,Alexias, 261-2; cf Cheynet, Pouooir, 97-8.
47 P. Frankopan, The First Crusade: The callfrom theEast (London, 2012),56-86.
48 Hoffinann, Rudiments, 21-7.
49 Choniates, Historia, 42, n. 23-24.
On the other hand, the author's view of the legitimacy of imperial warfare
remained close to the normative ideological approach taken by the imperial office,
which during the period of the Komnenoi continued to be informed by the imma-
nent political ideal of Roman ecumenism. If this approach seems to conflict with
Choniates' pragmatic assessment of the imperial military policies of his time,
we should remember that the consistent highlighting of the ecumenical ideal in
Byzantine political thinking was never intended to promote an unrealistic grand-
strategic plan of domination over the whole former Roman Oecumene. Just as in
previous centuries, the Komnenian elite instrumentalised this ideal in an adaptive
fashion to legitimate military policies that were realistic in terms of current con-
straints - in this case those determined by the twelfth-century geopolitical status
quo and the prevailing balance of military power," The recurrence of the notion of
Roman ecumenical suzerainty in the military discourse ofthe Byzantine elite at this
time is based upon this discourse's constitutive role in the Roman identity ofthat elite.
This also provides an answer as to why the Komnenian emperors, in particular John
and Manuel, were not inclined to rethink and reconfigure Constantinople's military
goals in an ethno-political or, for that matter, national fashion, as Karayannopoulos'
critique from hindsight would have it.
The political mentality ofthe Komnenian elite was circumscribed byan imperial-
ecumenical outlook, in which ethno-cultural bonds were marginalised and the rela-
tionship of the imperial power with the masses in territories that had formerly been
under the Roman rule of Constantinople was primarily defined by a broader com-
mon religious identity. According to this view, Christian populations, irrespective
of their ethnic, regional or even doctrinal differences, were either actual or potential
subjects of the Christian-Roman emperor of Constantinople. Choniates' account
does allude to gradually emerging notions of ethnic 'Romanness' in the late-twelfth
century on the level of the elite." but more fundamentally the author continued to
subscribe to the imperial office'snormative political mentality in his approach to the
campaigns ofJohn II by presenting the image of an emperor who had subjugated
cities and brought regions under Roman dominion. 52 This image draws upon the
historical poems of Theodore Prodromos, which had been written to glorify the
emperor's military successes at the time and which highlighted the prerogative of
the imperial city-state of Constantinople to expand its Roman dominion over other
cities and regions, and to restore imperial authority'"
50 C£ I. Stouraitis, 'Conceptions of War and Peace in Anna Comnena's Alexiaa, in J. Koder and
1.Stouraitis (eds.), Byzantinewarideology between Romanimperial concept and Christian religion (Vienna,
2012),71-6; Stouraitis, "'Just War" and "Holy War'", 250-5.
51 G. Page, BeingByzantine: Greek identitybefore theOttomans (Cambridge, 2008), 79-85; Stouraitis,
'Roman identity in Byzantium', 215.
52 Chonlates, Historia, 43, 11.6-7.
53 See poems 3 (esp, 33-64), 4 (esp. 261-70), 5 (esp, 21-30), 6 (esp, 10-20) and 8 (esp, 151-72), in
Prodromos, Historische Gedichte, 193-6,201-9,214-7,220-6,234-42.
, This discourse of ecumenism, being foremost a political discourse ofidentity, did

not favour the emergence of an ethno-political vision of community on the part
of the Constantinopolitan ruling elite. Such a vision would have prioritised the
liberation of Anatolia, which had been for centuries the core territory of Romania
(the Roman empire), as a common patria inhabited by fellow Romans (Le. Greek-
speaking Chalcedonian Christians). For John Il, the need to re-impose Roman rule
over northern Syria and Cilicia, while large Greek-speaking Chalcedonian popula-
tions in Asia Minor remained under Turkish domination, was dictated by ideo-
logical and economic-political priorities: first, the emperor of Constantinople could
not afford to abolish his prerogative of exclusive political authority over Eastern
Christian populations; second, the areas in question were far more prosperous, in
regard to revenues, than the interior of Asia Minor. 54
These goals of imperial military policy highlight the identity gap that existed
between the Constantinopolitan elite, with its imperial-political Roman mentality,
and the provincial masses in the empire's former heartland. The identities of the
latter were hardly inspired by the ideal of ecumenism and were also barely loyal to
the vision ofa united Roman community under the political rule ofConstantinople.
This is indicated by the readiness of provincial populations to support provincial
magnates in their movements of autonomy from the political centre" as well as
by their attitudes to warfare between the imperial centre and the Turks, as can be
attested in the relevant accounts contained in Constantinopolitan historiography.
For instance, the well-studied incident of the Lake of Pousgouse (Asia Minor) in
the time ofJohn Il, when the local Christian population resisted its liberation by
the emperor's army," or the voluntary migration of Roman populations to cities
under Turkish rule in the time of Alexios IlI,s7 are indicative cases that testify to
ideological distance which separated large parts of the provincial masses from the
elite's vision of centralised political rule.58 By their tolerant attitudes towards the
indigenous populations of Asia Minor, the Turkish rulers had been taking advan-
tage of this evident discrepancy to consolidate their control over those territories
since the late eleventh century,"
54C£ Magdalino,Manuel,37.
55Indicatively, see Choniates'references to the stance of the population of Philadelphiaduring the
movementof Mangaphas,NiketasChoniates,Orationes etepistulae, OO.J- L. vanDieten, CFHB 3 (Berlin!
New York, 1972),92,1. 18-93, I. 11. On Mangaphas'rebellion, see Cheynet, Pouooir, 123,134-5,454-5.
56 Chonlates,Historia, 37,11. 14-38; Kinnamos, Epitome, 22,11. 4-22. C£ the commentsin Stouraitis,
'Roman identity in Byzantium', 200-2. •
57 Choniates,Hlstoria, 495, I. 30-496, I. 4.
58 Angold, ByzantineEmpire,189.
59 On Byzantine-Turkish co-existence in twelfth-century Anatolia, see C. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman
Turkey:Ageneralsurveyofthematerialandspiritualculture andhistoryc.1071-1330,tr, byJ.Jones-Williams
(London, 1968),202-15; A. Ducellier, Chretiens d'Orient et Islamau MoyenAge, VII'-XV'siecle (Paris,
1996),260-75; M. Balivet, RomanisbyzantineetpaysdeRtim turc: Histoire d'un e.rpace d'imbrication greco-
turque (Istanbul,1994),30-9,47-53; M. Ba1ivet, 'Entre Byzance et Konya: L'intercirculation des idees
et des hommes au temps des Seldjoukides', in M. Balivet(00.),Melanges byzantins,sekijoukides et otto-
mans (Istanbul,2005),47-79; Idem, 'Integration et exclusion des chretiens dans le sultanat seldjoukide
Choniates may have been prone to employ a quasi-ethno-political critique

of those parts of the provincial masses that did not show loyalty to the Roman
emperor of Constantinople, but he still saw no reason to criticise John H for fail-
irlg to concentrate his efforts on the reconquest of Asia Minor or the liberation of
indigenous populations that the author expected to be loyal to Constantinople. For
Choniates, as a member of the Constantinopolitan elite, successful military policies
were those that maintained and strengthened the position ofthe imperial city-state
of Constantinople as a dominant political centre in its geopolitical sphere. For this
reason, he also did not criticise the imperialistic policies ofJohn's successor,Manuel
I, with the exception of the expedition to Egypt, but was rather willing to accept the
rationale that dictated them/" One might ask therefore what it was that made John
H a better emperor in this author's eyes than his son Manuel- besides the fact that
Choniates had experienced the greater part of the latter's reign and judged more
harshly as a result.
In his final summing up of Manuel's reign, Choniates stated that this emperor
'had achieved nothing excellent for the empire and had made no provisions or
arrangements for events following his death'. 611his is certainly a negative assess-
ment compared to the author's laudatory concluding statement on the deeds of
john H.62 Ifwe were to understand the first part of the statement as primarily refer-
ring to Manuel's failure to achieve the large-scale military goals he had pursued, this
hardly makes him an inferior ruler to his father according to the author's criteria.
Implicitly, Choniates had held John equally responsible for similar failures, as is
evidenced by the opening of his deathbed speech. Moreover, any direct comparison
between the gains of the two emperors, either in territory or in imperial prestige,
according to the testimony provided by the Historia, would hardly reveal a signifi-
cant difference. Finally, Manuel, no less than John, appears in the narrative as one
of those emperor figures that lived up to the author's standardised warrior-ideal.
Besides the aforementioned statement in the deathbed speech byJohn,63 Choniates
also portrayed Manuel as a relentless warrior in his report on the emperor's cam-
paign against the Turks besieging Klaudiopolis in 1179. 64
It follows that it was neither large-scale military achievements nor superior
martial virtue and valour that distinguished John H from his son and successor in
Choniates' eyes. For answer we should rather turn to the second part ofChoniates'
concluding remark on Manue1's reign. There, the author accuses the emperor of
d'Asie-Mineure (XII'-XIII' siecles)', in M. Balivet (ed.), Melanges byzantins, seldjoukides et ottomans

(Istanbul, 2005), 107-24; N. Necipoglou, 'The coexistence of Turks and Greeks in Medieval Anatolia
(Eleventh-Twelfth Centuries)', Haroard Middle Eastern andIslamic Review 5 (1999/2000),58-76.
60 Magdalino, Manuel, 5-9.
61 Choniates, Historia, 220, ll. 12-15: OubEv bE 'CL lciMLO'COV llEQl 'Cij~ ~aov\ela~ bLC/J"110EV,
tiMet VUJSEC1't€QOV ijv bLa"€(flEV~ llQO~ 'C"V 'tWV fl€'CCt 'tfJV fl€'CaC1'taOLV a&t:ovYEVTlOOflEVWV
bLa'CaY'lv 'C€ Kat tl1lO'tUllUJOW.
6l Cf. note 16 above.
63 See note 32 above.
64 Choniates, Historia, 197,1.27-198,1. 13.
36 lOANMS STOURAITIS
failing to make provision for events after his death. IfJohn II had been bold enough
to overrule the claims of Manuel's elder brother and lawful successor to the throne
in order to make sure that the best possible warrior-emperor would lead the empire
after his death, Manuel in his turn did not prove equally bold and perspicacious in
Choniates' view. Manuel had not anticipated the need to secure a competent suc-
cessor to the throne - one that would immediately be able to undertake what was
an urgent task in the current geopolitical context, that ofpreserving the centralised
rule ofConstantinople byforce ofarms. 6S What the author's critique seems to imply
is that Manuel should have looked beyond his own bloodline for his successor, had
he really wished to secure the future of the empire.
Choniates' opposing assessments of John II and Manuel I stemmed from a
pragmatic approach to the problems of the time when he was writing, on the part
of a historian imbued with the Roman mentality of the Byzantine imperial court.
According to this perspective,John had not only managed to keep the imperial city-
state of Constantinople strong and resilient against both internal and foreign
enemies during his reign, but, most importantly, had made all necessary provisions
for this strength to be maintained after his death. The choice of his younger son
Manuel to succeed him, over his elder son Isaac, was his final judicious move, the
climax of a successful reign, in a period when the system of empire could not simply
rely on the charismatic power of the imperial office in order to reproduce itself It
was in urgent need ofcharismatic emperors as warrior-rulers who would consistently
undergo the rigours of campaign so as successfully to maintain their authority both
within the empire and on the frontiers. Choniates could evaluate this need better
than anyone else when he began to write his history under the Angeloi. As he saw
it, the only emperor who had completed this part ofthe job successfullywas John Il.
65 C£ C.M. Brand, Byzantium confronts the West, 1180-1204 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 14-5, who
points to the obvious power vacuum caused when Manue1 I was succeeded by his under-age son.
4
The political ideology ofJohn 11 Komnenos

Angeliki Papageorgiou
Political ideology constituted a key element of the identity of the Byzantine empire
and was the means through which the emperors often justified their decrees, deci-
sions and actions. In order to legitimize and maintain their presence on the throne,
Byzantine rulers sought to articulate the dominant political ideology ofByzantium;
otherwise, they would be branded as tyrants, as happened for instance to Phokas in
the seventh century or to Andronikos I five centuries later.
Although it bore various core characteristics that remained unchanged through-
out the course of the Byzantine empire, it was always possible to adapt political
ideology to the needs of an emperor's reign and personality. Being its principal
operator, the emperor could shape the political ideology's character according to
the messages he wished to pass on both to his subjects and to the states with which
he interacted.
During the reign of John Il, political ideology became the subject of altera-
tions and modifications, some of them already initiated by Alexios I, while others
appeared for the first time during the reign ofjohn.' The empire's ecumenical char-
acter remained the one constant, non-negotiable element of Byzantium's political
1 Paul Magdalino has already noted the change in the aristocratic ideal:Magdalino, Manuel, esp.
228-37;cf.A.Papageorgiou, '0 IwawTJC; B' K0l..lvTJv6C; Kat TJ eltOXtl 'tou',PhD dissertation(University
of Athens,2007), eh, 6, an introduction to Alexios I's politicalideology. This new direction maybe ten-
tatively discerned in the following: Italikos, Lettres et discours, 170-5, esp. 170-1,11. 1-12; BasUakes,
Orationes, 84-91, esp.87-8,11. 8-3; TheodoreProdromos,A6yo;; El;; 'tOY 1tpOpcfIVpoytvvr/,rov KVPOV
laaaKwv 'tOv KopVT/v6v, ed. E. Kurtz,'UnedierteTexte aus der Zeit des Kaisers Johannes Komnenos',
BZ 16 (1907),112-7, esp.116-7, 11.185-200. See alsoA. Kazhdan,'Kev'tQOI..l6Aec; Kat Kev'tQ6<j>uyec;
'taaetJ; oro ~u~v'tLv6 Koal..l0 (1081-1261).H b0l..ltl 'tTJC; ~ul;av'tLvtlC; KOlVWVlaC;', Bvl;avnaKa 3
(1983),103. On the idealof nobUity seealsoJ.-C. Cheynet,'Aristocratic anthroponymy in Byzantium', in
J.-C. Cheynet, 1heByzantinearistocracy anditsmilitaryftnction, CollectedStudiesSeries859 (Aldershot,
2006),Ill, 27-30; J. Haldon, 'A touch of class?', RechtshistorischesJournal 7 (1988),37-50; E. Padagean,
'Les debuts d'une aristocratie byzantineet le temolgnage de l'historiographie: systeme des noms et des
liensde parente aux IX' et X, siecles', in M. Angold (ed.), 1heByzantine aristocracy, IX toXII centuries
(Oxford, 1984),23-43.
FromJohnII Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son. Copyright © Ange1iki
Papageorgiou. Publishedby Routledge, 2 Park Square,Milton Park,Abingdon,Oxon OX14 4RN.
37
38 ANGEUKIPAPAGEORGIOU
theory- During the period in question, this ecumenical character was expressed by
orators, poets and historians, as well as in official documents bearing the emperor's
signature, such as his letters to the German emperors Lothar and Conrad Ill. The
empire's Roman origins were assumed and John continued to call himself augus-
tus and 'emperor of the Romans'in his letters to the German emperor. The addi-
tion of the term augustus (airyoixnoc) is of particular interest, because it was not
used in official imperial documents reserved for domestic circulation. However, the
use of the term in 1142 in an official letter to the German emperor Conrad Ill,
who claimed the same title, underlines the unique status of the Byzantine ruler as
Roman emperor (ainoxocacao 'PwJ.1atwv).3
Some aspects of political ideology also made an appearance during the diplo-
matic contacts between Byzantium and the German empire that were closely con-
nected to the threat presented by the Normans at this time. The Normans had
already become Byzantium's main enemy when, during the reign ofAlexios I, they
twice attacked imperial territory. Furthermore, Bohemond, who led the second
invasion (1107-1108), had taken control of Antioch, which Byzantium claimed
as its own, during the First Crusade." Apart from the old enmity, the coronation
2 On the questionof ecumenicity see the acts of the internationalconference in E. Chrysos (ed.),
To Bv~av"CLo (U~ OL1WV/-lEV1] (Athens, 2005). See also J. Koder, 'If yeWYQa<j>lKJ1 buXC7'l:aUTJ 'tTJC;
~ul;aV't:lvtlC; oocoousvqc', in E. Chrysos (ed.), To Bvl;avrlO (U~ OllCOV/-lEV1] (Athens,2005),25-45;
N. Radosevic, 'L'Oecumenebyzantinedanslesdiscours imperiaux du Xl" et XII' siecle', Byzantinoslavica
54 (1993), 156-61. See also H. Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, H 1tOitl"CLlClj loeoitoyla 'rTJ~ BV~av-rIVIj~
Av"ColCpa"Copia~ (Athens, 1997), 11-29.
3 See for instanceProdromos, Historische Gedichte, 202, n. 41-50 and 306, n. 97-108; Otto, Bishop
of Freising, The deeds of Frederid: Barbarossa, tr, C.C. Mierow and R. Emery (New York, 1953; repr.
TorontolBuffalo/London, 1994),56-7. Regardingthe questionofimperial titulature during the period
in question see also H.-D. Kahl, 'Romlsche Kronungsplane im Komnenenhause? Ein Beitrag zur
Entwicklungdes Zweikaiserproblems irn 12.Jahrhundert',Archivfir Kulturgeschichte 59 (1977),277-81,
317-9; P.Lamma, Comneni e Stazifer. Ricercbe sui rapportifra Bisanzioe l'Ocddente nelsecolo XII (2 vols.,
Rome,1955-1957),I, 31-3; Macridesand Magdalino,'Fourth Kingdom', 120-1.
4 On this issue see Papageorgiou, 'IwaVVTJC; B' K0/-lVTJv6c;', eh. 1. Regarding the events of the first
Norman invasion of Byzantium, see for instance F.Burgarella, 'Roberto il Guiscardo e Bisanzio', in C.D.
Fonseca (ed.),Roberto il Guiscardo traEuropa, Oriente eMezzogiomo (Galatina, 1990),39-60; F.Chalandon,
Histoire de la domination normande en Ita/ie et en Sicile (Paris, 1907),258-84; F. Chalandon,Essaisurle
rigne d'Alexis Ier Comnene (1081-1118) (Paris, 1900),65-94; R.B.Yewdale, Bohemond 1, prince ofAntioch
(Princeton, 1917), 25-33. On the siege ofLarissaduringthe Byzantine-Norman war,a siege whichmarked
the pointwhen the war turned in favour of Alexios, seeAA. Glavinas, cOL NOQf.lavbol u'tTJ EleuuMla
1Cctl TJ ltOAlOQlCla 'tTJC; AaQLOac; (1082-1083)', Bv~av-rlaKa 4 (1984),33-45; E. Ioannidaki-Dostoglou,
'Oi NOQf.lGtvbol1Cctl TJ 1tOAlOQlCla TTJC; AaQluac;', E>eooaAllC6 HJlepoitbylO 15 (1989),3-11. On the
events between Byzantium and Bohemond, seealsoWB. McQ!ieen, 'Relations betweenthe Normans and
Byzantium 1071-1112',Byzantion 56 (1986),459-63;J.G. Rowe, 'PaschalIl, Bohemondof Antioch and
the Byzantine Empire',Bulletin oftheJohn Rylands Library49 (1966),165-202; S.Runciman,Ahistoryofthe
Crusades (3vols., Cambridge,1951-54),Il,46-7. On the treatyofDevol andits significance seeforinstance
A. Chrlstophilopoulou, BV'av-rIVIj krtopia T 1, 1081-1204 (Thessaloniki,2001), 71-2; Magdalino,
Manuel, 29-41; McQ!ieen, 'Relations', 459-66. See alsoJ. Ferluga, 'La ligesse dans l'Empire byzantine',
in]. Ferluga(ed.),ByzantiumontheBalkans: Studies ontheByzantineadministration andtheSouthern Slavs
from VIIthtotheXIIth centuries (Amsterdam, 1976),401-14;N. Ljubarskij and M. Frejdenberg, 'Devofskij
dogovor 1108g. meZdu Alekseem Komninom I Boemundom', VV21 (1962),260-74.
THE POliTICAL IDEOLOGY OFJOHN11KOMNENOS 39
of Roger II as king of Southern Italy and Sicily in 1130 created a threat to both
empires. John II had further reason to worry about the rise of the Norman power,
since Roger showed interest towards Antioch and his moves suggested that he
intended to claim it. s In 1135 the Normans controlled part of the Adriatic coast,
the Mediterranean as far as Africa, and were casting their eyes towards Antioch.
Consequently, there was a visible danger that the Mediterranean might become a
Norman lake. In this year John, bearing all ofthis in mind, as well as the usurpation
of the title Rex (king) by the Norman ruler, sent an embassy to the German emperor
Lothar 11.6 It was at this time that the Byzantine emperor, according to Western
sources, expressed his intense interest and discomfiture at the Norman presence in
Africa," As bizarre as it may seem at this particular point in time for Byzantium,
Africa still fell (theoretically, at least) within the framework of the 'reconquista', with
the result that the presence of another Christian power in the region was extremely
unwelcome to the Byzantines. Furthermore, the apparent commercial domina-
tion of the Normans over the Mediterranean had to be avoided. John II succeeded
in taking advantage of the concerns of the Germans, the Pope and Venice, over
the expansion of the Normans and concluded alliances with all of them.i These
5 On Byzantium's relations with the Normans see Papageorgiou, 'IwavvT"j';5' KOIlVTJv6C;', ch. 8.
On Roger see E. Caspar, RogerII (1101-1154) und die Grundung dernormanniscb-siciliscben Monarchie
{Innsbruck, 1904),285,328-30; Chalandon, Domination normande, 5; Chalandon, Les Comnene 11,
164-167; Lille, Crusader states, 100; G.A Loud, 'Norman Sicily in the twelfth century', in D. Luscombe
and]. Riley-Smith (eds.),New Cambridge MedievalHistory (Cambridge,2004),Iy'2,442-74,at 442,444,
446-7; Makk, Arpdds, 33-4; H. Houben, Roger11ofSicily: A Ruler between East and mst (Cambridge,
2002). Antioch had been taken and was administered by the Normans; therefore, after the death of
Bohemond n, Roger, as next of kin,felt that he was entided to lay claim to authority over the region. See
also Chalandon, Domination normande, 124; Chalandon, Les Comnene II, 164-7; Lilie, Handei; 376-7;
Caspar, Roger 11,357-9; Lilie, Crusader states, 101; Makk,Arpdds, 33-4.
6 For the 1135 embassy see also Annalista Saxo, MGH SS VI, 769; Peter the Deacon, Cbronica
Monasterii Casinesis, MGH SS VII, 833; Canonid Wissegradensis amtinuatia Cosmae, MGH SS IX, 141;
Annales S. Petri,MGH SS XVI, 18; AnnalesMagdeburgenses, MGH SS XVI, 185. See also Chalandon,
Les Comnene II, 168-169; F. Chalandon, 'The later Comneni', in the Cambridge Medieval history
(Cambridge, 1923), IV, 358; Caspar, Roger II, 357-359; Lilie, Handel, 377-9; Lamma, Comneni e
Staufer, 24-6; Makk, Arpdds, 33-34; 1. Auge, Byzantins,Armtniens et Francs au temps de la Croisade.
Politique religieuse et reconqutte en Orientsous la dynastie des Comn~nes 1081-1185 (Paris, 2007), 155-9;
W. Ohnsorge, 'Die Bedeutung der deutsch-byzantinischen Beziehungen im 12. ]ahrhundert fiir den
deutschen Osteri, DeutschesArchivfUrLandes- und Volksforschung 5 (1941),250-1; E.Tounta, To LlV'UK6
'Sacrum Imperium' Kat 1] Bv~avrtv17 AvroKparopla. 16eoAoytKec; rpt{3ec; Kat aAA1]AeTtL6pMetC;
crr1]v evpWTCarK~ 1IOAtrL~ crK1]V~ rov 12°0 atwva (1135-1177) (Athens, 2008), 30-3. Regarding
Venetian participation to the embassy, see Papageorgiou, 'IwavVTJC; B' KOIlVTJv6C;', ch. 8. It is worth
noting at this point that Roger is called 'Count of Sicily', not 'King'. It is what one might expect from a
chronicler writing in the German empire, since the Germans, much like the Byzantines, were unwilling
to recognize Roger as King, because such an act would be contrary to their interests. Therefore, it would
seem that, at that point at least, Roger went unrecognized by both Empires.
7 AnnalesErphesjUrdenses, ed. G.H. Pertz,MGH SS (Hannover, 1844), VI, 540, 11. 26-38; Annalista
Saxa, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS (Hannover, 1844), VI, 769; Peter the Deacon, Chronica Monasterii
Casinesis, ed, H. Hoffmann, MGH SS (Hannover, 1980), VII, 833,11.2-34; AnnatesMagdeburgenses, ed.
G.H. Pertz, MGH SS (Hannover, 1859), XVI, 185,11.38-43.
S See Papageorgiou, 'IwavVTJC; 5' KOllvTJv6C;', eh, 8.
alliances not only protected Byzantium from the Norman threat - at almost no cost,
since, despite the promise of military assistance, this never materialized - but also
secured the Western powers' neutrality with respect to John's primary goal, which
was Antioch.
In their quest to expand the idea ofthe Byzantine empire's ecumenical character,
the Komnenoi re-established, after centuries of inertia, the notion of 'reconquista',9
Le. the recapture of all territories that had once belonged to the Roman empire.
Despite the fact that he had decided not to actively pursue the recapture ofItaly,
the original (sixth-century) 'reconquista~' primary aim, John II did make an effort
towards this goal- mainly in order to neutralize the threat posed by the Venetians
at the time - through diplomatic channels, proposing first to Pope Callixtus II
in 1124 and again in 1126 to his successor Pope Honorius II, that he wished to
pursue a union between the churches.'? Although this union never took place, in
my mind, this particular proposition by John suggests his wish to restore some sort
of Byzantine suzerainty over Italian lands - and possibly to enhance his standing
among the Latins of the East - and it was to that end that the emperor's initiative
aimed, as the support of the spiritual leader of Italy and his becoming part and
parcel of Byzantine political ideology would offer the emperor a significant boost in
facilitating the achievement of his goals.'!
The revivalofthe spirit ofreconquest gave a new,martial character to Komnenian
political ideology. Coin iconography is the most indicative example of this new
9 On the question of the 'reconquista' and its revivalby Alexios I see note 23 below. Cf. M. Whittow,
'How the East was lost:The background to the Komnenian reconquista', in Mullett and Smythe,Alexios I,
55-63. On the characterisation of]ustinian's wars in Italy and the Macedonians'successes on the eastern
front as a 'reconquista', see F. Lot, Lajin du monde antique et ledebut duMoyen 4ge (Paris, 1927), 432; and
S. Vryonis,]r, Byzantium andEurope (London, 1967), 83, respectively.
10 Monumenta speaantia ad unionemEcdesiarum Graecae et Romanae, ed. A Theiner and F.Miklosich,
(Vienna, 1872), 1-5; Lampros, 'A&t:oKQa't6Qwv 'tOUBuCav'ttou XQua6I3ouMa', 94-112 and more
specifically106-12 (Latin translation in 108-9,111-2). The second embassy to Rome was apparendy led
by Michael Italikos (Italikos, Lettreset discours, 174,1. 11-175,1. 9).
Il Similar views are expressed in A Kazhdan and A. Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine culture
in theeleventh andtwe(fthcenturies (BerkeleylLos AngeleslLondon, 1985),Ai\i\ayti; a'tov {3vCavnvo

ltoi\t'tU1polCa't/% rov 110 Kat 120atclJva (Athens, 1997),393, n.1; O. Kresten, 'Die Auslandsschreiben
der byzantinischen Kaiser der Komnenenzeit: Die Iiterarische Uberlieferung bei Anna Komnene und
Ioannes Kinnamos. Mit einem Exkurs: Zur Chronologie der Auslandsschreiben Dolger-Wirth, Reg,
1068,1077,1080 und 1114', RHM 39 (1997),21-59; Lamma, Comneni e Staufer, 31-3; Macrides and
Magdalino, 'Fourth Kingdom', 120-1; Magdallno and Nelson, 'Emperor', 170. On Komnenian efforts to
approach the Pontiff and their significance"seealso T. Kolbaba, 'The legacy of Humbert and Cerularius:
The tradition of the "Schism of 1054" in Byzantine texts and manuscripts of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries', in C. Dendrinos,]. Harris, E. Harvalla-Crook and]. Herrin (eds.), Porphyrogenita: Essays on
the history andliterature ofByzantium and theLatin East in honour of]ulian Chrysostomides (Aldershot!
Burlington, 2003), 59-61; Chalandon,Alexis 1",62-5,260-3; B. Leib, Rome, Kiev et Byzance alajin du
Xl'siede (Paris, 1924), 19-21,21-6,179-87,308-15; H.E.]. Cowdrey, 'Pope Victor and the Empress
A.', BZ 84/85 (1991-1992),43-8; V. Grumel, ~utour du voyage de Pierre Grossolanus, archeveque
de Milan, 11 Constantinope, en 1122. Notes d'histoire et de lltterature', EO 32 (1933),22-33. See also
Bucossi in this volume.
r
THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OFJOHN 11KOMNENOS 41
militarism. Coins, passing from hand to hand on a daily basis, had the potential of
expressing better than any other means the ideology ofwhoever sat on the throne of
Constantinople. Furthermore, since Byzantine coins circulated internationally, they
boldly propagated imperial theory to whoever was using thern.P John introduced
the hagiogeorgaton, or 'coin of St George' (aytoyewpyaTov), made of electrum,
which on the obverse depicts Christ on a throne and on the reverseJohn II holding
a cross or a banner beneath a small orb and standing alongside St George. A semi-
tetarteron has also been found, showing St Demetrius holding a lance on the obverse
and John holding a banner and a cross-bearing orb on the reverse." In this case St
Demetrius holds the dominant position in the coin, since he was depicted on the
obverse in the absence of Christ, unlike the hagiogeorgaton. Evidently,John wished
to present the empire as a powerful military force: his aim was to declare that the
army was the mainstay of his power and that he was an active soldier-emperor. His
military ideology is made clear through the iconography of these widely circulating
coins." Another new coin introduced by John the theotokion, or 'Mother-of-God
coin'. This was an hyperpyron depicting Christ on the obverse, while the reverse
showed John II and the Mother of God either crowning the emperor or standing
next to him. IS Despite the fact that this was not the first appearance ofthe Theotokos
on Byzantine coinage, it is only now that this particular name is given to a coin,
implying a new special relationship between the emperor and the Virgin Mary.
12 Seethe chapterby Papadopoulou in this volume. On the Byzantine nomisma as the "dollar" of the
MiddleAges'seealsoG. Nlkolaou, 'H OlKOuflEVLK6'tT]Ta TOU 13ul;aVTLVOUvOfl(aflaT<X;', in Chrysos,
To Bv~avno w<; Ou(Ov/-lev1], 195-201; and C. Morrisson and S.Balbide Caro,'La monnaied'or byz-
antine(IV'-XIV' s.),un «dollar du Moyen Age., in S.Balbide Caro (00.),L'ecu d'or: Monnaieetpouvoir
d'Auguste a Charles Quint (RomelBrussels, 1996),21-33. See alsoB. Koutava-De1ivoria, 'Les Chlchata,
les Protocharaga et la reforme monetaire d' Alexis lot Comnene', RBN 141 (1995),13-36; F. Diilger
and]. Karayannopoulos, Byzantiniscbe Urkundenlebre, 1: Die Kaiserurkunden (Munich, 1968), 80-7; A.
Harvey, 'Financialcrisisand the rural economy', in Mullett and Smythe,Alexios1,167-84; C. Morrisson,
'La logarike; Reformemonetalreet reforrne fiscale sous Alexis l"Comnene', TM 7 (1979),419-64; N.
Svoronos, 'Leplbole11 l'epoque des Comnenes', TM 3 (1968),375-95.
13 P. Gautier, 'Le Typikon Pantocrator', 1-145, at 11. 899-900; C. Morrisson, Catalogue des man-
naies byzantines de la Bibliotheque Nationals (2 vols.,Paris, 1970), Il, 694, 697; A. Frolow, 'Les noms de
monnaies dans le Typikon du Pantocrator', Byzantinaslaoica 10 (1949),249-50; p. Grierson, Byzantine
Coinage (Washington,D.C., 1999),31-8, esp. 36-8; C. Morrisson,'Coinage and money in Byzantine
typika', DOP 56 (2002), 268. Regardingthe cult of St George see C. Waiter,'The origins of the cult of
Saint George', REB 53 (1995),295-326. On militarysaints in generalsee C. Waiter, The warriorsaints
in Byzantine art and tradition (AldershotIBurlington, 2003). It is worth noting that]ohn Il's decision to
promotehis militaryideologythrough denominations other than gold coins is probablydue to the fact
that they circulatedfar more widelythan the rarer gold ones,resultingin spreadingthe emperor's mes-
sage to a greater part of the population. The aim of]ohn Il was to make clear to all his subjects that he
wasa soldier-emperor fightingfor the gloryof Byzantium.
14 See alsoFrolow, 'Noms de monnales', 249-50; Kazhdanand Epstein,AAAaye<;, 185; Morrisson,
'Coinageand money',268; Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies, 689-91.

15 Gautier,'Le Typicon Pantocrator',11. 1104-6, 1263-5; Acta et diplomata graeca mediiaevi sacra et
profana, ed. F. Miklosichand J. Muller (6 vols.,Vienna, 1860-1890), VI, no. XXIII, 98, no.XXIV, 100;
Vranousi, Bv~avnva lyypacfJa, I, 82; Morrisson, Catalogue des monnaies, 693, 697.
, The Theotokos was presented as one of the main supports ofJohn's political ide-
ology. Perhaps the fact that he came to power on the day of the Dormition of the
Virgin - 15 August 1118 - may be connected in some way with this. In any event,
John was fond of attributing his military victories to the Virgin Mary's active inter-
vention and of presenting her as his supporter, thus wrapping his wars in a cloak
of religiosity.The emperor pursued war in according to the will, and with the active
participation, of the Theotokos, who had been seen as the protector of the empire
ever since the time ofthe Akathist Hymn, composed in the sixth century. 16 Thus, with
the Theotokos by his side,John was not only assured of victory, he also secured the
consent of the Byzanrines, who boasted of a special relation to the Mother of God.
How better could the emperor ensure the legitimacy ofhis military operations? It is
noteworthy that even while on campaign John would parade an icon of the Virgin
around his camp in order to inspire the soldiers, an innovation of his reign.'? In his
poems of praise for the emperor, Theodore Prodromos depicted the Theotokos as
taking an active part in warfare and standing by the side ofJohn Komnenos, often
addressing him in person. IS The central role attributed to the Theotokos within the
framework ofJohn's political ideology is made obvious in the triumphal procession
that followed the capture of Kastamon in 1133, a triumph described by almost
every contemporary written source." During the ceremony, an icon of the Virgin
Mary was placed in a conspicuous place on the imperial chariot, while the emperor
himself walked on foot, holding a cross in one hand and the akakia, a silk pouch
containing dust, in the other,"
Parallels are often drawn between this triumph and that of his namesake,John I
Tzimiskes, in 971; however, a number of differences may be pointed out. Tzimiskes
had placed the plunder from the Bulgarian expedition alongside the icon of the
16 Regarding the position of the Theotokos as protector of the empire see for instance
M. McCormick, Eternalvictory: Triumphal rulership in LateAntiquity,ByzantiumandtheEarlyMedieval
mst (Cambridge, 1986), esp. 69-78, and N. Baynes, 'The supernatural defenders of Constantinople' ,AB
67 (1949), 165-77.
17 Choniates, Historia, I, 15, 11. 83-93. See also A Kolia-Dermitzaki, 0 {3v,avrlv6<; 'ieo»;
n6Aeuo;' (Athens, 1991),253-4,274,287,305,330,370.
18 Prodromos, Historische Gedichte, 205, 11.158-60; 225, 11.185-226, I. 201; 238, I. 146-240, I. 215;
256,11.91-100; 256, 11.109-10; 257, 11.116-20; Kurtz, 'Unedierte Texte', 76,11.35-49; 77, 11.75-80; 79,
1.146-80,1.172; 80,1.190-81,1. 215.
19 See Magdalino in this volume.
20 Kinnamos,Epitome, 13,1.15-14,1.2~Choniates,Historia,I, 18,1.78-19,1.2;r:wOtP1<; XpOVIIC1],in

MeaauuvIK1j BI{3AlOe1]KTJ, ed. C.N. Sathas (VenicelParis, 1894),195,11.11-29. Prodromos,Historische
Gedichte, 225, I. 185-226, I. 210. Also, Matthew of Edessa,Armenia andthe Crusades, tenthtotwe!fthcen-
tury:'Ibe chronicle ofMatthew ofEdessa, tr, AE. Dostourian (LanhamlNew York/London, 1993),241-2,
relates that, when he captured Anazarbos,]ohn II took with him to Constantinople as plunder an icon of
the Virgin Mary that was of particular value to the Armenians. Perhaps it was that icon that was placed
on the triumphal chariot. See also Smpat Sparapet, tamanakagrut'iwn: Chronique duRoyaume delaPetite
Armenie, RHC arm (2 vols., Paris, 1869-1906), I, 617. See also E. Congdon, 'Imperial commemoration',
175, 178, referring to the ceremony. See also the mosaic in Hagia Sophia where John and his augusta
Eirene are depicted next to the Theotokos,
THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OFJOHN II KOMNENOS 43
Virgin Mary, while he took part in the procession on a horse. John Il, on the other
hand, placed the icon ofthe Virgin Mary alone on the chariot, apparently wishing to
emphasize her role as protector and to attribute his victory to her, while he himself
went on foot as a token ofhumility and submission to a higher power." John wished
to declare that his connection to the Mother of God was close and constant. To that
end, as we shall see, he placed his mausoleum in the Pantokrator Monastery next to
the church ofPanagia Eleousa (the Merciful Virgin). Furthermore, he expressed his
wish that during his memorial services the icon of the Virgin known as Hodegetria
would be brought to the monastery, placed on his tomb, and the Mass be celebrated
in its presence. After the memorial service was over, the icon was to be returned to
its place in the Monastery of Hodegos.P To my mind, there could be no better way
for John to cement his connection to the Virgin Mary than by linking his name to
hers for all eternity. Thus, the Mother of God becomes the key foundation ofJohn
Komnenos' policy and exponent of his ideology. The Theotokos was attached to the
emperor while he lived, but would also be linked to him in the afterlife. Generations
to come would know of his relation to her, and the attachment of the two would be
both immediate and eternal.
Apart from the Mother of God, John Komnenos often used the cross, a symbol
that also held a dominant position in his political ideology. His goal, in my opinion,
was to declare that he had the right to bear the cross, in other words to pick up the
mantle of Crusader. The image ofJohn Il as Crusader fell within the framework of
the 'reconquista' theory revived by Alexios 1.23 Alexios, however,was unable to present
himself as a Crusader, since the First Crusade caught him by surprise, at least as far
asideology was concerned. Furthermore, he lacked the time to develop such an idea,
because first he had to face the multitudes of the Crusaders flocking through his
territory, while avoiding a direct confrontation with them. Besides, the Crusaders
were Christians who, at least in theory, had come to protect their Christian breth-
ren of the Orient. Therefore, Alexios was in no position at that particular time to
promote himself as their leader.John on the other hand, was in a position to believe
that the conditions were ripe for assuming this role. It is not a coincidence that the
cross as a symbol acquires special significance during his reign."
When the Byzantine army returned from Shaizar, in 1138, among the plun-
der they brought back was a cross." The sources describe in detail how John had
21 See also Auge, Politique religieuse, 228-9, 236; I. Auge, 'La reconquete des Comnenes en Orient
vue par les panegyrlstes byzantins', Bizantinistica 3 (2001),322-3.
22 Gautier, 'Le Typicon Pantocrator', 11. 728-33, 883-900. See also Congdon, 'Imperial commemo-
ration', 175, 178, who refers to the Mass.
23 On the issue of the 'reconquista' and its revival by Alexios I see for instance Lamma, Comneni
e Staufer, 31-33; Macrides and Magdalino, 'Fourth Kingdom', 120-121; Magdalino and Nelson,
'Emperor', 170.
24 On the cross asJohn Il's symbol and on Jerusalem as an indicator ofthe 'holy war' character ofthe
expedition of John Il see note 27 below.
2S On the cross that John Il brought back as plunder from Shaizar see N. Zorzi, 'La croce gemmata
recuperata da Giovanni Il Comneno a Shayzar (1138)', BoilGrott 55 (2001),63-98.
44 ANGEUKI PAPAGEORGIOU
come to acquire it. Even John Kinnamos, whose narrative of the reign of the second
Komnenian emperor is generally less detailed, included an extensive description of
the cross of Shaizar," When John II came into possession of that cross, Kinnamos
tells us, he too became a (J"ravpoep6pOi; - a 'cross-bearer' - scoring important
victories against the infidels.27 In other words, on a deeper, not Instantly evident
level, this expressed the emperor's political determination to replace the Crusader
states' domination over the region with a Byzantine one. The emperor bore the
cross not simply in a symbolic manner - on his garments - but in a tangible way.
We also observe that during the triumphal procession of 1133 John II marched
holding a cross - thereby presenting himself in front of the assembled populace of
Constantinople as the legitimate Crusader,"
The image ofJohn II as Crusader was not based solely on his use of the cross.
Byzantine sources were quick to provide further evidence to support the identi-
fication. To begin with, the emperor himself, during his speech on ascending the
throne, referred indirectly to the liberation of Christian territories from the Turks
and the capture of the Holy Land as part of his goals." Since Jerusalem was under
Latin, not Turkish, rule during the period in question, John was already making
clear his intention to supplant the Latins in their crusading task, alongside restoring
Byzantine rule in the region.
Furthermore, Nikephoros Basilakes repeatedly referred to John II as 'the Lord's
athlete' which, as has been noted by Athena Kolia-Dermitzaki in her pioneer-
ing study on Holy War in Byzantium, was an expression, among others, of the
Byzantine idea of Holy War, which consisted of defending the Faith, the Church,
26 Kinnamos, Epitome, 20,11. 9-16; Choniates,Historia, I, 28,11. 26-31, I. 15; LVVOtPU;; XpOVLKIj, 202,
1.29-203,1.4;Italikos,Lettres, 264,I.9-265,1.10; Nikephoros Basilakes, Glieneomiperl'imperatore eper if
patriarea, ed. R. Maisano(Naples,1977),114,I. 730-116, I. 798;Anonymi auctorls Chronieon adAC 1234
pertinens, ed.A Abounaand]. M. Fiey, CSCO354, Syr 154 (Leuven,1974),85-6. C£ Kolia-Dermitzaki,
IEp6~ 1T6AEpO,;,333-4.
27 It is true that whenever the Byzantines refer to the Crusaders,they rarelyuse that specific term.
However, the Byzantines werecertainlyfamlliarwiththe imageof the aeA1)'t"a! Kvpiov with the symbol
of the crosssewn on their shoulders. Besides.john does not use the term ouxopoeopo; (staurophoros)
to describehimsdf, yet he utilizestheir symbols and elementsof their ideologyin his effort to supplant
them in the regions that interest him. On the meaning of the term ouxopocopo; in Byzantium see
A Kolla-Dermitzaki, 'Die Kreuzfahrer und die Kreuzziige im Sprachgebrauch der Byzantiner',JOB41
(1991),171-84.
28 On the crossas a symbol ofJohn II §ee Kinnamos, Epitome, 13, n.19-20; 20, n. 9-16; Choniates,
Historia, I, 19,n. 94--95; 28-31, n. 26-15; Lt'JvOtPL'; XpOVLKIj, 195,11.20-26;202-203,11. 29-4; Italikos,
Lettres,264--5, n. 9-10; Basilakes, GIi encoml, 114--6, n. 730-798; Prodromos,Historische Gedichte, 224--5,
n.152-172;AnonymiAuetoris 11,85-6. See also Kolia-Dermltzakl, IEp6~ 1T6AEpO';, 333-4, and Auge,
Politique religieuse, 232-4, 236-7; Lamma, Comneni e Stazifer, 30-3. On Jerusalem as an indicationof the
'holywar'characterofJohn Il's expedition, seealsoKolia-Derrnitzaki,IEp6~ 7t6AEPO~, 335-7; Auge,'La
reconquete', 324-6. On the cross that John II brought back as a spoilfrom Shayzar, see note 27 above.
29 Choniates,Historia, I, 42,11. 20-31, 39, n. 29-36. C£ Lt'JvOtPL'; XPOVLKIj, 212,11.3-13and 212,I.
26-213, I. 1; Basilakes, on encomi, 99,11. 285-291; Schreiner, Kleinchroniken, 57,11.1-2(2);]. Darrouzes,
'Conferencesur la prlrnautedu pape ~ Constantinopleen 1357', REB 19 (1961),90.
THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OFJOHN11KOMNENOS 45
the Romans (Le.Byzantines) and the Christians in general, in tandem with an effort
to reclaim the empire's lost territories."
Some of the sources of the period also presented John's crusading qualities in
other ways.The emperor was depicted as heir and successor to such Biblical person-
ages as Moses and David.just like Moses, John had been chosen to lead his people
to the Promised Land. The Old Testament prophets foretell his victories over the
infidels,while his campaigns against the Turks were conducted in order to punish
them for their offences against Christ and the Mother of God, who helped John in
these struggles."
I believe that the sole purpose of the triumphal procession the emperor con-
ducted during his second entrance into Antioch in 1138, after the failed siege of
Shaizar, was to stress the fact that the role of Crusader had been taken away from
the Latins and had now been adopted by him." I suspect that Choniates is once
again referring to a triumph during John's first entrance into Antioch, after his
victories against the Turks, in 1138, as he writes, 'and on making his entrance into
the beautiful city of Antioch through which the Orontes River flows and the west
wind blows, he was welcomed by prince Raymond and the entire city populace's"
If this is true, then it clearly reinforces the claim that John's triumphal entrance
was conducted mainly to stress his Crusader status. Triumphs were ceremonies that
only took place after important imperial victories and when the emperor sought to
underline that particular military success and surround it with ideological connota-
tions." Performing two triumphal processions within a space of only a few months
in the same city, a city other than Constantinople, which was the main venue for
triumphs, was done to clarify his intentions towards the Latins."
30 Basilakes, en encomi, 121, ll. 925-928; 122, ll. 955-958; Choniates, Hlstoria, I, 31, ll. 16-27;
r.iJvOI/)/(; XpOVtlCTj, 203,11.14-19; Italikos,Lettres, 265-266, ll.18-29; William ofTyre,Deeds, 97.Kolia-
Dermitzaki, Iepo; rr6Ael10t;, 332-3. See alsoL. Oeconomos, La vie religieuse dansl'Empirebyzantinau
temps des Comnenes et des Anges(Parls,1918; repr.New York, 1972),13,who agrees with the attribution
toJohn II of the characterof a Crusader.
,31 Basilakes, GIiencomi, 95,11.182-191; 102,11.374-390; 110,ll. 604-615; 116,11.785-798; 117,11.
800-804;119,1. 885;120,1. 893;120--123,11. 899-974; Basilakes, Orationes, 86,1.30--87,1.2; 91,11. 13-19;
Prodromos, Historiscbe Gedichte, 204,1. 131-205,1. 140; 205,11.158-160;215,1. 62-217,1. 100;221, 11.
17-20; 272, 1. 21-273, 1.40; 290, 1.41-299, 1. 400; 325,1. 1-326,1. 16. On the emperor as defender of
Christ cf. Magdalino,'ByzantineKaiserkritik', 337-9.
32 Choniates,Historia, I, 31, 11. 16-27; L6vollltt; XpovncTj, 203,11. 14-19; Basilakes, Gliencomi, 121,
I. 913-122,1.947;Italikos,Lettres, 265, 1. 18-266,1.29;William ofTyre,Deeds, 97.
33 Choniates,Historia, I, 27,11. 2-6. See also Oeconomos, La vie religieuse, 13-4.
34 On triumphs in generalsee McCormick,Eternalvictory.
35 See the chapter by Magdalino in this volume. Chonlates, Historia, I, 27, 11. 2-6; 31, ll. 16-27;
LiJvOllltt; XpOVtlCTj, 203,ll.14-19; Basilakes, Gliencomi, 121-122, ll.913-947;1talikos, Lettres, 265-266,
ll. 18-29; William of Tyre, Deeds, 97. See also Oeconomos, La vie religieuse, 13-14. On triumphs in
general see McConnick, Eternalvictory. On the events that took place in the East during the reign of
Alexios I, seefor instanceC. Cahen, Orientet Occident autemps des Croisades (Paris,1983),53-92; Cahen,
Pre-Ottoman Thrkey, 72-93; Chalandon,Alexis 1",134-6,146-9, 254-6,263-{), 268-71; S.Vryonis, 7be
decline of MedievalHellenism in Asia Minor and theprocess ofIslamization from the eleventh through the
fifteenth century (Berkley/Los Angeles/London, 1971),H napalCl1Tj tOV I1EGaU.tlVtlCOV EAA1)VtGI1DV
46 ANGELIKI PAPAGEORGIOU
, Summing up so far, I believe that the emperor attempted to present himself in

the guise of a Crusader, not so much for the benefit of his fellow-Byzantines, for
whom crusading was not an end in itself and was not included in their ideological
baggage, but vis-a-vis the Latins who populated and dominated the Crusader states.
The Latin sources actually state that it was the Latins themselves who invited John
to help them, recognizing in fact his rights not only over the region of Antioch,
but also - indirectly - overJerusalem, the Crusaders' own key objective.Thus, in his
effort to take advantage of the weaknesses and difficulties that the Crusader states
faced, the emperor found it expedient to present himself as a Crusader, solely for
the purpose ofimposing Byzantine suzerainty over regions that the empire believed
belonged to it by right. Consequently, the role of Crusader for John was nothing
more than a means towards the end of realizing the goals of his foreign policy.
The objectives ofJohn's second campaign in Cilicia and Antioch extended also
towards Jerusalem. If the emperor were to gain control of Jerusalem, he would
achieve his greatest goal, i.e. the incorporation of all the Crusader states within
the Byzantine sphere of influence. John wished this union to be brought about
smoothly, with the consent of the leaders of the Crusader states. When diplomatic
measures failed, John meant to use his army to enforce his plans, but these were
interrupted by his death."
It is time to look in more detail at the some of the innovations that John intro-
duced in order to pursue these objectives.We have already seen that he performed
a triumph in Constantinople in 1133, after the capture of Kastamon. 371his was
a revival of a practice harking back to the glorious past of the Byzantines. The
ceremony consisted of the triumphal entrance of the army and the emperor, fol-
lowed by plunder and prisoners, and their procession through the streets of the
aTlI MLKpaAala KaL 11 6La6LKaala E~LaAa/lLa/lOV (11°< -15"< aLc.Jvac;) (Athens, 1996),103-6. See
alsoA.G. Savvides, 'Kilij ArslanI of Rum,Byzantines, Crusadersand Danishmendids,A.D.1092-1107',
Bu~avnva 21 (2000),365-77, who examines Kilij Arslan's career from his rise to power (1092) to
his death (1107) and places the signing of the peacetreaty with A1exios I between the years 1104 and
1105/1106.
36 WUliam of Tyre, Deeds, 126-7; LVvOl/lLC; XpOVLK7'1, 212, 11. 3-13; Basilakes, Gli encomi, 99,11.
285-91. See also Schreiner, Kleincbroniken, 57, 11. 1-2 (2). According to Choniates, Historia, I, 39, 11.
29-36,42,11.20-31, the aims of the campaign were twofold: 'The ostensible purpose of this expedition
wasto establish a better disposition of Armenia and to reaffirm the loyalty of the citiesand fortresses of
which he had taken possession in hisearliercampaign up from the coast,but the realpurposebehind this
well-plannedtroop movementwaskept concealed. He had always had a burning desireto unite Antioch
to Constantinopleand then to visit the holy lands trodden by God and adorn the life-giving tomb of
the Lord with precious gifts,and, in addition, to clearawaythe barbarians round about whereJohn 11,
during his speechon the succession, refersto the aims of his campaign, includingPalestineamongthem'
(Choniates, 0 City ojByzantium, 22). Various opinionshavebeen stated regardingthe death ofJohn 11.
However, there is no evidence to imply that John 11 was murdered. On this issuesee also R. Browning,
'The death ofJohn 11 Comnenus',Byzantion 31 (1961),229-35.
37 Choniates, Hlstoria, I, 27,11.2-6; 31,11. 16-27; LVvOl/lLC; XpOVLK7'1, 203, 11. 14-19; Basilakes,
Gli encomi, 121-2,11.913-947; ltalikos, Lettres, 265-6, 11.18-29;WUliam of Tyre,Deeds, 97. See also
Oeconomos, La vie religieuse, 13-4.
city as far as the church of Hagia Sophia.There is some slight evidence that a tri-
umphal procession was also conducted again in 1139, after the emperor's victorious
return from a campaign against the Turks, with his rebellious brother Isaac in tow.
Choniates refers to the event, but in a rather vague way. However, one may deduce
from the context that a triumph did take place in Constantinople in 1139. It is
equally possible that a triumphal procession was also organised in 1141 after the
emperor's return from Neocaesarea, a conclusion drawn from the verses ofTheodore
Prodromes."
It is a notable fact that john II performed triumphs only after victories against
the Turks. None of these victories had any lasting effects, since after every success-
ful Byzantine campaign the Turks would rally and recapture the territories that had
been temporarily occupied by the Byzantine army. However, in the case of wars
against the Hungarians, Serbs or even Armenians in Cilicia, in other words, military
operations that clearly bore far more long-lasting results, we have no information
regarding any triumphs that might have been organised in Constantinople, because
in all probability such ceremonies never took place."
Nevertheless, despite this apparent contradiction,]ohn's aim in conducting these
triumphal processions is clear enough. The emperor wished to appear to his people
38 Choniates, Historla, I, 18, L 78-19, I. 2; 32, I. 55-33, I. 60: 'Entering Constantinople with his
brother,John did not rejoice any more as a returning conqueror than he did in the return of his brother.
His subjects commingled their praises out of respect for the emperor, not only extolling his trophies and
offering thanks to God who marched along with him and preserved him as victor, but rejoicing also for
his brother's homecoming.' I believe that in the aforementioned lines, where Choniates refers to John's
return from Neocaesarea, there are indications of a triumphal procession having been conducted. Cr.
Kinnamos, Epitome, 13,1.15-14, I. 2; LVvOtPU; XpOVLKt), 195, n. 11-29; Prodromos, Historiscb« Gedichte,
196,11.118-128; 201, 1.1-202,1. 50; 221,1. 37-226,1. 220; 310,1. 1-316,1. 199. See also for instance
Prodromos, Historiscbe Gedichte, 310, the heading: 'Verses to the emperor's return, when he was also
about to besiege Caesarea, if starvation and the winter had not taken their toll on both horses and troops',
and 313, 1.112-314,1. 121. I believe that the aforementioned verses allude to a triumph. The same sense
permeates the entire poem ofProdromos.
39 In 1124, Emir Giimiishtigin Gazi (1104-1134), the second ruler of the Danishmend state in
central-eastern Anatolia, took over Melitene and decided to expand his territories towards the Euphrates
valley. In the meantime, his ally Masoud, the sultan ofIconium, was being attacked by his brother Arab
and fled in the Byzantine court, where John welcomed him and, according to the sources (Michael the
Syrian, Chronique deMichel leSyrien, patriarchejacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199), ed. and tr, J.- B. Chabot
(3 vols., Paris, 1899-1905; repr. Brussels, 1963), Il, 223-224; Bar Hebraeus, The chronography ofGregory
Abf/lFaraj, theson of'Aaron, theHebrew physician commonly known asBarHebraeus, being thefirstpart of
hispoliticalhistory oftheworld, tr. E.A.w' Budge (2 vols., London, 1932), I, 251-253), offered him money
and troops against his brother Arab. With these resources Masoud joined forces with Gazi, and they
managed to drive out Arab, who fled to the Armenian Thoros. In 1127 Arab once again attacked Gazi
and failed. Following the example of his opponent Masoud, he too went to Constantinople, where he
eventually died. The sources do not mention John's reaction in this case.Judging, however, by his previ-
ous actions, he must have accepted him in a way similar to Masoud's, but due to the untimely death of
Arab, the latter did not have the opportunity to benefit. On the question see Papageorgiou, 'IwaVVllC; B'
KOf!VTJv6C;', ch. 10, with exhaustive literature and sources. See also Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 93-6;
Chalandon, LesComnene 11, 39-47, 79-91; Lilie, Crusader states, 100; Vryonis, I1apalC/it), 107-8, 135,
140,144-6.
48 ANGELIKIPAPAGEORGIOU
as a defender of the faith and this could have been substantiated only by his wars
against the Turkish infidels. John knew that any results from his campaigns against
them would most probably be ephemeral, yet he felt compelled to proceed with
them, since, as we have already seen, apart from his effort to reclaim Asia Minor or
at least to hold the Turks at bay within certain boundaries, he had also assumed the
role of Crusader and had placed the Virgin Mary in the service of the Byzantine
army, therefore he was obliged to find a way to justify that role.40 Thus, it was neces-
sary to avoid the symbolism of a triumph when he won significant battles against
other Christians and only organize triumphal processions after his victories -
however insignificant they might have been - against the Turks, in order to high-
light his role as defender of the faith and stress the necessity ofwar against them, a
war to which, as we have seen, he attributed the character of a Crusade."
The exact same purpose was also served by yet another of John's measures, as
described by Niketas Choniates. According to the historian, after his defeat of the
Pechenegs John established an annual celebration as an act of remembrance. 42 His
victorywas indeed ofcardinal importance, because it rid Byzantium ofan enemy that
had been plundering the empire's Danubian provinces for decades." Furthermore,
40 Other supporters of this interpretation include Chalandon, 'Later Comneni', 353, 360; Cahen,
Pre-Ottoman Turkey, 91-3, and P. MagdaIino, 'The Byzantine empire 1118-1204', in D. Luscombe and
J. Riley-Smith (eds.),New Cambridge Medievalhistory, IY.2, 615-7. See esp. R.-J. Lilie, 'Twelfth-century
Byzantine and Turkish states', BF 16 (1991),36-9,43-6,49-50, with detailed analysis of this posi-
tion. Furthermore, M. Amouroux-Mourad, Le ComU d'Edesse, 1098-1150 (Paris, 1988), 80-2, as well
as Auge, Chalandon and Makk, claim that John's purpose was to bring the imperial frontier back to
the Euphrates. A similar position has been taken by U. Criscuolo, 'La politica orientale di Giovanni
II Comneno alla luce di nuovi testi di Michele Italico', Annali della Facolta di Letterse Filosojia della
Universita di Macerata 5-6 (1972-1973),542-5,551-2, who also adds that the wars of John II against
the Turks were equivalent to the Western Crusades. I have to note that John's role as Crusader was
intended for the Crusader states and not for the Byzantine population. To his people John appeared as
defender of the faith, a role common to the Byzantine emperors, as the Byzantines did not care about
the crusading idea.
• 1 Regarding 'Holy War' in Byzantium see in general Kolia-Dermltzaki, lepo; noi\epoc;. See also
Stouraitis, Kriegund Frieden; Idem, 'Legitimierung und Rechtfertigung von Krieg und Frieden in byz-
antinischer Zeit', in A Obenaus and C. Kaindel (eds.), Kriegim mittelalterlichen Abendland (Vienna,
2010),331-53; Idem, 'Biirgerkrieg in ideologischer Wahrnehmung durch die Byzantiner: Die Frage der
Legitimierung und Rechtfertigung',JOB 60 (2010),141-72; Idem, 'Jihlld and Crusade', 11-63; Idem,
just War" and "Holy War"', 227-64. See also his article in the present volume. Even though Stouraitis
has written widely on the notion of 'Holy War' in Byzantium, in my opinion his main arguments are
highly debatable, and I agree with the points made by A. Kolia-Dermltzakl, IeQ6<; 7t6Aeflo~, and also
N. Chrissis, 'Byzantine Crusaders: Holy war and Crusade rhetoric in Byzantine contacts with the West
(1095-1341)', in A. Boas (ed.), 17:Je Crusader world (London, forthcoming) on the subject.
'2 Choniates, Historia,I, 15,1. 94-16,1.14; LVv01p!C; XpOVLlQl, 193,1l.11-14.
'3 It is true that A1exios I's 1092 victory over the Pechenegs is more widely known than that ofJohn
II in 1122. In my opinion, this is to a great degree due to Anna Comnena and her colourful descrip-
tion of the events. The fact that the victory of 1122 is not as well known is mainly due to the paucity of
the sources describing John's achievements. The emperor did not have a personal chronicler, as A1exios
I had his daughter or Manuel I had John Klnnamos, Nevertheless, his contemporaries felt the need to
record his victory and the commemorative celebration he instituted, because it was indeed a memorable
r
THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF JOHN 11KOMNENOS 49
it freed the Byzantines from the financial drain they were suffering because of the
depredations of the Pechenegs, and restored a sense ofsecurity to the inhabitants of
Thrace and Macedonia. However, the institution of an annual celebration had the
further aim of reminding the citizens of the Byzantine empire that it was John Il
Komnenos who had saved them from the Pechenegs. By establishing this celebra-
tion,John confirmed one more time his role as defender of the Byzantines and an
effective soldier-emperor. Therefore, the celebration basically served the exact same
purpose as the triumphs.
It can be seen, then, that John aimed at investing himselfwith the qualities of a
hero and having his imperial rule imitate those times the Byzantines looked upon
as heroic, Le. the reigns ofJustinian, Heraclius, John I Tzimiskes and Basil Il, the
'Bulgar-Slayer'. His intention to emulate Tzimiskes during the triumphal proces-
sion of 1133 has already been mentioned. John, did, however manage to give a
new meaning to this revival, as we may deduce from a passage in Kinnamos, who
describes it as 'a wonder for the Byzantines to see, something I think they had
not previously witnessed since the Herakleians and Justinians guided the Romans'
realm'." An icon described in the codex Marcianus graecus 524 depicted Alexios I,
John Il and Basil the Bulgar-Slayer.v It should be noted here that the choice of soldier-
emperor Basil Il was probably not accidental, since the Komnenoi had strong ties
with the Bulgar-Slayer: Alexios I's great-grandfather, Manuel Erotikos, the first to
receive the family name Komnenos, and his brother Nikephoros faithfully served
Emperor Basil, while the latter took under his wing Manuel's sons after their father
died. At the same time, we should not forget that Basil Il's legacy is partly due to
works ofhistoriography composed during the reigns of Alexios I and John Il.46
John's intention to be looked upon as a hero is also evident from the construction
in the Monastery of Pantokrator of a mausoleum, a building which the emperor
himself called an beroon:" John's court orators and panegyrists also went out of
their way to portray the emperor as a hero. Apart from employing the term itself,
they also used other means to prove their claim. Often they simply described John's
tireless efforts on the field ofbatde in the service of his subjects, while at the same
time John was compared to Hercules and other heroes of Greek and Roman antiq-
uity (and was found to be superior). Finally, Theodore Prodromos, the emperor's
poet laureate, never missed the opportunity to stress the fact that, even when sick,
event of his reign. On Alexios I's victory over the Pechenegs see also E. Malamut, 'L'imagebyzantine
des Petchenegues', BZ 88 (1995),105-42; Stephenson,Byzantiums Balkanfrontier, 29-31, 89-105. Cf.
Chalandon,LesComnene11,103-9,112-7,123-9.
44 Kinnamos, Epitome, 13,1.20-14,1. 2.
45 Lempros.D MaQKlaVo,; KWbL!; 524', 3-59,113-192, at 127,11.1-128,1.17; 173,11.1-11.

46 P.Stephenson,The legend ofBasiltheBulgar-slayer (Cambridge,2003),86--8. For references to the
hero-emperorsee Macridesand Magdalino,'Fourth Kingdom', 137;Magdalino and Nelson,'Emperor',
169-70. See alsothe chapter by Papadopoulou in this volume.
47 Gautier,'Le Typicon Pantocrator',11. 728-33. Cf. G. Schreiber, 'Byzantinisches und abendlan-
disches Hospital. Zur Spitalordnungdes Pantocrator und zur byzantinischen Medizin', BZ 42 (1942),
123-4.
50 ANGELIKl PAPAGEORGIOU
the emperor continued to fight successfullyv The goal ofJohn Komnenos was to
impress in the minds ofhis subjects an image ofhimself as a soldier-emperor fight-
ing for justice, for the glory of Byzantium, the prosperity of its citizens and the
protection of the true Faith. The entire political ideology of the emperor revolved
around this axis,and his every action was aimed, as we have seen, at reinforcing this
particular position.
Apart from self-promotion and securing his imperial legacy, John aimed at
ensuring a smooth succession to the throne. It appears that the notion of heredi-
tary succession had already been established since the last years of the Macedonian
dynasty" However, both Alexios I and John II tried to combine the idea of heredi-
tary rule with the additional virtue ofmerit. A case in point is the dialogue between
the dying Alexios I and his consort, the augusta Eirene Doukaina, when the latter
was attempting to convince him to declare his son-in-law, Nikephoros Bryennios,
as his successor instead of his own son John:
Or rather come, let us take counsel together and see which of the former Roman
emperors who had a son suited to take over the reins ofgovernment set him aside and
chose instead his son-in-law? And even should this have happened at sometime in the
past, we still ought not to recognize rare precedent as binding law. All the Romans
would laugh aloud at me and conclude that I had lost my senses should I, who gained
the throne in an unpraiseworthy manner by denying the rights of consanguinity and
the principles of Christian laws, when it came time to leave a succession, replace the
child of my loins with the Macedonian.so
<8 Ita1ikos, Lettres, 173,1.1-174,1. 10; Basilakes, GHencomi, 90,n. 32-39; 104, ll, 438-444; 115,
11.766-772; Basilakes, Orationes, 116, 1.13-117,1.14; Prodromes, Historiscbe Gedichte, 202, 11. 41-50;
203,11.68-70; 206,n.171-190; 254,1.21-255,1.50;266,11.47-49; 278,1. 25-279,1. 61; 279,1. 80-280,
1. 84; 290, ll, 121-130; 293, ll, 209-222. It should be noted here that similar characterizations were
also made by the orators and Theodore Prodromos for John's successor, Manuel 1. Beyond the obvious
rhetorical exaggeration and the celebratory character common to all these texts addressed to John
and Manuel, I believe that the orators' choice of presenting the Komnenian emperors as heroes is not
accidental. The presentation in question must have been instigated, either directly or indirectly, by the
emperor himself, whose aim was to appear to his subjects as a worthy ruler, of the same calibre as those
of the heroic Byzantine past (represented by the emperors of the Macedonian dynasty and earlier still
by Justinian and Heracllus), in an effort to revive the model of soldier-emperor. On Manuel see for
instance I talikos, Lettres, 287, 1.23-288, I. 15. For the new direction of Komnenian political ideology,
emphasizing military virtues, see also P. Magdalino, '!he empire ofManuel I Kamnenas, 1143-1180
(Cambridge, 1993), H canoxpatopia 'rov MavovljA A' KO/-lV1Jvov 1143-1180 (Athens, 2008),
653-85 and esp. 661-5; Kazhdan and Epstein, AAAaye~, 178-86; Mullett, 'The imperial vocabulary
ofAlexios 1 Komnenos', 359-97.
49 On the issue of imperial acclamation during the period in question see A. Christophilopoulou,
E/CAoylj, avay6pevat~ /Ca! a'rEt/Ju; 'roill3v~aV'l:LVOil aV'ro/Cpa'r0po~ (Athens, 1956), esp, 157-61;
207-9; 229. On the idea ofeo-emperor (av/-ll3aatAevt;) cf.G. Ostrogorsky, 'AutokratorJohannes II und
Basileus Alexios', SK 10 (1938), 179-83. On hereditary succession see also N. Svoronos, 'Le serment de
fidelite al'empereur byzantin et la signification constitutionelle', in N. Svoronos,Etudessurl'organisation
inurieure, la socilteet l'economic del'Empire byzantin (London, 1973), 117,123-4.
50 Chonlates, Historia, I, 5, 1.14-6,1. 22. Cf. Prodromos, Historistbe Gedichte, 323, ll, 13-14.
These words of Alexios show that hereditary succession as an institution had

by then been established in the minds of the Byzantines, since the emperor men-
tions.that 'all the Romans' ("Co JIavpw/-laLOv) would laugh at him, if he chose his
son-in-law over his own son. Nevertheless, even though he appeared to espouse the
argument stated above, Alexios himself also noted that his son, John, was worthy
(ap/-l66LO<;) of coming to power. Therefore, the emperor maintained that, beyond
hereditary claims, the future emperor ought to possess all those characteristics that
are the mark of a capable leader.
On the other hand, John II placed more weight on leadership skills and clearly
stated that primogeniture alone does not qualify one for the throne; the emperor
must possess the quality ofexcellence (apw"Co<;) and serve as a model to his people.
John himself felt the need to justify his decision to name his younger son Manuel
as heir and successor instead of the elder son Isaac, a fact that shows how deeply
rooted in Byzantine mentality was the notion of hereditary rule and primogeni-
ture.!' A characteristic commentary on the issue of hereditary succession may be
found in the first sentences of the speech the emperor gave when he appointed
Manuel as his successor:
Romans who have assembled for this audience with me: that it has seemed proper to
many other of our emperors to transfer the office of ruler to their sons like an ancestral
inheritance, I myself know, since I received authority from my father the emperor, and
each of you know that the same [was done] by me in this case. So you imagine that
I also, who have reached as you see the end of the present life, have transmitted the
office and throne to the elder of the two sons who remain to me, as is mankind's cus-
tom.... So I myself have a preference in regard to you. Here is proof: behold, for your
benefit, as is speedily required, I am ready to do injustice to nature. Both my sons are
excellent, and one of them has precedence in age. But good sense rejects the elder and
pursues the better, and teaches that excellence corresponds to excellence. Of all things
this struggle is difficult, to try to obtain the best. Since one must assign the better part
to the best person (for what else would one esteem more honorable than empire?), I
would wish, fellow soldiers, that perfection of excellence rather belonged to the elder.
But the decision looks toward the youngest, and the empire's standard of excellence
points rather to the latest born. 52
SI Kinnamos, Epitome, 26, 1. 2-28, 1. 16; Choniates, Historia, I, 42, 1. 20-46, 1. 40 and more to the
point 43, 1. 71-44,1. 81; l:Vv0VJLC; XpOV!K~, 212, 1.3-215,1. 6; Schreiner, Kleinchroniken, 58, 11. 10-24.
It should be noted here that the notion of hereditary succession was not foreign to the Byzantines. A
casein point is the reactionof the people of Constantinopleduring the rule of the Macedoniandynasty,
whenever a usurper attempted to take the throne from the legitimatedescendantsof BasilI, evenwhen
thosedescendantswerewomen (seefor example the eventsthat led to the riseand fall ofMichael V,who
hadbeen adopted by Empress Zoe: A. Christophilopoulou,BvCavnv~ Iatopu» B 2, 867-1081 [Athens,
1988],206-10). However,in the decadesthat precededthe Komnenianera this notion had lost ground.
Furthermore,hereditary succession was never enshrined in Byzantinelaw. Consequendy, I believe that
its revival was the work of the Komnenoi.See Stankovicin this volume.
52 Kinnamos,Epitome, 26,1. 5-27,1. 8; tr, Brand, Deeds ofJohnandManuel; 29.
52 ANGEUKI PAPAGEORGIOU
Thus,John justified his decision to name Manuel as his successor by attributing

it to God's will and brought up examples from the Old Testament, where younger
sons had been sometimes favoured by divine choice. At the same time, he referred to
monks foretelling Manuel's rise to the throne.P John's choice fell within the wider
framework of his policy of assigning an important role to family, but putting abil-
ity before blood relation. This notion was consistent with the wider beliefs of the
military aristocracy that came to the forefront after the Komnenoi rose to power.
To summarize, the political ideology of John H Komnenos was based on and
shaped by his effort to attribute to the army a role larger than the one it played dur-
ing most of the eleventh century since the death of Basil H. John counted on the
army to achieve the goals of his foreign policy,but also to direct his domestic policy.
He used his military victories for domestic consumption and promoted himselfas a
soldier-emperor who strived for the glory of Byzantium, the Romans and the true
Faith. He used various means in order to fulfil these aims, and it seems that those
means were ultimately fruitful, since in the minds of both his contemporaries and
modern researchers John is consistently presented as an able military ruler. Niketas
Choniates' characterization is apt and to the point:
He has been deemed praiseworthy by all, even to our own times, the crowning glory, so
to speak, of the Komnenian dynasty to sit on the Roman throne, and one might well
say that he equalled some of the best emperors of the past and surpassed the others. S4
53 Chonlates,Historia, I, 44,11. 79-88; 45,11.26-29.

54 Choniates,Historia, I, 47,11. 82-85.
5
Thetriumph of 1133
Paul Magdalino
Public opinion in the late twelfth century remembered John II as the best of the
Komnenoi, and among the best emperors of all time. 'Thiswas mainly, according to
Choniates, because he refrained from administering capital punishment or corporal
mutilation.' But reading Choniates, one forms the impression thatJohn's reputation
was based on a general appreciation that his was a regime of substance rather than
style;here was an emperor who got things done and did all the right things without
great fanfare, expense or extravagant display of authority. Notably, it was his tight
financial management and disciplined organization of the armed forces that made
possible the more flashy exploits of his successor, Manuel J.2 Yet in one respect,
John II also anticipated the ceremonial magnificence for which Manuel's reign
was remembered: his government revived the ceremony of the imperial triumph in
order to celebrate the emperor's return from his victorious Anatolian campaign in
1133, which resulted in the temporary reconquest of Kastamon.
The triumph of 1133 is interesting for several reasons. It was the revival of
a traditional Roman institution that had not been performed in Byzantium for
almost a hundred years.' It was thus a conscious statement of imperial renewal,
and its intended significance is summed up in the comment by the historian John
Kinnamos that the citizens of Constantinople had not seen such a spectacle since
the days ofJustinian and Heraclius." Yet although the triumph of 1133 was undoubt-
edly modelled on precedents going back from the eleventh to the sixth century and
possibly earlier, it shows some striking variations on earlier examples that are known
to us, notably in the route followed by the procession. These apparent innovations
have not received the attention or the explanation they deserve. More generally, the
I Choniates, Historia, 47.

2 Choniates, Historia, 59-60, 77; on John's reputation for mild punishment, see also Michael
Choniates, MLxa~A Jl.KopLva'tov 'toO X",vLa'tov 'ta a",~6pEva, ed. S.P. Lampros (2 vols., Athens,
1879-1880), I, 318.
3 For the tradition up to the eleventh century, see McCormick, Eternalvictory.
• Kinnamos, Epitome, 13-4.
From John 11 Komnenos, Emperor ofByzantium: In the Shadow ofFather and Son. Copyright © Paul
Magdalino. Published by Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN.
53
54 PAULMAGDAllNO
triumph of 1133 deserves to be better studied because it is exceptionally well docu-

mented. Not only is it recorded in the two main historical narratives of the period,
the histories of Kinnamos and Choniatee,' but we also have four poems that were
written on and for the occasion:
• An encomiastic narrative in heroic verse of the victory being celebrated (H Ill).

• A set ofacclamations in fifteen-syllable 'political' verse addressed to the emperor
by the circus factions, and probably sung during the procession (H IV).
• A petition in 'political' verse from the circus factions to the emperor, beseeching
him to ride in the chariot that had been prepared for him (H V).
• A description of the triumphal procession in heroic verse (H VI).6
Not the least exceptional characteristic of these poems is that they were all
composed by one of Byzantium's best-known authors, Theodore Prodromes."
The aim of this article is to evaluate the four Prodromic poems as documents
for the triumph of 1133. This means, in the first place, analysing the information
they provide on the material details, the social organization and the ideological
significance of the event. In second place, it is necessary to consider the poems as
a phenomenon: as the literary creation of a famous poet who was commissioned
to write the script for an elaborately staged public event. This will lead us, finally,
to examine the phenomenon, both as script and as event, in its historical context:
the context of the ceremonial tradition to which it referred and belonged, and the
context of policy making under John II Komnenos.
Therealia of the triumph

All the 'hard'information on the ceremony is contained in the heroic verse ekphrasis,
which is the last in the series of four poems, evidently written after the event and
recited on a separate occasion. The text is structured as follows:
I (1-9) Exordium: the poet appeals to his narrative voice to cease telling of die
emperor's exploits in battles, and to narrate the wondrous works of the great
procession.
II (10-20) The emperor, having brought his campaign to a successful close with
the recapture of Kastamon and the submission of the Turks, heads for home.
III (21-28) The city anticipates the emperor's homecoming; crowds of men and
women turn out to greet him on the foreshore of the Propontis crossing, near
the 'Columns'.
IV (29-56) Preparations for the triumph: cleaning and decorating the triumphal
route, people of every condition line the streets.
5 Ibid.; Choniates, Historia, 18-9.

6 A translation is provided at the end of this article.
7 Prodromes, Historische Gedichte, 181-228, nos. 3-6, referred to hereafter in the text as HIlI-VI.
THE TRIUMPH OF 1133 55
V (57-104) Preparations for the triumph; ekphrasis of the gilded silver chariot
that was constructed in the palace; composition of prose and verse panegy-
rics to crown the emperor with a garland of wisdom, to which the author
contributed.
VI (105-147) The emperor's entry through the gilded Acropolis gate; evocation
ofthe spectators; the first part ofthe triumphal procession - Byzantine soldiers,
riders impersonating the Turkish leaders, the captive Turkish princesses, the
war-booty loaded on mules, the clergy chanting victory hymns.
VII (148-187) The second part ofthe procession: the four demes in their coloured
uniforms, singing metrical songs; the senate; the emperor in civilian robes,
holding a cross and a scroll; the emperor's son and crowned heir, Alexios, and
his three other sons.
VIII (188-198) The Patriarch in his vestments, struggling valiantly to keep up,
despite age and infirmity.
IX (199-210) The poet once more appeals to his narrative voice to describe the
climax of the procession, the triumphal chariot, which the emperor has ceded
to the icon of the Theotokos.
X (211-220) The end of the procession at Hagia Sophia, where the emperor
changes robes and bearing a candle enters the sanctuary with the Patriarch.
Having left his crown on the altar, he departs to the Palace.
The-general sequence of events - homecoming, welcome reception, grand entry,

processionofthe victor with captives and spoils through streets festooned with green-
ery and lined with admiring crowds - is standard, but almost every detail is unprec-
edented or has a new twist when compared with descriptions ofprevious triumphs.
Topogmphy
All descriptions of previous triumphs indicate that the procession entered the city
from the west, through a gate in the Theodosian land walls, which in all but one
casewas the Golden Gate near their southern end." In this, the triumph followed
the inauguration route taken by emperors who began their reign with an acclama-
tion outside the city.? notable examples before the twelfth century are Leo I in
457,10 Phokas in 602,11 and Nikephoros II in 963,12 The triumph of 1133 followed
8 C. Mango, 'The triumphal way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate', DOP 54 (2000), 173-88.
9 See G. Dagron, Emperor andpriest: 'Ihe imperial office in Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003), 60-5, 70-1,
72-4.
10 Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De cerimonlis aulae byzantinae, ed. ].]. Reiske (2 vols., Bonn,
1829-30), I, 410-417, hereafter De cerimoniis; English translation by Ann Moffatt and Maxeme Tall,
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, 'Ibe book ofceremonies (2 vols., Canberra 2012), reproducing the text of the
Reiske's edition with the same pagination.
11 Theophylaktos Simocatta, Historia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1887), 303; Cbroniton Pascbale, ed.
1. Dindorf (2 vols., Bonn, 1832), I, 693; Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (2 vols., Leipzig,
1883-1885), I, 289.
12 De cerimoniis, I, 433-40.
56 PAULMAGDAUNO
a diametrically opposite course, starting at the Acropolis Gate near the eastern tip
ot the historic peninsula ofIstanbul. This marks, on the face of it, a radical inn ova-
tion. However, the tenth-century treatise on imperial expeditions allows for the
senate to go and greet the homecoming emperor at the Strategion, which assumes
that he has disembarked somewhere close to the tip of the peninsula." The place
where John H disembarked in 1133 was marked, moreover, by two imposing
monuments that clearly predated the occasion, and suggest a pre-existing cere-
monial importance." One was the two-tiered colonnade described by Prodromos
at the landing-point; he calls it a neQLbQoflo<; (peridromos) which suggests either
a Sigma portico or a straight colonnade with forward projections at each end."
The other was the monumental gateway through which John H entered the city.
From late medieval and early modern records of this structure, demolished in the
nineteenth century, we know that this was flanked by two imposing marble-faced
towers, and from Prodromos we know that it was closed by two gilded gates. These
can be identified with the city gates ofTarsus that Nikephoros H had brought to
Constantinople and installed in the Acropolis wall, after gilding them, in 965, at
the same time that he had installed the gates of Mopsuestia at the Golden Gate
in the land walls. Thus since the tenth century, if not earlier, the Acropolis Gate,
with its gilded bronze doors, was seen as a pendant to the western Golden Gate, a
symmetry reinforced by the presence ofthe portico on the foreshore, which echoed
the Sigma portico outside the Golden Gate in the Constantinian land wall. The
Acropolis Gate was therefore the eastern Golden Gate of Constantinople, with all
the ceremonial potential that this implied. Unfortunately, we do not know whether
the potential was fulfilled before John H.
We can only speculate, too, as to why the government ofJohn H chose to bring
the emperor into the city by this less used route. It could be that they wished to imi-
tate some previous event, possibly a triumph of Nikephoros H, of which they had
a record that has now been lost. But there were undoubtedly other considerations.
The route from the Acropolis Gate to Hagia Sophia, being much shorter than that,
from the Golden Gate, was easier and cheaper to clean and decorate, and could be
covered with much less time and effort, which was important for a cortege whose
most important members - including the emperor himself and an infirm and aging
Patriarch.john IX Agapetos - were processing on foot. The route would also have
13 De cerimoniis, I, 497; Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Three treatises onimperial military expeditions,

ed.], Haldon (Vienna, 1990), 138-9; Mango, 'Triumphal way', 178-9.
14 For this and the following, see P. Magdalino, 'The "columns" and the Acropolis Gate: A con-
tribution to the study of the ceremonial topography of Constantinople', in N. Asutay-Etfenberger
and F. Daim (eds.), <Pt,tonanov. Spaziergang im kaiserlichen Garten: Beitrage zu Byzanz und seinen
Nachbarn. FestschriftfUrArm Effenberger zum 70. Geburtstag (Mainz, 2012),147-56.
15 In a forthcoming study, Urs Peschlow discusses some fragments of monumental sculpture found
near the Sarayburnu, which may be the remains of architraves and capitals from the 'columns': 'Am
Kai von Konstantinopel. Reste einer Repriisentationsarchitektur an der Sarayspitze', forthcoming in
Festschriftfor Charalambos Bouras. If the identification is correct, it makes it less likely that the structure
was a Sigma portico.
THE TRIUMPH OF uss 57
taken the procession very close to, if not actually through, the state orphanage. This
had recently been refounded on a large scale by Alexios 1.It was therefore a monu-
ment to the pious, civic benefaction of the Komnenian regime, and its inhabitants
could be counted on to turn out and cheer the Komnenian emperor enthusiastically.
This was especially desirable since they included choirs, both of female deaconesses
and of the boys attending the orphanage school."
The triumph of1133 was also fairly unusual in its destination. In the past, this had
traditionally been the Hippodrome. But there were at least two precedents for end-
ing the procession at Hagia Sophia. These were the triumph that John I Tzimiskes
had celebrated in 971, following his victory over the Rus and the Bulgarians,'? and
the triumph with which Basil 11 had concluded his Bulgarian war in 1019. 18 It is
not impossible that records of these events inspired the procedure in 1133, which
certainly echoed the triumph of 971 in the composition of the procession.
Composition
The triumphal ceremony of 1133 conformed to generic type in being essentially a
parade of the captives, the war booty, and the victorious general. The dressing up
of men to impersonate the enemy leaders who had not been captured was prob-
ably not an innovation, since it is an obvious ploy.John lI's triumph stands out for
its accentuation of the religious element, in which it repeated and developed two
apparently novel features of the triumph celebrated by John I Tzimiskes: the pres-
ence of the clergy and the place of honour given to the icon of the Virgin Mary on
the triumphal chariot. According to Skylitzes, the Patriarch and the synod turned
out with the senate to welcome Tzimiskes on his return; although the very summary
narrative does not say whether the clergy joined the procession, this was probably
the case, as in 1133. We cannot be sure, however, that their participation followed
the same pattern on both occasions - did the LEQOV PfifllX (hieron bema) described
by Prodromos in 1133 include the provincial bishops ofthe ouvoeoc EvbTl/o.lOUalX
(synodos endemousa) in addition to the priests and deacons ofthe Great Church, and
did the Patriarch proceed separately in 971 as he did in 1133, walking at the end of
the cortege just ahead of the triumphal chariot bearing the icon of the Virgin? On
both occasions, the chariot was the main attraction, along with the emperor's care-
fully staged refusal to ride in it. The similarity of the procedure on both occasions,
16 See Comnena, Alexias, 481-5; T.S. Miller, Orphans ofByzantium: Childwelfare in the Christian
Empire (Washington,D.C., 2003), especially chapters 7-8; P.Magdalino,'Innovationsin government',
in Mu1lett and Smythe,Alexios 1,156-64.
17 Leo the Deacon,Historia, ed, C.B.Hase (Bonn,1828),158-9;John Skylitzes, Synopsis historiarum,
ed.H. Thurn (Berlin/NewYork, 1973),310;McCormick,Eternalvictory, 171-4. Most recendy, Anthony
Kaldellis has argued that the two descriptions by the Byzantinehistoriansderive from a lost common
source, a c1assicizing, panegyrical narrative of the Danubian campaignof which the triumph markedthe
concluding celebration: A. Kaldellis, 'The originalsourceforTzimiskes' Balkancampaign(971AD) and
the emperor's c1assicizing propaganda', BMGS 37 (2013),1-18.
18 Skylitzes, Synopsis, 365.
58 PAUL MAGDAUNO
and the lack ofany known precedent, provides a strong argument that the procedure
in 1133 consciously imitated the innovation of 971. The reasons for this innovation
are beyond the scope of this article, although one observation is worth making
in passing. The reintroduction of the chariot for the victorious general is likely to
have had something to do with the ceremonial antiquarianism of the 'Macedonian
Renaissance', and specifically of the man who ran the imperial administration from
963 to 985, Basil the parakoimomenos. 19 Yet it was inseparable from the decision to
honour the Virgin Mary, the heavenly patron of Constantinople, as the true architect
of imperial victory: her icon could not be expected to ride a horse, as was custom-
ary for a human general in this period, and as John Tzimiskes indeed did, having
ostensibly yielded his place in the chariot. Here the imitation of 1133 dramatically
improved on the innovation of 971. John Il, unlike his namesake and predecessor,
not only processed on foot, but walked ahead of the chariot, allowing the Patriarch
and the icon to bring up the rear in the place of greatest honour. Moreover, it is
clear from Prodromos' description that the emperor did not conduct the procession
in triumphal gear. He had changed out of battledress, not into the 'parade uniform'
that is attested for the ninth-century triumphs ofTheophilos and Basil 1,2° but into
his standard 'Sunday best': the normal crown (as opposed to the triumphal toupha
or tiara), the cross-tipped sceptre, the akakia, and also, probably, the loros that went
with these 'sacral' insignia." Thus when he changed his costume again on entering
Hagia Sophia he was doing no more than following the traditional procedure for
attending the Divine Liturgy, and his triumphal progress became little more than
an extended version of his public procession from the palace to attend church on
Sundays and feast days.22
The detailed ekphrasis of the chariot that was specially fashioned for the occa-
sion suggests that the object itselfwas a fairly rare phenomenon. Its model may have
been an older ceremonial chariot kept in the Palace treasury, or, perhaps more likely,
one of the chariots used for racing in the Hippodrome - the only context in which
such vehicles were not redundant in twelfth-century Byzantium.
19 On Basilthe parakoimomenos and his culturalpatronage,seeS.Wander, 1he]oshua roll(Wiesbaden,
2012).I havesuggested elsewhere that it washis idea to installthe trophygatesoITarsus and Mopsuestia
as 'Golden Gates' in.Constantinople:Magdalino,'The "columns",154.The antiquarianism of the 971
celebrationwasnoted by McCormick,Eternal victory, 171-4, and has been discussed more extensively by
Kaldellis, 'The originalsource'.Both scholars focus, however, on the literary reminiscences of Plutarch's
Camillus, rather than on the visualand politicalassociations of the chariot and quadrlga,
20 De cerimoniis, 500, 505; Constantirie Porphyrogennetos, 'Ibree treatises, 142-3 (Basil I), 148-9
(Theophilos). Both emperorswore a 'breastplate-tunic'(epilorikon) and a sword.
21 See M.G. Parani, Reconstructing the reality of images: Byzantine materialculture and religious ico-
nography (11th-15th centuries) (Lelden/Boston, 2003),18-24,27-30,31-3; M.G. Panni, 'Dressed to
kill:Middle Byzantine military ceremonialattire', in A. Odekan, N. Necipoglu,E. Akyiirek(eds.), 1he
Byzantine court: Source ofpowerand culture (Istanbul,2013), 145-56, esp.151-3; Pseudo-Kadinos and the
Constantinopolitan court: Offices and ceremonies, ed. R. Macrides,].A Munitiz, and D. Angelov(Farnham,
2013),345-8. For the toupha or tiara, see also Stephenson, 1helegend of BasiltheBulgar-slayer, 5fr61.
22 De cerimoniis, 187.
Ideology
The presence of the Patriarch and clergy in the procession, as well as the place
of honour given to the icon of the Virgin and the emperor's appearance in his
churchgoing uniform, gave the triumph a pronounced religious character. They
were undoubtedly meant to emphasise the emperor's, and society's, recognition
that his victory and his power depended on divine favour. At the same time their
ideological significance should not be seen in isolation from that of the other ele-
ments of Byzantine society taking part in the event: the emperor's sons, the circus
factions, the senate, and the crowds of cheering spectators. The presence ofJohn's
sons emphasised the legitimacy and continuity of the imperial dynasty; the senate,
the circus factions and the attendant city populace signified the participation of the
city of Constantinople. Together with the Patriarch and clergy and the icon of
the Virgin, the divine protectress of Constantinople, they added up to a statement
that the city was enjoying and deserving a full share in the imperial victory. In
composing and delivering his ekphrasis of the procession,Theodore Prodromos was
putting the statement into words on the city's behal£ He clearly develops his role as
spokesman for the city in the other three poems he wrote for the occasion.
H Ill. In narrating the emperor's heroic victory in the epic language of Homeric
verse, Prodromos presents it as an act of retribution on behalf of Constantinople,
here called Rome. She had wept to see the Turks occupy the whole of the east as
far as the Propontis, and had called on God to avenge her. He heard her prayer, and
sent first Alexios Komnenos and then John to be her champions. John has previ-
ously enlarged Rome's frontiers to include Laodicaea, Sozopolis and other towns;
now he has added Kastamon and other places in Paphlagonia. In return for his
exploits, 'the sacred clergy, the whole populace and the venerable senate' offer the
emperor the silver chariot and horses to ride in, 'and we appeal to you 0 King, on
bended knee, not to be deaf to your mother Rome who now entreats you'.
H IV. This set of twenty-nine ten-line stanzas of political verse is put into
the mouths of the circus-factions (demo~). Each stanza has a separate theme and
addresses a specific addressee, who is mostly the emperor (15), followed by the city
and its people (7), while in the remaining cases the poet apostrophises the defeated
Turks (3), the reconquered territories (3), and the emperor's personified victories
(I). The stanzas addressed to the emperor are standard celebrations of royal excel-
lence, likening the emperor to the sun or a huntsman, and praising him for his
courage and endurance, but also for his piety and faith in the Virgin, which ensured
that when he crossed the Halys he won a victory, unlike Croesus, who had trusted
irr divination and oracles. The emperor is also reminded of his special relationship
with the city, and the verses addressed to the city underline this, inviting the city
to make herself attractive to give her son, who rejuvenates her with his victories, a
magnificent reception. As in the ekphrasis ofthe triumphal procession, it is empha-
sised that the reception involves all sectors of urban society, and one stanza makes
the point that the emperor's victories bring the conquered towns and territories
under the sovereignty of the New Rome.
60 PAUL MAGDALINO
H V.The plea for the emperor to accept the gift of the triumphal chariot is ndw
repeated in ten ten-line stanzas of political verse that are put into the mouth of the
demes, Le. the factions. The poem expands on the theme that the chariot is a gift
that the city owes the emperor in return for the benefactions which he has conferred
on her. The opening stanza makes these explicit:
Every year, 0 emperor, ofyour divine power

Brings benefit and honour to me your slave New Rome.
Each year makes whole cities subject to me,
Enslaves barbarian nations,joins victory to victory.
The present year, 0 emperor, has enriched me beyond measure,
Widened my borders and my boundaries,
Increased my power and my territories.
It is immeasurable well-being, incalculable victory
For which you have from us our prayers, our thanks,
You have this golden chariot, for you to ride in.
The crucial issue ofthe triumph thus becomes a matter ofgift-exchange between
the emperor and the city.
It goes without saying that the poems, like the triumph, are a glorification of
imperial power, and an assertion ofRoman superiority over the barbarian enemy.Yet
it would be simplistic to label them as statements ofimperial ideology and to leave it
at that. They are also statements to the effect that the emperor's power is limited by
his obligatory piety and is exercised on behalf of the imperial city, Constantinople.
It is the city which bestows on the emperor the symbol of his victory, the trium-
phal chariot, with the ritual invitation to ride in it, but in the no doubt certain
knowledge that he will yield his place to the icon of the city's heavenly patron. The
whole ceremony is a reaffirmation of the emperor's traditional relationship with
Constantinople, and to this extent, the poems of Prodromos, which provide both
the libretto and the narrative ofthe drama, are traditional expressions of civic as well
as imperial ideology.
Tradition and innovation in the Prodromic poems

Just as the four poems from the triumph of1133 provide unique documentation for
a ceremonial event of this kind, so they constitute a unique survival of the libretto
that accompanied the pageantry. Because the texts sung or recited on earlier occa-
sions are no longer extant, it is extremely difficult to know whether those of 1133
represent tradition or innovation in the genre. One might suppose, a priori, that
since the event was meant to be a revival of an ancient tradition, the medium of
its celebration would also be traditional, and that since the victorious emperor was
traditionally celebrated in hymns and acc1amationsby the circus factions, the poems
that Prodromos composed in 1133 for the demes to chant during the procession, as
he takes care to point out (H VI, 149), would have reproduced earlier deme songs:
r, THE TRIUMPH OF 1133 61
This may be true of some generic motifs, such as the humiliation of the barbarians,
the emperor's God-given victory, and the comparison of the emperor with the sun.
But otherwise, there are several reasons for thinking that Prodromos, and therefore
the 'organisers of the event, did not closely follow earlier precedents.
Firstly, the metrical medium of his 'demotic' chants, the fifteen-syllable political
verse,is hardly attested in imperial ceremonial before the twelfth century; there is
only one example in the tenth-century Book ofceremonies, and this, the 'notorious
Spring Song, is more of a folk song than a regular political acclamation." Although
other sources indicate that political verse was coming into fashion for imperial
funerals, the evidence ofthe Book ofceremonies suggests that the verses sung on other
occasions, including triumphs, were strophic rather than stichic in character - that
is they consisted of troparia, like the hymns sung in church." The texts recorded in
the Book ofceremonies are also addressed to God, not the emperor." We have noted
that the clergy took part in the procession of 1133, possibly following a precedent
introduced in the triumph ofJohn I in 971. According to Prodromos, they chanted
victory hymns (eplnikia) as they processed. It is thus conceivable that they took over
the singing ofthe regular verses traditionally sung by the demes, leaving the latter to
perform the songs in political verse that were composed specially for the occasion.
Secondly, the triumph of 1133 involved not only popular and religious chants,
but also the learned oratory of intellectuals, which is not attested on earlier
occasions," although it was probably vaguely inspired by the civic oratory of late
antiquity. Prodromos says that the 'wreath of learning' included both prose and
verse,and that he was one of the contributors. He does not specify at what moment
in the proceedings the 'wreath' was presented. However, his own contribution to
which he alludes is very likely to have been his hexameter narrative of the emperor's
vietory (H Ill). Since it terminates with an appeal to the emperor to ride in the tri-
umphal chariot, it must have been delivered as part of a series ofwelcome addresses
composed to greet the emperor on his disembarkation. The offer of the chariot in
political verse (H V) was thus, presumably, the popular contribution to this other-
wise elitist reception ceremony.
Finally, the literary dossier from the triumph of 1133 stands out not only for
its survival and its apparently unprecedented use of political verse and hexameter,
but also for being the work of a known, named author, a professional intellectual
who pointedly draws attention to his authorship and evidently took care to save his
I 23 M.D. Lauxtermann, tbe spring ofrhythm (Vienna, 1999), 61-5.

24 Ibid. The one full text of a victory chant by the demes is recorded for the triumph ofBasil I in 878,
see De cerimoniis, SOl, 609; Constantine Porphyrogennetos, 'Ibree treatises, 142-3,281.
2S Ibid.; in De cerimoniis, 609, they are sung in church by the clergy.
26 The now lost panegyrical narrative of John I Tzirniskes' triumph (see Kaldellis, 'The original
source') provided something of a precedent, and possibly a direct inspiration for the celebrations of 1133.
However, it does not seem to have been recited as part of the ceremonial proceedings. The same may
be conjectured for the poetic celebration by Theodosios the Deacon of Nikephoros Phokas' recapture
of Crete (961), which does not allude to the occasion of the triumph: Theodosios the Deacon, 'Ibeodosi!
Diaconi deCreta capta, ed. U. Criscuolo (Leipzig, 1979); cf McCormick, Eternalvictory, 167-8.
62 PAUL MAGDALINO
compositions for posterity. The poets who had in the past composed the songs and
acclamations ofthe factions may have been learned men, but they are only ever men-
tioned anonymously, as members of the faction staff who were subordinate to the
faction leader, the demarcbos. Correspondingly, the well-known Constantinopolitan
poets of earlier centuries - Paul the Silentiary and Agathias in the sixth century,
George of Pisidia in the seventh, Constantine of Rhodes and John Geometres in
the tenth, Christopher Mitylenaios and John Mauropous in the eleventh - have
left no trace ofworks written for popular public performance. At the same time, it
is clear that Theodore Prodromos was much more than a mere deme poet, since he
wrote for more than one faction, and he also wrote works in a higher literary idiom
that he delivered separately in his own capacity as a member of the intellectual
elite. He also wrote the chronicle of the event in the form of an ekphrastic narrative
(H VI). All this points to the likelihood that he wrote at the invitation ofthe imperial
official, or officials,who were responsible for organising the event. The event thus
honoured not only the city that provided the stage, the chorus and the supporting
cast, but also the author who scripted the performance on the city's beha1£
Thecontextofthe triumphof 1133

The triumph of 1133 was celebrated in the fifteenth year ofJohn U's reign, when
the Komnenian dynasty had been in power for fifty-two years. Why is it the first
such event to appear in the dynastic record: why is there no evidence that either
Alexios I or John had celebrated any previous victory with a triumphal entry into
Constantinople? To limit the question to John U, why did he not celebrate the
recapture and refortification of Laodicaea in 1119, the taking of Sozopolis in 1120,
or the spectacular defeat ofthe Pecheneg invasion in 1122? Setting aside the remote
possibility that the historians have failed to record all triumphs that occurred, the
most likely explanation is that after several decades in the eleventh century during
which Byzantine armies had suffered nothing but defeat and territorial loss, the
habit of victory celebrations had been lost, and reviving them would have seemed
to be an expensive, hubristic extravagance. It is clear from the diffident use of the
triumphal chariot, and from comments about the victory crown, the toupha, that
these traditional accoutrements of imperial victory ceremonial carried the stigma
of hubris in the medieval period; this may well have applied to popular and
ecclesiastical perceptions of the ceremony in general.F'Ihe issue was particularly
sensitive for the Komnenoi since Alexios' reign had begun with a violent entry into
Constantinople, on the Thursday of Holy Week, in which his troops had molested
the citizens and pillaged houses and churches, effectively treating the imperial capi-
tal like a conquered enemy city.28 Alexios and his whole family performed public
27 Zonaras, Epitomae, Ill, 566-7. Zonaras explains the name as a popular corruption of'ruq,CX;,
'arrogance', 'because it makes those who wear it arrogant'. Zonaras makes the comment apropos of the
triumph of Basil Il, whom he criticises for his autocratic behaviour.
28 Comnena,Alexias, 81, 97-100; Zonaras, Epitomae, Ill, 728-30.
penance to atone for this outrage, of which any subsequent victory parade would
have been a painful reminder. It is perhaps significant that John Il's triumph of
1133 avoided any such association by entering the city from the opposite direction.
Even so, it went against the prevailing political correctness. This is clear from Anna
Comnena's description of Alexios I's homecoming from his last campaign in 1118,
which she wrote in full knowledge of, and with conscious reference to the triumph
of 1133. When he reached the Bosphoros, he 'did not want to make a brilliant entry
into the city,or put on the display of an imperial procession, nor theatrical prepara-
tions that would have required waiting until the next day'.29
Michael McCormick's study of late antique and early medieval victory propa-
ganda has shown that the constant factor behind all imperial triumphs was the
need to prove the legitimacy of the reigning emperor through a demonstration
of his military success.The triumph of 1133 came at a time when John Il's posi-
tion had recently been threatened, and his military success compromised, by the
rivalry and disaffection of his brother, the sebastokrator Isaac." This is not at all
clear from the Byzantine sources, including the Prodromic poems, which no doubt
reflect the official Byzantine line. However, it is plainly evident from the Syriac
chronicle of Michael the Syrian that the emperor's first two campaigns against the
Danishmendid Ghazi, emir of northern Anatolia coincided with two serious plots
to put Isaac on the throne." In 1130,
John, emperor of the Greeks, went out to fight the Turks, and built a town on the
coast.32 While he was preparing to engage the Turks, his brother and some of his mag-
nates formed a conspiracy against him. When he tried to seize them, his brother fled to
the emir Ghazi. The latter was very happy on this account. He treated him with great
honour and sent him to Gabras in Trebizond. The emperor returned to Constantinople
and exiled those who had plotted against him."
Isaac spent the winter at Melltene with the emir Ghazi and with the other
Turkish ruler in Anatolia, the sultan of Rum Masoud, before moving on to stay
with the Armenian prince Leo, ruler of Cilicia. It seems very likely that Isaac was
trying to rally all the rulers of Anatolia in a coalition that would recognise him as
emperor," Although the coalition did not materialise, and Isaac had to keep moving
on, he retained strong support in Constantinople. In 1132,
29 Comnena,Alexias, 481-2; cf Magdalino, 'Innovations in government', 164.

30 The indispensable secondary account of these events remains Chalandon, LesComnene 11,82-7.
31 Michael the Syrian, Chronique, lI, 230-232.
32 As Chalandon notes (Les Comnene 11 at page 83), this was probably the fortress on the river
Ryndakos mentioned by Choniates (Historia, 20, line 37). It has been identified with Lopadion : see
M. Lau, 'Ioannoupolis: Lopadion as "city" and military headquarters under Emperor Ioannes II
Komnenos', in N.S.M. Matheou, Th. Kampianaki, L.M. Bondioli (eds), From Constantinople to the
frontier: 'Ibe cityand thecities (Leiden, 2016), chapter 25.
33 Michael the Syrian, Cbronique, lI, 230.
34 Chalandon, Les Comnene 11, 84.

64 PAUL MAGDALINO
The emperor of the Greeks, for his part, set out in anger against the Turks and the
Armenians." He massacred the greater part of the Turks who were on the coast and
took two fortresses. His magnates again plotted against him and sent to his brother to
make him ruler. Because of this, he returned in haste [to Constantinople],"
Three points thus emerge from Michae1 the Syrian's account.
• There was a strong link between the internal usurper and the external enemy, so
that the usurper was to some extent the enemy candidate for the imperial throne.
• John's offensive against the Danishmendids was aborted twice by the plotting
of his brother.
• On both occasions, the emperor had to return to Constantinople to suppress
the plot, showing that a significant body of the plotters had remained in the city
while he was on campaign. The threat to his power thus came not only from
the higher ranks of the army, but also, and perhaps primarily, from the civilian
establishment in the capital."
The reconquest of Kastamon and neighbouring fortresses in 1133 was John Il's
first successin a war that had seen two years ofsetbacks due to an internal opposition
at the highest political level with links to the external enemy. It is understandable
that in the circumstances his government should have decided to break the dynastic
'taboo' on holding triumphs and to celebrate, in the traditional grand manner, an
imperial victory that confirmed the emperor's legitimacy and, by implication, the
illegitimacy of his unpatriotic opponents. The extent to which John felt threatened
by the disaffection of his family, and associated it with the threat from the empire's
foes, is evident from the Typikon of the Pantokrator Monastery, which he founded
in 1136 and presented as an offering of thanks for God's help in overcoming both
his external and his internal enemies."
As the place where the emperor's legitimacy had been challenged, Constantinople
had to be the theatre where it was reaffirmed, through the participation of all sectors
of urban society in the celebrations to mark the capture of Kastamon. The triumph
was an opportunity to remind the church and people of Constantinople that the
emperor had won his victory through the agency of the city's divine patron, and
he had won it on the city's behalf, to restore her dominion over her subordinate
35 The involvement of Armenians in tlIe Danishmendid regime is confirmed by Choniates, who

refers to the enemy occupants of Kastamon as 'Persarmenioi; Choniates, Hlstoria, 18.
36 Michael the Syrian, Chronique, Il, 232.
37 It is impossible to identity any of the conspirators in either 1130 or 1132. The closest we can
come to doing so is in the property list of the Pantokrator Monastery. This was founded by John Il and
endowed with estates from the imperial fisc, some of which were named after their former owners. It is
conceivable that these were properties recently confiscated from the 'magnates' who had been sent into
exile,and given to the monastery to avoid suspicion ofimperial greed. See Gautier, 'Le typikon', 114-23;
the most likely candidate is Alousianos (pages 118-9), who is referred to as someone of recent memory.
38 See Magdalino, 'The foundation of the Pantokrator', at 45.
provinces that had betrayed her by serving infidel lords. It was also an opportunity
for the members of the imperial government, the court and the urban elite to dem-
onstrate their loyalty,which recent events might have put in doubt. Isaac must have
had undeclared sympathisers in addition to those who were exposed and punished
as his supporters. If we cannot identify any of the latter, we can make a reasonable
guess regarding the former: Isaac, as a man of considerably greater intellectual pre-
tension than his imperial brother, was more likely to find sympathisers and clients
among the intellectual elite. One such may well have been Theodore Prodromos,
who wrote encomia in praise of him and enjoyed his patronage, at least after Isaac's
later return from exile and reconciliation with]ohn. 39 In the light ofthis association,
Prodromos' participation as imperial encomiast in the triumph of 1133 takes on a
particular significance: he was affirming a loyalty that might have been in doubt,
while the emperor was exercising a patronage that he might not otherwise have
chosen to exercise. Either way, the role of Prodromos and other intellectuals in the
proceedings must have been determined by one of the imperial officials who were
responsible for organising the event.
We have no way ofknowing who conceived, devised and directed the triumph of
1133 - was it to any degree the emperor's idea, and was it the work of a single indi-
vidual or of a committee? All we can conclude is, firstly, that the person or persons
in question had access to written records of a tradition that had been lost to living
memory, and secondly, that he or they had the experience and the skills to adapt
the tradition to the needs of the moment, to calibrate the revival of a politically
charged ceremonial that had become logistically and ideologically unaffordable. His
or their job was to ensure, by a judicious blending ofprecedent and innovation, that
a traditional assertion of military autocracy became a topical statement ofreconcili-
ation and bonding between the emperor and the imperial city.This statement was
achieved not only by increasing the dose of imperial humility and piety that had
been prescribed for imperial triumphs in the late tenth century, but also byenhanc-
ing the fundamental ambiguity ofthe occasion - was this the emperor's or the city's
show? Was it a performance to which the emperor treated the city, or a pageant put
on by the city in order to honour the emperor? As in 971, the ambiguity was visually
expressed in the ritual of the triumphal chariot: made in the imperial palace, but
offered to the emperor by the city, only to be given in turn to the city's supernatural
patron. But perhaps for the first time in 1133, the ambiguity was conceptualised
in the words of a highly intellectual poet who reported and spoke for the emperor,
the city and himself. It was by engaging the talents of Theodore Prodromos that
the now invisible organiser, or organising committee, made the most significant
political contribution to the event. It was no doubt through the recommendation of
a friend, possibly a former student, in the imperial administration, that Prodromos
received the commission to write the script. Unfortunately, we know too little about
39 See Prodromos, Historiscbe Gedichte, 390-8, nos. 40-42; Kurtz, 'Unedierte Texte', 101-17;
Magdalino, Manuel, 193-5.
66 PAUL MAGDALINO
his,contacts, and the imperial administrative personnel, at this time in his career to
make even an informed guess as to who was responsible. It was clearly not someone
of the political stature of Basil the parakoimomenos, whose hand can be surmised
behind the ceremonial events and antiquarian revivals ofthe 960s and 970s, includ-
ing the triumph of 971 with the reintroduction of the triumphal chariot. Yet it
seems to have been someone with an equal interest in reviving the traditions ofLate
Antiquity: in this case, not only the use of the chariot, but also the participation of
orators and poets in a revival of public, civic rhetoric.
Ekphrasis in heroic verses ofthe procession ofthe emperor KyrJohn

Komnenos on the occasion ofthe capture ofKastamon
My soul, leave off telling ofwars and slaughtere,"

Of embossed shields and four-plated helmets,
Of spears and quivers and blood-soaked Ares -
Those exploits of the sacker of cities John,
Purple-born emperor ofgreat renown,
Many exploits, such as the sun's rays have never seen.
Tell rather of the famous works that he performed
In the great and glorious procession, and do not cease from praising them,
Which it is fitting to recount, to bring to the ears of men.
The mission of noble Ares for the Ausonians was accomplished.
Since the lofty city of Kastamon had fallen,
Along with Alamos and Alazos, as well as well-built Balzos
And the silvery,fast-flowing Halys had been crossed.
The Persian deserted, fearing to face the nation-rousing King
Of the stellar Roman realm at close quarters,
Terror seized his body
The Persian people bent the height of their unbending necks;
They paid for all the harm they had done to the New Rome.
And the King of many toils, completing his mighty works,
Headed for home with an exultant heart.
Nor then could his homecoming pass unnoticed by the great city,
But no sooner was it heard than her joyful heart was aroused,
Aroused, and neither man nor woman stayed at home,
The people poured out hard on each other's heels
On the broad shore by the Propontis crossing
Where stands a circuit of closely set, great columns
Planted directly astride each other.
That it might carefully prepare for the King's homecoming,
The city had by then made common work, and the citizens
And all performed a sweet and unburdened toil.
All fllth and dirt and debris from the streets
40 My translation takes account ofthe corrections suggested by A. Kambylis,Prodromea: Textkritische

Beitrage zu denbistorisdien Gedichten des1heodoros Prodromos (Vienna, 1984),22-36.
All trace of mud and straw, were carried off by one,

He cleared the pebbles, the ground was exposed.
Another took care of the drains, another smoothed the surface
Uphill and downhill, the whole route was made even.
Another took charge of the novel laurel trees,
Binding to tall poles the entwined twigs of the laurel.
Every building facade was adorned with beautiful hangings
Made of spun linen and resplendent threads of silk,
As when a newly wed, exquisite looking girl
Sits in the bridal chamber, but awaits
The bridegroom to encounter her in bed. Like the moon
She shines with golden hangings, while all the eyes of the men
Around are drawn to her, and ever gazing on her,
They have unforgettable wonder in their hearts,
And they honour as god the man who goes up to her bedchamber.
So did the whole city then appear resplendent
As it received the magnificent entry of the Ausonian King.
All work was stopped and every craft reposed.
Men arose and countless crowds ofwomen,
People of all conditions, every race, all nations, hastened
To see the performance, and standing they gazed.
One might have said, casting his eyes heavenward,
'Christ on high, worker of famous deeds, quickly, quickly, not with delay
May the great-hearted King come to the city ofwide streets
Seeing him I shall rejoice, I shall forget my pains'.
This is what was happening in the neighbourhoods and street corners,
But in the royal halls of great renown
A splendid chariot was fashioned, the invention of clever workmanship.
Its axle was of silver and so was its box
Silver was the shaft and silver the wheel hubs,
Silver the wheel rims, the studs and the yoke itself,
And the silver of the wheels shone with gold as well.
Standing on either side of the front of the box
Were two four-footed birds, men call them griffins;
Their eyes were fashioned by an artful chisel
From black gems, they gleamed like real eyes.
A beholder might think these were live griffins,
He would tremble as he gazed, and be plunged into darkness by those eyes.
On either side two lions with flowing manes
Were hammered out by the reputed silversmith,
And he placed a seat in the chariot box, he placed a footstool,
Both of fine silver; he poured gold on top
And he arranged verdant and azure stones,
He affixed pearls as well; it was a dazzling sight.
As when in the wide curving expanse of the celestial sphere
The shining boundless stars, each from its own position,
Some densely packed, others spaced far apart,
68 PAUL MAGDALINO
Form a conjunction,light congregating with lights,

'So did the beautiful face of the chariot shine
With white pearls and noble coloured stones,
Some densely packed, others spaced far apart.
Four horses there were beside the silver shaft
Beautiful and snow white, proudly sporting their bridles,
All were the same, in stature, colour, neck and mane.
The hand of the bridle-maker had stitched for them
A noble porphyry-coloured harness, a wonder to behold.
As when, gripping a dove in its curved talons,
A swift-flying eagle on a white rock,
Whose bright surface is washed clean by the rain,
Has torn the dove open and devoured its insides,
The blood that is first spilled remains on the rock
And penetrating the bright surface, dyes it,
So against the bright whiteness of the horses did stand out
Their porphyry bridles. Beneath, their legs were a-flutter
With the red caparisons that wrapped them; as the airy breeze
Played on these cloths, they were a delight to behold.
Nor did words remain idle, but of necessity
The prose muse danced and the metrical muse pranced.
Rhetors competed along with lofty-sounding intellectuals
And winged words streamed thick and fast like snowflakes
And a crown oflearning was woven for the great emperor,
IfI contributed some labour to the godlike crown
Let others speak of it while I keep silence.
So was all this accomplished, while the whole city was striving.
No sooner had the day of the imperial procession dawned,
Than the tall gates of the Acropolis were opened,
Of bronze, long closed, they were covered with much gold.
Every street and neighbourhood was full, the people were waiting,
And the women were waiting too, outside their doorways,
Publicly visible, all shame had vanished.
The wide streets of the city were tightly packed, the space was filled
With the people spread out like thick swarms of bees.
Everyone's heart was in his mouth
As they longed to behold the brilliant performance.
The first to march in were the armed men ofAres
Bronze-he1meted, holding long spears, the bronze gleaming
Like a lightning flash when clouds ire sundered.
Mter them came standard-bearing horsemen
Just like Persian rulers in the splendid clothes
That they wore, in their brilliant horsemanship,
In their attendants; they proceeded in groups of five.
There followed a host of barbarian women
Seated on horseback, each with her child,
As when dense crowds of tortoises
Go to the lake, driven by the necessity
Of desperate thirst, they descend in rows

Keeping a straight course, swerving to neither side,
Following each other carefully, thus now proceeded
The barbarian queens at measured distances.
After them there came many laden mules
They carried the King's moveable Persian booty
A lot of it, since it weighed down the backs of so many mules;
What it was, let [someone who knows] clarify,for I
Could not see, it being covered with silvery cloths.
But next, the King's Arab horses with arched necks,
Paraded tall and beautiful under their brightly coloured trappings,
A breed of racehorses, down the middle of the road
As they were led, their luxuriant manes tossed and waved,
Above their necks, while the earth was pounded by their hoofs.
The sacred clergy followed singing victory hymns to God,
Graced as it was with the clear-sounding voices of chanting men.
Here one might say,on being struck by this sight,
'Surely the great King of the Ausonians innovated this,
he mixed Ares with Hermes and ranked the priest with the council,
that there might be a new royal priesthood'.
So was this performed, but next the demesmen

Processed, chirruping with their joyful mouths
Paeans in verse - my work, I will not conceal.
They were divided into four groups by their costumes
- white, crimson, azure and green.
There followed them the august, gold-wearing senate,
And all the kinsmen of the renowned emperor.
Upon their heels the rousing King processed on foot;
He neither heeded the petitions, in which the city participated,
Nor was he convinced by the prayers of the famous archpriest
To enter the precious box of the silver chariot,
But being modest with regard to his great exploits
He walked that whole route on his noble feet.
His head was adorned by a pearl-studded crown
Of gold resplendent with noble gems
His chest was gleaming, for his whole body
Shone with a godlike covering such as kings wear,
Having now shed the armour that warriors wear.
In his hands he held, in the left a lovely rod
Extending to a cross at the tip, and in the other
A kind of scroll, what or ofwhom, I know not well.
The earth beneath was strewn with glistening laurel leaves.
The cymbals sounded, the red drums beat,
The trumpet blared, and he was like the light,
The earth rejoiced to be trodden by those godlike shoes.
Accompanying the King was his son, scion of the Porphyra,
Handsome in youth and stature and countenance,
70 PAUL MAGDALINO
Greatly dynamictoo in kingliness and vigour.

His crownwas like his father's, though in his robe
He differed; yet he was clothed in grace.
Gold glowedaround him, as he glowed
Amid the gold,or rather the King in him was shining.
His three noble brothers escorted him
Fine and white-crested,wearingpearl-studded robes.
All the crowds of assembled men rejoiced
To see the sons of the triumphant emperor.
Here might one pray, raising his hands in the air,
'a rulingTrinity,here may this father King and his sons
for manyyears,many cycles of the sun,
live in joy,that the Ausonians may take pride'.
Neither was yourvenerable white head missing from the glorious parade,
Most honoured Patriarch,great glory of high-priests,
Obliviousof painful illnessand extremeold age,
You trod together with the King the same unending path,
In sacred robesyou imitated the way of the young,
As when a deer,seeingthe hunter and the swift dogs
Takesflight and with her lighter feet
Leaps through the thicket,and the dogs barking behind
Do not get closeto her,for the deer'stracks always run ahead,
So your tireless knees and good intent followed,
o great-hearted high priest, as your strength was steadfast.
My soul,you have told all this clearly, or not clearly, I do not know,
But now tell of the noble chariot, tell of the horses,
And the gracefulharness and the excellent charioteer.
The horsessported under their yoke,the axlerattled,
The reinsglinted, the ground was struck by the wheels.
There rode,standing upon the beautifulseat,
Of the girl who chastelygavebirth to the great God
The silver icon, destroyer of all the Persians.
For the great King set it upon the couch
While he walkedahead with her slaves.
Which emperorwho ruled of old did such a thing?
Who accomplished anything like this after such exploits?
And thus did the procession's gloriousperformanceend.
Now when they came to the temple of God's wisdom
That in beautyand size stands out from other churches,
Here the King donated the beautiful sacred chariot to God
And putting on the holy robe,into the inner sanctuary
He entered,bearing candles, with the excellent high priest
Thus, but then he placed the imperial crown
On the holy table as a treasurefor the heavenly King.
The great King did this in the church but then,
Returned rejoicingto his golden home.
6
EmperorJohn II's encounters

with foreign rulers
Martin Marko Vuletit
The reign of John II Komnenos was certainly overshadowed as far as his known
encounters with foreign rulers were concerned. For Alexios I as well as for Manuel I
more than twenty meetings each with foreign rulers are recorded; 1 for John we have
records of only six.
Encounters with foreign rulers were undeniably important for relations between
the Byzantine empire and its neighbours.' We are used to associating those meet-
ings with negotiations between parties and with the agreements they conclude. Yet,
a Closer look at the sources shows a rather surprising picture: many encounters
were indeed characterised by talks between the parties but not by real negotiations
leading to a treaty.3This discovery results not only from the stronger interest of the
1 See my dissertation written under the supervision of Michael Griinbart (Munster) and Giinter
Prinzing (Mainz) with the title 'Zusammenkiinfte byzantinischer Kaiser mit auswiirtigen Herrschern
(395-1204): Vorbereitung - Gestaltung - Funktionen' (Miinster, 2013), forthcoming in the series
Byzantinistische Studien und Texte,
2 Encounters between Western medieval rulers have often been the subject of research: I. Voss,
Herrsdurtreffen imjrUhen und hohen Mitte/a/ter: Untersuchungen zu den Begegnungen der ostfrankischen
undwestjrankischen Herrscber im 9. und 10.}ahrhundert sowie derdeutschen und'franzosistben Kiinige oom
11. his 13. Jahrhundert (ColognelVienna, 1987); W. Kolb, Herrscherhegegnungen im Mittelalter (Bern!
Frankfurt am MainINew YorklParis, 1988); G. Schwedler, Herrschertreffen des Spatmittelalters. Formen-
Rituale - Wirkungen (Ostfildern, 2008). In contrast, encounters of Byzantine emperors with foreign
sovereigns have not been the subject of any systematic research. A.$.Anca, Herrschaftliche Reprdsentation
und kaiserliches Selhstverstandnis. BerUhrung der westlichen mit der byzantinischen Welt in der Zeit der
ersten Kreuzzuge (Miinster,2010) is something of an exception; among others he analyses the meetings
of emperors, from the Komnenoi to the Angeloi (1081-1204) dynasties, with occidental neighbours.
However, this work is no substitute for a comprehensive investigation of the subject, see A. Kazhdan,
'The notion of Byzantine diplomacy', in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantinediplomacy: Papers
from theTwenty-fourth Spring Symposium ofByzantinestudies, Cambridge, March 1990 (Aldershot, 1992),
17.1 have tried to fill this gap with my dissertation, see note 1 above.
3 A vivid example is the meeting between John I Tzimiskes and Sviatoslav,prince of the Rus in 971.
Only when the negotiations had already been conducted successfully through the means of envoys and
both sides had signed a treaty, did Sviatoslav request a personal encounter. See Leo the Deacon, Historia,
155,1.13-157,1. 12; Skylitzes, Synopsis, 309,1. 36-310, 1.51.
From John II Kamnenos, Emperor ofByzantium:In the Shadow ofFather and Son. Copyright © Martin
Marko Vucetit. Published by Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN.
71
72 MARTINMARKO VUCETIC
sources in other aspects of the meetings, but especially from the fact that the proven
practice of negotiating and concluding agreements was the exchange of envoys.'
In comparison with these indirect encounters, personal meetings between rulers
required huge efforts and involved a high security risk. S
Ifpersonal meetings between an emperor and a foreign ruler took place in spite
of this, it is clear that this happened because the encounter had a certain surplus
value compared to consultation via envoys, thus justifying the enormous effort
involved. This surplus value must be identified above all in the way in which the
encounter was staged. The state and quality of the relations between rulers was
made visible in the course of their encounrer." The sovereigns staged their con-
ception of themselves, their power and their riches for their counterpart and his
entourage, as well as for their own subjects. An integral quality of all encounters
between sovereigns is the public character of the event. The involvement ofgreater
or lesser parts ofthe various groups ofthe respective populace guaranteed publicity.
If we schematize the process of these encounters between foreign rulers, we find
them characterised by three protagonists in the process of communication: ruler a,
ruler b and the public present.
Sovereign encounters constitute political staging to a large degree," Here the
course of events was made visible as it was presented to the public through sym-
bolic acts," which were impressive and easily understandable. The participation of
the public as the third protagonist made the encounters between two sovereigns
(particularly when they were visits) important for two reasons: firstly, they were
4 For the exchange ofenvoyssee especialIyT.C. Lounghis, Lesambassades byzantines enoccldent depuis
lafondation des etats barbaresjusqu'aux croisades (407-1096) (Athens, 1980); D. Nerlich, Diplomatische
Gesandtschaften zwischen Ost- und U1!stkaisern 756-1002 (Bern/Berlin/Brussels/Frankfurt am Main!
New YorklVienna, 1999).
5 Assaults or attempts to take prisoners during direct encounters took place throughout the whole
Early and Middle Byzantine periods. In 623 the Khagan of the Avars tried to take Heraclius pris-
oner during a planned encounter in Heraclea (Marmara Ereglisl, Turkey); Cbronieon Paschale, I, 712, I.
12-713, I. 5; Nikephoros, Hlstoria syntomos, ed. C. Mango (Washington, D.C., 1990) 50, I. 1-52, I. 41;
and Theophanes, Chronographia, 301, 1. 26--302, I. 4. Leon V tried to take the Bulgarian Khan Krum cap-
tive in 813 (Scriptor incertus, ed. F. Iadevaia [Messina, 1997,2nd edn.] 40, I. 58-42, I. 99), the Crusaders
Alexios V Dukas in 1204 while he was on the coast at Kosmidion close to Constantinople to meet with
the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo (Chonlares, Historia, 567, I. 58-568, I. 73). In all these cases the
attempt failed, but we also have examples of success:Alexios III Angelos lured the Bulgarian potentate
Ivanko-Alexios with false promises in 1200, only to take him prisoner, Choniates, Historia, 519,11.27-35.
In the case of the Armenian prince Leo Il !here were rumours that john Il Komnenos had lured him
with false promises (see below); Vahram of Edessa, Patmut'ium, RHC arm 1,491-535, at 500-3.
6 G. Althoff, 'Inszenierung verpflichtet. Zum Verstiindnis ritueller Akte bei Papst-Kaiser-
Begegnungen im 12.]ahrhundert', in]. Martschukat and S. Patzold (eds.), Geschichtswissenschaft und'per-
formatioe turn', Ritual, Inszenierung und Performanz uomMittelalterbis zur Neuzeit (ColognelWeimar/
Vienna, 2003), 108.
7 For 'staging' as a key concept in cultural sciences see E. Fischer-Lichte, 'Performance,
Inszenierung, Ritual. Zur Kliirung kulturwissenschaftlicher Schliisselbegriffe', in Martschukat and

Patzold, Geschichtswissenschaft,41-7.
8 Schwedler, Herrschertriffen, 82.
EMPERORjOHNI1'SENCOUNTERS WITH FOREIGN RULERS 73
ePiUlera i . .r ------------. I Rulerb I
The'public
an element of (what we can call anachronistically) 'foreign policy' and secondly a

demonstration staged for 'domestic politics'. As such, they offered a multitude of
possibilities.
Their intrinsic meaning made encounters between two sovereigns highly sensi-
tive events where nothing was left to chance. On the contrary, both sides made
painstaking preparations long before the event in order to avoid any unpleasant
surprises, which might lead to diplomatic friction. To use metaphors from the thea-
tre, such encounters were like meticulously planned productions. The protagonists
staged their messages, communicating them bodily through verbal and non-verbal
expression, and in the same manner receiving the messages sent by the foreign
counterpart.? The public played a central role.
One can divide the course of the encounters between sovereigns into four ideal-
typical phases: (1) preparation and arrival, (2) first encounter, (3) being together,
and (4) leave-taking and departure." Each phase in itselfcomprises various compo-
nents. The first phase, planning the encounter and travelling to the meeting place,
has elements such as taking the initiative, sending envoys,choosing the location, the
date and the duration ofthe encounter, security measures, the choice ofa retinue and
that of an escort sent by the host to accompany his guest. The second phase, the first
encounter, was the right place to demonstrate rank, power and prestige, superiority
and subordination, in short to make hierarchy visible. Various modes of salutation
were available and of crucial Significance:proskynesis, a kiss, an embrace, a friendly
look, sitting or standing. The third phase, being together, could be characterised by
9 For the concept of 'theatricality' cf E. Flscher- Llchte, Asthetische Erfahrung. Das Semiotisdie
und dos Performative (Tublngen/Basel, 2001), at 269-300; E. Fischer-Llchte, 'Einleitung: Theatralitat

als kulturelles Modell', in E. Fischer-Lichte, C. Horn, S. Umathum and M. Warstat (eds.), 7heatralitiit
alsModel! der Kulturwissenschaften (Tllblngen/Basel, 2004), 7-26; B. Stollberg- Rilinger, 'Symbolische
Kommunikation in der Vormoderne. Begriffe - Thesen - Forschungsperspektiven', Zeitschrijt ftir
Historiscbe Forschung 31 (2004),489-527.
10 Schwedler, Herrscbertreffen, 23.
74 MARTIN MARKO VUCETIC
ve,rydiverse elements depending on the manner of the encounter. Sovereigns could

dine together, provide gifts, award titles and offices, baptise heathen rulers and their
entourage and offer manifold varieties of entertainment. Encounters usually ended
with a farewell ceremony, often with a further provision ofgifts, before setting forth
on the journey home.
For the period ofJohn's rule, we have relatively few records for encounters with
foreign rulers - at least in comparison with his father Alexios and his son Manuel.
In 1125/6 Masoud I, the Seljuk Sultan of Rum, fled from his brother Melikshah
to Constantinople where he met the emperor. A few years later, in October 1129,
John met the Hungarian King Stephen II on an island in the Danube close to
Bororich (Branicevo, Serbia) on the Byzantine-Hungarian border, where emperor
and king settled their dispute. All the other encounters of the emperor with foreign
potentates occurred in the course of the first Cilician and Syrian campaign in the
years 1137/8.u John took Leo, prince ofArmenian Cilicia, prisoner with his family
and sent them to Constantinople where Leo died a few years later. After leaving
Cilicia,John arrived in Antioch where the ruler ofthe city, Raymond ofPoitiers and
Joscelin II Courtenay, count of Edessa, capitulated and promised to take part in a
joint campaign against the Muslim cities in Syria in the following year.John prom-
ised Raymond the overlordship of these cities once they had captured them and
demanded Antioch in exchange. Mter he had spent the winter of 1137/8 in Cilicia,
John and his army marched to Antioch to lead a campaign against the Muslims as
he had promised, accompanied by Raymond, Joscelin and their troops. After the
disappointing campaign the three rulers returned to Antioch where an uprising,
probably instigated by joscelin, forestalled the emperor from assuming control of
the city.John retreated to his camp outside the walls where shortly afterwards a last
meeting among John, Raymond and joscelin took place. The prince and the count
tried in person to placate the emperor's fury at the uprising.
Considering the relatively low number of encounters on record, we need to con-
sider whether this is due to some dearth in the records or whether John indeed
met with foreign rulers less often than his father and son. For sovereign encoun-
ters, the most fruitful type of source material is historiography. For John's rule, this
genre is particularly fraught with problems. The Alexiad by Anna Comnena ends
with the death of Alexios I in 1118 but was written in the early years of Manuel's
reign. The historical works by John Kinnamos and Niketas Choniates take up from
there. However, they both lived and wrote much later on and explicitly announce in
their prooemia that they will only gj.ve a summary account ofJohn's rule since they
11 For this campaign see Chalandon, Les Camnsne 11, 110-50; Runciman, A history of the Crusades,
n, 211-9; R.-J. Lilie, Crusader states, 109-34; K.-P.Todt, Region und griechisch-orthodoxes Patriarchat
oon Antiocheia in mittelbyzantinischer Zeit und im Zeltalter der Kreuzziige (969-1204) (2 vols.,
'Habilitationsschrift', Wiesbaden, 2005), Il, 527-9; D.A. Parnell, 'John II Comnenus and Crusader
Antioch',in T.F. Madden,J.L. Naus,V. Ryan (OOs.), Crusades - Medieval worlds in conflict (Farnham/
Burlington,2010), 149-57.
EMPERORjOHNI1'SENCOUNTERS WITH FOREIGN RULERS 75
were not themselves eyewitnesses.F Another genre of particular importance in the

twelfth century for sovereign encounters is encomiastic literature." The rules of this
genre, full of allusions and metaphors, make the interpretation of these texts dif-
ficult but nevertheless worthwhile."
The Byzantine source material only mentions three ofthe six known encounters,
pointing clearly to the importance of non-Greek sources. Armenian, Syrian, Latin
and Arab accounts are always an indispensable supplement to Byzantine sources,
particularly for the reign of]ohn. Indeed, they allow us to understand how the 'other
side' saw events. With the Armenian chronicle ofMatthew of Edessa, extending to
1137, there is even a contemporary work at our disposal."
The relatively small number of encounters between emperor and foreign poten-
tates is not, however, only due to the poor source material, but in part to the state
of 'foreign affairs'. More than half the encounters on record between Alexios and
foreign rulers are closely connected to the Crusades. Manuel, too, was faced with a
Crusade at the beginning of his reign, in the course of which he met with various
foreign potentates." These, however, are not of any special consequence in compari-
son with the whole number of encounters. Rather, Manuel's tendentially friendly
policy towards the leaders of the Crusades, called a 'Policy of detenti by Ralph-
Johannes Lilie," brought about a whole series of meetings with foreign potentates.
During the reign ofJohn Il, no Crusade passed through Constantinople, nor did the
emperor adopt a policy of reconciliation with the leaders ofthe Crusades so that his
court did not become a port ofcall in the course oftheir conflict with the Muslims."
In addition to the amount of source material and his foreign policy, the length of
John's reign was almost a third shorter than those of either Alexios or Manuel. As
we have seen, there are many reasons for the relatively meagre number ofencounters
on record.
12 Choniates, Historla, 4, ll. 73-80; Kinnamos, Epitome 5, ll, 4-6. 'The question often asked, whether
Niketas Choniates knew the work of John Kinnamos, has most recently been answered negatively by
Ralph-Johannes Lilie. In his opinion both authors based their descriptions of the time of]ohn Komnenos
on the same source, which was heavily biased towards the emperor; R.-J. Lilie, 'Niketas Choniates und
Ioannes Kinnamos', in S. Kotzabassi and G. Mavromatis (eds.), Realia Byzantina (BerlinlNew York,
2009),89-101.
13 For the reign of John n in particular: Theodore Prodromos, Michael Italikos and Nikephoros
Basilakes.
14 Anca, Repriisentation has made encomiastic literature particularly fruitful for the encounters of
Byzantine emperors with foreign rulers.

15 Matthew of Edessa, iamanakagrut'iwn: Chronique, RHC arm I, 1-150. For an English translation
of the whole text and its continuation by Gregory the Priest see Dostourian, The chronicle ofMatthew of
Edessa.
16 In the course of the Second Crusade (1147-9), the emperor met the French King Louis VII, the
German King Conrad Hl, the Bohemian Duke Vladislav, the Duke of Babenberg Henry Il and the
Duke of Swabia Frederic IV, For the Second Crusade see J. Phi1lips, The Second Crusade: Extendingthe
frontiers ofChristendom (New Haven/London, 2007).
17 Lilie, Crusader states, 142-221.
18 Lilie, Crusader states, 96-141.
76 MARTINMARKO VU6ETI6
In the following sections, we shall investigate the individual encounters ofJohn

IT with foreign rulers more closely - their particular constitution, their character-
istics as well as a comparison with other encounters between Byzantine rulers and
foreign potentates.
Masoud I, Seljuk Sultan of Rum (1125/6)

The first recorded encounter between Emperor John and a foreign ruler took place
in 1125/6. Masoud, the Seljuk Sultan ofRum, had fled from his brother Melikshah
to Constantinople, where he received military support and a great amount ofmoney
from the emperor.l? The only source material available here are Syrian chronicles,
which tell us of the Sultan's unwilling sojourn on the Bosporus. Michael the Syrian
and subsequently Bar Hebraeus do not, however, give us any detail about the
form of the encounter," For the Byzantines, Niketas Choniates only reports on
the peace treaty between the two rulers without mentioning Masoud's sojourn in
Constantinople."
Despite the lack of detail as to the sequence of events, we can still establish
that the form of the encounter was in accordance with a long tradition. We know
of quite a number of foreign rulers who came to Constantinople in exile from the
early and middle Byzantine eras.22 The reception and support of exiled rulers was a
popular diplomatic instrument for establishing dependencies and putting pressure
on neighbouring sovereigns. If the exiled ruler was able to recapture his throne with
the help of the emperor, then the latter could hope for his gratitude. Therefore, the
encounter between Masoud and John was not a novelty, even ifwe know no details
about what happened.
19 For Masoud's flight to Constantinople see Chalandon, Les Comnene Il, 79; Cahen, Pre-Ottoman
Turkey, 94; D. Korobeinikov, 'A sultan in Constantinople: The feasts of Ghiyath aI-DIn Kay-Khusraw
1', in L. Brubaker and K. Linardou (eds.), Eat, drink, and be merry(Luke 12:19) - Food and wine in
Byzantium. Papers ofthe 37th Annual Spring Symposium ofByzantine Studies, in honour ofProfessor
AA.M. Bryer (Aldershot, 2007), 93-4; A.D. Beiharnmer, 'Defection across the border of Islam and
Christianity: Apostasy and cross-cultural interaction in Byzantine-Seljuk relations', Speculum 86
(2011),633.
20 Michael the Syrian, Chronique, Ill, 223; Bar Hebraeus, Chronide, I, 252.
21 Choniates, Historia, 19,11. 11-4.
22 As early as 548 Suartuas, ruler over the Heruli, sought refuge from his rebellious subjects at the
court of]ustinian I; Procopius of Caesarea, De bello Gothico, ed.], Haury and G. Wirth (3 vols., Leipzig,
1962-64), Il, 219, 1. 13-220,1. 4 and 625,1. 15-626,1. 1. In the second half of the eight century the
Bulgarian Khans Sabinos and Telerig fled to Constantinople; for Sabinos see Nikephoros, Historia syntomos,
150,11. 8-9; Theophanes, Chronographia 433, 11. 20-1; Nikephoros, Antirrhetici, in PG 100, 508C; for
Telerig see Theophanes, Chronographia 451, 11. 5-9. In the twelfth century Stephen IV of Hungary and
various Muslim potentates who were threatened by the Sultan KilijArslan Il could be found at the court
ofManuel I; for Stephen IV see Kinnamos, Epitome, 212, 11. 2-14; Choniates, Historia, 127,11.67-90; for
the Muslim potentates see Kinnamos, Epitome, 291, 11. 14-8 and 295,1. 17; Choniates, Historia, 123,11.
62-7; Michael the Syrian, Chronique, HI, 357 and 368-9.
EMPERORJOHN11'SENCOUNTERS WITH FOREIGN RULERS 77
Stephen 11,king ofHungary (1129)

In contrast to Masoud's flight to Constantinople, the second meeting between the
emperor and a foreign ruler ofwhich we have any record had a very different char-
acter.According to the so-called Chronicon Pictum Vindobonense, Emperor John met
the Hungarian King Step hen II in October 1129 on an island in the Danube close to
'Bororich' (today's Branicevo, Serbia). In the midst ofthe Byzantine-Hungarian war,
the two parties had taken up negotiations by sending 'reliable envoys'. Afterwards
they travelled by boat to the island in the company of their grandees to talk to each
other. The monarchs accused and excused each other to begin with (dio excusantes et
incusantes) but in the end they concluded peace and returned home." The Byzantine
records do not tell us of a personal encounter between the monarchs as the western
chronicle does. Niketas Choniates knows of a peace treaty but does not mention a
personal meeting."
The Danube was the border between the Byzantine and the Hungarian spheres
of influence so that the gathering had the character of a frontier meeting. In the
Western Middle Ages, encounters between rulers often took place on frontiers, the
potentates arriving simultaneously.'" A well-known example of this is the meeting
in 921 between the king of East Francia Henry I and Karl the Simple, king ofWest
Francia, on the Rhine close to Bonn." This kind of border meeting is completely
unknown in Byzantium with one very early exception: in 369, Emperor Valens met
the Gothic ruler Athanaric on the Danube."
Apart from this, until the beginning of the seventh century, encounters always
took place in Constantinople since as a rule, the emperors did not leave their capital."
Constantinople offered many ways of demonstrating the emperor's power and
prestige, of enhancing his superiority and emphasising the subordination of his
guests who came to him as if they were vassals. They had to throw themselves down
publicly at the feet ofthe emperor, conceding their inferiority-? From the beginning
of the seventh century onwards, meetings also took place elsewhere. One reason
for this was that the emperor more often led his troops to war personally and so
penetrated the border regions of the realm. There he met local potentates, who
23 Chronicon pictum Vindobonense, in Chronica Hungarorum, Ill, ed. M. Florlan (Leipzig, 1883),211.
24 Choniates, Historia, 18,11.61-2.
2S F. Ganshof, Histoire des relations internationales L' Le Moyen Age (Paris, 1953), 120; Schwedler,
Herrscbertreffen, 335.
26 Regesta Imperii ILl: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Heinricb L und Otto L (919-973), ed.
].F. Bohmer and E. v. Ottenthal (Hildesheim 1967,2nd edn.), 3; cf Voss, Herrscbertreffen; 46-9; and
Kolb, Herrscherbegegnungen, 164.
27 Ammianus Marcellinus, Resgestae, ed. and tr.].C. Rolfe (3 vols., London/Cambridge, MA, 1963,
4th edn.), Ill, 34.
2S G. Dagron, Naissance d'une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutionsde330 a451 (Paris, 1974), 85.
29 For the importance of where the encounter took place as an indicator for power and hierar-
chy cf Ganshof, Histoire, 121; Voss, Herrscbertreffen; 23-4 and 39; Kolb, Herrscherbegegnungen, 52; and
Schwedler, Herrscbertrefen, 334.
came to his military camp." Another was the self-conception of the foreign ruler,
which precluded a journey to Constantinople with all the accompanying symboli-
cal implications, as was the case with Bulgarian rulers in the ninth century. Since
the emperor would not contemplate visiting a foreign ruler at home for the same
reasons, meetings would be held at places which were in some way in between.
Emperor Heraclius and the anonymous Khagan of the Avars decided to meet in
Heraclea, a Byzantine city in an area controlled by the Avars. The Bulgarian Khan
Krum camped with his troops in front of the walls of Constantinople in 813 and
met the Byzantine Emperor Leo V on the coast at Kosmidion. The emperor could
reach it by boat, the Khan by land; this not only heightened security but also had
symbolic implications: whereas the role allocation between guest and host indi-
cated imbalance, a venue somewhere in the middle implied a balance of power.
The situation was similar in 924 when the Bulgarian ruler Simeon met Romanos
I Lakapenos. A fortified pier was built at the coast for the encounter between the
sovereigns."
These meetings cannot, however, be called border meetings since they all took
place on Byzantine soil, even if the emperor had temporarily lost control in the area
due to enemy action. There are no records of real border meetings where emperor
and foreign ruler appeared in equal balance, before the encounter between John
and Stephen. This raises the question whether the Latin chronicle from the mid-
fourteenth century modelled the Byzantine-Hungarian summit on Western medi-
eval concepts so that in this form it is fictional. The close kinship of the protagonists
might speak in favour ofhistoricity. The empress was the daughter of the Hungarian
king Ladislaus I and Stephen's great aunt; a meeting therefore between uncle and
grandnephew, was a sort of family reunion. Above all, for the places involved the
encounter has to be seen in the context oflong-term developments. A good sixty
years after the meeting on the Danube an emperor travelled 'abroad' voluntarily for
the first time - after Isaac II Angeles had met with the Hungarian king Bela III in the
Balkans in 1191,32 the emperor went on to make a return visit to Hungary'" In late
30 For example, BasilII met a series of potentates during his campaign on the eastern border (cf
E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des hyzantinischen Reicbes oon 363 bis 1071 nach griechischen, arabischen,
syrischen und armeniscben Quel/en (Brussels, 1935), 156-69; ].H. Forsyth, The Byzantine-Arab chronicle
[938-1034} ojYaby4b. Sa',d al-Anf4k' (2 vols., Ann Arbor,1977),I, 473-4 and 560-89; W. Felix, Byzanz
unddieislamische Weltimfriiheren11.Jahrhundert. Geschichte derpolitischen Beziehungen van 1001 bis1055
(Vienna, 1981),134-41; C. Holmes, BasilIl and thegovername ofEmpire (976-1025) (Oxford,2005),
475-87 and 500-1; P.M. Strassle, Kriegunt{.Kriegftihrung in Byzanz: Die Kriege KaiserBasileios'IL gegen
die Bulgaren (976-1019) (ColognelWeimar/Vienna, 2006),205-6 and 329-30.
31 7heophanes Continuatus, ed. 1. Bekker(Bonn,1838),385,11. 12-24; SymeonMagistros, Chronikon,
ed. S.Wahlgren(BerlinlNewYork, 2006) 301,11.74-85.
32 Niketas Choniates, Orationes, 32,1. 5-33, 1. 1.
33 Ibid. 32,1.28-34, 1. 4; Choniates,Hlstoria, 434,11. 31-5. The author realizedhow unusualthe event
was and did his best,therefore,to justifyit.Whereas Xerxes demanded that soiland water be sent from
Greecewithout success (symbolic of the subjugation of the Greeks),Isaac did not return with soil and
water from Hungary but had instead set his shoe on their land. He viewedit and surveyed it in order to
subjugate the Hungarianscompletelylater on; Choniates, Orationes, 33, n. 21-31.
EMPERORJOHN I1'S ENCOUNTERS WITH FOREIGN RULERS 79
Byzantine times, the emperor could be met seeking help in the west or as a vassal at
the court of the Ottoman ruler." Times had changed by then: whereas in the early
Byzantine era foreign rulers sought help in Constantinople, now the emperor could
be found as a suppliant at foreign courts. The encounter between John and Stephen
on the Danube could, therefore, either be a later fiction modelled on Latin experi-
ence, or it could be the 'missing link' in a series of developments which we would
otherwise have difficulty understanding.
Leo II, prince ofAnnenian Cilicia (1137-1139/40)

All the other encounters between the emperor and foreign rulers, which are on
record, took place in connection with the first Cilician and Syrian campaign in
1137/8. Leo Il, the prince of Armenian Cilicia, fell into the hands of the emperor
during this enterprise. Syrian,3S and particularly Armenian sources, report on these
events: Leo was taken prisoner, together with his wife and sons, and brought before
the emperor, who sent them to Constantinople." A more detailed and embellished
version can be found in the rhymed chronicle written by Vahram ofEdessa, albeit in
the early fourteenth century.John, according to some people, had lured the prince to
come to meet him by swearing a false oath, only to take him prisoner and have him
incarcerated in Constantinople. Later John treated the prince honourably, inviting
him to dine with him and to take part in hunting parties. He gave him magnifi-
cent garments and placed horses at his disposal. Leo's son Ruben demonstrated his
exceptional strength, arousing the envy of the Byzantine grandees, who at length
prevailed upon the emperor to have him murdered."
Another partly divergent version of the events can be found in the anonymous
Syrian Chronicle 011234where we read that, at the time of the emperor's invasion of
Syria, Leo was prisoner in Antioch. On his release he went to submit to John who,
however, had him put in chains and sent to Constantinople.i"
The encounter with Prince Leo can be seen in the light of certain traditions as
can the encounter with the fugitive Masoud. Sojourns of imprisoned foreign rul-
ers in Constantinople are well-documented for the whole of the early and middle
Byzantine era.The emperors generally took a great deal oftrouble to stage the capture
of such high personages appropriately, parading them, for example, in a triumphal
34 ].W. Barker, Manuel Il Palaeologus (1391-1425): A study in Late Byzantinestatesmanship (New
Brunswick, NJ, 1969), 87-99 and 167-99; R. Radic, Bpe.Me Ioeana VIIa.AeoAoza (1332-1391) (Belgrade,
1993),344-55.
35 Michael the Syrian, Chronique, Ill, 245; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicle, I, 264.
36 Matthew of Edessa, Zamanakagrut'iwn, 150; Gregory the Priest, Zamanakagrut'iwn, RHC arm
1,151-201, at 152; Michael the Syrian, Extrait dela chronique, RHC arm I, 311-409, at 341; Samuel of
Ani, Hawak'munk', RHC arm I, 447-68, at 452; Hethum, Zamanakagrut'ium, RHC arm 1,471-90, at
474; Smpat Sparapet, Zamanakagrut 'ium,RHC arm I, 605-72, at 616-7.
37 Vahram of Edessa, Patmut'ium, 500-3, vv. 299-381.
38 Chronicle of1234, 82, n. 18-21.
80 MARTINMARKO VUGETIC
procession through the city to ensure maximum publicity;" Whether Leo's capture
was similarly staged and in what manner we do not know.The reproach, with hind-
sight, that John had sworn a false oath points to a central problem for encounters
between rulers, that is to say how to ensure the security of both parties." The desire
for maximum security must therefore have been a matter of great concern. The
measures taken were manifold; not only were pledges for maximum security given,
additionally often hostages were taken." Despite all these measures, nobody could
guarantee total security, as the rumours concerning Leo's capture, whether it was
historical or not, reveal.?
Raymond ofAntioch andJosce1in 11 of Edessa: the first encounter

(autumn 1137)
John II met Raymond of Poitiers, prince of Antioch and joscelin II of Courtenay,
count of Edessa, several times in the course of his first campaign against Syria
(1137/8). The first encounter was the result of the military situation. John left
Cilicia with his army, invaded Syria and laid siege to Antioch, which he claimed
belonged to him on account of treaties agreed on between his father Alexios I and
potentates of the First Crusade (1096/7) and with Bohemond in Devol (1108). The
descriptions of the encounter and the events leading up to it given in the sources
vary considerably. It seems wise, initially, to treat each source separately.
According to Kinnamos, Raymond often came to meet the emperor during the
siege and offered to surrender on condition that he be allowed to govern the city
under John's suzerainty - an offer which John, however, rejected. Only when several
days later the 'Byzantine council/senate' (TIi~ 'Pw~alwv ~oui\fJ~) came to a deci-
sion concerning this matter, did John receive Raymond.f Particularly striking in
this account is the claim that the rulers ofthe opposing forces had met often during
the siege; this is not only hard to believe but contradicts the other records.
Niketas Choniates'version of events varies greatly from the other sources. The
emperor,he says,was warrnlywe1comed in Antioch and accepted Raymond and the
count of Tripoli as liegemen (i\.u.;LOV) during his longer sojourn in the city.44 This
harmonious version of the emperor's visit is completely inconsistent with all other
sources, which report that the meeting was preceded by a full-scale siege ofAntioch
39 As for example the King ofthe Vandals Gelimer in 533 (Procopius ofCaesarea, Debello Vandalico,
in Opera Omnia 00. J. Haury and G. Wirth (3 vols., Leipzig, 1962-4), I, 455, I. 24-458, 1. 9) or the
Bulgarian Czar Borls II in 971 (Leon the Deacon, Historia, 136, n. 15-20; Skylitzes, Synopsis, 297, n.
78-84). For triumphal processions in Constantinople see Magdalino in this volume and McCormick,
Eternalvictory, 131-230.
<0Cf. the examples mentioned in note 5 above.
41The Norman prince of Antioch, Bohemond, received Byzantine hostages, for example, in 1108,
before he travelled to John's father Alexios I; Anna Comnena,Alexias, 410, n. 73-8.
42 Alexios III Angeles (1195-1203) faced similar accusations; et: Choniates, Historia, 519, 11.30-3
(see particularly the variant in apparatus criticus}.
43 Kinnamos, Epitome, 18, I. 22-19, I. 8.
44 Choniates, Historia, 27, n. 2-9.
EMPERORJOHNI1'S ENCOUNTERS WITH FOREIGN RULERS 81
by the imperial troops, involving skirmishes and fighting. With one exception." all
other sources also explicitly report or imply that the encounter took place outside
Antioch. The assertion that instead of the count of Edessa the count ofTripoli - Le.
Raymond II - met John along with the prince of Antioch is also striking. Perhaps
this is a misunderstanding fostered by the fact that Edessa and Tripoli were coun-
ties unlike the Kingdom ofJerusalem or the Principality of Antioch, while at the
time two similarly named potentates ruled in Antioch and Tripoli. In addition, the
County of Edessa had longed ceased to exist at the time our author wrote, whereas
Tripoli did not fall to the Muslims until 1289.
Byzantine encomiasts also report on Raymond's and Joscelin's submission with-
out telling us anything about the actual procedure. Like Kinnamos they paint a
clear picture of the tense situation at the outset. Nikephoros Basilakes tells us that
Raymond bent his neck and became the emperor's ally.46 Michael Italikos also
speaks of surrender,"
We find more details in the Latin accounts. Sometime after the beginning
of the siege of Antioch, so the chronicler William of Tyre tells us, the wiser ones
in the two armies initiated negotiations. Godly men went as mediators initially to
the emperor, then to the prince, and finally induced a peaceful solution. Raymond
pledged to appear with all his grandees before John and his entourage and to swear
an oath of allegiance and fealty (ligia,jidelitas). In future, the emperor was allowed
to enter the city and the fortress as often as he pleased, whether with friendly or
hostile intent. For his part,]ohn promised to conquer the Muslim cities of Aleppo,
Caesarea, Hama and Emesa if possible and to hand them on to the prince as a
hereditary fiefdom. The prince in return would renounce his rights to Antioch in
favour of the emperor. Raymond came to the emperor on prearranged terms, was
welcomed with befitting honour and swore his oath of fealty by reaching out his
hands. Both parties agreed on a campaign against the Muslim cities in Syria in the
following summer. The imperial banner was hoisted on the main tower of the city.
While Raymond returned to Antioch laden with rich gifts, John led his army to
Cilicia to spend the winter close to Tarsus."
Ordericus Vitalis, a contemporary but not an eyewitness of the events, goes into
the matter in great detail, too.john, he says,had invited Raymond to a meeting and
one of the latter's grandees persuaded him to accept the invitation. The emperor
asserted his claim to Antioch, reminding the prince of the homage Bohemond
and the other Crusaders had paid to his father Alexios during the First Crusade
(109617) and demanded that Raymond should take similar measures. Raymond,
for his part, replied that he and his wife (the daughter of the former prince of
Antioch, Bohemond II) had received the fiefdom of Antioch from Fulk, the king
of Jerusalem, and sworn fealty to him. Therefore, he would have to present the
45 Chronicle of1234, cf.below.

46 Basilakes, Orationes, 63,11.24-8.
47 Italikos,Lettres et discours, 260, 1.6-261,1.7.
48 William ofTyre, Chronicon, Il, 670,1. 17-671,1.58.
matter to the king since he could not make any decisions without his approval. The
emperor allegedly agreed to a truce until the matter could be resolved. Subsequently,
the king ofJerusalem took counsel with his closest friends, confirmed the impe-
rial claims and instructed Raymond to make peace with John. He should receive
the city from John, the legitimate lord of the city. In this way Raymond became a
vassal (homo) of the emperor who promised him friendship and help (amiciciam et
auxi/ium) in return."
Arab witnesses offer little additional information. According to Ibn al-Qglanisi,
John harassed the inhabitants of Antioch with his army; but he finally agreed on a
settlement with Raymond." Ibn al-Athir hardly provides more detail when he tells
us that envoys went back and forth between the two parties before the settlement
was achieved," Sibt b. al-Jawzi, writing in the middle of the thirteenth century,
describes a peace treaty between John and Raymond, and mentions that John with-
drew his army in exchange for money.52 Kamal ad-Din, finally, interpreted as the
grace of God the happy fact, from the Muslim perspective, that the Franks resisted
the Byzantines, thereby creating a rift in the Christian world. In the end, however,
the Franks joined with the emperor.-'
Syrian chronicles show interest in the encounters, too. Michael the Syrian
also knows of an imperial attack against Antioch and subsequent negotiations in
which Joscelin in particular played a central role. These resulted in an agreement to
exchange Aleppo and other cities for Antioch. Michael the Syrian implies an impe-
rial sojourn in Antioch on this occasion, as does Niketas Choniates. According to
Michael, the emperor then discovered that the Crusaders intended to dupe him and
departed angrily for Cilicia.P'The Syrian chronicler evidently mixes events from the
first meeting among John, Raymond and joscelin with those of the next year, to be
discussed below. Bar Hebraeus offers a shorter version of this report."
The Chronicle of1234 differs from the other accounts in that it reports a meet-
ing among John, Raymond and Joscelin in connection with the emperor's presence
in Cilicia in which the count and the prince submitted to the emperor. This seems
highly unlikely.56 In conformity with most of the other sources, the chronicle then
4. Ordericus Vitalis, Hlstoria ecdesiastica, ed. M. Chibna11 (6 vols.,Oxford,1968-80),VI,506-8.

so Ibn al-Qalanisi, Dhayl: History ojDamascus, 365-555 a.h.by Ibn al-Qa/dnisifrom theBodleian MS.
Hunt. 125,being a continuation ojHil41al-S4bi, ed. H.F. Amedroz(Leiden,1908),241,11.15-6.
SI Ibn al-Athir,AI-K4mil'AI-Kdmilji 't-ta 'rikh. Ibn-el-Athiri Cbronlcon quodperfectissimum lnscribi-
tur, ed. C.J.Tornberg(14 vols., Leiden,1851-1877;repr. Beirut,1979),XI,53.
S2 Sibt b. al-Jawzi, Mirdt, RHC or(5 vols., Paris1872-1906)Ill, 570.
S3 Kamal ad-Din, Zudbatal-balabji ta'rikhljalab, ed. S. Dahhan (Damascus, 1954),262,11. 9-11
and264, I. 10.That the emperor's campaign was also directed against Antioch is clear to Abu l-Fida,
Tdrib, Resumedel'bistoir« des crolsades tiredes Annales d'Abou 'I-Fed4, RHC or(5 vols.,Paris,1872-1906)
1,1-165,23.
S4 Michaelthe Syrian, Chronique, Ill, 245.
ss Bar Hebraeus, Chronicle, I, 264.
S6 John Kinnamos and William of Tyre report,for example, that Raymondand joscelin with their
troops were supporting King Fulk of Jerusalem, who was besieged in Montferrand by the Muslims.
EMPERORJOHNI1'SENCOUNTERS WITH FOREIGN RULERS 83
depicts the encounter in Antioch where Raymond and Joscelin submitted to the
emperor. The latter demanded that Antioch be handed over temporarily so that he
could leave his treasure and his equipment there for the duration of the campaign
against the Muslim countries that he intended to give the prince in exchange for the
city. Raymond was unhappy about this plan."
In comparison to the encounters with foreign rulers which we have investigated
so far, the first encounter of Emperor John with Prince Raymond of Antioch and
Count Joscelin of Edessa is exceptionally well documented. At the same time, the
large amount of contradictory information in the various sources is very problem-
atic. Certain components of the encounter, however, mentioned by several sources
and documented for other meetings between Byzantine emperors and foreign rul-
ers, strike the eye. The fact that they are mentioned so often shows that, whatever
the historicity of the components, they correspond to the experience and expecta-
tion of the recipients of the text - only what was credible was convincing.
This encounter is a characteristic example of a meeting prompted by a hostile
situation that had to be overcome before the rulers could meet. As long as John laid
siege to the prince in Antioch, a direct meeting was impossible. The claim to the
contrary by Kinnamos is not convincing and can be corrected by the other sources.
Before the rulers could meet, an agreement had to be made. Evidently; this included
not only political agreement on Raymond's and Joscelin's submission, the fate of
Antioch and the agreed Syrian campaign but also,according to William ofTyre, the
arrangements for the first encounter among the three men. This took place through
intermediaries, so to sayvia embassies. A direct meeting between the rulers was only
possible once an agreement had been made.
Intermediaries, that is men who played an important part in effecting an agreement,
have a central role in the reports, although each source names different protagonists
who' took part in the negotiations. John Kinnamos mentions the 'counciVsenate of
the Byzantines', William ofTyre talks of the 'wiser men on each side' or of 'godly
men', who acted as intermediaries. Ordericus Vitalis names one of Raymond's
grandees who, although he had originally encouraged him to resist, now advised
him to accept the emperor's invitation to come to his camp for negotiations. Fulk
ofJerusalem subsequently played an important role for the peace treaty by giving
his placet. Sibt b. al-Jawzi knows of a 'certain man' who took pains to achieve an
agreement between the parties. For the Syrian chroniclers Michae1 the Syrian and
Bar Hebraeus it was Joscelin who played an important role in bringing John and
Raymond to a joint agreement. It is evident that many intermediaries were involved
in achieving an agreement to end a hostile situation. An amicable settlement of a
conflict was, therefore, not a matter for the rulers alone. Who it was who played the
decisive role in the negotiations in 1137 is of secondary importance, the more so as
there is no convincing answer.
When they heard that imperial troops had marched into Syria, they abandoned their campaign and
returned to Antioch, Kinnamos, Epitome, 18,11. 5-12j WilIiam ofTyre, Chronicon, 1I, 665, 1.1-670, 1.6.
57 Chronicle of1234, 81,1. 33-82, 1.8.
84 MARTINMARKO VUGETIG
William of Tyre tells us that the rulers were accompanied by their entourages
(that is all persons who attended a ruler at such an occasion or were present at it).
Such reports are heard from many meetings of Byzantine emperors with foreign
rulers, for a potentate did not generally meet his counterpart alone. The entourage
could vary considerably in size and composition. The sources name three groups
most often: the military, relatives and the ruling elite. However, the categories were
often intermingled. 58 An extensive, magnificent entourage not only offered security;
by emphasising the ruler's power it also served a presentational purpose and created
publicity;" Verbal and non-verbal statements made by the protagonists during the
encounter became more binding, for the public also acted as witnesses.
Another constant element in the encounters between Byzantine emperors and
foreign rulers was the honourable reception. As with Raymond and joscelin, the
sources do not as a rule reveal which symbolic acts were performed at such occa-
sions. Most sources preserve silence as far as the procedure for receptions is con-
cerned and are instead content with topoi. The phrase used by William ofTyre, that
Raymond was received byJohn with due honour (cum debita honorificentia susceptus),
can be found similarly for many other meetings.
William of Tyre also reports that John presented valuable gifts to the prince of
Antioch before his withdrawal. The presentation of gifts is mentioned for so many
meetings of such various sorts that we can speak here of a constituent element
for all such encounters/" An intended meeting between two rulers was more or
less inconceivable without an exchange of gifts. Gifts had several functions: they
58 As an example we have the entourage set together with men from the three groups - the mili-
tary, the relatives, and the elite - who accompanied Grepes, the king of the Huns, to Justinian I in
Constantinople in 528 in John MaIa1as,Chronographia, 00.j.Thurn (BerlinlNew York,2000), 356, 53-5;
Pseudo-Dionysios ofTel-Mahre, Chronicle, part 3, tr, W. Witakowski, Translated Textsfor Historians 22
(Liverpool, 1997), 49.
S9 An extensive entourage was virtually a symbol of sovereign status. In 661 the Georgian ruler
Jiwanshir called his nobles to him to appear like a King to Heraclius at their meeting: Movses
Daskhuranetsi, Patmui'ium: Movsesi Kalankatowac'oy patmut'iwn aiouianic' a!xarhi, ed. M. Eninu
(Moscow, 1860), 146. William ofTyre also reports on the entourage which accompanied King Amauric
I ofJerusalem in 1171 to Manuel I in Constantinople: they needed ten ships for the crossing: WiIliam
of Tyre, Cbronicon, n, 942,11. 47-9.
00 For gifts in general see the classical study of M. Mauss, 'Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de
l'echange dans les socletes archatques', L'Annte Sociologique 1 (1923-4),30-186 and M. Griinbart (ed.),
Geschenke erhalten dieFreundschtift. Gahentausch und Netzwerkpflege im europiiischen Mittelalter. Akten des
Internationalen Kolloquiums Munster, 19.-20~ November 2009 (BerlinlMiinster,2011). For gifts as a dip-
lomatic medium see O. Treitinger, Die ostromische Kaiser- und Reicbsidee nach ihrerCestaltung im hOfischen
Zeremoniell (Jena,1938,repr. Darmstadt, 1956) 202-4; P. Schreiner, 'Diplomatische Geschenke zwischen
Byzanz und dem Westen ea, 800-1200: elne Analyse der Texte mit Qpellenanhang', DOP 58 (2004),
252-82; A.~. Anca, 'Ehrenveisung durch Geschenke in der Komnenenzeit: Gewohnheiten und Regeln
des herrscherlichen Schenkens', Mitteilungen SABK 4 (2005),185-94; G. Prinzing, 'Zum Austausch
diplomatischer Geschenke zwischen Byzanz und seinen Nachbarn in Ostmittel- und Siidosteuropa',
Ibid., 139-71; F. Tinnefeld, 'Mira varietas. Exquisite Geschenke byzantinischer Gesandtschaften in
ihrem politischen Kontext', Ibid., 121-37 and Anca, Repriisentation, 94-114. For the function ofgifts in
encounters between rulers cf. Schwedler, Herrschertrejfen, 385-6.
honoured the guest, but they could also indicate a dependent relationship where
gifts were de facto tribute payments. The interpretation of a gift always lay in the
eye of the beholder: as far as the Byzantines were concerned, a gift presented by a
foreign ruler to the emperor was seen as payment of tribute, while gifts presented
by the emperor were seen as an act of grace." The character of the gifts mentioned
in the sources cannot, therefore, be determined unequivocally'S One important
basic function of making gifts was to display wealth and to secure a good reputa-
tion in the opinion of one's opposite number," Gifts enhanced the honour of the
recipient but also the prestige of the giver.64 Generosity was a virtue in a sovereign
and demanded an appropriate political stage. 6S Gifts also, however, had a personal
character. The objects which changed hands carried with them an inherent part of
the giver.66 The sources often, as in the case ofWilliam ofTyre, only enumerate the
amount or the value of the gifts without mentioning in detail what theywere.F For
the,few cases where the gifts were listed in detail, we see a great variety of objects
which changed hands in the course of an encounter between rulers."
One thing specific to the Komnenian era were the oaths of fealty. This was a
Western ritual, which now took root in Byzantium and had the function of estab-
lishing close, hierarchical relations between two persons. The term lizios used by
Choniates also appears in connection with other meetings between Byzantine
emperors and foreign rulers at this time. In the oath which Bohemond, prince of
Antioch, swore to emperor Alexios in Deabolis (1108) he declared that he was
prepared to become the emperor's Iizios, as the agreement reproduced by Anna
Comnena tells US. 69 In western thought, ligeance took precedence over any other
vassalage." Whether Anna and Choniates knew this specific meaning ofthe term is
unclear.The term was used in Latin and Greek sources for the time ofManuel I to
61 Treitinger, Kaiser- und Reichsidee, 202. Similarly A. Cutler, 'Silver across the Euphrates: Forms of
exchange between Sasanian Persia and the Later Roman Empire', Mitteilungen SABK 4 (2005), 11-2
and J. Engemann, 'Diplomatische "Geschenke" - Objekte aus der Spiitantike?', Mitteilungen SABK 4
(2005), 39-41.
62 Kolb,Herrscherbegegnungen, 97.
63 Treitinger, Kaiser- und Reichsidee, 202.
64 Voss, Herrsibertreffen, 151; Kolb, Herrscherbegegnungen, 97-105; Schwedler, Herrscbertreffen;
380-8.
6S Voss, Herrschertrejfin, 154; Anca, Reprasentation, 97-8.
66 A. Bauer, 'Herrschergaben an St. Peter', Mitteilungen SABK 4 (2005), 65.
67 One of many examples is the meeting between Alexios I Komnenos and the two Crusaders
Robert II ofNormandy and Stephen ofBlois in 1097. Albert of Aachen reports that the rulers were hon-
oured by the emperor with numerous gifts: Albert ofAachen, Historia Ierosolimitana, ed. S.B. Edgington
(Oxford,2007),92.
68 An impressive example is the sojourn of the Armenian King Ashot II in Constantinople (914).
The Armenian katholikos and annalist John Draskhanakerttsi enumerates a great number of gifts which
the king received,including purple cloth, clothing, horses, armour,jewellery, vessels,gold and silver:John
Draskhanakerttsi, Patmut'ium,ed. E.V.Zagareisvill (Thilisi, 1965),212, I. 23-213, I. 6 and 221, u 27-33.
69 Anna Comnena, Alexias, 414,11. 9-13.
70 V. Henn, Dasligische Lehnswesen im Westen und Norduxsten des mittelalterlichen deutschen Relcbes
(Munich,1971).
86 MARTINMARKO VUGETIC
describe the dependent relationship ofa foreign ruler to the emperor. The Bohemian
duke Vladislav (1147/48)71 was described as Manuel's lizios as was the Armenian
prince Toros (1159).72 AfterJohn's death Raymond himselfbecame lizios to his son
and successor Manuel, in 1145.73
Raymond ofAntioch;Joscelin 11ofEdessa: the second encounter

(1138,llp~ay)
In the following year, the beginning of the joint campaign against the Muslim cit-
ies in Syria precipitated the second encounter. Again Niketas Choniates presents
a very harmonious version of events. The campaign, he says, was all in all very suc-
cessful but had to be broken offprematurely because of bad news.John returned to
Antioch, entering the city with pomp. The populace of the city took great pains to
decorate the streets with icons. John then returned to Constantinople via Cilicia."
John Kinnamos presents a summary ofthe Syrian campaign but does not mention
the participation of Raymond and joscelin, the emperor's procession into Antioch
or the events which followed. Instead, he implies that the emperor returned directly
to Cilicia after the siege of Shaizar was broken off.75
The Byzantine encomiasts also report on these events. Michael Italikos begins
with the campaign without, however, mentioning Raymond's and joscelin's pres-
ence and then describes the procession through Antioch in more detail. After his
victories, the emperor celebrated his triumph with a procession through the richly
decorated city.John was surrounded by a throng protecting, acclaiming and escort-
ing him as he rode in on his most beautiful horse. Noblemen of the Franks ran
beside the emperor and followed him. Others threw themselves to the ground in
front of him. Raymond and joscelin are not mentioned by name." Nikephoros
Basilakes also writes about the Syrian campaign, but he, too, omits any mention
of Raymond and joscelin. He then reports on the emperor's entry into Antioch,
The whole populace of the city gathered to acclaim the emperor during the trium-
phal procession. As we have already seen in Michael Italikos' encomium, neither
Raymond nor J oscelin is in evidence here either. 77 Theodore Prodromos writes even
more generally about the events. He is satisfied with giving a summary of the
campaign and then also refers to the emperor's visit to Antioch, again without
mentioning Raymond and Joscelin. 78
71Kinnamos, Epitome, 223,I!.5-6.

72William ofTyre, Caronicon, Il, 847,11. 46-7.Thisisa particularly interestingcasesince- according
to the Latin chronicler- a foreignruler who was not from the Western Latin milieubecamebound to
the emperorby a ritual which camefrom the West.
73 Kinnamos, Epitome, 35, I. 23.
74 Choniates,Historia, 28,I. 26-31,1. 21.
75 Kinnamos, Epitome, 20, 11. 15-9.
76 ltalikos, Lettres et discours, 261, I. 34-264, I. 8 and 265, I. 18-266, I. 29. The Cilician and Syrian
campaigns can alsobe found at 229,I. 19-230, I. 9 and 232,I. 1-233, I. 13.
77 Basilakes, Orationes, 64,I. 23-73, 1.30.
78 Prodromos, Historlscbe Gedichte, 253-9.
The Armenian Chroniclers offer two versions of the events. Gregory the Priest
gives a very short summary ofthe Syrian campaign. He claims that the Franks lured
the emperor to Shaizar with a ruse. He knows nothing about a meeting among
John, Raymond and joscelin." Smpat Sparapet is even shorter. He devotes to the
emperor's expedition to Aleppo and Shaizar, which he deems more or less unsuc-
cessful, all of one sentence."
Like Gregory the Priest, the author ofthe Syrian Chronicle oJ1234 sees Frankish
intrigues as the cause of the emperor's expedition against the secure stronghold
Shaizar. Contrary to the Armenian reports, however, the Chronicle expressly names
Joscelin amongst other anonymous Frankish nobles who accompanied the emperor
on his campaign. After the siege of Shaizar had been abandoned,]ohn returned first
to Antioch and went on from there to Anazarbos in Cilicia." Details of events in
Antioch are unknown to him, too.
As far as the Arab annalists are concerned, Ibn al-Qalanisi and Kamal ad-Din
report that Joscelin and Raymond accompanied the emperor on his expedition.
Both authors report on the course of the campaign in great detail but end with
the short remark that the emperor and his troops retreated to Antioch. They know
nothing of the events there.P Further Arab sources portray the Syrian expedition in
detail without explicitly mentioning that Raymond and Josce1in took part,"
It is again William of Tyre who has the most detail to offer. William recounts
that John left the Cilician winter camp in the spring of the year 1138 and led his
army to Shaizar where he met up with Raymond and joscelin and their troops. The
prince and the count displayed little commitment to the cause, unlike the emperor,
spending most of their time gambling. Due to the bad examples they set, the
morale of their troops sank. The emperor's exhortations could not effect a change
so that an exasperated John finally agreed to the request of the populace that the
siegebe ended in return for the payment of tribute. He ordered the end ofthe siege.
When Raymond and Joscelin heard this, they tried in vain to prevail on him to
continue the siege.John returned to Antioch. Accompanied by his sons, his nobles
and a large number of troops he was led into the city with pomp, proceeding first
to the cathedral and then to the palace. The patriarch, members of the clergy and
the populace attended the procession, which was accompanied by psalms, hymns,
chants, the sound ofinstruments, cheering and applause from the people. Raymond
and Joscelin rendered the service of strator, Le. they led the reins of the emperor's
horse. John resided in the palace for some days as if it was his own, and enjoyed
the comforts of the baths and other physical recreation. He was very generous
79 Gregorythe Priest, tamanakagrut'iwn, 153.

80 Smpat Sparapet, tamanakagrut'lum,617.
81 Chronicle 011234, 84, I. 26--86, I. 2.
82 Kamal ad-Din, Zubdat, 264, I. 10-268,1.10.
83 Abu l-Fida, Tarib, 23-4; Ibn al-Athir, Al-Kiimil, XI, 56--60; and Ibn al-Athir, AI-Tarikh: Histoire
des Atabees deMosulpar Ibn el-Athir, RHC or (5 vols., Paris 1872-1906) n.2, at 98-101; Sibt b. al-jawzi,
Mirat,570.
88 MARTINMARKO VUCETIC
to the prince, the count, the nobles and even to part of the populace. Then he
called Raymond,Joscelin and their nobles to him and demanded that the fortress
of Antioch be surrendered to him, according to the agreement. joscelin appeared
to agree but asked for time so that he and Raymond could consult with the nobles
how the agreement could be implemented without provoking an uprising of the
populace. John agreed to a short adjournment. Meanwhile Joscelin secretly incited
the populace to a revolt, hurried to the emperor and, in answer to John's question
why he was storming into the Holy Palace against its custom and usage, breath-
lessly informed him of the revolt. In the meantime, the roar of the crowd could be
heard in the Palace and attacks had been made on members of the emperor's fol-
lowers who took refuge in the Palace. John called Raymond and his nobles to him
and informed them that he had reconsidered his decision, intended to refrain from
taking over the citadel and would withdraw the next day. Raymond and Joscelin
succeeded in pacifying the mob. John and his troops withdrew as agreed and set up
camp in front of the walls of the city.84
For the meeting of the three rulers on their joint campaign the sources offet
only sparse information. The records for the joint procession into Antioch and the
sojourn in the city are much more detailed. William ofTyre's account in particular
affords us important insights. Anca analysed this procession in detail. He supple-
mented missing information from the accounts ofManuel I Komnenos' procession
into the city on the Orontes in 1159, which was organised in a similar manner. The
ritual began by collecting the emperor outside the city with a delegation consist-
ing of clergy, members of the city and nobles who then accompanied him into the
city. Raymond and joscelin were delegated to lead the reins of the emperor's horse.
The procession first proceeded to the city's main church and ended finally at the
palace." Anca emphasizes how unusual it is that a procession of this sort could
take place anywhere other than Constantinople/" He had not noticed, however,
that there is indeed a comparable case for John's entry in 1138. As early as 1030
Romanos III Argyros had entered Antioch with great pomp during his expedition
against Aleppo." Admittedly, Anca concentrates on the question whether the ritual
accompanying John's entry into the city was 'merely' a ceremonial entry or rather a
triumphal procession. On the basis ofencomiast literature he decides that it must be
the latter. In practice, though, it is more or less impossible to dissociate one from the
other. What is clear is that the festive, ceremonial entry of the emperor as governor
of the city - whether in connection with a successful campaign or not - belongs to
the proven repertory of Roman-Byzantine rituals and had manifold connotations.
As early as Hellenistic times the a'dventus of the lord of the city, accepted as the
84Wi1liam of Tyre, Chronicon, II,674, 1.1-680, I. 54.

85Anca, Repriisentation, 26-30.
86 C£ Ibid., 19-52, at 26: 'Diese beiden Ereignisse (John's and Manuel's entry in 1138, 1159
respectively] stellen eine Zasur im Bereich des Zeremoniells bel den Komnenen dar,da das Ritual des
Triumpheinzuges seit]ahrhunderten nur in der Hauptsradr Konstantinopel stattgefunden hatte.'
87 Michael Psellos, Chronographia, ed. D.R. Reinsch (Berlin/Boston, 2014), 34, 1. 3-35, 1.1.
deliverer,was celebrated with a triumphal entry. On the other hand, such events had
a Christian connotation, since they were redolent ofJesus' entry into jerusalem." It
was a festive occasion which beguiled the senses ofthose present. The attendance of
the Patriarch, the clergy and the populace of Antioch in the entourage was indeed
a sign of their consent and their recognition of the emperor as lord of the city.Thus
from the Byzantine point of view there was no significant difference between the
situation in 1030 and that a century later.
During the festive entry, Raymond and Joscelin had to render the emperor
the service of strator by leading the reins of his horse. As Anca rightly notes, this
was an ambivalent affair. On the one hand, Raymond and Joscelin publicly sig-
nalled their subservience to the emperor. On the other hand, it was a great honour
from the Byzantine point of view to be allowed to lead the emperor's horse. In
addition, the performance of the ritual made clear that the prince and the count
had regained the emperor's favour," The strator service in 1138 is the first known
occurrence ofsuch a ritual being undertaken by Latin princes for the service of the
emperor, and therefore presents a new dimension."
The triumphal entry was an ideal way to present John as lord of the city. This
is made clear above all by the emperor's acts during his sojourn in Antioch. He
resided in the prince's Palace as if - so William ofTyre tells us - it was his own. In
the emperor's opinion, this was exactly the case. His occupation of the Palace was a
symbol ofhis dominion over the city. He subsequently visited the baths and distrib-
uted money amongst the populace - in short, he behaved like a sovereign.
The true limits ofJohn's power and the fictitious nature of his position as lord
of Antioch were shown up for what they were by the rebellion which followed. The
events described by William ofTyre are of particular interest because they make it
very clear how meticulously a reception was normally prepared and organised. The
chronicler implies that there was something staged, also, about the manner in which
the count stormed into the Palace against all etiquette. The way in which William
depicts the count's appearance before John in the Palace is a reversal ofthe expected
procedure: a reception in the Palace normally was a solemn, well-prepared event
where nothing was left to chance."
88 Anca, Repriisentation, 19 and 24-5.

89 For the service of strator see R. Holzmann, DerKaiser alsMarschall des Papstes. Eine Untersuchung
zur Geschichte der Beziehungen zsuiscben Kaiser und Papst im Mittelalter (Berlin/Leipzig, 1928); G.
Ostrogorsky, 'Zum Stratordienst des Herrschers in der byzantinisch-slavischen Welt', SK 7 (1935),
187-204; S. Kreiker, 'Marschall'in Lexik.on des Mittelalters 6 (Munich/Zurich, 1993),324-5; A.T. Hack,
Das EmpJangszeremoniell bei mittelalterlichen Papst-Kaiser-TrejJen (ColognelWeimarNienna, 1999), at
504-38; Anca, Repriisentation, 42-6.
90 As far as the Byzantinesources areconcerned,Kinnamos,Epitome 219,11.14-7is the first to men-
tion the strator service, in his descriptionof the controversy with Hungary during the reign ofManuel 1.
91 For this see the protocolsin Constantine Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis, 566,1.11-594,1.14.
90 MARTINMARKO VUCE116
Raymond ofAntioch;}oscelin 11ofEdessa: the third encounter

(1138, MaylJune)
William of Tyre is the only one who tells us about the last encounter. After h
retreat from Antioch, the emperor set up his camp outside the walls ofthe city.Sine
Raymond and joscelin had realised that the emperor was furious, for he knew th
true reasons for the revolt, they sent envoys (nuntios) to plead their innocence.Joh
allowed himself to be placated and called Raymond, Joscelin and other nobles t
him so that they might meet amicably (fami/iariter). He received them affably ani
informed them that because ofurgent matters he had to leave Syria but would rerun
with a great army to implement their treaty. Then he departed with his troops."
Just like their first encounter, this third meeting was the result of a situation fraugh
with tension.A solution had to be found in prenegotiations. Only once this was success'
fullyconcluded wasJohn willing to receivethe prince and the count. Once again, envoy:
were at work. No details of the negotiations, with the exception of the conventiona
'friendly reception',are given.The emperor's announcement that he would return with ~
great army to implement the treaty could be interpreted either as a promise to attempt
again to conquer the Muslim cities in Syria or as a threat that he will take Antioch for-
ciblynext time. Indeed, when John marched against Syria in 1143 and again demanded
the capitulation ofAntioch, war was only averted by the emperor's sudden death.
Conclusion
In comparison with his father Alexios I and his son Manuel I we have records for
comparatively few encounters between John II and foreign rulers. In addition to
the poor body of source material available, this is a result of the state of foreign
affairs at the time and the relatively short duration of his reign. The encounters of
Emperor John II with foreign rulers display in part characteristics with which we
are familiar from earlier centuries. This is particularly the case for John's meetings
with the Seljuk Sultan Masoud I and the Armenian prince Leo, which are examples
of encounters with fugitive and captured rulers respectively. In terms of the struc-
ture and organisation of the encounters, we also see many well-known elements:
the exchange of envoys for example, the festive reception and the exchange ofgifts.
We also, however, find elements which are specific to encounters in the Komnenian
period, in particular the oath of fealty and the strator service. The border meeting
with Stephen II ofHungary is exceptional and can perhaps be seen and understood
in terms of long-term developments as far as the location of meetings was con-
cerned. The emperor's encounters with Raymond ofAntioch andJoscelin ofEdessa
also display some special features. One of these is the strator service performed by
foreign rulers for the emperor which is mentioned here for the first time. The infil-
tration of specific feudal elements is typical for the Komnenian era in general. In
summary we can state that John's encounters with other rulers combine well-known
elements with new ones which point the way to later centuries.
'2 William of Tyre, Chronicon, Il, 680, 1.1-681, 1. 49.

7
From Greek into Latin:

Western scholars and translators in
Constantinople during the reign ofJohn 11
A/ex Rodriguez Suarez
The Komnenian era was a period which witnessed an increasing number of

Westerners travelling to Byzantium. Many served in the Byzantine army while
others were traders, active in Constantinople and other Byzantine centres. However,
the presence of Westerners in Byzantium was not restricted to mercenaries and
merchants. In Constantinople there were a few Western individuals who had lin-
guistic skills and literary interests. Western scholars in Komnenian Byzantium
are usually associated with the court of the 'Latinophile' emperor Manuel I; these
are well-known figures, for instance, the case of the brothers Leo Tuscus and Ugo
Eterianus.' These individuals played a key role in the Western rediscovery of Greek
culture, the so-called 'Twelfth-century Renaissance'f Information regarding the
presence of Western scholars and translators in Constantinople before the reign
of Manuel I is scarce. In this chapter, I will focus on four Western translators
and scholars residing in Constantinople during the reign ofJohn H. The aim is to
provide a general picture of this group and assess their contribution to Byzantine
culture of the period, proving that the arrival ofWestern scholars to the Byzantine
empire predated Manuel's reign.
There is not much evidence about the presence ofWestern scholars or translators
InByzantium before the reign ofJohn H. The sources for the encounters between
the papal legates and Patriarch Michael Keroularios in 1054 provide us with the
names of some interpreters and translators that were involved. Keroularios ordered
the translation ofthe excommunication bull from Latin ('Cllv l'Ca/\(ba yi\waaav)
into Greek, and this task was carried out by three men, the protospatharios Kosmas
Romaios, a certain Pyrros and a monk called John the Spaniard (rov 'Ioncrvov).'
I A Dondaine, 'Hugues Etherien et Leon Toscan',AHDLMA 27 (1952), 67-134.

2 C.H. Haskins,1heRenaissance ofthetwelfthcentury (Cambridge, MA, 1927).
3 C. Will, Acta et scripta quae de controuersils ecdeslae graecae et latinae saeculo undecimo composita
extant (LeipzigIMarburg,1861), 161.
From John11Komnenos, Emperor ofByzantium:In the Shadow ofFather and Son. Copyright © Alex
Rodriguez Suarez. Publishedby Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon,Oxon OX144RN.
91
92 ALEXRODRIGUEZ SUAREZ
Kosmas may perhaps have been from Rome, while John presumably came from
the Iberian Peninsula." In the same century the Amalfitan community present in
Constantinople and on Mount Athos included bilingual monks who translated
Greek manuscripts into Latin, for instance the Life ofSt Irene." A more particular
case is that of john Italos." While his surname indicates that he was from Italy,
his religious and cultural background remains uncertain. If he came from southern
Italy, it is likely that he was bilingual already before he moved to Constantinople.
Until the ascension of Alexios I Komnenos in 1081, Italos occupied a prestigious
and influential position in the capital. He had been a pupil ofMichael Psellos and
friend of emperor Michael VII Doukas, and he eventually attained the rank of con-
sul of the philosophers, or principal teacher of philosophy.
After Italos there is no specific piece of information about the presence of
Western scholars or translators in Byzantium during the reign ofAlexios 1.However,
some translators must certainly have been present at court." We know a certain
Swain/Sven, recorded in a seal dated to the second half ofthe eleventh century, who
was patrikios and 'English interpreter' (b(Le)Qfl(Tl)vw'Cf.j 'C(w)v 'EVM(V<UV).8 In
this case,the presence ofan English interpreter should be associated with the arrival
of the English exiles in the Byzantine army? Moreover, the increase of contacts
between the empire and the West during the reign of Alexios Komnenos probably
encouraged the Byzantine court to employ more interpreters in order to translate,
on occasions when both Byzantines and Westerners were present. For instance, the
passage ofthe First Crusade through Constantinople was an event which must have
required the presence ofinterpreters. In one ofthe most interesting events narrated
in theAlexiad, we are told that Alexios asked one ofthe interpreters to find out what
a rude Crusader had said about him. It is likely that many of these interpreters and
translators were from Western Europej'" the Byzantines in fact are assumed not to
, K. Ciggaar, Western travellers to Constantinople: the West and Byzantium, 962-1204 (Lelden,
1996),302.
5 W. Berschin, 'I traduttori d'Amalfi nel1'XI secolo', in C. Alzati (ed.), Cristianita ed Europa.
Miscellanea di studi in onore di Luigi Prosdocimi (2 vols., RomelFreiburgNienna, 1994-2000), l, 239;
P. Schreiner, 'Gli intellettuali nelle colonic italiane dell' Oriente bizantino', Storia deiGenooesi 12 (1995),
356; V.von Falkenhausen, 'Gli Amalfitani nell'Impero bizantino', in E.G. Farrugia (ed.), Amalfi and
Byzantium (Rome, 2010), 35-6.
6 Comnena,Alexias, 161-67; P.Magdalino, 'Prosopography and Byzantine identity', in A. Cameron
(ed.), Fiftyyears ofprosopography (Oxford, 2003), 50-1.
7 L. Brehler, Lesinstitutions byzantines del'Empirebyzantin (Paris, 1949), 302.
I G. Zacos, Byzantineleadseals (Bern, 1984), Il, 337, no. 706; N. Oikonomides, 'L'«unilinguisme»
officiel de Constantinople byzantine (VIl'-XII' s.)J,Bv~avnvaI;V/-I/-IELK'ra 13 (1999), 17

9 ]. Shepard, 'The English and Byzantium: A study of their role in the Byzantine army in the later
eleventh century', Traditio 29 (1973),53-92.
10 A possible example could be Manuel rov Moonvov, the servant of Euphorbenos Constantine
Katakalon, who took part in the peace negotiations with Bohemond in 1108, see Comnena,Alexias, 411.
Because of his name it has been suggested that he was from Modena, see Anna Comnena,Alexiade, tr,
B. Leib (3 vols., Paris, 1937-1945), III, 122-123. Skoulatos suggested that Manuel accompanied
Katakalon in order to act as interpreter, in Skoulatos, Lespersonnages byzantins, 186.
FROM GREEK INTO LATIN 93
have had much knowledge offoreign languages." While there certainly were bilin-
gual Byzantines, this was mainly the case of the inhabitants of the periphery, for
exampleBulgarians and Armenians." On the other hand, those born at the heart of
the empire, that is in Constantinople, usually only spoke Greek.
There were, however, exceptions. These included individuals who had frequent
contact with non-Greek populations, as was likely to be the case with soldiers.
Anna Comnena informs us that during a naval battle against a pirate ship from
Italy, Marianos Maurokatakalon, the son of the Byzantine naval commander,
talked to the crew in their own language, presumably an Italian dialect." Anna also
noted that during the negotiations that led to the treaty of Devol with Bohemond
in 1108, one of the hostages sent to Bohemond was a certain Adralestos, who
understood the 'Keltic' language, presumably meaning Old French." In any case,
details about the position or background ofimperial interpreters remain obscure."
It is assumed that the number of Latin experts started to grow from the twelfth
century onwards." The closer and more frequent relations between Byzantium
and the West during this century was the reason behind this increase. It cannot be
a coincidence that the title of chief interpreter (f-lEym; blEQf-lTJVW'CT]C;) seems to
date to the twelfth century.'? While most of the evidence concerning this position
dates from the Late Byzantine period," individuals discussed in this chapter can
provide us with an insight into the lives and activities of translators at the court
of John n.
11 S. Runciman, 'Byzantine linguists', in npoa<popa eLC; L-riMuvva n. KVptald61JV (Thessaloniki,
1953),596-602.
12 G. Dagron, 'Formes et fonctions du pluralisme linguistique a Byzance (IX'-XII' siecle)', TM 12
(1994),223.
13 Comnena,Alexias,305; Skoulatos, Lespersonnages hyzantins, 186-7.
14 Comnena,Alexias, 408. However, we have no details concerning Adralestos' origins. According
to Kazhdan and Wharton Epstein, Adralestos is likely to have been a Byzantine in A. Kazhdan and
A. Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine culture in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (BerkeleylLos
Angeles/London, 1985), 183. On the other hand, De La Force and Skoulatos suggested that his
origins were found in southern Italy in Marquis De La Force, 'Les conseillers latins du basileus Alexis
Comnene', Byzantion 11 (1936),156; Skoulatos, Lespersonnages byzantim, 4, n, l.
IS For the period before the eleventh century, see the corps of the interpreters in D.A. Miller, 'The
Logothete ofthe Drome in the Middle Byzantine period', Byzantlon 36 (1966),449-458. Interpreters of
Latin and other Western languages do not seem to have played an important role. In general, historical
sources do not disclose many details about interpreters, K.A. Tuley, 'A century of communication and
acclimatization: Interpreters and intermediaries in the Kingdom of Jerusalem', in A. Classen (ed.), East
meets West in the MiddleAgesand Early Modern times: Transcultural experiences in the Premadern world
(BerlinIBoston, 2013), 312.
16 R Guil1and, 'Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'empire byzantin. Titres et offices du Bas-
empire byzantin. Le grand interprete, 6 flEyal; bl€QflllV€1Yt1'Jl;', EBBS 36 (1968),18.

17 Ibid., 19-20.
18 Pseudo-Kodinos, 64-5, 108-9.
Cerbano Cerbani
The first Westerner documented in an official position during the reign ofJohn II
Komnenos is Cerbano. He was a Venetian cleric who wrote the Translatio mirifici
martyris Isidori a Chio insula in civitatem Venetam,l9 a work that narrates the events
concerning the removal of the relics of St Isidore from Chios, where he had been
buried, to Venice in 1125. 20 Since Cerbano played a central role in the removal of
the relics, the narration includes some biographical details about his life. He prob-
ably wrote the account in Venice at some point after the events. Cerbano mentions
that he was in the service of the Byzantine emperor but does not specify what
duties he had at the Byzantine court. It has been proposed, on the basis of his lit-
erary work and his evident knowledge of Greek, that Cerbano may have been an
Interpreter." He has also been identified almost certainly as a member of the corps
of interpreters employed by the Byzantine admlnistration.P If this interpretation
is correct, Cerbano is the first Westerner attested in the written sources to have
worked at court as interpreter or translator during the Komnenian period. More
importantly, Cerbano discloses the fact that he had been employed there since the
reign of Alexios, whom he calls 'magnifici imperatoris'P Charles Brand suggested
that Cerbano was employed for at least ten or twelve years." Whatever the case,
Cerbano certainly spent rather a long time in the service of the Byzantine emper-
ors, and so we can assume that his skills were valued. His Venetian origins should
not surprise us. The presence ofVenetian merchants in Byzantium is attested since
at least the tenth century;" Also, as a result of the military cooperation between
Venice and Byzantium during the first Norman invasion (1081-1085), the presence
ofVenetians in the empire had probably increased. More importantly, the role ofthe
Venetians in the relations between Byzantium and the West was not limited to that
of merchants. In the tenth century Liudprand had reported that a certain Venetian
called Domenico acted as the messenger of Otto I (962-973) to Nikephoros II
Phokas (963-969).26 Cerbano was another Venetian individual whose presence in
the empire was not related to commercial activities.
19 Dizionario biografico degli italiani,s.v, 'Cerbani, Cerbano'; C.M. Brand, ~ imperial translator
at the Comnenian court', Byzantinoslavica 59 (1998),217-21. Cerbano described himself as 'quidam
Venetiarum clericus, Cerbanusnomine et cognomine'.
20 RIfC oce V, 321-34; M. Angold,'The Venetian chronicles and archives as sources for the history
of Byzantium and the Crusades (992-1204)',in M. Whitby (ed.), Byzantines and Crusaders in non-Greek
sources 1025-1204 (Oxford,2007),69-70. •
21 A. Pertusi,'Cultura greco-bizantina ne1 tardo medioevo nelle Venezie e suoi echi in Dante', in
V. Brancaand G. Padoan (eds.),Danteela cultura oeneta (Florence, 1966),170.
22 Brand,'An imperialtranslator',218.
23 RIfC oce V,323.
24 Brand, ~ imperialtranslator',217.
2S Liudprand of Cremona, the complete works of Liudprandof Cremona, tr, P.Squatriti (Washington,
D.C., 2007),272.
26 Liudprand of Cremona, the complete works, 257; K.Leyser, 'The tenth centuryin Byzantine-Western
relationships', in D. Baker(ed.),Relations between Eastand West in theMiddleAges(Edinburgh, 1973),31.
FROM GREEKINTO LATIN 95
The translation of the relics of St Isidore took place during a difficult time for
the Venetians in the empire. In 1119 John decided not to renew the commercial
privileges that his father had granted to Venicein exchange for military help against
Robert Guiscard (1082).27 Moreover, if we are to believe a Venetian document
from the same year, the doge Domenico Miche1e (1117-1130) had ordered all the
Venetians within the empire to return to Venice." He may have wished to weaken
the Byzantine economy in this way,but it is likely that he was also planning a mili-
tary expedition in reprisal for John's decision. The tension between the Byzantine
court and Venice probably compromised Cerbano's position. Furthermore, he
informs us that he had asked permission to visit Jerusalem but had been refused."
It is clear that Cerbano had cause to dislike John, and this may explain why John is
labelled as a 'tyrannum'in the Tramlatio.30We are not told the reasons for the refusal
of Cerbano's request. Perhaps his skills were needed at court, but the emperor may
also have thought he actually wanted to escape. During the winter of 1122-1123,
the Venetian fleet had besieged Corfu on its way to the Crusader States." Cerbano
must have known sensitive details concerning the reactions and movements of the
Byzantine court. As Rodolphe Guilland has argued, as a result of their position
interpreters were in possession of state secrets and thus they had to be trustworthy
people.? Maybe the emperor suspected that Cerbano would pass information to the
Venetian authorities.
In the Translatio, Cerbano tells that he left Constantinople and embarked on
a boat (1124). In the island of 'Nicaria' (Icaria), however, he met the doux of
Crete by chance." The doux recognised Cerbano because he had met him before.
When he realised that Cerbano had left the court without permission, he had
him sent back to Constantinople. The fact that the doux of Crete, someone with
military and administrative responsibilities, knew Cerbano confirms that the
Venetian's task at court allowed him to mingle with high officials. Even if this
was not the case, his position allowed him to be seen by other people. Perhaps
we can imagine that Cerbano had acted as interpreter in front of the doux. Back
27 T.F.Madden, 'The chrysobull of AlexiusI Comnenus to the Venetians: The date and the debate',
]MH28 (2002),23-41.
28 Famig/ia Zusto, ed. L. Lanfranchi (Venice, 1955),26, no. 8.
29 RHC occ V,324.
30 Ibid., 323.
31 T. Devaney, '"Like an ember buried in ashes": The Byzantine-Venetianconflictof 1119-1126', in

T.F.Madden.j.L, Naus and V. Ryan (OOs.), Crusades - Medievalworlds in conflict (FarnhamlBurlington,
2010),127-47.
32 Guilland,'Etudes sur l'histoire administrative', 18.
33 During the twelfth century the provincial administrator of Crete held the identical tides of
katepan or dou». We do not knowwho Cerbano met, but we know that in 1118 the katepanwas a certain
John Elladas: D. Tsougarakis, Byzantine Crete: From the 5th century to the ~netian conquest (Athens,
1988),181-2. According to Tsougarakis, the dou» was usuallydirecdy dependent on the suprememili-
tary or navalcommanderin Constantinople,either the megas domestikos or the megas doux, Ibid., 192-3.
Thus,the doux was certainly aware of the hostilitieswith Venice and possiblysuspected that Cerbano
was trying to escape.
in Constantinople, Cerbano was sentenced to imprisonment. Nevertheless, he

managed to escape. Brand has argued that his flight from the Constantinopolitan
prison suggests that the influence of the Venetian community was still significant
during this tense period." While it is indeed possible that Venetian money freed
Cerbano, we cannot exclude the possibility that he had befriended Byzantines at
court who helped him to escape.
The Translatio then tells us that Cerbano changed his clothes ('mutatis postea
Indumentls'L'" This detail seems to suggest that he would have been identifiable
by his manner of dress. This time, Cerbano was taking no chances. There are two
possibilities regarding the clothes he wore. He may have been wearing clothes that
identified him as a Westerner, or specifically as a Venetian. This is unlikely, since in
Constantinople there would have been many other Westerners similarly dressed. It
is more probable that Cerbano was entitled to wear a court uniform, which would
have identified him with his position of interpreter. Otto Kresten and Werner
Seibt have suggested that the seals of a certain Theophylaktos Exubitos belonged
to a 'chief interpreter' (/-leyal; OlEQWlveu"Ci)C;) attested at the court of Manuel."
They have argued that the figure's characteristic attire depicted on the seal, which
includes a sort of hat, may have intended to show details of his court uniform.
The fourteenth-century treatise of Pseudo-Kodin os describes the attire of the chief
interpreter." Even though it is likely that this had changed since the twelfth cen-
tury, it is clear that such an individual wore specific clothes at court.
Cerbano tells us that he left Constantinople and went to Chrysopolis. Brand
has rightly identified this with the Chrysopolis in eastern Macedonia, near the
mouth of the river Nestos, and not the city across from Constantinople (modern
Uskiidar).38 The town was one of the locations in the list of privileges that had
been granted to the Venetians by Alexios I,39 There he boarded a ship owned by a
Byzantine. It is possible that he was trying to avoid Venetian ships as these may
have been carefully inspected by the Byzantine authorities. Moreover, Cerbano pre-
tended to be a Sicilian in order not to be recognised as a Venetian. We can assume
that some element could identify him as a Westerner, namely his accent. Although
he spoke Greek, his pronunciation might have revealed his origin. On his journey
34 Brand, 'An imperial translator', 219.

J5 RHCoccV,325.
36 O. Kresten and W. Seibt, 'Theophylaktos Exubitos',j()B 52 (2002),231-41; C. Gastgeber, 'Die
lateinische Obersetzungsabteilung der byzantinischen Kaiserkanzlei unter den Komnenen und Angeloi',
in M. Balard, E. Malamut and J.-M. Spieser (eds.), Byzance et le monde exttrieur. Contacts, relations,
echanges (Paris, 2005), 106; Kinnamos informs us that Theophylaktos was Italian, EleO</>uAAK't:oV
avbQa 1't:aA6v, in Kinnamos, Epitome, 208-9.
37 For example, he wears a skaranikon, a hat covered in red velvet and with a small red tassel on its
peak, Pseudo-Kodinos, 64-5.
311 Brand, 'An imperial translator', 219.
39 S. Borsarl, '11 crisobullo di Alessio I per Venezia', Annali dell'Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storid
2 (1969-70), 126; I trattaticon Blsanzio, 992-1198, ed. M. Pozza and G. Ravegnanl (Venice, 1993),33,
n.15.
FROM GREEK INTO LATIN 97
through the Aegean, he stopped at Chios, where he visited the tomb of St Isidore.
Later he arrived in Rhodes, where he joined the Venetian fleet on its way back from
the Holy Land. With the fleet he returned to Chios, where the Venetians estab-
lished a base to attack the nearby islands during the winter of 1124-1125. It was
at this time that the remains of St Isidore were stolen and taken to Venice, where
they arrived in 1125, The narration of the Translatio ends at this point, as does the
information about Cerbano. Nevertheless, a certain Cerbano has been traced in the
Monastery ofSt Mary in Paszto, Hungary, in the 1130s. 40 It has been suggested that
he and our interpreter were the same person. One ofthe reasons is his curious name;
another is that he was translating Greek works there." Agostino Pertusi suggested
that Cerbano could have migrated to Hungary, or been exiled from Venice. The
specific reasons may escape us, but the fact that he went to Hungary, Venice's enemy
over Dalmatia, may suggest that he had political enemies back home.
The Translatio also provides information about Cerbano's literary activities. In
the second chapter he reports that he had also written two books on the first stages
of a Venetian campaign on the Dalmatian coast." These works have not survived.
After this announcement, Cerbano added that a certain 'Jacobus Graecus'was writ-
ing a history of these events.Jacobus Graecus, or James ofVenice, is the next figure
to be discussed.
James ofVenice
James is a shadowy figure about whom very few details are known." He was a cleric
and translator of Aristotle. 44 His translations from Greek had a significant impact
in the Western scholarly milieu of the period," James is mentioned, as we have
noted, in Cerbano's Translatio and also in the Dialogues of Anse1m of Havelberg."
Moreover, his name is found in two annotations written on manuscripts containing
his translation ofAristotle's PosteriorAnalytics. 47 J ames identified himselfas 'Jacobus
Veneticus Grecus [sic], philosophus' in a letter sent to the Archbishop of Ravenna
in 1148. 48 Pertusi proposed that the epithet 'Graecus' indicates either his knowledge
<0 Pertusi, 'Cultura greco-bizantina', 171-2.

41 Ibid., 207-8.
42 RHC ace V, 324; Pertusi, 'Cultura greco-bizantina', 167.
43 Dizionario biogrqfico degli Italiani, s.v,'Giacomo Veneto (da Venezia)',
44 L. Minio-Paluello, 'Iacobus veneticus grecus. Canonist and translator of Aristotle', Traditio 8
(1952),267.
4S Minio-Palue1lo, 'Iacobus veneticus grecus', 265; G.M. Cooper, 'Byzantium between East and
West: Competing Hellenisms in the Alexiad of Anna Komnene and her contemporaries', in Classen,
Eastmeets West in theMiddleAges, 275.
46 RHC occ V,324; Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi, PL 188,1163; Anselm ofHave1berg,Anticimenon:
Ontheunity ofthefaith andthecontroversies with theGreeks, tr. A. Criste and C. Neel (Collegevi1le, 2010),
86,
47 Minio-Paluello, 'Iacobus veneticus grecus', 267-8.
48 Ibid,,273.
of the Greek language or a long stay in Constantinople." The adjective has been
interpreted by several scholars as referring to linguistic competence.50 From the
same document we learn that at the time when he wrote the letter,]ames used to
debate about the law with Byzantines: 'Just as among Greeks and with Greeks.... I
often debate about the law, I do not mind for once exchanging views with Latins
and with yoU.'5! Lorenzo Minio-Paluello concluded that the language and style of
his advice to the Archbishop of Ravenna suggests a man accustomed to writing or
speaking Greek rather than Latin. In his Dialogues Anselm of Havelberg described
him as :Jacobus nomine, Veneticus natione'.52james was among the Westerners who
took part in the theological discussion held in Constantinople in 1136; the other
two were Moses ofBergamo and Burgundio ofPisa. Anselm relates that these men
knew both Greek and Latin and were learned in literary matters.53 lames' transla-
tions of Aristotle's works show that he often worked in libraries in the Byzantine
capital, and so was used to a Greek milieu. It is likely,then, thatJ ames was a Venetian
who had moved to Constantinople, where he may have been raised or educated.
However, he does not seem to have forgotten his origins. As we have seen, Cerbano
in the Translatio informs us that a certain :Jacobus Graecus'was writing a historical
work on a Venetian campaign in Dalmatta."
Cerbano and lames had met at some point before the former had written the
Translatio in or after 1125. They may have met in the Byzantine capital before
Cerbano fled. However, the only certain fact is that]ames was at Constantinople in
1136, and by then he was already learned in both Latin and Greek. Pertusi wondered
if Cerbano and James had been together in the service of the Byzantine court.P If
that is so, then james was the second Western intellectual attested in the service of
the Komnenian emperors. Nevertheless, there is no concrete evidence to substanti-
ate this suggestion. While it is clear that Cerbano andJames knew each other, we do
not know whether James had an official position at the Byzantine court.
James may have frequented other milieux. It has been suggested that his inter-
est in Aristotle may have developed in the intellectual climate surrounding the
so-called 'University of Constantinople'," where studies in philosophy had been
4?Pertusi, 'Cultura greco-bizantina', 172-3.

so For example, a reference to Moses ofBergamo mentions him as 'Moyses graecus or Moyses de
Grecia'in G. Cremaschi, 'Nuovo contributo alIa biografia di Mose del Brolo', Bergomum 48 (1954),51;
F.Pontani, 'Mose del Brolo fra Bergamo e Costantinopoli', in C. Villa and F.Lo Monaco (eds.),Maestri
etraduttoribergamaschi. Framedioevo e rinascimento (Bergamo, 1998), 16.
SI Minio-Paluello, 'Iacobus veneticus grecus', 273. The same letter ends with another reference to
the Byzantines: 'Et haec igitur et multa alia apud Grecos legens, et apud Latinos servanda esse confiteor -
I acknowledge that these and many other things among Greeks, as well as among Latins must be
preserved', Ibid.,274.
52 Anselm of Havelberg, PL 188,1163; Anselm of Havelberg, Antidmenon, 86.
53 Ibid., 'Tres viri sapientes in utraque lingua et litterarurn doctissimi'.
54 RHC OCC V,324; Pertusi, 'Cultura greco-bizantina', 172-3.
ss Pertusi, 'Cultura greco-bizantina', 173.
56 ODB III,2143, s.v,'University of Constantinople'.
popular under John Italos." It has also been proposed that James of Venice prob-
ably had contacts with or formed part of the group of Aristotelian commentators
whose work was encouraged by Anna Comnena," along with Michael of Ephesus
and Eustratios of Nicaea." Robert Browning suspected that Anna conceived this
project and guided them in a cooperative scholarly undertaking. Anna's circle was
active in the period when she retired to the Kecharitomene monastery, which sets
the chronology for its activities after 1118. It has been suggested that these took
place in the 1120s and 1130s, that is, before Anna began her work on the Alexiad. 60
J,ameswas certainly in Constantinople in 1136, but as we have seen, it is possible
that he had been there since the early 1120s. IfJames was actually involved in
Anna's Aristotelian circle it would imply that a Venetian contributed to the intel-
lectual work commissioned by the Komnenian princess.
Although we cannot confirm whether James actually took part in Anna's circle,
it is likely that his translations of Aristotle's works were made under the influence
of Byzantine commentators.t' James may well have studied alongside Byzantine
scholars. Michael of Ephesus worked at the 'University of Constantinople' and he
may have instructed James, or helped him to find manuscripts. In this way, Anna's
scholarly enterprise helped to encourage the rediscovery of Aristotle's works in
Western Europe through James' translations.f
Finally,James of Venice has inspired at least one more proposition. In his study
of the mosaics of San Marco, Otto Demus speculated about the identity of the
author of the Marian inscriptions that accompany some mosaics in the basilica.f
He pointed out the possibility that this person may also have been the designer of
the programme and distribution of the mosaics, which show a strong Byzantine
influence. He mentioned that someone like James ofVenice or with a similar back-
ground was a possible candidate. However,James may not have returned to Venice,
as he still debated with 'Greeks' when he composed his letter to the Archbishop of
Ravenna, at the beginning of the reign ofManuel I. Nevertheless, there were other
57 W. Berschin, Greek letters andtheLatin MiddleAges: From ferome toNicholas ofCusa (Washington,
D.C., 1988),218; Minio-Paluello, 'Iacobusveneticus grecus', 265.
58 R. Browning, 'An unpublishedfuneral oration of Anna Comnena', Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society 188 (1962),6-8.

59 M. Mullett, 'Aristocracy and patronagein the literary circles of Comnenian Constantinople',in
Angold, The Byzantinearistocracy, 178;A. Kaldellis, 'Classical scholarship in twelfth-centuryByzantium',
in C. Barber and D. ]enkins (eds.), Medieval Greek commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics (Leiden/
Boston,2009),36-41.
60 Browning,'An unpublishedfuneral oration',4-5, 7; P.Frankopan,'The literary, culturaland polit-
ical context for the twelfth-century commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics', in Barber and ]enkins,
MedievalGreek commentaries, 57.
61 R. Sorabji, 'The ancient commentators on Aristotle',in R. Sorabji (ed.),Aristotletransformed: The
ancient commentators andtheiritifluence (London,1990),22,24; S.Ebbesen,'Philoponus,"Alexander" and
the originsof Medievallogic',in Sorabji,Aristotle transformed, 450.
62 Cooper,'ByzantiumbetweenEast and West', 275.
63 O. Demus, The mosaics ofSan Marco in Venice, 1: The eleventh and twelfth centuries (Chicago!
London, 1984),Part 1: text,272.
figures with a similar background, for instance, Cerbano.These individuals living

between the West and Constantinople probably shared both cultures, to which they
also contributed. Our third individual, Moses of Bergamo, is another example of a
Westerner living between northern Italy and Constantinople.
Moses ofBergamo
Of the cases discussed so far, Moses (d. after 1156/57) is the one about whom we
have the most information." He was born in Bergamo, in northern Italy, and was a
translator and poet.6S His most significant literary work was the LiberPergaminus, a
long poem dedicated to his native city.66 In a marginal note to the poem, its author
reports that while he was at the 'curia Imperatoris constantinopolitani', he would
often praise his city and its good citizens ('laudaret sepe civitatem suam sicut mos
est bonorum civium).67The emperor often said he would gladly learn about the
state and the condition of his city ('et Dominus Imperator sepe diceretei: libenter
scirem statum et condicionem illius civitatis').68 This is how the 'magister Moyses'
composed the poem at the request of the 'Domini Imperatoris', Moses's sojourn in
the Byzantine empire certainly stretched from before 1129 until at least 1136, so
the 'Domini Imperatoris'in question was John. Thus, the Liber Pergaminus could
be considered an indirect product ofJohn's patronage. This suggestion is valuable,
since evidence for John's activity as a patron of the arts and literary works is scant.
Moreover, this piece of information implies that Moses had a close contact with
the Byzantine emperor, even though we have no secure evidence which indicates
that he had a position at court. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the
poem was written in Bergamo and not in Constantinople.P The grounds for this
suggestion are that the poem itself does not include any reference to the Byzantine
emperor and that much ofits detail could only have been comprehensible to Moses'
fellow citizens. The poem was after all written in Latin. Do we need to imagine
the Byzantine court listening to a piece of Latin literature? Or was it translated
into Greek for the imperial audience? While the poem may never have been per-
formed at the Byzantine court, the reference to the emperor of Constantinople
suggests that John had some role in its composition. Scholars do not agree on the
date when the poem was written," but it has been suggested that Moses arrived in
64 Dizionario biograjico degli itallani, s.v.'Mose del Brolo'; ODB Il, 1417, s.v, 'Moses ofBergamo'.
6S Haskins also considered him a grammarian and collector of Greek manuscripts in his 'Moses of
Bergamo', BZ 23 (1914),138,142.
66 Moses of Bergamo, 'Il "LiberPergaminus" di Mose de Brolo', ed. G. Gorni, Studi Mediroali 11
(1970),409-60.
67 G. Cremaschi, Mose delBrolo ela cultura a Bergamo neisecoli Xl-XII (Bergamo, 1945), 115; Gorni,
'LiberPergaminul, 412-3.
68 Moses ofBergamo, 'LiberPergaminul, 412-3.
69 Ibld., 418.
70 Ibid., 414-20.
Constantinople by c.1125. 71 However, we have no records concerning Moses' life in

Constantinople until a few years later.
Moses is noteworthy because of the details we know about the period he spent
in the Byzantine empire. These details are found in a couple of letters that he sent
to his brother Peter. One of these, sent in 1129, was written from Dacia ('ex Datia')
and is a short pamphlet on a subject of Greek grammar? It has been interpreted as
having been sent from the Balkan borders of the empire, that is near the Danube,
while Moses was accompanying John 11on campaign against Hungary.73 This piece
of evidence suggests that he was employed at court and that his skills were consid-
ered essential even during military expeditions. Charles H. Haskins proposed that
Moses accompanied John in some secretarial position such as he seems to have
held at court." Giovanni Cremaschi suggested that Moses may have had some post
as scribe," while according to Walter Berschin, he was a translator at the imperial
COurt. 76 Filippomaria Pontani has argued that Moses was employed as both trans-
lator and scribe, and has also proposed that Moses was 'imperialium epistolarum
interpres', that is to say, that he occupied the same position as Leo Tuscus at the
Byzantine court," He has based his hypothesis on the similarities of the details we
know about Moses and Leo. For example, Leo accompanied Manuel I on a jour-
ney to the confines of Bithynia, near a place called Pimaninon ('In ultimas Bitinie
partes, iuxta locum qui dicitur Pirnanlnon')." Antoine Dondaine argued that the
chancery followed the emperor on his journeys, and therefore that Leo travelled
with the Byzantine army," The fact that Moses accompanied the emperor on the
71 Ibid., 420.
72 Haskins, 'Moses of Bergamo',138-42; Pontani, 'Mose del Brolo fra Bergamo e Costantinopoli',
16-17.
73 Haskins thought that the letter was sent in 1128,'Moses of Bergamo',139.
74 Ibid.
7S Cremaschi,Mose delBrolo ela cultura a Bergamo, 56, 84.
76 Berschin, Greek letters andtheLatin MiddleAges, 222.
77 Moses of Bergamo,'Mose del Brolo e la sua lettera da Costantinopoli', ed. F.Pontani, Aevum 72
(1998),168; D. Personeni, Un bergamaseo a Costantinopoli nelXII secalo: Mos« delBrolo, BA dissertation
(Unlversita degli Studi di Milano, 2010). The position of'imperialium epistolarum interpres'is attested
in different sources,for example in the writings of Ugo Eterianus, who described his brother Leo as
'imperialiumepistolarum optimus interpres', see Dondaine, 'Hugues Etherien et Leon Toscan',110. In
a letter sent to Leo, Pope Lucius III described him as 'imperialium epistolarum interpreti', Ibid., 81. In
his historyWilliam of Tyre mentions a 'maximuspalatinorum interpretum', a certainTriphilus,William
of Tyre, Chronieon, I1, 855; Kresten and Seibt, 'Theophylaktos Exubitos', 236-237. The Greek tide was
translated in differentways accordingto the authors.
78 IlolfllXV11v6v (Poimanenon) is located near Lopadion, not far from the Sea of Marmara,
Dondaine, 'Hugues Etherien et Leon Toscan', 84, n. 2; R. Lechat, 'La patristique grecque chez un
theologlen latin du XII' siecle,Hughes Erherlen', in E. Rassart-Eeckhout, J.-P. Sosson, C. Thiry and
T.van Hemelryck (eds.), Melanges d'bistoire offerts aCharles Moeller (2 vols.,Leuven, 1914),I, 493, n. 5.
Manuel's sojourn at Poimanenon has been dated to autumn 1175/spring 1176,just before the campaign
of Myriokephalon: Hugh Eteriano, Contra Patarenos, ed. and tr, J. Hamilton (LeidenIBoston, 2004),
134-5.
7~ Dondaine, 'Hugues Etherien et Leon Toscan',81, n. 4.
expedition against Hungary indicates that he held a significant position at court,

perhaps that ofchiefinterpreter. This makes it possible to imagine that while Moses
was on the move with the Byzantine army, he was translating imperial documents
into Latin. Also, he may have acted as interpreter for the Western mercenaries serv-
ing in the Byzantine army. For example, Pontani has noted a reference in Kinnamos,
dating from the war against Hungary (1127-1129), where Ligurian knights are
mentioned as fighting in the Byzantine army.so The presence of both Moses and
Leo during military campaigns and their close contact with the Byzantine emperors
suggest that the imperial court relied on skills that these Westerners could provide
and which were superior to those of Byzantine officials.
Moses' origins are important. Although he was Italian, he did not belong to one
of those communities with commercial and political interests within the sphere
of the Byzantine empire. At the time Bergamo was a city-state, which apparently
had no links with Byzantium. Although we know that Moses had links to Venice,
it is possible that his non-Venetian origin was one of the reasons for his appoint-
ment to the Byzantine court." This is suggested by another person we have already
discussed, Cerbano. It is likely that Cerbano's Venetian origins and his flight dur-
ing the conflict between John II and Venice had left a bad impression at court.
This could explain why Moses was selected from such an unimportant hometown.
Perhaps the Byzantine court found that Moses would be more reliable, precisely
because Bergamo played no role in the politics of the Eastern Mediterranean. In
fact, Moses may have replaced Cerbano in his position at the Byzantine court. As
we have seen, he may have arrived there around 1125, which is exactly the period
following Cerbano's flight from Constantinople.
Moses' second letter, sent in 1130, is a fascinating source full ofinformation about
his life. This letter is an original autograph and was written in Constantinople.f In
it, Moses asks his brother to send him a boy in order to assist him on his way back
to Bergamo." His brother should send the boy to Venice, where he would have
to find either the magistrate Domenico Bassedello or the abbot of San Niccolo.
They would make sure that he would reach Constantinople. Concerning Domenico,
Moses explained that he would arrange for the boy to travel to Constantinople
with the ship that used to sail to the Byzantine capital every August. This reference
suggests that Moses had connections with well-positioned Venetians and had also
travelled to Byzantium in Venetian ships (as Liudprand had once done).s4 Venice
was after all the principal port in northern Italy for departure to Constantinople.
80 Kinnamos, Bpitome, 10; Moses of Bergamo, 'Mose del Brolo e la sua lettera da Costantinopoli',
152-3.
81 Haskins,'Moses of Bergamo', 134;Cremaschi,Mosi delBrQIQ e la cultura a Bergamo, 53; Moses of
Bergamo, 'Mose del Broloe la sua lettera da Costantinopoli',lSo-I.
82 Moses ofBergamo,'More del Broloela sualetterada Costantinopoli',147-9; Moses ofBergamo,
'Mose del Brolofra Bergamo e Costantinopoll',19-23 (with an Italian translation).
83 Moses of Bergamo, 'Mose del Broloe la sua lettera da Costantinopoli',148, 150-1.
84 Liudprand of Cremona, The complet« 'WQntr, 197.
The request for a boy may be related to the death of Moses' nephew Andrea, who
had died in Thessalonica in 1129.s5 Andrea may have acted as Moses' assistant in
the Byzantine empire.
We also learn that in Constantinople Moses lived near the Venetian quarter,"
He reported to his brother that during a fire in the Venetian quarter," some
objects he had stored there perished, most notably the collection of manuscripts
that he had acquired in the Byzantine capital." His residence near the Venetian
quarter of the capital and the fact that he kept some valuable belongings there
were probably the result of his contacts with Venetians. It seems that Moses also
translated for them. Pontani has argued that the signature of a certain 'Moyses'
who faithfully translated and transcribed, 'fideliter transtuli et transcripsi', a
Venetian document of San Giorgio Maggiore may well have been Moses of
Bergamo." This document was a concession to the Venetians of an oratory on
the island of Lemnos, dated to June 1136. A few months earlier Moses had taken
part in the religious discussion in the Byzantine capital, reported by Anselm of
Havelberg in his Dialogues. 90
From the information found in the letter we can assume that Moses' posi-
tion provided him with a comfortable lifestyle. Moses informed his brother that
the Greek manuscripts destroyed in the fire of the Venetian quarter were worth
'three pounds of gold'." Moreover, Moses estimated that the rest of his goods
destroyed in the fire added five hundred bezants, that is, hyperpyra. However, at
the time he wrote the letter he noted that he still owned four beautiful mules,
which according to him were worth 130 bezants.P All this evidence shows that
Moses' possessions were varied, and that he had some familiarity dealing with
considerable amounts. Cremaschi points out that this trait may suggest that
Moses had some commercial business."
Moses also narrated the events that occurred with the appearance of a certain
john." This John was an acquaintance ofMoses and his brother from back home;
he arrived in Constantinople in order to serve as a mercenary in the Byzantine
army.John certainly benefited from Moses' position at court, as we are told that
8S Moses of Bergamo, 'Mose del Brolo e la sua lettera da Costantinopoli', 148.

S6 On the Venetian quarter during the reigns of Alexios I and John 11, see M.E. Martin, 'The
Venetians in the Byzantine Empire before 1204', in J.D. Howard-Johnston (ed.), Byzantium and the
westc.850-c.1200 (Amsterdam, 1988),208-10; D,Jacoby, 'The Venetian quarter ofConstantinople from
1082 to 1261:Topographical considerations', in C. Sode and S.Takacs (eds.), Novum Millennium:Studies
onByzantinehistory and culture dedicated to PaulSpeck (Aldershot, 2001),154-6.
87 Moses of Bergamo, 'Mose del Brolo e la sua lettera da Costantinopoli', 21, 23.
88 Ibid., 148.
89 S. Giorgio Maggiore, 2: Documenti 982-1159, ed. L. Lanfranchi (Venice, 1968), 382; Moses of
Bergamo, 'Mose del Brolo e la sua lettera da Costantinopoli', 165-7.

90 Anselm of Havelberg, PL 188, 1163; Anselm of Havelberg, Anticimenon, 86.
91 Moses of Bergamo, 'Mose del Brolo e la sua lettera da Costantinopoll', 148.
92 Ibid.
93 Cremaschi, Mos~ delBrolo e la cultura a Bergamo, 54.
94 Moses of Bergamo, 'Mose del Brolo e la sua lettera da Costantinopoli', 147-8.
104 ALEX RODRIGUEZ SUAREZ
when money was distributed to the soldiers with whom John had come, Moses
arranged for the 'regio vestiario' to give more than fifteen bezants to John. The
figure of the imperial uestiarias is rather obscure; he probably was a special treas-
urer who in this case distributed some kind of payment or largesse." This piece
of evidence proves that through his contacts in the imperial administration
Moses used his position to benefit other Westerners who had just arrived to
Constantinople.
The last secure evidence for Moses' stay in the Byzantine empire is found in the
above mentioned Dialogues of Anselm of Havelberg. Anselm reports that Moses,
whom he described as 'Moyses nomine, Italus natione ex civitate Pergamo', was
selected as the simultaneous translator by the majority of the attendants of the
religious discussion that took place in Constantinople in 1136; they recognised
him as the best for the task ('iste ab universis elecrus est, ut utrinque fidus esset
interpres')." This means that as a result of his years spent in the Byzantine capital,
Moses was well known to both Westerners and Byzantines.They possibly chose
him because they trusted his language skills.However,it is fair to wonder if, having
such an important position at court, his inclusion in the panel and role ofinterpreter
were not encouraged by the emperor himself At least it is possible to suggest that,
after years at the service of the Byzantine court, Moses may have seemed to the
emperor a reliable figure to participate in this major meeting. John must have had
high expectations of this theological debate, which represented the first important
encounter between the eastern and western churches since the reign of AlexiOS. 97
More importantly, the event was arranged while the envoyofthe German Emperor
Lothar Il, Anselm, was in Constantinople. John was interested in renewing the
alliance with the German emperor against Sicily. It is therefore possible that the
debate was an attempt to persuade the Germans of the Byzantines' goodwill on
religious matters.
According to Pontani, Moses was still in Constantinople in 1146, during
the first years of the reign of Manuel 1.98 While we do not know when Moses
left his position at the imperial court, his career clearly shows that the presence
of Westerners as civil servants in the imperial chancery did not begin during
Manuel's reign; it is a practice that Manuel took over from his father and grand-
father. The next individual, Burgundio of Pisa, is another example of a Western
intellectual whose stay in Constantinople overlapped with the reigns of both
Komnenian emperors.
9S ODB III, 2163, s.v. 'Vestiarios'; A. Failler, 'L'eparque de l'armee et le bestlariou', REB 45 (1987),
20l.
96 Anse!m of HaveIberg, PL 188,1163; Anselm of HaveIberg, Anticimnenon, 86; Cremaschi, Mos~
delBrolo ela adtura a Bergamo, 59; Cremaschi,'Nuovocontrlbuto allabiografia di Mose del Brolo',55.
97 GrumeI,~utour du voyage de Pierre GrossoIanus', 22-33; J. Shepard,'Hard on heretics,light on
Latins:The balancing-act of AIexios I Komnenos',MtlangesCtcile Morrisson = TM 16 (2010),776-7.
91 Cremaschi, 'Nuovo contribute alIabiografia di Mose del BroIo',56.
Burgundio of Pis a
Burgundio was a jurist, translator and diplomat (c.111Q-1193).99 He stayed in
Constantinople on at least two occasions. The better documented of these is the
second, which took place during the reign of Manuel, when he acted as an envoy
of Pisa (1169-1171).100 However, it is his first documented sojourn that interests
us here. It is recorded only by Anse1m, who included Burgundio as one of the
participants in the theological discussion in 1136 ('Burgundio nomine, Pisanus
natione').'?' As he died in 1193, in 1136 he must have been very young, prob-
ably in his twenties.F' Nevertheless, as we have already noted, Anselm described
him as mastering both Greek and Latin. 103 Maybe Burgundio had already spent
some time in Constantinople, where the Pisan quarter had been established since
1111,104 Perhaps he spent part of his youth in the capital, where he acquired his
linguistic skills.10S
Anselm's Dialogues were written for Pope Eugene III thirteen years after the
event. The Pope had also been born in Pisa, with the name of Bernardo. It is pos-
sible that Anselm may have mentioned Burgundio and exaggerated his account
because both Eugene and Burgundio knew each other. Burgundio's presence in
the debate is likely to have been related to politics, since Pisa also took part in the
negotiations between John and the German emperor. Their aim was to create an
anti-Norman alliance against Roger II of Sicily. This gives point to the participation
of Burgundio, a Pisan, in the theological debate.l'" Moreover, the fact that the first
session of the debate was held in the Pisan quarter ('in vico qui dicitur Pisanorum
iuxta ecclesiam Agie Irene') is not a colncidence.Y The negotiations between Pisa
and the Byzantine empire resulted in the Byzantine embassy to Pisa some months
later in that year. Ferdinand Chalandon suggested that the embassy was a reward
for Pisan opposition to Sici1y.108Thus, it is possible to suggest that Burgundio, while
residing in Constantinople, may have been one of the intermediaries between the
Pisan authorities and the Byzantine empire.
99 Dlzionario biogrtifico degli italiani, s.v,'Burgundione da Pisa'; ODB I, 340, s.v, 'Burgundio of Pisa'.
100 P. Classen,Burgundio von Pisa (Heidelberg,1974),24-8.
101 Anse1m of Have1berg, PL 188, 1163; Anselm of Havelberg, Anticimenon, 86j K. Setton, 'The
Byzantinebackground to the Italian Renaissance', Proceedings of theAmerican Philosophical Society 100

(1956),22.
102 Classen,Burgundio van Pisa, 13.
103 Anse1m ofHavelberg, PL 188,1163j Anse1m of Havelberg, Anticimenon, 86; Classen, Burgundio
vanPisa, 69.
104 V.von Falkenhausen, '11 commerciodi Amalfi con Costantinopoli e il Levante ne! secoloXII', in
O. Banti (ed.),Amalfi, Genooa, Pisa e Venezia. 11 commercia con Costantinopoli e il oicino Oriente ne!secolo
XII (Pisa,1998),32j E. Malamut,Alexis r Comnsne (Paris,2007),430.
105 G. Vuillemin-Diemand M. Rashed,'Burgundio de Pise et ses manuscritsgrecsd'Aristote: Laur.
87.7 et Laur, 81.18', Recbercbes dethtologie etphilosophie mtdievales 64 (1997),178.

106 Classen,Burgundio von Pisa, 11.
107 Anse1m ofHavelberg, PL 188,1163jAnselm ofHave1berg,Anticimenon, 85jJacoby, 'The Venetian
quarter of Constantinople from 1082 to 1261',159, n. 37.

108 Chalandon, LesComnene 11,159-61.
.In a series of articles Nigel Wilson associated Burgundio of Pisa with a copyist!
scribe named Ioannikios, whose scriptorium produced a large number of surviving
manuscripts containing works by Aristotle and Galen.!" Burgundio owned some of
these manuscripts and used them for his translations of Galen into Latln.l'? They
were in Burgundio's possession by about 1150, at the latest.'!' In these manuscripts
Wilson also identified a second hand that he attributed to an anonymous partner
ofIoannikios, whom he considered to be a man brought up to write Latin, perhaps
an Italian from the merchant communities established in Constantinople.m Wilson
even suggested the possibility that the production of these manuscripts had been
undertaken in one ofthe Italian trading stations in Constantinople.F' Moreover, he
further suggested that the second hand may actually have belonged to Burgundio
writing in Greek. 114 Further recent research on Ioannikios'manuscripts continue to
toywith this possibility,but scholars still seem reluctant to accept this hypothesis. liS
In any case, Burgundio's scholarly interest was the reason for his acquisition of
Byzantine manuscripts. Like Moses of Bergamo, Burgundio also profited from his
stay in the Byzantine capital to purchase manuscripts that were not available in the
West. He then took them to Italy where he translated them.
The latest studies on Ioannikios and Burgundio have proposed an earlier date
for the production of these manuscripts. It has been suggested that Burgundio had
acquired two manuscripts of Aristotle by the 1140s, dating Ioannikios' activities to
1135-1140.116 As we have seen,James of Venice was also interested in the works of
Aristotle. Moreover, we know thatJ ames and Burgundio had met in Constantinople
in 1136. Perhaps Burgundids interest in Aristotle was the result ofhis contacts with
james, Based on palaeographical analyses, Paola Degni has dated the production
of Ioannikios' team to the first half of the twelfth century, possibly during the first
109 N.G. Wilson, 'A mysterious Byzantine scriptorium: Ioannikios and his colleagues', Scrittura e
Civilta 7 (1983), 161-2. For a more recent article on Ioannikios' production, see P. Degni, 'I manoscritti
delle "scriptonum" di Gioannicio', Segno e Testa 6 (2008), 179-248.
110 Wilson, 'A mysterious Byzantine scriptonum', 171-2; N.G. Wilson, 'New light on Burgundio of
Pisa', Studi italianidijilologia dassica 4 (1986),113-5.

111 Wilson, 'New light on Burgundio of Pisa', 117-8.
112 Wilson, 'A mysterious Byzantine scriptorium', 169-70; Wilson, 'New light on Burgundio of Pisa',
116-7.
113 N.G. Wilson, 'Ioanniklos and Burgundio: A survey of the problem', in G. Cavallo, G. De
Gregorio and M. Maniaci (eds.), Scritture, lijJn e testi nelle aree provindali di Bisanzio (2 vols., Spoleto,
1991), Il, 454-5.
11< Wilson, 'A mysterious Byzantine scriptonum', 171-3.
115 Vuillemin-Diem and Rashed, 'Burgundio de Pise et ses manuscrits grecs d'Aristote', 174-5.
Paola Degni, who has devoted a series of articles to Ioannikios' manuscripts, has supported both views:
P. Degni, "'In margine" a Gioannicio: nuove osservazioni e un nuovo codice (Laur. San Marco, 695)',
in M. D'Agostino and P. Degni (eds.),ALETHES PHIUA. Studi in onore di Giancarlo Prato (2 vols.,
Spoleto, 2010), I, 338; P. Degni, 'Burgundio e i manoscritti di Gioannicio: la questione dei margina1ia',
Medlcina neisecoli 25 (2013),806-7.
116 Vuillemin-Diem and Rashed, 'Burgundio de Pise et ses manuscrits grecs d'Aristote', 176-9.
three decades.!'? This new dating implies that during his first stay in Constantinople
Burgundio did not simply attend the theological debate of 1136, but also had con-
tact with other Western scholars and acquired manuscripts. More importandy, the
possibility that he took an active part in the copying of some these manuscripts
sheds new light on the activities undertaken by Italian scholars in Constantinople.
Conclusion
These four individuals provide evidence that Constantinople was not only a mag-
net for mercenaries, merchants and pilgrims, as is well known, particularly during
the reign of Manuel, but also for a wider range of Westerners, and from an earlier
period, while his father John was on the throne. Travellers to the Byzantine capi-
tal included scholars and translators who went there in order to learn Greek and
find manuscripts not available in Western Europe. The Italian origins of the four
individuals discussed above confirm the Italian peninsula as the bridge between
Byzantium and the West, right from this early period. Moreover, their occupa-
tions and interests demonstrate that not all Italians in the empire were merchants.
However, the fact that Cerbano and James were both from Venice, while Burgundio
came from Pisa, shows that their arrival in Constantinople must have been linked
to the establishment of the Venetian and Pisan quarters there."" All four pos-
sessed linguistic skills and literary interests. Constantinople was the perfect setting
in which to study Greek; there were libraries and establishments where they could
find manuscripts and teachers. Anna Comnena related in the Alexiad that the
refoundation of the Orphanotropheion by Alexios included a grammar school where
orphan children from all races were taught the Greek Ianguage.!" Among them
she mentioned only two ethnic groups, Latins and 'Scythians', presumably mean-
ing Pechenegs. It is a coincidence that these two groups had both been defeated by
Anna's father. Perhaps she wanted to emphasise that Alexios had established a place
in which populations recently integrated into the empire would be Hellenized. The
Pilgrims Guide to Santiago deCompostela, written at some point after 1137 and partly
based on a Frenchman's eyewitness account, provides evidence for the existence in
Constantinople of a Greek school in which foreigners could learn Greek.P? The
guide's anonymous author tells us that 'in Constantinopolim in scola Grecorum'
(a different one from the Orphanotropheion?) he found a book about the passions
of many holy martyrs including that of St Eutropios, which he translated into
Latin.!" We have no more information about these schools, but it is possible that
our individuals learnt or improved their knowledge of Greek in one of them. The
117 Degni,'I manoscritti', 235-8.

118 C.H. Haskins, 'North-Italian translators of the twelfth-century', in Studies in the history of
Mediaeval science (Cambridge, MA, 1924), 194.
119 Comnena,Alexias, 484-5; Magdalino, 'The pen of the aunt', 31.
120 1he Pilgrim~ Guide toSantiago deCompostela, ed.P.Gerson (3 vols., London, 1998), I:Themanu-
scripts, 15, 60;Ciggaar, Western travellers, 75.
121 1he Pilgrim~ Guide to Santiago, 11: Thetext, 52-3.
two references suggest that the increasing presence ofWesterners and other outsid-
ers in Constantinople created a need for instruction in Greek as a foreign language.
On the other hand, Constantinople was not the only place where Westerners could
learn Greek. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily is considered to have been the most
important point for contacts between Greek and Latin culture.P"
At least two of the individuals discussed, Cerbano and Moses, found employ-
ment as interpreters at the Byzantine court. Their position was likely to be that
of 'chief interpreter' (f.l.eya<; bLEQf.l.TJVW'ti]<;), which was translated into Latin as
'imperialium (or imperatoriarum) epistolarum interpres'. While there were proba-
bly native Byzantines employed as translators during this period, the Italian origins
of Cerbano and Moses suggest that for such a task the court favoured Westerners
rather than Byzantines, a fact which could be seen as an indicator of the poor
knowledge ofLatin and other Western languages among the Byzantine population.
More importantly; the presence of these translators at the Byzantine court does not
seem to have encouraged Byzantine intellectuals to learn Latin. The evidence about
Byzantines who spoke Latin during the reign ofJohn is very scant. For example,
Nikephoros Basilakes claimed that his brother Constantine, who was sent as an
envoy to the West, knew Latin. 123
The imperial administration required the linguistic skills and Western back-
ground ofthese individuals not only in order to communicate with other Westerners,
but also to read 124 and compose official documents, mainly diplomatic letters in
Latin. While it has been suggested that the Byzantine chancery had previously
issued some documents with a Latin translation.P' it is reasonable to assume that
the production of such documents only became common during the Komnenian
period. The earliest preserved example of such a bilingual official document is the
letter sent to Pope Innocent II in 1139 .126 These letters were surely drafted in Latin
122 C.H. Hasklns, 'The Greek element in the Renaissance of the twelfth century', in Studies in the
history ofMediaevalscience,141-3; Idem, 'The Sicilian translators ofthe twelfth century', in Ibid., 155-93.
123 Nikephoros BasiIakes, Progimnasmi e monodie, ed. A. Pignani (Naples, 1983), 242-243;
A. KaIdeIIis, Hellenism in Byzantium: 1J:Je transformation ofGreek identityandthereception ofthe Classical

tradition (Cambridge, 2007), 296.
U4 For example, the letter sent by Pope Victor III to Alexios'mother Anna DaIassene (c.1086-1087):
H.E.]. Cowdrey, 'Pope Victor and the Empress A.', 48. Also, the letter which Peter the Venerable sent
to John Il (in 1138-1139?) concerning the Cluniac house in Civitot, in 1J:Je letters ofPeter the Venerable,
ed, G. Constable (2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1967), I, no. 75 (Ad Imperatorem ConstantinopoIitanum),
208-9, and Il, 148-9,292. Another letter iJ that sent by the German emperor Conrad III to John II
in 1142. The document was abbreviated by Otto of Freising in in Otto, Bishop of Freising, 1J:Je deeds of
Barbarossa, 54-6.
125 ].B. Bury,'The treatise De administrando imperid, BZ 15 (1906),541.
126 Kresten and Miiller, 'Die Auslandsschreiben der byzantinischen Kaiser des 11. und 12.
Jahrhunderts',422-9; L. Wamser (ed.), Die Welt vanByzanz. - Europas ost/iches Erbe (Stuttgart, 2004), 60,
no. 77. Pontani has suggested that Moses ofBergamo translated and wrote the Latin version of the let-
ter: Moses of Bergamo, 'Mose del Brolo e la sua lettera da CostantinopoIi', 156-61. However, Christian
Gastgeber has challenged his conclusions, Gastgeber, 'Das Schreiben Kaiser Ioannes' Il. Komnenos',
32-5.
as many recipients may not have been able to read Greek. While the first example of
bilingual official letter sent to West dates to the reign ofJohn 11,it is likely that this
innovation was inherited from at least Alexios'reign if not earlier. From the Alexiad
we know that Alexios sent many letters to Western potentates, either to seek their
alliance or recruit more mercenaries.F' The need to read and write letters in Latin
was the result of the rising contacts between Byzantium and the West.
The group of Westerners discussed is small, but it is possible that there were
others.P" While it is clear that their impact on Byzantine society in general was
limited, their presence shows that the imperial court did not only employ mer-
cenaries but also intellectuals who pursued their own interests in the Byzantine
capital. Their presence, which preceded the reign of emperor Manuel and was the
result of Alexios' pro-Western policies, attests to the reign of John 11 Komnenos
as a significant period for the reception of Latin intellectuals in the Byzantine
empire and the beginning of the transfer of Greek knowledge that would lead to
the 'Twelfth-century Renaissance' in Western Europe.
127 One example is the letter sent to the German emperor before the first Norman invasion,
Comnena, Alexias, 112-4. Another example are the letters that Alexios sent to Western Europe before
the FIrst Crusade, in which he described the difficult situation in Asia Minor and encouraged Westerners
to join the Byzantine army in order to fight the Turkish invasion. For instance, these letters, 'epistolis',
are mentioned in a text narrating the translation of certain relics from Nicomedia to Cormery which
was written by a French cleric named Guillermus Ludovicus. He had spent some time at the service of
the Byzantine emperor in the early 1090s: J. Shepard, 'How St James the Persian's head was brought
to Cormery. A relic collector around the time ofthe First Crusade', in L.M. Hoffmann (eel), Zwischen
Polis, Prooinzund Peripberie: Beitriige zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur (Wlesbaden, 2005), 298,
304. On the spurious letter sent by Alexios to the Count of Flanders: E. Joranson, 'The spurious letter
of Alexius', the American Historical Review 55 (1949-1950),811-32; M. de Waha, 'La lettre d'Alexis I
Comene a Robert I le Frison: une revision', Byzantion 47 (1977), 113-25; C. Gastgeber, 'Das Schreiben
Alexlos'L Komnenos an Robert 1.von Flandern. Sprachliche Untersuchung', in G. De Gregorio and O.
Kresten (eds.), Documenti medieoaligreci elatini. Studicomparativi (Spoleto, 1998), 141-85; P. Schreiner,
'Der Brief des Alexios 1. Komnenos an den Grafen Robert von Flandern und das Problem Gefalschter
Byzantinischer Kaiserschreiben in den Westlichen Qjiellen', in De Gregorio and Kresten, Document!
medievaligreci elatini. Studicomparativi, 111-140.
128 A certain Goibertus-Gausbertus, the brother of Guillermus Ludovicus, was present at the
Byzantine court before c.1090. According to the text narrating the translation of the relics from
Nicomedia to Cormery, Goibertus had found favour with Alexios and his courtiers, but we are not told if
he had any specific post at court, in Shepard, 'How StJames the Persian's head was brought to Cormery',
298, 303, 314-8.
8
Literary trends in the Constantinopolitan

courts in the 1120s and 1130s*
Elizabeth Jeffreys
The reign ofJohn II Komnenos can easily be regarded as a literary void. However,
recent work is beginning to make this period look rather more interesting, and to
suggest that the literary innovations usually attributed to his successor Manuel in
fact had their origins under John. In what follows I will refer to several texts; these
include imperial encomia, especially encomia in verse, a history by a male aristocrat,
a novel, and an epic-romance - a hybrid that defies generic classification.
It will be helpful to begin with a reminder that, when we consider Byzantine
literature, we must put aside twenty-first-century ideas that literature can only be
about creative writing and soaring imaginations. Byzantine literary activity was
utilitarian, dealing for the most part with the serious business of life and the state -
law,theology, homiletics, history. Young men were set by their families to learn how
to craft words because that led to employment: Byzantine history is littered with
success stories (Photios, Psellos to name but two), although the twelfth century
provides complaints that success stories did not always happen - the obvious two
here being Theodore Prodromos and John Tzetzes. Young men made a name for
themselves initially by displaying their skills in classrooms in front of their peers,
but then more usefully,in terms of a tangible outcome, to wider audiences in gath-
erings - probably informal - of the wealthy, the fashionable and the aristocratic
who enjoyed verbal displays and who had the means ofoffer employment.' In other
words, they participated in tbeatra - a much discussed, though ill-defined, terrnf
• I shouldlike to thank Alex RodriguezSuarezfor organizinga thought-provokingconferenceand

persuading me that I ought to take part. This chapter remains close to its oral beginnings and merely
sketchesout an argument that should be treated in depth.
I The discussion of the agonisticeleventh-centuryenvironment in F. Bernard, Utiting and reading
Byzantinesecularpoetry, 1025-1081 (Oxford,]014) is relevantalsoto the twelfth century.

2 For a nuanceddiscussion of the processes involved in tbeatra, see Magdalino,Manuel, 336-8, and
P. Magdalino,'Cultural change? The context of Byzantine poetry from Geometres to Prodromos',in F.
Bernard and C. Demoen (eds.), Poetry and its contexts in eleventh-century Byzantium (Farnham,2012),
19-36, at 33-4.
FromJohn11Kamnenas, Emperor ofByzantium:In theShadow ofFather and Son. Copyright © Elizabeth

]effreys.Published by Routledge,2 Park Square,Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN.
110
LITERARYTRENDS IN THE CONSTANTINOPOUTAN COURTS 111
A large number of display pieces survive, mainly from the middle of the century:
one may think, for example, of many of the works of Constantine Manasses from
the 1140s. 3 We may consider that the flashiness of these show pieces was pro-
duced by creative joie de vivre, but in reality it was intended, more prosaically, to
demonstrate mastery of the rhetorical techniques required in the performance of
bureaucratic duties, whether secular or ecclesiastical.
It is difficult to find direct references to the theatra of the 1120s and 1130s,
either as such or as references to meetings and specific locations: the existence of
such gatherings has to be inferred from passing comments.The theatron that is most
clearly attested is the one under the aegis ofthe dowager empress Eirene Doukaina,
mother of John and widow of Alexios.i The information comes from letters of
Michael Italikos, who was amongst the most prominent intellectuals, teachers
and clerics of the first half of the century. He attended Eirene's gatherings when
he could and apparently enjoyed himself - apart from anything else, he flattered
Eirene outrageously in an enkomion which he improvised at her request.' Anna
Comnena, Eirene's daughter, exercised some form of literary patronage at various
times, to judge by the Aristotelian commentaries she sponsored, the way in which
Theodore Prodromos appealed to her, and George Tornikes' comments in his funer-
ary oration" - but the timing, place and nature ofwhat she did is even more obscure
than for her mother. The best documented case of literary patronage in the twelfth
century in fact comes from the 1140s, involving the sebastokratorissa Eirene, and
even then what information there is gives little detail ofwhen and how the gatherings
implicit in the literary relationships functioned,"
The mechanism by which individuals were slotted into a potentially lucrative
career is nowhere defined, but the process presumably involved catching a patron's
eye (we see this at work in PseHos' endless letters of recommendation for former
students) and/or using family connections (as we know the Choniates brothers
did).8The person whose eye it was most advantageous to catch was the one at the
top of the tree - the emperor, but the hierarchy flowed down from him, and there
were many lesser individuals whose support would nonetheless be effective. That
3 See, e.g., the discussion in I. Nilsson, 'Constantine Manasses, Odysseus, and the Cyclops: On
Byzantine appreciation ofpagan art in the twelfth century', Byzantinoslavica 69 (2011), 123-36.
4 Its meetings most probably took place in the convent of the Mother of God Kecharitomene
which Eirene had founded, though it is not easy to reconcile the regulations for the nuns' segregated life
recorded in the convent's Typikon with the male visitors presupposed by the theatron; the Typikon is avail-
able in translation in BMFD, 11,649-724. For an outline of Eirene's literary influence, see I. Polemis, The
Doukai:Acontribution toByzantineprosopography (London, 1968), 72-3; also Varzos, Genealogia, 107-12.
s Italikos, Lettres et discaurs, at 148, no. 15.
6 George and Demetrios Tornikes, Lettres etdiscours, ed. and tr. J. Darrouzes (Paris, 1970),219-323,
especially 269-73, no. 14.

7 On Eirene, see most recently, with bibliography, E.]effreys, 'The sebastokratorissa Irene as patron',
in L. Theis, M. Mullett and M. Griinbart (eds.), Female founder: in Byzantium and beyond (Vienna!
ColognelWeimar, 2014), 177-194 (= WienerJahrbuchfir Kunstgeschichte 60-61 [2011/2012]).
B Sirnpson,A historiographical study, 13-7.
112 EUZABETHJEFFREYS
John had a role to play in this literary game of catch is something that I hope will
have become apparent by the end of this chapter, but the method of his interven-
tion is not immediately obvious.The verbal portrait that Niketas Choniates offers at
the end of the first book of his history suggests an amiable if austere character, not
without a sense of humour:
He presented himselfto public view as a model of everynoble action,and when enjoying

a respitefrom public matters, he would avoid the commotion oflarge crowds, turning a
deaf ear to their babbling and jabbering; his speechwas dignified and eloquent; but he
did not spurn reparteeor in any way hold back or stifle laughter,"
This is an interesting contrast to his sister's somewhat spiteful picture of'a little
boy of a swarthy complexion, with a broad forehead, rather thin cheeks, a nose that
was neither flat nor aquiline, but something between the two, and darkish eyes'.10
However John's absence from Constantinople in the late 1130s seems to
have dried up private commissions for literary works, to the horror of Theodore
Prodromos, for it is from this period that his begging poems dare." But this dearth
would be as much due to the absence from Constantinople of the heads of the
aristocratic clans as they accompanied John on campaign as to the absence ofJohn
himself. A flavour of the intense atmosphere and fierce rivalries that could be gener-
ated in the theatra can be seen in a speech by Michael Choniates from late in the
twelfth century where he explains why he did not take part in such gatherings: he
disliked the falsity of pretending to be what one was not, but he was deeply dis-
tressed that the biggest applause came when a performer made a mistake.P
Qjiite a number of men ofletters who were active in John's reign in the 1120s and
1130s can be named. For example: Michael Lizix, orator and philosopher and friend
of Theodore Prodromes;'! Stephen Me1es, orator and jurist, later logothete of the
dramas and correspondent of Michae1 Italikos;" Alexios Aristenos, orphanotrophos
and canon lawyer;'! John Axouch, high in the emperor's confidence, megas domes-
tikos of the Orient and the West, a Turk by birth, with intellectual lnteresrs" and
theological questionings, put, for example, to Nicholas of Methone, a prominent
9 Choniates, Historia, 47,1l. 75-78; Choniates, 0 CityojByzantium,27.

10 Comnena,Alexias, 185,11.41-44; Anna Comnena, 1heAlexiad, tr, E. Sewter (rev.P. Frankopan)
(London, 2009), 169.
11 Four Byzantinenovels, tr, E.]effreys (Liverpool,2012), 5-6.
12 Michael Choniates, Ta awC6f.lEva, 1,13, Or. 1.18; cf similar sentiments in Michael Chonlates,
Epistulae, ed. F. Kolovou (BerlinINew York,tOOl), ep. 1.
13 Chalandon, LesComnene 11, 19; Italikos, Lettres et discours, 50-2.
14 Chalandon, Les Comnene 11, 19; Italikos, Lettres et discours, 44-5. Little survives of his writings,
apart from a verse life ofTheodore Studites: S.G. Mercati, 'Stefano Meles e l'autore della vita giambica
di S.Teodoro Studita del cod. Barocc. gr. 37', BZ 25 (1925),43-6.
IS Chalandon, LesComnene 11,19;Tornikes, Lettres, 55-7; R. Maerides, 'Nomos and canon on paper
and in court', in R. Morris (ed.), Church andpeople in Byzantium (Birmingham, 1990),61-86. Aristenos'
distinguished career extended well into the reign ofManuel.
16 Chalandon, LesCamnin« Il, 19-20; Italikos, Lettres etdiscours, 41-4.
LITERARYTRENDS IN THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN COURTS 113
theologian writing, inter alia, on the Holy Spirit.'? Several ofthese held high offices
of state, several came from high status backgrounds and all wrote serious works on
serious subjects and are significant in their areas of expertise. These are men using
literary skills in conventional Byzantine areas. However I shall be looking at four
other writers whose work is rather more off-centre, and can be said to be open-
ing up new trends: these are Nikephoros Basilakes, Michaelltalikos, Nikephoros
Bryennios and Theodore Prodromos.
Basilakes is perhaps the most straightforward and least trend-setting example.
He wrote prose encomia on, for example, the emperor John Komnenos, on John
Axouch and on the Archbishop of Bulgaria." Around 1140 (at the age of about
twenty-five) he was appointed didaskalos of the Apostle in Hagia Sophia - a teach-
ing post; some fifteen years later he was caught up in the dogmatic disputes around
Soterichos Panteugenos and was exiled to Philippopolis. About 1160, somewhat
disappointed in the way his career had turned out, he collected up his life's work."
This consisted of rhetorical pieces, such as progymnasmata, panegyrics, funerary
laments and satire." Much of this could be viewed as his stock-in-trade, which
demonstrated his literary skills both as a performing rhetorician and as a teacher.
In the latter part of John's reign he would have been establishing himself in one
theatron or another, catching the imperial eye with encomia and producing model
rhetorical exercises presumably, at least in part, intended as fair copies for his pupils:
Basilakes prided himself of his teaching skills.i' Where scholarship today sees him
as innovative is in the topics chosen for ethopoiia (speeches attributed to a fictitious
character) which are rather more venturesome than those of his predecessors - he
mixes topics from the New Testament (What Mary would have said when the
water was turned to wine at the wedding feast at Cana'22) with others from Greek
mythology ('What Zeus would have said when 10 was transformed into a heifer'"),
Basilakes is also regarded as innovative for the keenness of his observations on his
fictitious speakers' characterisations. His work demonstrates nicely the network of
connections that the theatron system generated, for striking phrases found in his
monody on his brother Constantine (d. 1157) appear in the HysmeniandHysmenias
ofEumathios Makrembolites, usuallyin scenesoflament," Hysmeni andHysmeniaswas
possibly written before 1145. The flow of indebtedness is not as apparent as those
dates suggest (Le. that Basilakes borrowed from Makrembolites), for Basilakes was
a charismatic teacher and would have accumulated his rhetorical phraseology over
many years, and Makrembolites could well have been a pupil of his who made
17 A. Ange1ou, 'Nicholas ofMethone: Thelifeand worksof a twelfth-centurybishop',in M. Mullett

and R. Scott (eds.), Byzantium andtheClassical tradition (Birmingham, 1981),143-8.
18 Basilakes, Orationes, nos.3, 5, 4; seealso Gliencomi, ed. Malsano,
19 As he setsout in his collection's prologue: Basilakes, Orationes, no. 1.
20 Basilakes, Progimnasmi.
21 Basilakes, Orationes, 3 (prae£,29-31).

22 Basilakes, Progimnasmi, 157-60, no.37 (ethopoiia 8).
23 Basilakes, Progimnasmi, 193-7, no.47 (ethopoiia 18).
24 Basilakes, Progimnasmi, 232-5, monodia 1.
114 ELlZABETHJEFFREYS
creative use of classroom notes." We can take these shared phrases as an exam:'
ple of how intermeshed literary contacts became in the twelfth century, both as a
result ofmutual participation in performances in a theatron and also from the mutu ..
ality of a teacher-pupil relationship; similar cases can be found in the 1140s and
1150s where, for example, the role of envy,phthonos, is treated in a similar way by
Tzetzes and Manasses." Attendance at a theatron would have been a more effective
networking tool than an exchange of letters, though its tracks are not so immedi-
ately traceable today.
Next, Michael Italikos. He may not personally have been an innovative trend-
setter but, amongst his other abilities, he seems to have been an inspirational teacher
whose pupils moved in interesting directions; these pupils included Theodore
Prodromos, probably the most versatile literary figure of his generation. It is worth
noting, when considering interactions between scholarly and literary figures, that
the teacher-pupil relationship need not demand a large age difference; in this case,
Italikos could only have been a few years older than Theodore. A teacher ofrhetoric
and philosophy, Italikos had a multifaceted teaching career holding successivelythe
posts of dldaskalos of the Psalter, Epistles and Gospels and toying at one point with
the position of didaskalos of the physicians (a slightly puzzling development as the
appointment seemed to have been in the gift of Eirene Doukaina; it is also intrigu-
ing for implications about the extent of his medical expertise); sometime after 1143
he became Metropolitan of Philippopolis.F He is included here also because he
exemplifies the role that learned literary practitioners could play. ltalikos, about
whose background little is known, had excellent contacts at the highest level- with
emperor John, to whom he addressed a resounding encomium for his victories in
Syria whilst at the same time protesting that his skills were underappreciated;" with
the dowager empress, as I have already mentioned; with the other members ofJohn's
family- such as his brother the sebastokrator Andronikos (d. c.1133) and his son, also
a sebastokrator, Andronikos (d. 1142); on these two he wrote monodies, or funer-
ary laments." But he also had close contacts with senior bureaucrats - including
two members of the Kamateros family.30 Italikos is part of the glue that binds
the Komnenian literary society of this period. It is from his surviving letters and
speeches that we have insights into the theatron of Eirene Doukaina. In the let-
ter and discourse addressed to her, Italikos offers a glimpse of cheerful gatherings
where friends strove to outdo each other in brilliance, but also indulged in silly
jokes." Perhaps one of these prompted his letter to Theodore Prodromos in which
25 FourByzantine nove!s,]effreys, 161-5.

26 M. Hinterberger, Phthonos: Missgunst, Neid und Eifersucht in der byzantinischen Literatur
(Wiesbaden, 2013).
27 Italikos, Lettres et discaurs, 12-28.
2S Italikos,Lettres et discours, 239-70, no. 43.
29 Italikos, Lettres et discaurs, 81-8, no. 3; 129-34, no. 11.
30 Italikos, Lettres et discours, 135-8, no. 12; 169-72, no. 22.
31 Italikos,Lettres et discours, 92-8, no. 5; 145-51, no. 15.
UTERARYTRENDS IN THE CONSTANTINOPOLITANCOURTS 115
he justified his preference for cheese over bacon with a punning derivation ofcheese,
tyri, from tyrannos, a fierce ruler (backing up the pun with a Homeric quotation)."
Italikos stresses the important place he sees for intellectuals in Byzantium, flattering
Eirene for her intelligent understanding ofwhat was needed and thus corroborating
her daughter Anna's comments in her own writings about her mother's intellectual
interests. That Italikos had dealings with Anna is evidenced by the prologue he pro-
vided for her will,33 although Anna's own contribution to the activities of Eirene's
theatron is not obvious.
This leads to an unexpected figure amongst the participants in that tbeatron.
Literary personages in Byzantium were usually male but not usually drawn from
the highest echelons of society but rather from the middle classes whose aspira-
tions to economic and social preferment could be supported by rhetorical training,
as suggested earlier. Those are loaded terms and the generalisations are sweeping:
they should be qualified. The participants in Eirene Doukaina's gatherings did
include male members of the social elite: arguably at the least the two Andronikoi
Komnenoi just mentioned, brother and son of the reigning emperor. But while they
may have been present, we have no evidence that they aspired to putting pen to
parchment in any serious way.The unexpected figure member of the group did just
that. An experienced soldier and general, the caesar Nikephoros Bryennios was an
important part ofJohn Il's military machine and campaigns in Asia Minor. Yet he
was commissioned by Eirene Doukaina, his mother-in-law, to write a biography of
his father-in-law, the emperor Alexios. This book survives: it is the "rAT] 1u'toQlal:;
(Hyle Historias - Materialfor a History), covering Alexios'younger years, from 1070-
1079.34It is not clear when this was written: there are various points in Bryennios'
career which would seem likely." It post-dates Alexios'death, so after 1118 - per-
haps very soon after, during the period immediately following John's accession
when Bryennios was under a cloud, having been involved in some form of subver-
sive activity (as noted by Choniates"), Ifwe accept Eirene's role in the biography's
commissioning, as is not unreasonable,'then its commencement predates 1133, the
year - in my view - ofEirene's death." The extent ofBryennios' role in public life in
the 1120s is not clear, though he seems to have been in John's confidence for most
3~ ltalikos, Lettres et discours, 237-8, no. 42.

33 ltalikos,Lettres et discours, 105-9, no. 8.
34 Nikephoros Bryennios, Histoire, ed, and tr.P.Gautier, CFHB 9 (Brussels, 1975); an English trans-
lation is in preparationby Peter Bell (Oxford).

35 As explored in L. Neville, Heroes and Romans in twe!fth-century Byzantium: the Material for
History ofNikephoros Bryennios (Cambridge, 2012), 15~28 and 173-81; cf. E. Jeffreys, 'Nikephoros
Bryennios reconsidered', in V. Vlyssidou (ed.), the empire in crisis (?): Byzantium in the 11th century
(1025-1081) (Athens, 2003), 201-14.
36 Niketas Choniates, Historia, 10,11.37-52.
37 The main argument for this is that this is the year in whichTheodore Prodromosappears for the
first time to rely mainly on emperorJohn for support, rather than his mother: Four Byzantinenovels,
Jeffreys, 5; ef. P.Gautier,'L'obituaire du Typikon du Pantoerator', REB 27 (1969),247-8, arguing that
Eirene had died by 1134.
of that decade. Perhaps these years gave a window of opportunity for the collection
of material and composition of the narrative of the first, and surviving, volume of
his history. The continuation he was working on in the late 1130s until his death
in 1138. At this time he certainly participated in John's expeditions in Asia Minor.
In the prologue to her Alexiad Anna offers a vignette of Bryennios' persistence in
his literary endeavours, even when on campaign and in ill-health, though arguably
an amanuensis would have been at hand to take down his thoughts. 381his offers
insights into the easy-going storytelling of much of the Hyle Histarias. However,
in a letter Italikos comments that Bryennios had good clear handwriting, which
was useful when there was no secretary available." It continues to be a discussion
point how much ofsecond volume ofBryennios' history, which he had brought back
half-finished from the frontier campaign.P is incorporated into his wife's Alexiad.41
The commission did not, however, come out of nowhere. Michael Italikos refers
to a letter from Bryennios read out in Eirene's tbeatron which had the room roar-
ing with laughter, as had also happened on previous occaslons.f Flattery aside, this
tells us that Bryennios was part of the group; that is, he had literary credentials
and was not a mere bystander. It also chimes in with the comments in Tornikes'
funeral oration on Anna which praise the marital home of Anna and Nikephoros
in their youth as the abode of the Muses," and with Choniates' comment that
Bryennios' education was one of the reasons why conspirators had turned to him
for leadership."
Leonora Neville's recent book on the Hyle Histarias offers many interest-
ing insights into Bryennios' motivations and themes. In particular her gendered
approach to his depiction of the female characters deserves careful considera-
tion, and her analysis of the counterpoint between the Alexiad and the Hyle is
thought-provoking." Her emphasis on Bryennios' reading in the Greek historians
of Republican Rome - the sources of the heroes of her book's title - is a useful
expansion of Kazhdan's interpretation of the aristocratic values of the period and
resonates with Kaldellis' recent emphasis on this aspect of the Byzantine recep-
tion of the classical past." However, she does seem to me to make too little of the
38 Comnena,Alexiad, Pro!' IlI.2-4 (Reinsch, 7, 11. 53-90).

39 Ita1ikos,Let/res et discours, 152,11.9-11, no. 16.
40 Comnena,Alexiad, Pro!' IlIA (Reinsch, 8, 11. 91-93).
41 The maximalist view is presented in J. Howard-Johnston, ~na Komnene and the Alexia', in
Mullett and Smythe,Alexios I, 232-302. There are energetic rebuttals in Gouma-Peterson,Anna andher
times; see now Neville, Heroes andRomans, 1.82-193: ~na's history is not so much a continuation ofher
husband's as a rebuttal', 183.
42 ltalikos, Let/res et discaurs, 144,11.4-9, no. 14; cf.154, 11.8-11, no. 17.
43 Tornikes, Let/res, 267.
44 Choniates, Historia, 10,11.40-43.

45 Gendered approach: Neville, Heroes and Romans, 139-159; counterpoint: Neville, Heroes and
Romans, 182-93.
46 See for example A. Kazhdan, ~istocracy and the imperial ideal', in Angold, 'Ibe Byzantinearis-
tocracy, 43-57; A. Kaldellis,'The Byzantine role in the making of the corpus of Classical Greek hlsrori-
ography: A preliminary investigation' ,JHS 132 (2012),71-85.
UTERARYTRENDS IN THE CONSTANTINOPOLITANCOURTS 117
exceptional nature of his learning (which I have discussed elsewhere)." She says
nothing ofhis participation in Eirene Doukaina's theatron and the literary environ-
ment that this implies. Indeed she talks of tales of Alexios' youth being preserved
within the family and recounted at family gatherings, when an even more probable
scenario would involve trial readings before Eirene and her friends and proteges.
Neville says nothing about Bryennios' own acts of literary patronage, the results
of which are discussed below: in fact she makes no attempt to place him in any
literary context of the 1120s and 1130s.
The argument that informs Neville's analysis is that Bryennios is not really
writing about the emperor Alexios at all but rather about Bryennios' namesake
and grandfather, the general and rebel. For her the Hyle Historias is an encomium
to Roman heroic values: the case that is made has many valid points and fits in
with some of the work of the next, and last, figure to be discussed. I refer to the
verse encomia produced byTheodore Prodromos to accompany John Il's triumphal
celebrations of his campaigns in 1133 for the capture of Kastamon and Gangra.
Theodore Prodromos (born around 1100, died around 1158) was an amazingly
versatile writer whose repertoire ranged from philosophical commentaries to verse
satire via hagiography, hymnography and almost every other Byzantine literary
genre." Though most of his writings have now been published - the edition of his
letters is eagerly awaited although the Aristotelian commentaries still languish -
a comprehensive study of his work and his role in the literary and intellectual
developments of the twelfth century remains a desideratum. He is also emblem-
atic of the aspirations for social and material success to be expected from years of
study; though in his case his expectations were sorely disappointed. His first datable
works are perhaps from 1122 and his last from 1157 and 1158. 49 Much of his life
was spent teaching, seemingly in a private school, but his main source of financial
support came from commissions. In the reign of Manuel he claims that he only
ever had one family as his patrons - that of Manuel. 50 This is probably stretching
the truth somewhat, but it would certainly seem that until her death in 1133 his
main source of work came from Eirene Doukaina, Manuel's grandmother, and her
immediate entourage, while after 1133 he shifted allegiance to John - in itself a
comment on the power structures of the court, or courts, of mid-twelfth-century
Constantinople. In that year he wrote the striking encomia celebrating John's recent
victorious campaigns, flattering as he did soJohn's intellectual interests." The enco-
mia Theodore wrote for John may be conventional in subject matter but they are
47 Jeffreys, 'Bryennios reconsidered'.

48 See the comprehensive list in Theodore Prodromos, Historische Gedichte,37-72.
49 Four Byzantine novels, Jeffreys, 6, n. 29, using the generally accepted date for the coronation of
Alexios as eo-emperor; however, see DOC 4. I, 244, n, 1 for the rather clear evidence from Italian docu-
ments that Alexius was created co-emperor shortly after John's accession and certainly by October 1119.
so Theodore Prodromos, 'Una nuova poesia di Teodoro Prodromo in greco volgare', ed. A. Maiuri,
BZ 23 (1914-19),399,11.20-32.
SI 'I, the learned Prodromes, offer this to you who honour learning': Prodromes, Historische Gedichte,
no.4, line 5.
118 ELlZABETHJEFFREYS
less,conventional in form: this applies not to those in prose (for that was standard)
but to those he wrote in verse, whether in hexameters or in the fifteen-syllable
line. To be counted as part of Eirene's entourage would be both Anna Comnena
(for Theodore was somehow part of her sponsorship ofAristotelian commentaries)
and Nikephoros Bryennios. It was for the wedding of the sons of Anna and
Nikephoros that Theodore produced the epithalamion that is amongst his earliest
works, probably from 1122.52This is a conventional piece ofsponsorship. Much less
conventional, however, is Theodore's Rhodanthe and Dosikles, a pastiche in verse of
late antique novels such as those ofAchilles Tatius, Heliodorus and Longus. It was
surprising a few years ago to rediscover that Rhodanthe andDosikles was in fact dedi-
cated to a 'wise Caesar', who can be none other than Nikephoros Bryennios, thus
confirming Bryennios' serious involvement with the literary trends of the time.? It
is not clear, however, how active Bryennios was in Theodore's innovatory venture -
was it Bryennios' suggestion or Theodore's? My continuing reaction that the novel is
somehow connected to the wedding celebrations for Bryennios' sons does a little for
dating Rbodantbe and Dosikles (which must in any case predate 1138 and Bryennios'
death) but nothing to suggest whose was the instigation. Rhodanthe and Dosikles,
like the HyleHistorias, is full of detachable ekphrasis, diegemata and ethopoiia which
would have been very suitable for performance in Eirene Doukaina's theatron.
Then there is the question of the Ptochoprodromic poems - the poems of
Penniless Prodromos - a vexed issue that refuses to be tidied up. Are these four, or-
in my view - five, poems in vernacular Greek by Theodore or by some other of the
swarm of twelfth-century writers of verse? By using everyday language in a written
text these poems, of course, break almost every imaginable Byzantine linguistic
taboo.54 Attribution in the manuscripts swings between Theodore Prodromos,
Ptochoprodromos and tou autou, 'by the same'. It is not helpful that no manuscript
is earlier than the thirteenth century, while most are from the fifteenth, although
the poems' contents include enough twelfth-century references to make the con-
text assured. Nor is it helpful that, when a poem is preserved in more than one
manuscript, then there are huge variations in the text. It is this that has convinced
Hans Eideneier, who has devoted much of his professional life to studying these
texts (and recently produced a new edition),55 that they can only be the product
of oral transmission and cannot be attributed to a single named author. However,
while I am in general a supporter ofthe thesis that segments ofByzantine literature
show a connection with a tradition of orally produced poetry and I willingly admit
that the textual tradition of the Ptochoprodromic poems is a puzzle, in this case
52 Bryennios, Histoire, 3~54; cf Proc!romos, Historiscbe Gedicbte, no. 1, on the crowning ofJohn's
son Alexios as co-emperor, with due notice taken of the caveat in note 49 above.
53 E. Jeffreys, ~ date for Rhodanthe and Dosikles?', in P. Agapitos and D.R. Reinsch (eds.), Der
Roman im Byzanz der Kamnenenzeit (Frankfurt am Main, 2000),127-36.
54 G. Horrocks, Greek.'A history of thelanguage anditsspeakers (Chichesrer/Malden, 2010, 2nd edn.),
337-42.
55 rr'UJJXOTtp66pof.lo~, ed. H. Eideneier (Heraklion, 2012).
UTERARYTRENDS IN THE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN COURTS 119
it seems to me that Eideneier is being unnecessarily conservative: he is unwilling,

for example, to move beyond the autobiographical and to accept that the different
personae of the poems - henpecked husband, bullied young monk, indigent poet -
can be the product of one writer's imagination. He is also unwilling to accept
that a writer who uses high register Greek would stoop to the vernacular levels
of the Ptochoprodromika. To my mind these points are an argument for supporting
authorship by the inventive Theodore. There are also distinct parallels in phrasing
between the Ptochoprodromika and poems that are indubitably by Theodore: the
clearest example of this comes in Ptochoprodromos no. 3 and Prodromos no. 38
(addressed to Anna Comnena). These, the famous Anathemata grammata poems in
which Theodore curses his useless education, are palpably intertextual. If one gives
credence to the dedications in the manuscript titles to the Ptochoprodromic poems,
then these texts were produced throughout their author's working life, arguably
Theodore's working life.The dedications are to the emperor John, the sebastokrator
Andronikos (d. 1142) and emperor Manuel. The poems to Manuel include several
laudatory references to him as a second 'Dlgenes', a new 'Akrites', which can be
taken as an allusion to Manuel's exploits in his campaigns in 1152 on the Euphrates
borderlands of Syria, the home territory of Digenes Akrires." So it seems to me
not unreasonable to suggest a scenario whereby, in writing these vernacular poems,
Theodore was experimenting with a new medium and attempting to attract once
again a patron from the highest echelons of the Komnenian court, initially the
emperor John and then his successor. A reading of these poems in any theatron,
including that of Eirene Doukaina, would surely have provoked wry smiles, if not
huge guffaws of merriment.
This brings me to my final text. This is the anonymous DigenesAkrites, the hybrid
epic romance mentioned at the start of this chapter and in the last paragraph. I do
not wish to attribute the production of this text to Theodore Prodromos, but I
do consider that its creation, out of some ragged ballads from the Syrian border
regions," was due to interest in the novels of late antiquity sparked by Theodore's
Rhodanthe and Dasikles, the first of the four Komnenian novels to be written.P
I wish simply to point out that the henpecked husband's wrestling with his
domineering wife in the first Ptochoprodomic poem is a parody of Digenis' youth-
ful bear hunt; the wording in book 4, lines 112-129 of the Grottaferrata version
of Digenis is particularly close to Ptochoprodromos 1, lines 160-177.59 The first
Ptochoprodromic poem is dedicated to Emperor John. Although much could be
56 II7:(j)xo1!p66p Ofl OI; , 4, lines 189 and 544.

57 Digenis Akritis: 'Ibe Grottaferrata andEscorial versions, ed. E.Jeffreys (Cambridge, 1998), xli.
58 Four Byzantine novels,Jeffreys, 7-10.
59 Key elements of Digenis' accoutrements (KaflTJAaUKh'LV, Book 4, L 117: his cap; Qa~btav,
book 4, 1. 125: his club), appropriate for a bear hunt appear, for example, at Ptochoprodromos 1, 1.
165: nuXaE Qa~Nv, ~aAE epwvllv, QhjJov '(0 KaflEAaUXLV. Digenis'hunt culminates in his snapping
the bear's neck: book 4, 1. 137 a'(Q€tjJa~ rov ,(QCtXTJAov amou e1;EaepovMALO"€ '(0; incongruously
this is the climax of Ptochoprodomos' battle: Kat /Xv '(um Kat anobE(qTJ oe,vo: aE. e~Eaepov'(uA(cn:l
(1,1.163).
teased out from this, all I would like to suggest here is that a version of Digenes
Akrites which closely resembled the version preserved in the thirteenth-century
Grottaferrata manuscript had been put into written form before 1143 (and the
death ofJohn); this fits neatly with Theodore's writing of Rbodantbe and Dosikles
before 1138 (and the death ofBryennios).
This chapter has attempted to point to new and interesting trends in Byzantine
literature that had their origins during the reign ofJohn H. My argument is that in
Byzantine culture, skill in the craft of words (that is, the production of literature)
was considered a means to a livelihood and not an end in itself and that practi-
tioners sought commissions by displaying their skills before potential patrons. This
could lead simply to further examples of whatever was fashionably conventional,
or - if a patron's fancy was caught by an intriguing experiment - new fashions could
emerge. For whatever reason, perhaps by virtue of the personalities involved - and
I have attempted to point to some of the more significant - it seems to me that the
1120s and 1130s, that is, the reign ofJohn H, did in fact witness the introduction of
significant new trends, while what evidence there is suggests that the process began
in the 1120s.
9
Seeking a way out ofthe impasse:

the Filioque controversy during]ohn's reign"
Alessandra Bucossi
Although the life ofthe church in Byzantium during the Komnenian era saw some
extremely remarkable events and debates (it will suffice to mention the discussion
concerning the condemnation of John Italos, or the Bogomils), this chapter
concentrates only on the exchanges with the Latin church and the theological lite-
rature dedicated to the Filioque issue, in an attempt to reconstruct at least a small
piece of that complex jigsaw which is the ecclesiastical history of the period. The
importance of the Komnenian era for the development of the relationship between
Greek and Latin churches would deserve an entire monograph in itself; however,in
this chapter, I will try to sketch some aspects of the exchanges between Rome and
Constantinople and to outline what I believe are the peculiarities ofthe period. This
chapter is ofcourse focused on the reign ofJohn, but since the activity and influence
of those theologians who wrote on the controversy with the Latin church cannot
be confined within the chronological boundaries ofthe reign ofone emperor, I have
allowed myself to move back and forward throughout the Komnenian period.
An unavoidable preamble is that the more one studies John II Komnenos, the
more one feels sorry for him: in fact there is almost no field of activity in which,
today, he is not considered less important than his father and his son, yet this
underestimation - as this book seeks to demonstrate - is certainly a product of
our false perspective. A field in which John is considered less involved than either
his father or his son is the life of the church, meaning both the internal life of the
Byzantine church and relations with the Latin church. Michael Angold, to take
only one example from recent scholarship, is extremely outspoken on this point
when he states that 'John Comnenus seems to have had little interest in the church
and no trouble with his patriarchs, to judge by the sparsity of documentation. This
is in contrast to both his father's and his son's reigns.'! However, this needs to be
• This contribution is part of the project 'The eleventh and twelfth centuries as forerunners of a
united and divided Europe: Dialogues and disputes between the Byzantine East and the Latin West'
financed by the Italian Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universita e della Ricerca through the programme
'Futuro in Ricerca 2013'.
I Angold, Church andsociety, 75.
FromJohn II Komnenos, Emperor ofByzantium:In the Shadow ofFather and Son. Copyright © Alessandra
Bucossi, Published by Roudedge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN.
121
122 ALESSANDRA BUCOSSI
reconsidered, to take proper account of both the volume and importance of the
theological works that were produced during the period.
When he became emperor on 15 August 1118, John was already thirty years
old, having been born on 13 September 1087 and having been co-emperor since
the age of five.Therefore we can infer that he was already an experienced statesmen
who had seen and participated in some of the most important events of the reign of
his father Alexios. For the field that interests us in this chapter we can say that he
certainly had heard the echoes of the exchanges between Alexios and Urban II in
1089,2 and therefore ofthe synod which took place in September ofthe same year in
Constantinople, when the question of the azymes' and the absence of the name of
the Pope in the diptyehs were discussed and the Byzantine church asked the papacy
to produce a profession of faith. Not less central were of course the events of the
First Crusade (1096-99) or the concessions given to Western merchants with all
the consequences these caused for the opening of the Byzantine Empire to an active
and physically present Latin influence. I do not propose to venture into the analysis
of the well-studied and complex phenomenon of the Crusades and their influ-
ence. Suffice it to suggest, instead, following Paolo Lamma', that 'the Komnenian
emperors would have been ready to introduce Western practices, and theological
positions, if and when these had been considered profitable for the empire'.'
Amongst the important events in which John most probably participated, one
of the most intriguing is the discussion between some Byzantine theologians, alleg-
edly seven, and the Archbishop of Milan, Pietro Grossolano, that took place in
1112, only six years before John ascended the throne. The discussion was dedicated
in particular to the Filioque, and was certainly also linked to the inconclusive nego-
tiations for church union, which Alexios conducted with Pope Pascal II in the same
year,' Some of the most remarkable theologians of the period certainly participated
in these negotiations: Eustratios of Nicaea (Il.1l00);6 John Phournes (Il.1l00)j7
Niketas Seides {,fi.1l00),8 and perhaps also the moderate Theophylaktos of Ohrid
(105o-after 1126), who according to some scholars wrote his famous treatise for this
occasion." Another interesting aspect of these encounters is Grossolano's approach:
2 W. Holtzmann, 'Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios I und Papst Urban II im

jahre 1089', BZ 28 (1928),38-67.
3 On the discussion about the usageof leavened and unleavened bread in the Eucharisticsacrifice
see ODB I, 241, s.v. 'Azymes'.
4 Lamma, Comneni e Stazifer, I, 21.
S Seea recent analysis by Auge, Po/itiqueJe/igieuse, 151-6.
6 See his writings in Eustratios of Nicaea, Oratianes deprocessions Spiritus Sancti, ed. A K. Deme-
trakopoulos, Bibliotheca ecclesiastica (Vol. 1, Leipzig, 1866; repr.Hildesheim, 1965),47-99.
7 See his writingsin Ibld., 36-47.
8 See his De controuersiis ecdesiae Graecae et Latinae in R. Gahbauer, Gegen den Primatdes Papstes:
Studienzu Niketas Seldes (Munich, 1975), text at 1-78.
9 See his writing in Theophylaktos, Discours, 247-85. See the following contributions on the rea-
sonswhyTheophylaktos wrote the treatise on the Latin errors:M.D. Spadaro,'Sugll"errori"dei Latini

di Teofilatto: obiettiviti 0 sceltapolitica?' in A.M Babbl,A. Pioletti, F. Rizzo Nervo and C. Stevanoni
(eds.), Medioeoo Romanza e Orienta/e: Testi eprospettive storiografiche. Colloquio Intemazionale, Verona,
SEEKINGA WAYOUT OFTHE IMPASSE 123
he asked Alexios to judge the discussions and the two different theological positions
although, he says, this was a prerogative of the Papacy:
'Ascend then to the tribunal of your heart, as I asked above, and express a fair judge-
ment between Latin and Greek about those things I have exposed above, although
this judgement pertains to the Roman Pontiff and to the Roman church specially. In
fact it is a prerogative of the Pope himself to judge between Greek and Latin, between
people and people, between reign and reign, principally about the Faith and whatever
is in the spiritual realm, still because Salomon says:'to investigate an issue is the glory
of kings' (Prov.25.2), investigate diligently the issue written above on the procession of
the Holy Spirit and do not wait for I do not know what end. Because ifthat end delays,
indeed death does not delay its coming. Do not wait for your successors,"?
This passage clearly gives us the sense of acceleration and hastening that perme-
ates the Komnenian era, especially its final sentence. Indeed reading through some
of the writings composed in this period it seems that this sentiment is quite wide-
spread: agreement between the two churches seems to be close and within reach;
only one more step was needed, either an imperial intervention (as is proposed in
this case) or a church council (as was typically proposed by the Greek theologians),
and the dispute could have been quickly and easily resolved.
The same sense of imminence can be detected during the reign of John, but
before I examine the theological writings in more detail it is fundamental to recall
the most relevant facts as they have been preserved. The first significant event in
the ongoing dialogue between East and West was the visit to Constantinople of
Anse1m of Have1berg in 1136, who was returning a visit paid during August 1135
by some Byzantine ambassadors to Lothar II in Merseburg; its key scope was to
form the basis for an alliance against Roger of Siclly;" We do not know if the
Byzantine ambassadors discussed theological issues as well while in Germany;12
what is certain, however, is that a theological discussion with Niketas ofNicomedia
4-6 aprile 1990 (Soveria MannelliIMessina, 1992),231-44; M.D. Spadaro, 'Chiesa d'oriente e chiesa
d'occidente sotto la dinastia dei Comneni', BF 22 (1996),79-97; M. Mullett, 7heophylact ofOchrid:
Reading theletters of a Byzantinearchbishop (Aldershot, 1997),239-40; T.M. Kolbaba, 'The Orthodoxy
of the Latins in the twelfth century'in A. Louth and A. Casiday (eds.), Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers
from the 7hirty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23-25 March 2002
(Aldershot, 2006), 207.
10 Peter Grossolano, Due sermoni inediti di Pietro Grosolano, Arcivescovo di Milano, ed. A. Amelli
(Florence, 1933), text 14-36, at 35. Except where indicated, all translations in this chapter are my own.
11 Annates Erphesfurdenses, 540.
12 This was not unusual, and it is attested for example by Arnold ofLiibeck's report on the exchanges
that took place during the reign of Manuel, when in 1172 an embassy from Frederick Barbarossa
arrived in Constantinople to agree the marriage between Maria, daughter of Manuel, and the son of
Barbarossa. In this occasion there was a debate on the procession of the Holy Spirit during which
passages from Athanasius, Cyril and John Chrysostom were discussed. Arnold of Lubeck, Chronica
Slavorum, ed. I.M. Lappenberg, MGH SS rerGerm XIV (Hannover, 1868; repr. Leipzig, 1930), 19-20;
Magdalino, Manuel, 92.
took place in Constantinople during Anselm's visit, because there is a written record
of it composed by Anselm for Pope Eugene III in 1149150,13 One of the most
striking differences between the dialogues written by Anselm and the surviving
literature produced in relation to the discussions with Peter Grossolano is the fact
that Anselm's in 1136 did not leave any echo in the Greek sources.We might won-
der ifthis is because the Greek theologians involved were not particularly impressed
by the visit, or because the emperor did not - as Alexios had done - ask them to
write down a report oftheir answers, or simply because the records were lost. In any
case we do not have any Greek document that clearly informs us about the Greek
reaction to the visit of the German envoy.14
The following year there were two more occasions for meetings: the first was
a delegation conducted by Ranaud, the abbot of Montecassino, to Lothar Il, in
which a certain Mauros kouropalates participated, that took place between June and
July 1137;15 the second, in July the same year, was an embassy from the Byzantine
emperor to Pope Innocent Il and Lothar Il at Lagopesole, between Melfi and
Potenza, organised as the basis of an alliance against Roger Il of Sicily" We know
that on this occasion theological and ecclesiological differences (over papal pri-
macy and the procession of the Holy Spirit) were also discussed because Peter the
Deacon informs us about these discussions.'? In this case, according to Peter, the
sessions were translated into Greek, although there are no traces left of the Greek
version. IS Amongst the Byzantine delegates was a 'certain philosopher'" whom
scholars have tentatively identified with Michael Italikos, who indeed in one of
his letters - preserved without the name of the addressee, but most probably sent
to John Il - mentions an embassy to Italy.20 Certainly a letter from Innocent II
dated 28 March 1138 was sent to those Latins who were serving in the Byzantine
army or were living in the Byzantine Empire, in which the Pope - upset byJohn's
13 For a recent bibliography on the dating of the text see Anselm of Havelberg, Anticimenon, 1.
14 Pietro Podolak is preparing a study on Ugo Eterianus and Niketas of Nicomedia (research unit
based at the University of Pisa for the project 'The eleventh and twelfth centuries as forerunners of a
united and divided Europe: Dialogues and disputes between the Byzantine East and the Latin West'
financed by the Italian Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Universira e de1laRicerca through the programme
'Futuro in Ricerca 2013').
IS Peter the Deacon, Chronicon Casinense, PL 173, 933, or Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed.
H. Hoffmann, MGH SS XXXIV (Hannover, 1980), eh, 4, 570, 1.19. For the possible identification of
Maurus with John Doukas Kamateros see Italikos, Lettreset discours, 22 n.26.
16 Peter the Deacon, Chronicon Casinense PL 173, 955-7 = Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, Ch. IV,
1
590-1.
17 Peter the Deacon,Altercatio contra Graecum quendam; siueDifensio Romanae Ecdesiae ad orationem
legati Constantinopolitani imperatoris in aulaLotbarii, ed. A. Amelli, Miscellanea Cassinese (Montecassino,
1897),Tomus I, Pars n, 10-32.
18 'His ita peroratis, cum nox diei finem imponeret, item Graecus dicta sua et supradicti
Diaconi responsa, in Graecum sermonem transtulit, Patriarchae Constantinopolitano et Imperatori
Porphirogenito deferenda', Peter the Deacon,Altercatio contra Graecum, 28.
19 Cbronica Monasterii Casinensis, eh, 4, 590, 1. 10.
20 Letter no. 23 in Italikos, Lettresetdiscours, commentary at 21-4 and text at 174,1. 11-175,1. 9.
SEEKING A WAYOUT OFTHE IMPASSE 125
aggressive policy against Antioch - warns the Westerners not to follow the heretic
emperor in his immoral actions." However, according to the dating proposed by
recent scholarship." in spring 1138 a papal embassy reached Constantinople, as
attested by a letter ofJohn to the Pope dated June 1139,23 and was followed by a
Byzantine embassy to Rome. After this, John was busy (1139-1140) with a military
campaign in northeast ofAsia Minor. In the summer of 1139, Innocent Il marched
against Roger but was ambushed and captured and therefore forced to proclaim
him King of Sicily. By the time a second letter was sent to Innocent Il, in April
1141,John's youngest son, Manuel, had been betrothed to Bertha, the sister-in-law
of Conrad III of Germany, sealing the alliance with the German power, while the
following year (1142) a second legation was sent to Rome.
These are the sparse details that we possess about the exchanges between the
Greek and Latin churches during the reign ofJohn: attempts, exchanges, pourpar-
ler, embassies, discussions that did not achieve any result but that still bear witness
to the fact that the reunion of the churches was perceived as a possible result by
both the papacy and the Byzantine imperial power. Even scantier are the details
about the theological production of the reign of John. Indeed while Komnenian
literature on the differences with the Latin church is very conspicuous and the more
we count authors and texts the more the list Increases," the case ofJohn's reign is
again peculiar because there are no authors who mention this emperor by name in
their writings and, therefore, we cannot date with certainty texts that most probably
were written during his reign. Moreover the majority of scholars, myself'Included,"
have until now tended to date all the writings on the discussions with the Latins
to the reign of Manuel, because he is considered a champion of such debates and
seen to have demonstrated a friendly approach towards the Latins and their church.
However, Tia Kolbaba has rightly pointed out that around the end of the eleventh
century and during the first half of the twelfth, there were already theologians who
held a moderate position in this debate." What I propose here is to expand on what
she has already identified: what she terms the 'moderate' position towards the Latin
21 PL 179,354-5; R£gestapontiftcum romanorum, ed. P.Jaffe (Leipzig, 1885), 879.

22 Most recent scholarship accepts the dating 1139-1141, see for example Lamma, Comneni eStauftr,
I, 28, n. 1; D. Stiernon, 'Rome et les egllses orientales', Euntes Docete 15 (1962),317-85; Magdalino,
Manuel, 39-40; Auge, Politique religieuse, 155-159. Amongst those who dated the exchange between
1124 and 1126, see e.g. Chalandon, Les Comnen« Il, 162-3; and L. Brehier, 'Attempts at reunion of the
Greek and Latin Churches', in 'lbeCambridge Medievalhistory (Cambridge, 1923), IV, 600.
23 Monumenta speaantia ad unionem Ecdesiarum, 1-5; Lampros, 'AU'tOKQGt't6QWv 'tOU Bul;av'tlou
XQoo613ou.\Aa', 94-128; Kresten and MUller, 'Die Auslandsschreiben der byzantinischen Kaiser des
11. und 12. Jahrhunderts', 402-429; Dolger and Wirth, Regesten derKaiserurumden, Il, 186-99, nos.
1320a and 1320b; Hunger, 'Schrlftasthetik', 187-196; C. Gastgeber, 'Die rhetorische Ausgestaltung der
kaiserlichen Auslandsschreiben an die Papste (Dolger Wirth, Reg, 1320a, 1320b und 1348)', RHM 40
(1998),197-235.
24 The only complete list I am aware of is A K Demetrakopoulos, Graecia Orthodoxa (Leipzig, 1871).
25 See my previous opinion e.g, in Andronikos Kamateros, Sacrum Armamentarium, 00. A. Bucossi,
CCSG 75 (Turnhout, 2014), XXIX-XXXIII.
26 Kolbaba, 'The Orthodoxy of the Latins', 199-214.
church, which is certainly not an insignificant reality in the Komnenian era. 27The
outstanding case in this context is an author who could be dated to the reign of
John, Niketas ofThessalonica (wrongly called 'ofMaroneia'j.'" the most representa-
tive exponent of the twelfth-century tendency to seek a way out of the theological
and ecclesiological impasses that separated the churches.
Niketas, a former chartophylax of the Great Church, most probably was Archbishop
and Metropolitan of Thessalonica in 1133;29 he composed SixDialogues ontheProcession
of theHoly Spirit and almost certainly some canonical responses.30 His Six Dialogues
are often mentioned as a clear example ofa mild and open attitude towards the Latins
but have rarely been thoroughly studied. Indeed, a complete critical edition of the
dialogues is still lacking, and different scholars have published these texts at different
times.The FirstDialogue was partially published in the Patrologia Graeca,31 the Second,
1hirdand Fourth ones were published by Nicola Festa between 1912 and 1915,32 finally
the Fifth and Sixth Dialogues were edited in a doctoral thesis in 1965.33 As for the
manuscript tradition, according to an initial survey the most important manuscripts
amount to seven, copied between the fourteenth and the eighteenth centuries."
The exceptionality of Niketas' writings lies in the fact that the Latin and the
Greek theological interpretations of the procession of the Holy Spirit are considered
equivalent, equally authoritative, because no ecumenical council had ever clarified
the matter.
'The characters of the dialogue are the Latin and the Greek: the argument of both of
them is moulded as equivalent and equal in force, and this also by reason of the subject
matter because the subject proposed has not yet been examined and decided upon by
the pronouncement of a synod before and, therefore, it has no small strength from
either the parts.'35
27 See also Spadaro, 'Chiesa d'Oriente e Chiesa dbccidente', 79-97.

28 ODB Ill, 1482, s.v.'Niketas "of'Maroneia",
29 For further details on Niketas'life see A. Bucossi,'The Six Dialogues by Niketas "OfMaroneia": A
Contextualising Introduction' in A. Cameron and N. Gaul (eds.), Dialogue anddebatefrom LateAntiquity

toLateByzantium (Burlington: forthcoming).
30 Perhaps also a life ofSt Demetrius, see ODB Ill, 1482, s.v, 'Niketas "of Maroneia",
31 Niketas ofThessalonica, FirstDialogue, PG 139, 169-221.
32 Niketas ofThessalonica, Second, 'Ibird andFourth Dialogues, in 'Niceta di Maronea e i suoi dialoghi
su11a processione delle Spirito Santo', ed. N. Festa, Bessarione 16 (1912): 80-107, 126-32,266-86; 17
(1913): 104-13,295-315; 18 (1914): 55-75,243-59; 19 (1915): 239-46.
l3 Niketas of Thessalonica, Fifth and Si:;th Dialogues, in 'Niceta di Maronea e i suoi dialoghi sulla
processione dello Spirito Santo - Un teologo gceco precursore del dialogo ecumenico', ed. C. Giorgetti,
License thesis (Pontifical University of the Lateran, Rome, 1965).
l4 Firenze, Bib!. Medicea Laurenziana, MS Plut, 31.37, if. 21-86 (14th century); Alexandria, Bib!.
tou Patriarcheiou, MS 137, if. 94v-165v (15th century); Sinai, Mone tes Hagias Aikaterines, MS gr,
1706, if. 16v-85v (16th century); Sankt-Peterburg, Rossijskaja Nacional'naja bibl, (RNB), MS gr.533
(Granstrem 605), if. 25-45v (14th century); Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, MS Allacci 79, if. 3r-67V;
96-176 (17th; 18th century) and MS Allacci 143, if. 80-83 (18th century); Citta del Vaticano, BAV,MS
gr, 1115, if. 2-45v (14th century).
35 Nlketas ofThessalonica, PG 139, 169B.
SEEKING A WAYOUT OFTHE IMPASSE 127
Niketas' approach sounds completely unbiased and absolutely conservative at the

same time: it is not possible to judge the orthodoxy of a theological position and
to establish a doctrine with certainty other than through the pronouncement of an
ecumenical council. This is the real difference between the Six Dialogues and the rest
of the twelfth-century panorama: the Metropolitan ofThessalonica neither attacks
the Latin position nor excuses the Latins because of their ignorance (as was the
case with Theophylaktos of Ohrid36) ; he presents in detail his version of the Latin
position and insists on the necessity of a general council because the two inter-
pretations are equivalent. Niketas, who most probably was also an expert in canon
law, is strictly observant of canonical practices and rules, and the opening of his
FirstDialogue is not only based on an already well-established traditional structure,
but at the same time represents a very canonical modus operandi. Niketas in fact
opens his text by explaining the differences between the common characteristics of
the Godhead and the personal characteristics of the three hypostases, an opening
that was commonly used by Byzantine theologians to introduce discussion on the
Filioque; indeed some of the most important authors open their text with this kind
of profession of faith or, as Niketas says, the exposition of 'their own principles'
('tac; iblaC; aQxac;).37
It is noteworthy that the Komnenian era is the period during which the Greek
church requested a statement of faith from the Latin church (in 1089, during the
synod of Constantinople as mentioned above). This fact suggests a number of con-
siderations. First that the Byzantine church, and I would say more generally the
Byzantine empire, was feeling powerful enough to challenge the Latin position at
the highest level, asking for the Pope's profession of faith, and secondly that the two
churches were clearly making the canonically appropriate steps that could have led
to a formal reconciliation. The papacy in fact had asked for the formal documents
(which did not exist) stating the reasons why the names of the Popes were not com-
memorated in the diptyehs, and Constantinople replied, requesting the traditional
profession of faith and proposing an ecumenical council. This event can be inter-
preted as a very significant point in history, which clarifies the phase the universal
church was going through. Tia Kolbaba's analysis shows this clearly: 'In sum, those
who think that the Latins are not in error in any heretical way are still the dominant
party in 1089.'38 However, Kolbaba also states that the Byzantine church becomes
increasingly inflexible in its attitude to the Latins during the twelfth century, while
I would say that Niketas ofThessalonica (active around 1133) is our best witness
for the fact that the relationship only became strained later in the century, and not
before. I believe that this hardening of the Greek position grows stronger the more
36 See above and again Tia Kolbaba on these points in 'The Orthodoxy of the Latins', 201-8.
37 See Niketas of Thessalonica, First Dialogue, 174-80; Eustratios of Nicaea, Orationes deproees-
sione Spiritus Sanai, 47-99; Johannes Phournes, Oratio antirrbetica de proeessione Spiritus Sanai,
ed. AK. Demetrakopoulos, Bibliotbeca ecclesiastica, 36-47; Nicholas of Methene, Grationes, ed. A.K.
Demetrakopoulos, Bibliatbeca ecclesiastica; 359-79; and Kamateros, SacrumArmamentarium, 34-7.
38 Kolbaba, 'The Orthodoxy of the Latins', 206.
Latins and Greeks share the same space and the same actions, with an increasing
number ofwestern merchants living in Constantinople and the first two Crusades,
and that this process takes a whole century (from the Synod in Constantinople in
1089 to the massacre of the Latins in April 1182) to reach its climax. It is certainly
during the second half of the century that we see the most extreme positions: from
an emperor who organises tournaments and defends the Latin theological inter-
pretation in 1166 39 to the massacre of the Latins in 1182; too often we seem not to
realise that even in the most conservative society, a lot can change in the space of
one century.
But to go back to the statements on the general principles that open the
First Dialogue, the two speakers proceed by stating, 'We will expose some brief
points on what we believe and say regarding the Holy Trinity as in a preface.r"
and then presenting the distinction between the personal characteristics of the
persons of the Trinity (hypostatic or personal) and the characteristics proper to
the Godhead (essential or natural); the characteristics proper to the Divinity
are omnipotence, eternity, invisibility, immensity and are shared by the three
persons; the personal characteristics are respectively: for the Father, that ofbeing
from no one; for the Son, that of coming into being through generation; for the
Holy Spirit, that of proceeding. These hypostatic characteristics are unchange-
able and fixed. After this very traditional outline of faith, Niketas continues the
First Dialogue by introducing the so-called 'Photian sophisms', syllogisms that
elucidate the consequences of the procession from the Son, e.g. there would be
confusion amongst the personal characteristics; the Holy Spirit would be 'com-
posed'; there would be a double procession and therefore a double Spirit; both
the processions (one from the Father and one from the Son) would be imperfect,
or one of the two would be superfluous; the Spirit would be son of the Son and
therefore grandson of the Father.
In the Second Dialogue the Greek speaker again introduces some syllogisms: if
the Spirit was directly (immediately) from the Son, he would be inferior to Father
and Son because either the Son would have some characteristics that the Spirit
does not have (i.e, the fact ofbeing directly from the Father, while the Spirit would
have the Son as a medium; the fact that the Son could produce another person) or
the Spirit would have only one personal characteristic while the Father has three
characteristics (being from nobody, emanating the Spirit, generating the Son) and
the Son two (being generated and emanating the Spirit). The following objection is
the most classical Greek syllogism a,gainst the Filioque: the procession from Father
and Son means two principles of the Spirit. In order to reply to the Greek position,
the Latin speaker uses the idea (already touched upon in the FirstDialogue) of pro-
cession 'mediately' (tf-lf-ltaw~ Le. the procession from the Father through the Son)
39 See for an introduction C. Mango, 'The Conciliar Edict of 1166', DOP 17 (1963), 315-30;
J. Gouillard, Le Synodikon de I'Orthodoxie: Edition et Commentaire, TM 2 (1967),216-26; Magdalino,
Manuel, 287-8.
40 Niketas ofThessalonica, PG 139, 173C.
and 'immediately' (alleaw<;, Le. the unmediated derivation of Son and Spirit from
the Father, or also the derivation of the Spirit directly from the Son - but in this
case also 'mediately' from the Father)." This last point, and then the idea of,order'
('ta~L<;)42 in the Trinity, which occupies almost the entire Second Dialogue, are two
of the most interesting concepts presented by Niketas and which most probably are
genuinely Latin. However, exploring the Latin position in this exact phase is a work
in progress and thus a definitive answer cannot yet be produced.P By 'genuinely
Latin'I do not mean that Niketas transcribed either an oral or a written source, but
that most probably he was influenced by discussions with Latin thinkers. Indeed
these two points are not commonly used by other contemporary Greek sources
(although it should be remembered that Eustratios' texts, for example - a direct
source for Niketas according to the analysis conducted by Alexei Barmine - have
not been fully published yet)," but we do find, for example, a similar discussion on
the 'order' in the Trinity in Anselm of Havelberg's Anticimenon. 45
The ThirdDialogue starts again with a Greek objection: the procession must be
from the essence or from a hypostatic characteristic. But if the Spirit is from the
essence, he is also from himself, while he cannot be from a hypostatic characteristic
because the hypostatic characteristic does not exist in itself.The Latin reply is based
on this kind of reasoning: there is no characteristic without essence, therefore either
the Spirit is from the essence according to the characteristic or from the characteris-
tic according to the essence, but since the second possibility is absurd, it must be the
first: the Spirit is from the essence according to the characteristic.The Father indeed
has two characteristics: he generates the Son and emanates the Spirit through the
Son, while the Son has the characteristic ofbeing generated from the Father and of
emanating the Spirit; the Son therefore is the medium that unites Spirit and Father.
But in this case, the Greek objects, a logical consequence would be the inferiority
of the Spirit. The reply of the Latin is based on the created world: as the creation
exists from the Father through the Son in the Spirit, therefore from one principle,
one essence, but according to the personal characteristics, so is the procession of the
Holy Spirit. The only difference from creation is that creation comes into being in
time, while the Spirit is eternal. The Greek moves on stating that the words 'and
41 Interestingly this discussion of the terms mediately and immediately can be found again, starting
from the fourteenth century when Gregory Palamas and Barlaam mention it in their treatises on the
procession of the Holy Spirit and attribute it to the Latins. See Gregory Palamas, De processione spiri-
tus sanctiorationes duae ed. by B. Bobrinsky, 'i\6yOL Ct710bELK'tUWL Mo ltEQL 'tij<; EKlt0QEOOEW<; rou
Aylou Ilvsouaroc', in P.K Chrestou (ed.), fPTlyoptov 'toiJ I1aAaJ-LCt avyyptXJ-LJ-Latct (Thessaloniki,
1962); and Barlaam of Calabria, Opere contra i Latini, ed. A. Fyrigos (Vatican City, 1998).
4Z Almost the entire Second Dialogue, ed. Festa, Bessarione 16 (1912) Greek Text 93-107,126-32,
266-73, Latin tr, 274-86; 17 (1913) Latin tt.104-13, 295-9.
43 The first complete critical edition of the Six Dialogues is a work in progress; however, to offer only
one example there are interesting passages in book 5 of the De Trinitate by Richard of Saint Victor on
the idea of procession mediate and immediate in PL 196.
.. A. Barmine, 'Une source meconnue des Dialogues de Nicetas de Maronee',REB 58 (2000),231-43.
4S Anselm,Anticimenon, eh, 7-10 (or PL 188,1172-9).
from the Son' (Filioque) are neither in the Gospel nor in the Creed. The Latin replies
that the Greeks had added solo to the ex Patre and that they accept other terms that
are not from the Scriptures, such as 'hypostasis' or 'essence'.
The Fourth Dialogue is based on metaphors and analogies that describe the inter-
nal relationships among the persons of the Trinity, e.g. substance-power-action,
point-line-surface, finger-hand-man, Adam-Eve-Seth, and one of the most
successful ever: sun-ray-light. Each metaphor is discussed in detail. The metaphor
of the sun, in particular, triggers a long conversation on what light could mean,
whether solar globe, rays or illumination, and from this point they start a discussion
on the philosophical concepts of form and matter. Another parallel, this time pro-
posed by the Greek speaker, is Idea-intellect-word.Thanks to the Latin replies and
examples, the Greek speaker starts by accepting a role for the Son in the procession
of the Holy Spirit expressed by the preposition 'through' (bLa), although always
excluding 'from' (e~), while the Latin explains at length that from his point ofview
'through' (per) can be substituted by 'from' (ex, ab,de), and to prove it he produces
various Biblical examples about the usage of'ex' and 'per.
In the Fifth Dialogue there is again a long discussion on the prepositions and
also on the verb 'to proceed' (eK1toQeueaem), which for the Greek is a verb to be
used only for the procession from the Father, while for the Latin the verb signifies
only 'coming out from something or somebody'. Again at the end of this Dialogue
the Latin concludes that the procession is 'mediately' from the Father (because it is
through the Son) and 'immediately'from the Son (but 'mediately'from the Father!),
but Father and Son are not two principles but only one.
The Sixth Dialogue can be divided into two parts, a first part that concentrates
on exegesis of patristic passages, and a second that presents canonical and his-
torical proofs. At the very end of the Sixth Dialogue the two speakers reach an
agreement: the word Filioque must be erased from the symbol of faith, but it can
be agreed that 'from the Son' and 'through the Son' have the same meaning. The
Greek speaker says,
'If then you too say that what we say 'through the Son' and 'from the Son' do not have
any other difference of understanding apart from the form of expression of different
prepositions, give these letters to us, and we will show kindness in return [giving] more
letters to you, which in a commentary explain the common agreement and unanimity,
and the destruction of the letters that scandalise'r"
What kind of observations can be made on the Byzantine attitude towards

the Latins during the reign ofJohn n Komnenos, starting from this kind of text?
I am utterly convinced that we should try to interpret the attitude of medieval
Greek authors not using our modern categories of Orthodoxy and Catholicism,
therefore considering the two churches as two unmovable blocks, but rather that
we should try to read the anti-Latin texts as they were written in the context of
46 Giorgetti, 'Niceta di Maronea e i suoi dialoghi', 224.

SEEKINGA WAY OUT OF THE IMPASSE 131
the anti-heretical literature of the early Christian centuries: the treatises against
Arianism, Monophysitism or Pneumatomachians, to mention only a few, are cer-
tainly written to condemn these heresies, probably to convince those who were
ambivalent, but unquestionably also to clarify positions, to prepare dossiers to be
discussed during ecumenical councils, and finally to establish the orthodox doctrine
that had not yet been thoroughly elucidated, but was still a 'work in progress'. In
the context of the controversy with the Latins, ifwe exclude those treatises that are
excessively simple and therefore reduce the discussions to a list of errors,47 the theo-
logical writings are not so extreme; on the contrary, they are quite moderate and
are based on a mix of patristic literature and syllogistic reasoning. The Komnenian
period, ifwe read it through its most important theologians, as we do for the patris-
tic age, is not a period of hatred against the Latins, but much more a period in
which an agreement was felt as being possible both from a canonical and a theologi-
cal point ofview - and clearly politically desirable.
The theological reasoning becomes refined and the discussions are conducted
using very technical and advanced methods: they concentrate on the meaning and
value ofwords and prepositions, and this is exactly the same process that had taken
place, for example, with the discussions of the term 'consubstantial' in the patristic
age.We can follow the trend by looking at some specific key terms between the ninth
and the twelfth century to exemplify this idea. We could go back to the first author
universally considered very moderate towards the Latins: Theophylaktos of Ohrid.
In his famous writing on the accusation against the Latins, Theophylaktos clearly
states that the fundamental mistake of the Latin church is the addition ofthe words
Filioque to the Creed and that the Latins, because of their poverty of expression
and the narrowness of the Latin language, confuse procession (EK1toQeuw8aL)
and bestowal (xoQTJye'ia8aL).48 Moving forward to the period between the end
of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth centuries, we find a good exam-
ple of the usage of 'to bestow' (xoQTJye'ia8m) in Niketas Seides. He writes that
'the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, even though he is bestowed through
the SOn'.49 Later, around 1175, Andronikos Kamateros fully exploits the verb 'to
bestow' (xoQTJye'iaSaL) in various passages, but especially in his commentaries on
the patristic anthology that he inserts at the end of his SacredArsenal. Commenting
on some patristic quotations, Kamateros clarifies that 'the Holy Spirit is bestowed
through the Son, but he does not proceed from the Son'; 'the Son is bestower, but
not emanator of the Spirit'; 'one thing is to say bestowal (xoQTJy(a) and another to
say emanation (1tQopOAr'J)'.50
47 SeeT.M. Kolbaba, 'Ibe Byzantine lists: Errors oftheLatins (Urbana/Chicago, 2000).

48 llEV(q At~EWV Kat Aa'tLvou yAW't'rr)<; o-cevorrrn,Theophylaktos, Discours, 257,1. 5.
49 oubt yCtQ 'to IIvEufla El<: 'tOU YLou EKllOQEUE'taL et Kat bL' au'tOu XOQTJYEL'tal, Niketas
Seides, De controversiis, Argument 3, sect.1,1.55.
50 bL' YLoU bt XOQTJyei:'tal, ou flT]v El<: 'tOU Ylou EKlloQEuE'tal, Kamateros, Sacrum
Armamentarium, 100 (commentaryto passage number 14); 'tov Tlov XOQTJYov ou flT]V llQOI3oAta
A caveat must be added here: I am not suggesting that these terms are new or
that these authors use them for the first time, because indeed these derive from a
purely patristic lexicon. Rather, I am arguing that this patristic lexicon is being'dug
out from centuries-old writings to be readopted, reused and refreshed in order to
clarify a theological discussion that was neither addressed nor even considered by
the Fathers of the Church.
From the passages just quoted it is clear that the term 'bestowal' (xoQllYta) is
fully acceptable because it describes with precision only the role ofthe Son, while the
terms 'emanation' (1tQo~oi\.t'J) and 'emanator' (1tQo~oi\.eu~) can be ascribed only to
the Father. Moreover, while the term 'bestowal' (xoQllYta) and the verb 'to bestow'
(xoQllyeLaeaL) have a strong patristic tradition, it is very easy to prove, today by
means of the 'Ihesaurus Linguae Graecae, that the word 'ernanator' (1tQo~oi\.eu~)
should be described as 'the' key term ofthe Filioque controversy,because it is attested
in a more consistent number ofinstances starting from the ninth century and reaches
its peak use in the texts against the Latins of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Therefore, if 'ernanator' (1tQo~oi\.eu~) is the fundamental term, we should follow
also how it is perceived as an increasingly precise expression over the centuries.
A clear example can be taken from Niketas Byzantios, a contemporary of Photios
in the ninth century. He wrote, 'If this is so, the Son, as Son, will be produced
by a cause, but being himself also emanator of the Spirit, he will be also cause.f'
If from the age of Photios we move directly into the reign ofJohn II Komnenos,
we find a very interesting instance of the usage of'emanator' (1tQo~oi\.eu~), in the
account mentioned above of the dialogues which took place in Constantinople in
1136 between Anselm ofHavelberg and Niketas ofNicomedia.
Nicetas Archbishop ofNicomedia then replied: 'What you have said is fair enough, but
I ask now whether you concede that the Father sends forth the Holy Spirit as it pro-
ceeds, and is then proboleus, as the Greeks say?' (Nechites archiepiscopus Nicomediae
dixit: 'Saris placet quod dixisti; sed quaeso, concedis quod Pater Spiritus Sancti qui est
processibilis, sit emissor, quod Graeci nostri vocant 1tQO~OAEUC;?')
Anselm Bishop ofHavelberg answered: 'I do not know what proboleus may mean, since
I am not Greek, but rather a Latin. But I gladly concede that the Father sends forth
the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is then truly sent. I also say,however, that the
Son likewise sends forth the Spirit.' (Anselm Havelbergensis episcopus dixit: 'Qpld
sit 1tQO~OAEUC;, ignoro, quippe non Graecus, sed sum Latinus.Bene autem concedo
Patrem emissorem Spiritus Sancti, Spiritum sanctum vero ernissum; tamen ita quod
etiam Filium dicam similiter eiusdern emissorem.T"
MYEL'tOO IIvEUflct'toC;, Ibid., 129 (commentaryto passage number 47); i'tEQOV bE miv't~ eu·dv ~
XOQTJYta, Kat ftEQOV ~ 7!Qo(3oAJi, Ibid.
51 El bE toO'to, ~O"taL ctQct 6 'riCe; W<; flEV 'Yloc; ctl'tlct't~, W<; be Kat ct\n:6c; 7!QO[30AEUc;
'tou Ilveouaroc, ctLtLO<;, Niketas Byzantios, Capita syllogistica, ed. lA.G. Hergenrother, Monumenta
Greca ad Pbotium ejusque bistoriam pertinentia, £jUtE ex oariis codicibus manuscriptis collegit ediditque
J Hergenroether (Regensburg, 1869), 103, n. 12-13.
S2 Anse1m,Anticimenon,110-1 (or PL 188, 1180A).
The two modern translators of the text added a footnote here: 'Anse1m surely
intends this remark ironically, because he has just effectively explained to a native
speaker the correct meaning and usage of a variety of terms central to Greek discus-
sion of the nature of the Trinity.'53 From my point ofview,certainly Anse1m is able
to 'effectivelyexplain ... the correct meaning and usage of a variety ofterms central
to the Greek discussion of the nature of the Trinity', but he neither knows nor
understands the technical vocabulary employed by the Greek theologians to dis-
tinguish the procession from the Father from the 'procession', or better 'bestowal',
from the Son. In fact, in Greek we have at least two terms corresponding to the
Latin 'emissorem': 'ernanator' (1tQo~oi\.euc;) that can be used only for the Father
and 'bestower' (xoQT]YOC;) that can be used for the Son. And this difference is also
explained later, in the same text, when Niketas says,
'So the wisest ofthe Greeks have distinguished this procession of the Holy Spirit from
the Father from his procession from the Son, ascribing the first cause of his procession
strictly speaking to the Father, from whom the Son is by begetting, and from whom
the Holy Spirit is by procession' (Hanc itaque processionem Sancti Spiritus tam a
Patre quam a Fllio ita distinxerunt sapientissimi Graecorum, ascribentes propri Patri
primam causam processionis, a quo propri est et Filius generatione, et Spiritus sanctus
est processione a quO.)S4
Most probably here Niketas used 'procession' (El<7tOQWOLC;) for the Father and a
different word for the Son, most probably something like 'imparting' (,.wrabooLC;),
'sending' (1t0f-lml), 'bestowal' (xoQT]y(a) or something similar.
Conclusion
What conclusions can we draw about the relationship between the Greek and the
Latin churches during the reign of John, or indeed throughout the Komnenian
period? I strongly believe there are three fundamental aspects that need to be
stressed. The first is 'condescension'" toward the Latins, that is the fact that the
Byzantine authors (especially the most learned among them) wrote texts in which
they tried to clarity the theological differences, rather than treatises with which
to demolish their opponents' views. This position, according to Kolbaba, 'in the
twelfth century ... gradually became untenable'. 56 I would say it becomes untenable
after 1204, because in the twelfth century I see a good number of traces that point
exactly to the opposite: an opening towards the Latins. Following from this first
point comes the fact that to explore and clarity the theological differences,especially
the different interpretations of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the theologians
between the ninth century and the twelfth develop a new vocabulary, or rather
S3 Anse1m,Anticimenon, 111, n. 44.

S4 Anselm,Anticimenon, 147-8 (or PL 188,1204D).
ss Kolbaba, 'The Orthodoxyof the Latins',200.
S6 Ibid.
they understand the need to define precisely the meaning and usage of the differ-
ent expressions they employ to write about the procession of the Holy Spirit. The
Komnenian period seems to be the most fruitful era for this kind ofprocess. Indeed
terms and expressions that the Komnenian authors dig out from previous literature
form the basis of the technical vocabulary deployed against the Filioque for future
generations oftheologians. The third and final point, for which, however, our studies
are still in progress, concerns the Latin influence on the Greek arguments. Indeed
the period of the first two Crusades is a fundamental moment in which Greek and
Latin cultures are both shaped through a number of close encounters, boundaries
seem to be permeable, and an intellectual ferment that appears to be universal seems
to flourish. But exactly concerning this period, which is of course also the reign
ofJohn II Komnenos, we are not yet in a position to look at all the facts on the
ground: although the impact of the rediscovery of Greek language and philosophy
on Western thought has been much studied, the issue of the influence of Latin
culture, and therefore of the developing Scholastics, on that of Byzantium remains
largely unexplored.
The questions that must be answered are these: are there traces of the cultural
influence of the Latin world on Byzantine culture during the twelfth century? If
these traces do not exist, how do we explain this extraordinary absence? We are not
yet ready to answer these questions in full, but this chapter, and indeed perhaps this
volume as a whole, may be read as pointers towards future work to this end.
10
Architecture and patronage in

the age ofJohn 11*
Robert Ousterhout
In this chapter I shall look at three interrelated building projects, all associated with
John 11 Komnenos, his Hungarian wife Eirene-Piroska, his brother the sebastokrator
Isaac, and his son and successor Manuel 1.1 I shall present the evidence for each
of these projects, all of which were intended to house the tombs of their founders.
As I shall argue, new architectural forms developed in this period bear witness to
the increased significance accorded to privileged burial.' Because the development
of new forms of privileged burial is related to the architectural transformations of
the period, I shall also include some comments on the construction histories of the
three major buildings.
The most important of these foundations is the Monastery of Christ Pantokrator
in Constantinople, which survives as the Zeyrek Camii (Figures 10.1-5). Built
between 1118 and 1136 byJohn and Eirene as three large, interconnected churches,
the Pantokrator was begun c.1118, when John took the throne, and the enormous
complex was completed by 1136, when the monastic 7Jpikon was composed.'
• The buildings discussed here have been with me throughout my career (beginning with 'The
Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul', PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, 1982), as has my valued friendship with Nancy Patterson Seveenko. I dedicate this chapter
to her in gratitude.
1 For background on this period, see most recently Kotzabassi, The Pantokrator, esp. V. Stankovic
and A Berger, 'The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the building of the Pantokrator complex',
3-32; also Magdalino, Manuef, Angold, ByzantineEmpire; and Varzos, Genealogia, among others.
2 A subject I first addressed in R. Ousterhout, Master builders ofByzantium (Princeton, 1999),
119-27; Idem, 'Byzantine funerary architecture of the twelfth century', Dreonerusskoe iskustoo. Rusi i
stranii byzantinskogo miraXII vcR. (Saint Petersburg, 2002), 9-17.
3 Kotzabassi, The Pantokrator, esp. Magdalino, 'The foundation of the Pantokrator', 33-55j and
a useful bibliography, 251-4; for a survey of the sources, see R. Janin, La Geographie Ealesiastique de
I'Empire byzantin, Part 1 Le Siege de Constantinople et le Patriarcat Oecumenique, Vol. 3: Les eglises et
les monastires (Paris, 1969),515-23; for the building itself, see J. Ebersolt and A Thiers, Les eglises de
Constantinople (Paris, 1913), 171-207j A. Van Millingen, Byzantinechurches in Constantinople: Their his-
tory andarchitecture (London, 1912), 219-40j both superseded by AH.S. Megaw, 'Notes on the recent
work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul', DOP 17 (1963),333-64. For the Typikon, see P. Gautier, 'Le
From John 11 Komnenos, Emperor ofByzantium: In the Shadow ofFather and Son. Copyright © Robert
Ousterhout, Published by Roudedge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN.
135
136 ROBERT OUSTERHOUT
Because the 7Jpikon mentions all surviving parts of the building as if they were
already in existence, we may assume they were complete at the time of the writing.
Also figuring into the discussion is Isaac's first foundation, the rebuilding of the
katholikon ofthe Chora Monastery (Kariye Camii), about which we know from the
archaeological investigations in the 1950s and from the Tjpikon ofIsaac's second
foundation, the Monastery of the Theotokos Kosmosoteira at Pherrai in Thrace, in
which he mentions his involvement at the Chora. This we can date either to the
either c.1120 or c.1140 (Figures 10.6-7).4 And we have Isaac's portrait preserved
in the fourteenth-century Deesis mosaic, part of the program of rebuilding and
redecoration by Theodore Metochites, which both preserved and obliterated
significant portions of Isaac's church (Figure 10.8).5 The Kosmosoteira is still
standing, Isaac's monastery of exile, built after his final departure from the capital
and dated by its 7Jpikon, c.1152 (Figures 10.9-11).6 And finally we have Manuel's
interventions at the Pantokrator, probably after 1160, when his first wife Bertha of
Sulzbach was buried there (see Figure 10.5).7
At the Pantokrator, the south church was built first, to be the katholikon of the
Monastery dedicated to Christ," The respective roles of John and Eirene in the
typikon', 1-145; and English translation by Robert Jordan in BMFD, Il, 725-81. For the restoration, see
R. Ousterhout, Z. Ahunbay and M. Ahunbay, 'Study and restoration of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul:
First report, 1997-8',DOP 54 (2000),265-70; and Idem, 'Study and restoration of the Zeyrek Camii in
Istanbul: Second report, 2001-5', DOP 63 (2010),235-56; also M. and Z. Ahunbay, 'Restoration work at
the Zeyrek Camii, 1997-1998', in N. Necipoglu (ed.), ByzantineConstantinople: Monuments, topography
andeveryday lift (Leiden, 2001),117-32.
4 D. Oates, 'A summary report on the excavations of the Byzantine Institute in the Karlye Djami:
1957 and 1958', DOP 14 (1960),223-31; R. Ousterhout, 1he architecture oftheKariye Camiiin Istanbul
(Washington, D.C., 1987), 15-32,97-8; for dating, see ODB, Il, 146-47, s.v, 'Komnenos, Isaac the
Porphyrogennetos'.
S P.A. Underwood, 'Ibe Kariye Djami (3 vols., New York, 1966), I, 45-8. For the portrait ofIsaac, see
the chapter by Linardou in this volume.
6 A.K. Orlandos, 'Ta (3UCaV'tlVIX ~VTJ~Ela. U}<; Btiqa<;', EJpaK'Ka 4 (1933), 3-34; S. Slnos,
Die K10sterldrche derKasmosoteira in Bera [Vira) (Munich, 1985); Ousterhout, Masterbuilders, 119-27;
N. Sevcenko, 'The Tomb ofIsaak Komnenos at Pherrai', G01hR 29 (1984), 135-40 (reprinted in N.
Sevcenko, 1he celebmtion ofthe saints in Byzantine art and liturgy [Aldershot, 2013J, no. VIII); and
most recently R. Ousterhout and C. Bakirtzis, 1he Byzantinemonuments oftheEvrosIMeri; River Valley
(Thessalonikl, 2007), 48-85. For the Typikon, see Petit, 'Typikon du rnonasrere de la Kosmosoteira',
17-75; and BMFD, Il, 782-858, with translation by N. Sevcenko.
7 See most recently N. Sevcenko, 'The tomb of Manuel I, again', in A. Odekan, E. Akyiirek
and N. Neclpoglu (eds.), First International Sevgi GoniilByzantine Studies Symposium: Change in
the Byzantine world in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Proceedings (Istanbul, 25-29 June 2007)
(Istanbul, 2010), 609-16, with older bibliography; also C. Mango, 'Notes on Byzantine monu-
ments. Ill. The tomb of Manuel I Comnenus', DOP 23-24 (1969-70),372-5; and R. Ousterhout,
'Architecture, art, and Komnenian ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery', in Necipoglu, Byzantine
Constantinople, 133-50.
8 Van Millingen, Byzantine churches, 219-40; superceded by Megaw, 'Notes on the recent work',
333-64; also R. Ousterhout, 'Interpreting the construction history of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul
(Monastery of Christ Pantokrator)', in G. Arun and N. Seckin (eds.), Studies in ancient structures.
Proceedings oftheSecond International Conference (2 vols., Istanbul, 2001), I, 19-27.
•• South Church
North Church
-
f ill Middle Church
and contemporary addltions
Ottoman
~ Restored walls
o 6 10mew1'8
Figure 10.1.Istanbul, Zeyrek Camii(Monastery ofChrist Pantokrator), plan

(author, redrawn, withmodifications, afterA.H.S. Megaw)
Figure 10.2. Istanbul, Zeyrek Camii (Monastery of Christ Pantokrator), view
from cast (author)
Figure 10.3. Istanbul, Zeyrek Camii (Monastery of Christ Pantokrator),

interior of so uth church, looking so ut h-east {author}
ARCHITECTURE AND PATRONAGE IN THE AGE OFjOHN II 139
o 5 10metera
Figure 10.4 . Istanbul, Zeyrek C amii (!\Io nas tery of Ch rist Pantokrator), plan
of the south church (Phase I) with hypothesized north aisl e (a uth or, redrawn ,
with modifications, aft er A .H .S. !\Iegaw)
project may be imp ossible to unta ngle, but it seems likely th at Eirene initia ted the
project, and John completed it - the Typikon appears in his name only, composed
two years after his wife's death. The church is of the cross-i n-square type, with a
dome (.7.5 m. in diameter, rising (.24.5 m. off the floo r, making it the largest exam-
ple of the standard Byzantine church type, and the tallest of the later churches in the
capiral. Tn plan, it consisted of a monumenta! block, measuring 100 Byzant ine feet
on each side, with the core ofthe buildi ng enveloped by a broad, two-stoned narthex
and lateralaisles - that is, assuming there was originally a north aisle symmetrical to
th e surviving, south aisle (see Figure 10.4).
•..
', , \. ,' 1 I ,.
.>:. ,>:*t:
._--
. , i . ,"
.:
Figure 10.5. Istanbul, Zeyrek Caroii (Monastery of Christ Pantokrntor),

plan ofsouth and central churches showing the opus sectile floor and
probable positions of imperial tombs (author, redrawn, with modifications,
after A.H.S. Megaw)
Lavishly decorated. the walls were originally clad in marble, ofwhich the sanctu-
ary revetments survive,and the vaults covered with mosaics (see Figure 10.3).' The
sense of the original ostentation of the interior is suggested by the fragments of
stained glass from its windows, found in the limited excavation of the late 1950. .
, R. Ousterbout, 'The decoration of the Pantckraror (Zeyrek Camll); Evidence: Old and New', in
Ddekan, Akytirek and Xeclpoglu (eds.I, Firs' lntemational Sf1!gi G6niJ Symposium. 432- 9.
ARCHITECTURE AND PATRONAGE IN THE AGE OFJOHN II 141
M osr impressive is the unique opus sectile Boor, now covered bycarpets, as this part
of th e building continues to functio n as a mosque. Filled with inhabited rinceaux,
with birds, ferocious beasts, mytho logical creatures, bucolic scenes, and animals of
the land and sea, the images would seem to reflect the ide als un derlyin g Byzantine
social and political order,as well as generalconnotations of rulership and power, and
th ey include a wheel of th e zodiac and scenes fro m the life of Sam son - th at is, an
iconography th at reflect s bo th the Komnenian fascina tion with astro logy and ideas
O ld T estament kin gship (see Figu re 10.5 ).10
Th e church was completed and fin ish ed in all parts before the de cisio n was made
to enlarge the complex, to whi ch I will return shortly. Th e naos was fronted by a
broad narthex, and this w as likely the intended burial place for Joh n and E irene, at
least in the initial ph ase of construction: both of the late ral bays included arcosolia
in th eir west walls, and Peter M egaw wisely suggested these may have been th e
intended imperial burial sires. " Ofcourse, the narthex had been a common place for
interment since Early Christian times, so this would represent a fairlyconservative
solutio n for foun ders' burials, isolated from th e liturgy conducted in th e naos." A t
this point in its history,I suspect, the Pant okraror was conceived solely as the burial
place of th e im perial cou ple, rather th an a family or dynastic mausoleum.
At about the same time, Isaac had made separate provision for his own burial at
th e Chor a M on astery, probably be tween 1118, wh en he was nam ed sebastokrator r-
his reward for helping to put J ohn on the th ro ne, and 1122 (or perhaps somewha t
late r), wh en he wa s exiled fro m th e capit al for th e first tim e. But th ere is also a good
possibility the Chor a was rebuilt slightly later, for Isaac was back in C on stantinople
(.1136-43; nevertheless, Isaac's project at the Chora seems more compatible with
the earlier dare." Long associated with imperial families, the C hora church is said
to have been rebuilt by Isaac's grandmother Maria D oukaina ,.1080 , and from th e
archaeological evidence this church can be reconstructed on a cross- in-s quare plan
of modest proportions, which apparently collapsed, motivating Isaac's restoration.H
Hi s builders created a more spacious interior by replacing the columns with more
stable piers set at the corners ofthe naos, supporting a larger dome, creating an atro-
phi ed Greek-cross plan . While smaller than John's church - limi ted by th e sta nding
\0 ~t egawl '~ otes

on recent work', 333-64. For the opus sectlle, see also R. Ousrerhout , 'Architecture.
art, and Komnenian ideology', 133-;0. For the stained glass, see F. dell'Acqua, 'Enhancing luxury
through stained glass from Asu ~tinor to Italy', DOP 59 (2005): 193-211; and Eadem,'The stained-
glass wind ows from the Chora and me Panrokrator M onasteries: A Byzantine "mystery'? ' in H. Klein
and R. Ousterhour (eds.), R~l/oring BJzan/ium: 1JN Kariye Cami i in fJ/anhul and /IN Byzan!iM Institute
ra toretion (New York, 20(4), 68-77; as wellas comments by R. Ousterhout,'The Panrokrat or M onastery
and architectural interchanges in the thirteenth century', in G. Ortalll, C. Ravegnanl and P. Schreiner
(eds.), QutZr/a Crrxia/a: Vt-nn ia - Bisanzio - lmptrO Latino (2 vols.Venice, 2006 ),11, 749-70.
11 M egaw, ' No tes on recent work', 343.
12 See the discu ssion by V.l\ l arinis,'Tombs and burials in the M ona stery tou Libosin Constantinople',
DOP63 (2009 ), 147-66.
U Kazhdan. ' Komnenos, Isaac', 1146-7 .
l~ Dates, 'Summary report', 223-31.
walls of Maria D oukaina's naos, the diameter of the dome begins to approach that
of the Pantokrator. This is the form we see in the current naos , although all of the
ancillary spaces and the dome itself were rebuilt in the fourteenth century, and
the mar ble revetments were added later as well (Figures 10.6-7)." l saac's builders
replaced the tripart ite sanctuary of the olde r church with a broad apse, probably
with projecting pasto pho ria, sim ilar to those at St A1bercius at Kursunlu, built a few
decades later, which was probably mode lled after the C ho ra."
The interior was probably covered with wall paintings rather than mosaics and
marble, although the apse conch may have been in mosaic." M ore imp ortantly,
th e apse win dows were filled wit h stained glass, like th ose of th e Pantokrator.
The fragments found in the excavation are stylistically simila r to the glass from the
Pant okraror, although prod uced separa tely. Like the sanctuary, the narthex of the
twelfth-century C ho ra was prob ably broad, and it was likely the setting for Isaacs
tomb - again , perhaps, following Joh n's model. We may note that according to the
Typikon of the Kosmosoteira, Isaac had prepared a tomb for hi mself at the Chora,
but after his exile he requested certain tomb fittings be transferred to his new foun-
dation, where he was ultimately buried. H e reques ted a portrait of hi mself, 'made in
my youth, in the vanity ofboyhood', be left at the Chora." While he never specified
the location of his tomb, the narthex is where he was ultimately com memorated,
with his im age incl uded in the fourteenth- century Deesis mo saic - it is not the same
as the portrait as he mentions, but probably based on it (Figu re 1O.8).!' Moreover,
his tomb at the Kosmosoteira, to which I shall return, was specified to be in the
narthex of th at church. Thu s we can assum e that Isaac followed established burial
practices at the C ho ra, preparing a tomb for himself in the narthex .
The burial situation at the Pantokrator was alte red whe n th e buildi ng was
expanded .The no rt h church, dedicated to the Theot okos El eousa, was begun sho rtly
after the completion of the south church; it was also of the cross-in-square type but
smalle r and less lavishly detailed.P The two were meant to be distinct elements, and
they were con nected by a sing le door where th eir narthexes joi ned; otherwise there
was a gap between the two bu ildings. Accessible to the outside community and
officiated by a lay clergy, the north church opened to a public street through a por -
tico along its north wall, where brackets are preserved. As construction progressed ,
I ~ Ousterh out,Archi/u/ur~ oj/Ju Kariye. 38-46 .

16 l bid.; see more recently ~L Mlhaljevk, 'Change in Byzantine architecture', in ),1. Johnson,
R. Ousterhout and A. Papalexandrou (eds .), 4pproa{h~s /0 Byzantine arcoitature and its decoration: S/udi~J
in bonor of Slobodan Curtit( Aldershot, 20 12), 99-11 9.
17 R. O uste rhou t, 'Reading difficult buildings: The lessons of the Kanye Camll', in H . Kleln,
R. O usrerhou t and B. Pitarakis (eds.), Kari~ Camii, Ym idm/lht Kariye Camii reconsidered (Is tanbul,
2011), 95-1 05, esp. 100 .
18 Ou sterhout,Archittctur, oftht Kariye.21, 26.
w Underwood , Keriye Dja mi, I, 46; Idem, 'The De isis mosaic in the Kahrie Cami at Istanbul', in
K.\Veinmann (ed.), Late CIaSJual and Md iaNJaI studies in honor ojAlhr/ 1Uathias Frimd,Jr. (Princeron,
t 955),25 4-{,().
XI Megaw, 'No tes on recent work', 340-4; Ou sterhout, 'Interpreting the construction history', 19-27.
---,.-",~ -, :: - - ,
I I '" " I
, 1 ' ,
:'I \ ~
,
.
•
,, ,,
"
01 I ! ! j I ! I I i ' 10 m
Figure 10.6. Istanbul, Kariye Camii (Monastery ofthe Choral, hypothetical

reconstruction of the twelfth-century church, with approximate location of
tomb oflsaac Komnenos {author}
Figure 10.7. Istanbul, Kariye Camii (Monastery ofthe Choral, naos looking
east {author}
Figure 10.8. Istanbul, Kariye Camii (l\1onas teryof the C horal, Deesis mosaic,
det ail: po rtrait ofIsaac Komnen os (pho to: Carroll ' Vales, courtesy Dumbarton
Oaks Visual Resources and Fieldwork Archives)
AR CHITECTURE AN D PATRONAGE IN TII E AGE OFJOIIN II 145
however, it was decided to add a third compon ent , a funeral chapel dedicated to
St. M ich acl, sandwiched between the two, and th is necessitated th e removal of the
north aisle of the sout h chu rch . Irre gular in plan , the central chapel is covered by
twin do mes (See Figur e 10.I).The Typikon say' it is 'in the form of a heroon'- a term
used to designa te the nearby mausolea of Constantine and Justinian at the chu rch
of the H oly Ap ostles, and no doubt th e Pantokrator was intended to resonate sym-
bolically with its old and venerable neighbo ur.t t The imperial burials were probably
clustered at the west end, where there were four arcosolia under the west dom e. The
Typikon menti ons the tomb of John (d. 1143), which he requested to share with his
son and intended successor Alexios H, who predeceased him (d . 1142), th e tomb
of Eire ne (d. 1134), as well as th at of a nephew by marriage John Arb ant enos, who
had contributed to the monastery. We can imagine John and Alexi os in the most
prominent tomb , with Eir ene to o ne side, bo th beneath scenes of the resurrection
of C hrist in the lunerte above.
An epitap h, recentl y published from the codex Ma rcianus gr. 524, ind icates that
Joh n's second son An dronikos was buried in the Pantokr ator as well." Andronikos
had died while escorting his brother's body from Analeia to the capital in th e sum-
mer of 1142. It is likely tha t the two were buried at the same time, both in the
heroon . The epitaph is tided 'A s if pronounced by his wife the sebast okrato rissa;
expresses her wish to be buried with h im. A s An droni kos would have succeeded
Alexios had he lived, his burial in th e dyna stic chapel seems entirely appropriate .
We may suspect that John A rbantenos was buried elsewhere in the monastery, and
that Andronikos was interred in an arcosolium in the lateral wall.23
An outer narthex and courtyard were added to the south church in thi s final
expansion. This expansion destroyed one of the original arcosolia and severely iso-
lated th e othe r, so we suspect the funeral chapel to have been completed before
Eiren e's death in 1134. With the expa nsion, the situa tion of the imp erial tombs was
signific antly enha nced - the chapel was enveloped by the pr ayers of two churche s,
lay and monastic - with which it communicated - and it was provided wi th its own
large, do med bema for the funeral liturgies. The Typ ikon specifies elaborate com-
memorative services th at would hardly have been possible in the limited space of
the original narthex."
A s it appears tod ay, the relations hip between the three churches is much less
distinct and more open than it was in the Byzantine period . The wall between the
south and midd le churche s, for examp le, is now opene d by three arches, wh ere there
were only simple doo rways originally. In the funeral chap el, with th e exception of
II Ousterhou r, 'Architectu re, art, and Komnen ian ideolog)".13J-SO; ~ lagdal ino. 'The foundation of
the Panr okrator', 33--48.
2.l Vassls, ' Das Panrokrarorklosrer von Konsran dn opel in der byzanrinlschen Dichrung', 230-2 .
Epigrams for the tombs of John n and Elre ne art also known, but not for Alexios.
11 This corrects my earlier assumption that j ohn was buried in the hereon; Ousterhour, 'Architecture,
art'. I thank Foteini Spingou for her clarifications on the fate of Andronikos.
lA See S. Korzabasst, 'Feasts at the M onastery of Panrokrator', in Korzabassl, 1ht Pantokrator, esp.
15 ~7; Gaurler, 'Typ ikon'c ll. 877-96; BMI-n, II, 725-82, esp. 756-7, tr. R.Jordan .
the main entrance, all of the arches at the western end were closed off and func-
tioned as arcosolia. Between the middle church and the north church, only the
northern arched opening may be original, connecting from the north church into
the enlarged sanctuary of the middle church.
Observations of the building's fabric may add some nuances to the construction
history of the building. 25 The construction technique shows every indication of
haste, to the point of sloppiness and inexactitude - particularly in the later phases,
but the exterior was plastered (and possibly painted) and the interior encrusted with
marble, mosaic, and gilding - it is really nouveau riche in flavour. It is clear that the
south church was completed and plastered on the exterior before the second phase
was begun. Later additions abut the pink plaster surfaces of the first phase, which
were left intact. At the same time, on the upper levels of the building, there are no
clear distinctions between the north church and the funeral chapel, At the ground
level, however, a joint extends to just above the prothesis window of the funeral
chapel (see Figure 10.2). The window, an afterthought, cuts into the masonry at the
south-west corner ofthe north church, and the brick courses above it were anchored
by a reused marble window frame. Above this level, the brick courses are continuous
and bonded, even though the articulation of the two components remains distinct.
Thus, it is clear that the chapel was begun after construction of the north church
was well under way,but two were completed simultaneously"
This chronology helps to explain several details in the interior. The cornices are
set at the same height in the north church and funeral chapel, while those in the
south church are considerably higher. Surviving evidence of mosaic and sculptural
decoration also corresponds technically and stylistically between the two churches."
In terms of architectural design, the funeral chapel appears as an afterthought, but
the evidence of the masonry indicates uninterrupted construction.
The funeral chapel was most likely begun as a single-domed space but was
modified during the process of construction. The unique, twin-domed design
undoubtedly related to its double function, for it was divided between a liturgical
space to the east and the burial area to the west, as the Typikon suggests. The large
western dome was completed first, and then the smaller eastern dome was built
against it, with some unfinished surfaces where the two join. The forms of the
two domes are distinct, and the sills and crowns are at different heights. Because
the plan of the eastern bay was already determined, the east dome had to be con-
structed above an oblong bay, resulting in its unprecedented oval form.
Other changes of design were effected when the outer narthex was added. It
seems to have been designed as a lower space covered by a sloping wooden roof,
2S Ousterhout, Ahunbay, and Ahunbay, 'Study and restoration,secondreport', esp.252-6, for much
of what follows.
26 Ibid, fig. 24.
21 Ibid, 246-8; alsoOusterhout,'Decoration of the Pantokrator',432-9.
ARCHITECTUREAND PATRONAGEINTHEAGE OFJOHN 11 147
the height of which corresponded to the sills of the gallery windows behind it. 28
Clear evidence of the original roofline is provided by the angled line of brick on
its exterior north facade, directly above the window arch. Corresponding breaks in
the masonry appear in the interior. Sometime during the construction of the outer
narthex, the masons decided to increase the height and to introduce vaulting. The
motivation for this change is unclear; it has resulted in a space that is lofty but
dark, with windows positioned only in the lower walls. The external pilasters and
arcades of the west facade were thickened to support the vaulting, and the stepped
pilasters and arches of the original narthex facade were simplified and strength-
ened, with marble cornices inserted in order to anchor the vaulting. The setbacks of
the original pilasters were cut away to create an angled and slightly concave surface
within each arch.
The addition of the vaulted outer narthex motivated several other alterations. The
most important ofthese was the addition of the gallery dome over the inner narthex
ofthe south church, which blocked the west window ofthe katholikon.The details of
the central arcade are considerably different from those ofthe others, as it was altered
to support the dome. Its windows rise above a level ofunfinished masonry, indicating
that the alteration only occurred after the outer narthex was added - that is, when
the unfinished area was already covered by the exonarthex roo£29The motivation
for the addition of yet another dome into an already complex building may seem
difficult to explain. But the addition of the vaulted outer narthex eliminated almost
all sources of natural light to the inner narthex, and the entrance into the katholikon
became exceptionally dark. The gallery dome was added in combination with the
removal of the vaulting above the central bay of the inner narthex, creating a light
well at the entrance - and while this seems like a weird solution, it was subsequently
imitated at the Kalenderhane and at S. Marco in Venice."
These changes happened in a gradual, step-by-step process. And although it was
completely irregular in its final form, the complex of the Pantokrator is too impor-
tant for us to dismiss as simply the unfortunate product of an inept designer. The
master mason, a certain Nikephoros, was apparently a man of distinction, who was
said to have been the synergates (eo-worker) of empress Eirene and was lauded as 'a
new Bezalel'." We may puzzle over his design decisions, but he clearly was held in
high regard during Byzantine times. Moreover, details of construction, such as the
distinctively etched mortar beds, with boxed X's, indicate that the same workshop of
masons was responsible for the entire complex - these details on the south church
28 Ibid,242-3j alsoR. Ousterhout,'Contextualizing the later churchesof Constantinople: Suggested

methodologies and a few examples', DOP 54 (2000),241-50.
29 Ibid.
30 C.L. Striker and Y.D.Kuban,Kalenderbane in Istanbul: 1hebuildings, theirhistory, architecture and
decoration (Mainz,1997),94 and fig. 63; O. Demus, 'Ibe Church ofSan Marco in venice: HIStory, architec-
ture, sculpture (Washington,D.C., 1960),82.
31 Kotzabassi, 'Feasts',161j Loukaki,'Empress Piroska-Eirene's collaborators in the foundation of
the Pantokrator Monastery',200-1.
148 ROBERTOUSTERHOUT
were covered with plaster before the other churches were added . As I've discussed
elsewhere, the ad hoc design and construction of the complex actually correspond
to Mi chael Psellosdescriptic ns of grear imper ial building projects of the eleventh
century - and they might actually represent standard practices."
In it s final form, th e significance of the Pantokr ator was expre ssed by its
complexity; separate fun ctional spaces are clearly distinguished on the exter ior,
identified by their distin ctive apses and domes, which were prominent features on
th e urb an skyline. In th e cou rse ofless th an eighteen years of constructio n, we wit -
ness a dr amatic cha nge in architec tural style, within a single worksh op, and within
a single building. And, of course, we also witness th e concomitant developm ent
of a new kind of expression of political power and familial presti ge - something
I suspect also developed only gr adually - just as th e building had. A look at the
ritu als, which include divert ing an important urban procession with its venerated
icon and other signa into the com plex, reaffirms the oste nta tious, upstart character
of the Komn enian family," The commemo rative ceremonies have th e same sort of
ad hoc quality that I've outlined in th e archi tecture,
The greater emphasis on the commemoration of the deceased founder is some-
th ing we can witn ess at the Kosmosoteira as well, alth ough there it has more of a
monas tic flavour (Figures 10.9- 11). Mu ch ofour information about the foundation
comes from its Typ ikon, dr awn up in 1152 toward the end of Isaac's troubled life,
for it reads like a last will and testament ." The Kosmosotei ra was to be his place
of retirement and final resting place, and accordingly he requests the fittings from
his tomb at th e Chora be transferred , including a bronze railing, paintings of his
paren ts, an icon stand with the mosaic icon of the Virgin Kosmosoteira, and an
icon of Chr ist.
In the Typikon, Isaac requests to be interred in the katho/ikon of the monastery 'on
the left side ofthe narth ex (vaQ e'l~) , there where I made an extension (1taQE KfloA~)
to the buildin g on account of th e tomb', and that he wished 'the tomb to be divided
from the nar thex by th e bronze railing', brought form th e Chora. H ow all thi s fits
with in th e surviving build ing is not immediately apparent. The term nartbex might
ind icate th e now-d estroyed vestibule to the west of th e church, and the term exten-
sion also sounds like it should be outside as well." H owever, Isaac also mentions
an exonarthex, where his secretary and servant were to be buri ed. The lost western
vestibule was more likely the exonarthex, and I interpret Isaac's narthex ro be the
elongated western part of the churc h - that the 'extension' is the north-west corner
compartment , opened up to the naos, but separated from it by th e bronze railing.
Isaac specifies that no other burial s were to be 'inside the church and its narthex',
and the major icon of the church was to be at his tomb and not in the naos proper.
u Ousterbout, ' Co ntextualizing' , 247-5(}, Id em. MaJUr Buildrrl, 86-9,104-8.

.1J :"J. Sevcenkc, 'Icons and the lirurgy',DQP45 (l991), 45-57,esp. 51-4; Kotaabasst, 'Feasts'cpassim.
.lol Petit, 'Typlkon du monasrere de la Kosmosote lra', 17-75; and BMFD , I1, 782-858, with transla-
tion by :"J. Sevtenko.

j~ See most recently Ousrerhour and Bakinzis, Byzantint monuments, 48-85, for what follows.
CJ o
Figure 10.9. Pherrai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, plan showing probable location of
Isaac's tomb (author)
Figure 10.10. Pherrai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, seen from south-east (author)

150 ROBERT OUSTERH OUT
Figure 10.11. Ph errai, Panagia Kosrnosotelra, interior, looking north -west

toward probable location oflsaae's tomb (author)
The dome above this bay co ntains an image of the 'Ih eotokos, whom Isaac implores
fervently for the salvation of his soul, and the arch contain s a scene of the H oly
Women at the Tomb, a co mmon funerary theme. In the latter, the An gel seared on
ARCHITECTURE AND PATRONA GE IN TilE AGE OFJOHN II 151
the stone, points downward toward the proposed location of the tomb." The same
scene seems to have been represented above John's tomb at the Pant okrator."
Cuttings in the columns indicate the space could have been closed off by a rail-
ing, and investigations revealed a blocked door in the western wall. Thus the monks
could have passed through the railing to recite the Trisagion and Kyrie Eleison at
the tomb, as specified in the Typikon, before leaving through the door. M ore impor-
tantly, the corner bay was both part of the naos and separate from it. With his tomb
set within visual and audial range, Isaac's soul could benefit fro m the prayers and
liturgies performed at the sacred cent re of the kath olikon, with out violating th e
prohibiti on of burial in the naos.
The menti on of portraits in th e Typikon - Isaac's to be left behind, those of
his parents to be displayed - is intriguing when we turn to the mural painting in
the Ko smosoteira. In a controversial study, my colleague Charalambos Bakirtzis
suggested that the group of military saints o n the north wall, who wear crowns but
bear no inscriptio ns, might be portraits of family members, for th ey bear general
resemblances to known images oflsaac,Jo hn 11 , and Alexios I (Figure 10.12)" The
last, youthful image might be th at of the broth er Andronikos or perh aps Alexios 11
(but certainly not Manuel, who had had Isaac exiled). On the other hand, they also
look like known images of military saints. Neverthele ss, the Komnenoi were a
family of warriors, so the elision of images would seem somehow appropriate. It is
an appealing idea that family or dynastic commemo ration might have ever so subtly
found its way into Isaac's decorative program. A rebel and an outcast, to be sure,
Isaac's identity remained firmly tied to his family.
Finally, John's successor M anuel chose to be buried in th e heroon at the
Pantokrator, but in a situation somewhat different from th at of his father (see
Figure 10.5). M anue! had his own tomb set in a more central location, beneath the
western dome. It is described as a gloomy monument of dark stone, topped by seven
protuberances. A curious stone found in Topkap, Palace in 1750 may be from the
tomb, and Nancy Sevcenko has recently suggested that it may have had a canopy
similar to tho se that surmo unted the contemporary Norman tom bs in Sicily.39 In
add ition, l\lanue! had a great arch between the south church and the funeral chapel
opened, so that there was a greater visual connection betwe en the n....o spaces, and
the opus sectile pavement was extended throu gh the arch." W ithin the arch itself
'l6 A theme developed in R. Ousrerhout , 'Wo men at tombs: Narrat ive, th eatricality, andthe contem-
plative mode', in A. Easrmond and L.James (eds.), WondlTful things: BYUlntiumthrough its art (Famham.
2013). 229-46 .
J7 Ibid.
\11 C. Baklrtals, '\ Varrior saints or portraits of members of the fam ily of Alexios I Komnenos>' in
J. Bertin, ~1. M ullerr, C. Orten-Fro ux (eds.), M osaic HJ/uhriflfor A.Jl.S. M~gll'U.' (London, 2(01), 85-7 .
For furtherdiscussion on the possible identity of the military saints, see the chapterby Llnardou in this
volume.
19 Sevcenko,'Tomb of Manuel', 609- 16.
010 M egaw, 'No tes on recent work', 342.
152 ROBERT OUSTERHOlTr
Figure 10.12. Pherrai, Panagia Kosmosoteira, painting of an unidentified

militlU)'saint bearing a resembl an ce to Isaac (court esy ofC. Bakirtzis)
Manuel had the relic of the Stone of the Unction displayed." The relic could thus
havebeen veneratedfrom both spaces, while serving as a barrier between the two. It
also added prestige to l\lanuel's tomb, associating the emperor with Christ, which,
if not blatant enough already, was spelled out in the long poem inscribed on the
relic's base: the empress, mourning het deceased husband is compared to the H oly
Women, mourning the dead Christ."
Manuel's tomb certainly trumped that of his father - and all other burials in the
chapel. M or eover, it transfonned the dynamics of commemo ration both with the
~1 Ibid.
t.l M ango, ' Notes on Byzantine monument s', 372-5.
AR CHITECTURE AND PA TR ONAGE IN TilE AGE OFJOHN 11 153
parallel presence of the relic, and with the new visual and audial connection with
the Ra/ho/ikon. In the latter, he may have been following the model of Isaac's tomb
at the Kosmosoteira - that is, toward greater connection between the founder's
tomb and the liturgical centre. But whe re Isaac had a bronze railing, M anuel has
a Passion relic. And while other family members were tucked away into corners
or arcosolia, M anuel too k centre stage. In terms of monument building, M anu el
actually did considerably less than any of the other family members discussed here,
but he certainly benefirred from their experiments. The commemo ration of fam-
ily, dynasty, and the powerful individual find s its fullest expression in the tomb of
Manuel at the Pantokrator.
A footnote to end : Jus t as his tomb outdid that of his fath er, so too the history
of Manuel has overshadowed that of john." Manuel em erges as heroic hut all-t oo-
hum an - fully Aeshed out in the texts, while John remains shadowy. Thus scholars
have been tempted to credi t M anuel with the deeds of Joh n. Let me att em pt to
counter a few of these. First, themes in the opus sectile floor, such as astrology,
might seem more appr opri ate to M anuel th an to John." But it hardly seems likely
that less than a few decades after its completion, one would rip out a solid marble
Aoor and replace it with mosaic. Solid marble would have been cons iderably more
expensive, and in the nouveau-riche world of the Komnenians, a change to lesser
materials would make no sense at all. W hile Manuel's extension of the opus sectile
floor into the heroon is identical in style and technique, it is set at an angle, and as it
passes through the arch, the marble skirting is made from reused from pieces from
the Ra/ho/ikon, cut in half lengthwise." This would never have occur red if all had
been executed at the same time.
Second, on the basis of style and technique, it has been argued that the stained
glass wind ows of the Pantokrator should be dated later in the century, perh aps
associate d with the arrival of M anuel's first wife from Ge rmany - and thus cred-
ited to M anuel's intervention." Manuel, we know, was fascinated by all things
Western and had married a Western princess. But then so did John. M oreover, the
only other building with sta ined glass in Constantinople is the Chora, where it is
technically and stylistically similar, and both sets of windows were produced in
Constantinople." The only time the two found ation s were in close relationship was
during the reign ofJoh n, wh o was supported by Isaac early in his reign ." Man uel
saw Isaac as a th reat and had him exiled; he is hardly likely to have shared his
cultu ral patronage with a found ation so strongly associated with a rival. On the
4J Magdalino, l\lamul, passim.

44 As I have discussed in Ousrerhout , 'Architecture, art, and Kom nenlan ideology', 133-50 .
4~ As noted by M egaw, ' No tes on Recent \Vork', 342 .
46 J. Lafond . ' Decouvert e de vitraux histories du moyen age: a Constantinople', CA 18 (1968 ), 23 1- 7;
dell'Acqua, 'Stained-glass windows',6S-n .

•7 See also R.lI . Brill, Chrm;eal analyw of rarl)' glllJW (2 vols. New York, 1999), I, 107, 113; II,
210-12.
.. ~tagdalino. Ma n url, 1 8 1 , 193.
other hand, Manuel held his father in high regard, and in many ways probably'
took after him. And while he certainly could have constructed his own mauso-
leum, he chose to be buried with his father at the Pantokrator. For architectural
developments and for commemoration of the dead, the Pantokrator remains the
most important achievement ofthe century- or as Vlada Stankovic recently argues,
'The Pantokrator complex represented undoubtedly the most ambitious imperial
foundation - architectonically and ideologically - outside the Great Palace and the
old centre ofConstantinople after the time ofthe emperor justinian.?" And for that,
it is John, not Manuel, who deserves our praise.
49 Stankovic, 'Komnenoiand Constantinople', 3.

11
Imperial impersonations: disguised portraits

ofa Komnenian prince and his father"
Kallirroe Linardou
In memory of
Titos Papamastorakis
'I, Isaac,sullen piteous suppliant [of your grace],

offspringof Alexios king of the Ausonians,
the all-bewailed in the tragedies of life."
In such a dramatic and pejorative tone, the sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos (1093-
c.1152) - third-born son of Alexios I Komnenos (1081-1118), brother ofJohn II
Komnenos (1118-1143) and father of Andronikos I Komnenos (1183-1185)2 -
addresses an image of the Virgin and Child in the closing verses of an epigram
he most probably composed himself while in exile as an appeal for salvation.' A
purple-born prince, infamous for his persistent imperial aspirations and his con-
spiracies against his eldest brother John II and his nephew Manue1 I (1143-1180),4
Isaac was highly admired and praised by his contemporaries for his intellect and
sophisticatlon.! and is duly appreciated by modern scholars for his patronage of the
• I wouldliketo thank the editorsof the volumefor invitingme to contributeto it. Additionally, my
thanksextendto my colleagues TasosTanoulas, Olga Gratsiou,AliciaSimpson,AnastasiaDrandakiand
NancyLitsardopoulou for havingread and commentedon an earlierdraft of this chapter.
1 IsaacKomnenos, ed.E. Kurtz,'Eln Gedicht des Sebastokrator IsaacKomnenos', BN] 5 (1926-27),
44-6, esp. verse 46: laa,h:l~ 0"t1Jj'\I~ OiK't:QO~ iKe't:T)~, AAe~lou lta~ Aua6vwv ~aaLAe~, 6
ltav6buQ't:~ tv 't:QayCjJbia~ ~lou.
2 For Isaac see Varzos, Genealogia, I, no. 36, 238-54; ODB, 11, 1146; O. Jurewicz, Andronikos I
Komnenos (Amsterdam, 1970),25-35,33 ff.
3 Sevcenko, 'The tomb oflsaak',135-40, esp.137, n, 9 (reprinted in 8evcenko, The celebration ofthe
saints, no. VIII).
4 Varzos, Genealogia, I, no.36, 239-46.
5 See specifically the works of Theodore Prodromos: El<; rQv rropepvpoyewrrr:ov lCal
C1E{3aarolCparopa lCVPQV laaalCwv rDv KOflV1Jv6v and A6yo<; el<; 't"Ov rrpopepvpoyeVV1Jrov lCVpDv
FromJohn II Komnenos, Emperor ofByzantium: In the Shadow ofFather and Son. Copyright © Kallirroe
Linardou. Publishedby Roudedge, 2 Park Square,Milton Park,Abingdon,Oxon OX14 4RN.
155
156 KALLIRROE UNARDOU
arts," Yet he remains one of the most controversial and intriguing personalities of
the first half of the twelfth century.
Despite the excessive humility inferred by the above quoted verses, Isaac's career
and deeds testify to the contrary and ultimately reaffirm the historically attested
climate of continuous rivalry within a well-defined ruling group of close relatives,
the Komnenian genos, striving for political power and preponderance," Despite his
renegade temperament and a turbulent life spent mostly in exile and scheming,
he took care of his posthumous fame and carefully calculated the pattern of his
patronage so that he would efficiently manage to propagate a distinctive identity
for his contemporaries and posterity" What he failed to accomplish through his
political manoeuvres (to be invested with the imperial robe and sandals) he realised
through the arts and his writings, and therefore he is deservedly acknowledged as
one of the most influential members of the Komnenian nobility as regards matters
of cultural activity. The sebastokrator became the ktetor of the Chora Monastery and
evidently undertook several projects ofpatronage: the restoration ofthe Monastery of
St Stephen of Aurelianae in Constantinople, the establishment of the Monastery
of the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Pherrai (Thrace), the construction of an aqueduct in
Palestine, the commission of several images either mentioned in the Kosmosoteira
7Jpikon or attested by the surviving epigrams associated with them, and finally the
commission of a densely illustrated manuscript, the Seraglio Octateuch (Istanbul,
Topkapi Sarayi Muzesi Kiitiiphanesi, MS G[ayri] I[slami] 8).9
Ofparamount importance in Isaac's scheme ofpatronage were his imperial aspi-
rations and consequently the formulation of the ideological backdrop that would
ideally frame his claims. Having been excluded from the official exercise of power
and eventually destined to remain in the shadow ofhis reigning relatives, he resorted
to claiming the glory of his ancestors by closely associating himself with his father
Alexios I, Therefore, he methodically promoted the privileged status of his birth in
the porphyra, which in his mind legitimised his otherwise notorious obsession with
the Byzantine throne.
laattlaov TDV Kopv'Iv6v in E. Kurtz, 'Unedierte Texte', 112-7, esp, 110-3; Prodromes, Historische
Gedichte, nos. 40-42, 390-8, esp. no. 42.
6 For Isaac's patronage see Underwood, Kariye Djami, I, 8-13, 45-8; Underwood, 'The Deisis
mosaic', 254-60; R. Ousterhout, 1heart ofthe Kariye Camii (LondonlIstanbul, 2002), 12; Ousterhout,
Architecture ofthe Kariye, 20-32; 'Typikon du monastere de la Kosmosoteira', ed. Petit, 17-77 (tr, by
N. Sevcenko in BMFD,n, no.29,782-849);.TVTW(DV laaaTdov, ed. Papazoglou, 33-154;J.C.Anderson,
'The Seraglio Octateuch and the Kokkinobaphos Master', DOP 36 (1982), 83-114. For the authorship
ofseveral treatises allegedly penned by Isaac see ODB,Il, 1144-6, wherein more bibliography; and Isaac
Komnenos Porphyrogennetos, Praefatio in Homerum, ed.J,F. Kindstrand (Uppsala, 1979),27-32.
Magdalino, Manuel, 180-201, esp. on Isaac 193-5.
7
For an insightful appraisal of Isaac's building program see V. Stankovic, 'Comnenian monastic
8
foundations in Constantinople: Qjiestions of method and historical context', Belgrade Historical Review
2 (2011),54-5,62-4.
9 Ouspensky, 'L'Octateuque de la bibliotheque du Serail', 1-14; Anderson, 'Seraglio Octateuch',
83-114.
IMPERIAL IMPERSONATIONS 157
It is not coincidental that no surviving inscription, epigram, oration or treatise

proven to have been composed, dictated or initiated in any way by Isaac himself
exploits the title of sebastokrator conferred on him by his brother and rivalJohn 10 n.
More specifically, the inscription accompanying his portrait in the Deesis mosaic
of the Chora katholikon identifies him as 'the son of the highest emperor Alexios
Komnenos, Isaac the porphyrogennetol. ll In the Seraglio Octateuch attributed to his
patronage, the opening lines ofthe paraphrase ofthe Letter ofAristeasthat Isaac com-
posed identify him as 'the porphyrogennetos lord Isaac and son of the great emperor
lord Alexios Komnenos' .12 In the opening phrases of the Kosmosoteira Typikon
written by him, we read 'Isaac, son of the great emperor lord Alexios Komnenos' .13
Of all the known works by Theodore Prodromos composed for or addressed to
Isaac," only one poem written in hexameters addresses him as both porphyrogen-
netos and sebastokrator. 15 Yet it is important to note that this specific work was most
certainly an encomiastic commission by his brother John Il in celebration of their
short reunion after Isaac's return to Constantinople in 1138. Verse 32 explicitly
referring to John as a glorious victorious king, is highly suspect." Finally, in the
Paris, BNF, MS gr.2682 containing the sebastokrator» commentary on the Iliad, the
typical heading of his personal scholia reproduced in this fourteenth-century copy
was 'of the porphyrogennetol. 17
Isaac consistently identifies himself as the son ofAlexios I and as a porphyrogen-
netos and was perfectly justified in doing so. Certainly well aware of the triviality of
the titles generously distributed within the extended Komnenos family," he realised
10 Varzos, Genealogia, I, no. 36, 23S and n. 6.

11 '0 u[o~ 'tOU tn[nlAo't£hou ~aalAtw~ AAE!;LOU mu KOflvT)VOU 1aaaKLO~ 6
lloQ<!>uQoytvVT]'t~ in Underwood,'The Deisis Mosaic',257, fig. A.
12 To 'tii~ I1aAauX~ llQoOLflLOV O[llEQ 6 1\QLa'tta~J nQ6~ 4>lAoKQa'tT)v €K'tt8ELKEV
flaK[QT)yoQ~] Kat Ctaa<pE~' 6 be lloQ<Pl)Qoy[twT)'to~ KUQ 1aaaK~] Kat u[Q~ 'tOU flEYMOU
~(aalAtw~) K(UQ) AAE[!;LOU] 'tou KOflvT)vOU Elt;auv'tofllaV flE'tEQQu8fllO"E KaLaa<ptlvElCtV in
Ouspensky, 'L'Octateuque de la blbllothequedu Serail', 1.
13 Tunucov €flOU 'tou [aE~aa'toKQa'toQo~] 1aaaKLou Kat uLou 'tOU flEyaAou ~aalAt~
KUqau 1\AE!;Lou mu KOflvT)vOU in Papazoglou, TV1H1<:oV laaa1<:lov, lines 1-2. The title sebastokrator
given in squarebrackets,was supplementedby the editor of the text and thus constitutes a hypothetical
r7ading.
14 n~ ana 'tOV nopcf>vpoyewrj'rov 1<:VpoO laaa1<:lov TOO KopVTIvoO, 'Eniypappa ele; ypacf>rjv
ypacf>eiaav 't(jJ f3aaLAei 1<:Vp(jJ Iwawq T(jJ Kopvrrv(jJ nap« 'tOV a6eAcf>00 aVTov 1<:VpoO laaa1<:lov,
.I16yoe; ele; 'tovnopcf>vpoyevvTrrov in Kurtz,'UnedierteTexte',107,109,112.For Isaacas an author ofa
Homericcommentarysee H naQOi!aa 't:fi~ eX Kat 'tWv AOLlIWV 'tOU 'OfltlQOU YQaflflli'twv un68 Eau:;
ou llaQELAT)<pE Kat 'to naQ6v 'tWV YQaflfla'twv llQoOLflLOV, 08EV'tOU't:O €K llaAaLWv CtvbQWv 6
noQ<!>t>QoytvVT]'to~ auva8QoLaa~ €KbtbwKEV in Kindstrand,Praefatia in Homerum, 1.1-3,27.
15 Ele; TOV nopcf>vpoyewlJ'rov in Kurtz,'UnedierteTexte',110-11; Prodromos,Historiscbe Gedichte,
no.42, 396-S.
16 Kurtz, 'UnedierteTexte',111: Kat Kaa(yVTj'tov avaK'ta flEYtlvoqa flUQLOVLKIlV.
17 F. Pontani, 'The first Byzantinecommentary on the Iliad: Isaac Porphyrogenitus and his scholia',
BZ 99 (200S),559: 'tou nOQ<puQOYEVvtl'tou or Kat 'toum TOU noQ<!>UQoyEvvtl'tOU.

18 Magdalino, Manuel, lSo-92. If we consider the difficulty of modern historians to identify with
certaintyany individualin the seriesof sebastokrator bearing the name Isaac,Isaac'schoicemakesperfect
158 KALLIRROE LINARDOU
that what made him 'special' was his connection to his father and his illustrious
descent, and not the easily bestowed title of sebastokrator.
In this context, the present chapter will be concerned with the visual testimony
provided by a series of images that corroborate the evidence of the written sources
and exemplify most eloquently, albeit indirectly, Isaac's fervent wishes as well as
his distinctive aesthetics. Specifically, a discernible shift of emphasis can be dis-
cerned between the early years of his career, when his hopes and expectations were
still feasible, and the final years of his retirement in the Kosmosoteira Monastery,
acrimoniously portrayed in his Typikon. From an ambitious prince aspiring to be
emperor in his own right, we will follow his transformation into a resigned, pious
and father-loving figure mostly concerned with the afterlife and his posthumous
reputation on earth.
Born in 1093, Isaac was in his prime and highly influential during the first decades
of the twelfth century. After the death of his father in 1118, he supported his
brother John against the wishes of their mother, Eirene Doukaina (1066-1133),
and their sister Anna Comnena (1083-1153), who also had an eye on the throne
for her own husband, Nikephoros Bryennios (1062-1137).19 The newly appointed
emperor invested Isaac with the title of sebastokrator as a reward for his loyalty, no
doubt in the hope that it would eventually satisfy his appetite for power.The stabil-
ity of their relations appears to have been maintained for some years, for as long as
Isaac could believe that his new title stood for what it used to during the reign ofhis
father,20 that is to say that as sebastokrator he was to be considered a quasi-emperor.
Isaac must therefore have been bitterly disappointed when around 1122 John Il,
anxious both to ensure an unobstructed succession to the throne and to safeguard
the imperial rights of his own bloodline within the Komnenos family, crowned his
first-born son Alexios as his eo-emperor." After that, relations between the two
brothers deteriorated, culminating in Isaac's escape from the capital around 1130.
After an unsuccessful attempt to usurp the throne during his brother's absence, the
sebastokrator resorted to the emir of Cappadocia. Isaac spent the following years
wandering as an exile in the East trying to organise a coalition against the emperor.
He also undertook a long pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Palestine. The victorious
campaign ofJohn II to Cilicia and Antioch, though, temporarily weakened Isaac's
claims. His plans were briefly postponed, the two brothers reached a reconcilia-
tion and the sebastokrator returned to Constantinople. Their reunion was short-lived
sense. See for example, the genealogical tree of the Komnenos extended familyin ODE, Il, 1145 and
therein the two entries precedingthe one on our Isaacthe porphyrogennetos.
19 ForIsaac's life and careerseeVarzos, Genealogia, I, no.36,238-54, esp.238-9, includingreferences
to the Byzantinesources. See alsoIbid., I, no. 15, 87-113, esp.104-5 (on Alexios I Komnenos and the
succession to the throne after his death).
20 Comnena, Alexias, 95, n. 6-7: 'to 'tou ae~aa't0KQa'toQoc; ... olovsl bEU'tEQOV ~aalJ\ta
ltEltOlTJKW<;·
21 Choniates,Historia, 16.
(1138-1139). Isaac must have attempted once again to seize the throne, and he was
subsequently exiled by his brother to Heraclea Pontica. Following]ohn Il's death in
1143, Manuel I permitted his paternal uncle to return from his exile. Nevertheless,
Isaac in his fifties appears to have remained a restless claimant to the throne. The
exact circumstances that had led to his expulsion from the capital this time are not
entirely clear, yet during the final years of his life, Isaac fell grievously ill and in
his disappointment was kept at a safe distance from the seat of the emperor. He
retreated to his estates in Thrace and devoted himself to the establishment of his
private Monastery, the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Pherrai.
During the years ofrelative peace and tranquillity between the two brothers, Isaac
became ktetor of an endowment that involved the precincts ofthe Chora Monastery,
located in the northwestern region of Constantinople, once owned and renovated
(c.1077-1081) by his maternal grandmother Maria Doukaina.f Following the
familial pattern introduced by his paternal grandmother Anna Dalassene (1025-
1102) and his parents Alexios and Eirene,23 Isaac renovated the monastery (c.1120)
and made provisions for his own burial there in due course." We cannot be sure of
the exact sequence ofthe restoration works undertaken by him or ofthe pre-existing
pictorial decoration that would have adorned the walls of the katbolikon inrerior."
The monastery fell into disrepair during the Latin occupation of Constantinople to
be once again renovated and gloriously decorated with mosaics and frescoes in the
opening decades of the fourteenth century (1315/16-1321) by the statesman and
scholar,Theodore Metochites (1270-1332). All we can be sure of is that Isaac had
himself portrayed as a young man in the Chora Monastery - the original context
of his representation remains elusive - and that despite the dramatic alterations in
his initial plans regarding his burial - according to his final wishes the tomb was
to be relocated to the Kosmosoteira Monastery - he explicitly prescribed that the
monks should maintain his portrait in the church." In my opinion, Isaac's portrait,
the stele, as he calls it, must have been preserved and most probably reproduced in
the fourteenth century by the new ktetor of the institution in an impressive Deesis
composition that is extant today. In addition to this, I am inclined to believe that
the surviving Palaeologan mosaic can reveal the original conceptual and ideological
frame of the twelfth-century composition.
22 Underwood, Kariye Djami, I, 8-10; Ousterhout, Architecture oftheKariye, 15-20.

23 Stankovlc, 'Comnenian monastic foundations', 52-8.
24 Underwood, Kariye Djami, I, 10-13; Ousterhout, Architecture ofthe Kariye, 20-32. For further
discussion on the renovations undertaken by Isaac, see the chapter by Ousterhout in this volume.
25 See M. Mullett, 'Refounding monasteries in Constantinople under the Komnenoi', in M. Mullett
(ed.), Founders and refounders ofByzantine monasteries (Belfast, 2007), 371-2 and n. 34-5, where based
on Gregoras'testimony, she suggests that Isaac simply donated his own tomb.
26 Papazoglou, TVITtKOv !aaaKlov, 11. 1699-1700: Ujv b' Elltlv a-01Al1v EV vE6tl1tt Ilou 7tOLJ1aac;
lla'tauYrr)'tL 'tfie; 7taLbL1<:fie; TjAL1<:lae; oe ~ouAollaL 'tfie; XWQae; aepalQEefivaL, aM' tamaeaL EV
oIe; auUjv J<:aeTJbQaaaIlEv.
160 KALURROE UNARDOU
Figure ILl , The Deesis Mo saic in the esonarthex of the katholikon ofthe Chom
Monaste ry (photo by T. Tanoulas)
The Deesis mosaic (Figure 11.1),27 situated on the east wall of the esonarthex
beneath the southern dome, representing the Virgin intercedi ng with Christ on
behalf of two eponymous, yet not contemporary supplicants, remains the only sur-
viving truly monumental mosaic composition in the church," and the only surviv-
ing and securely identified portrait of the sebastokrator. On Christ's right and by
the side of the Virgin Isaac is kneeling (FIgure 11.2) with his torso slightly bent
and his hands extended in Christ's direction; he is depicted as a young man, luxuri-
ously dressed and crowned, with long dark slightly curly hair extending from his
crown down his back. He has a thick beard of medium length and a slim moustache
framing a fresh oblong face with carefully delineated features: evenly low-arched
eyebrows, slim almond-shaped eyes, tiny lips and a characterist ic aquiline nose.
Isaac's crown looks peculiarly 'imperial': the addirion of a semi-spherical globe on
top of the cus tomary sebastokratoriat diadem, co ntrary to the fashio n introduced by
Alexios I and explicitly sketched in the Alexiad, requires some explanation. Then
corone ts approved for sebastokrators were humb ler than those for emperors, lacking
the pendant ornaments and the crowning semi-spherical globe. According to Anna
17 Und erwood , K4riF Djam i, I. no. 6. 45-8.

l' Underwood, 'The Deists ~I osaic', 254.
[MPERlAL [MPER SONATlONS 161
Figure 11.2. Detail oflsaae sebastokrator from the Deesis Mosaic

(photo byT. Tanoulas)
Comnena's description the sebastokratorial head-dresses were sparingly decorated

with pearls and jewels, and they had no globe." In other words, they resembled what
we would roughly describe as a stepbanos - a circlet ofgold set with pearls and gem s
and having one or more arched projections - or a stemmatogyrion/" An apparent
2'J G . Bucklc:r,Anna Comnme. A Study (Oxford, 1929), 48; Comnena,AIt'xias,Ill, 95. 11. 17-18: O i bE
l Wv O tpet GlOl(Qal6QllYV kat te;fV )ffiLOaQl41v <1'tt$aVOI onOQlibrl':lcllV 01100 lWv IJ.ClQY c:l:QUIV
Kttl AlBwv IJ.£'!Exovn :1; dvev '(QV ir[(aq>a~IIJ. Ll:ro:;. See also the discussion in Buckley, 7ht Ak xiad
of'Anna Komnene. Artistic Jlraugy. 94.
.10 For an authoritative: discussion on Jt1Jhanoi and Jtnnmllwgyrla, and especially their use by
the Komnenian aristocracy; sec T. Papam astorakis. 'Evu ELKaO"'(lKO f)'1<t.:'lll0 t OO M lXW1A H
naMHoAOyoV: Oc lE.w1:tQlKl.:: 'tOlXoyQtl.q:>lH; o-ro KLlOoAucO 'tT1' Movnc rq c MaUQlwuo oa.::
c-rqv K<>mOQ"'" DCME 15 (1989-90). 232-3 and n. 66-78. Sec also ODB. Ill. 1952; M.G . Panni.
Reconstrua ing /h~ rta/i/)' ofimagrs: Byzant int ma/mal cultur~ and rtligious iconography (11th - 15th Cn! /U-
rirs) (Leide n/Bostc n, 20(>3). 67, 69 n. 70.349 and Appendix 3 no. 25. For a detailed descripti on of Isaac's
crown see Underwood. Kariye Djami, 1. 48.
162 KALLIRROE UNARDOU
explanation for this discrepancy would be that Metochites might have adjusted
the paraphernalia of a sebastokrator to fit with contemporary practice during the
Palaiologan period. But this cannot be the case; the stephanoi of the Palaeologan
despotes and sebastokrators were never made to incorporate a semi-spherical top-
ping." Finally, a comparison of Isaac's diadem with the imperial crown of John
II Komnenos in the twelfth-century mosaic panel of St Sophia's South Gallery is
illumlnating-" the sebastokrato,ls crown demonstrates an extraordinary resemblance
to the imperial one in its structural components; it lacks only the pendant ornamen-
tation. As we shall see, this is not the sole instance in which Isaac invested himself
with such an improvised headdress marked by an 'imperial touch'.
Above him an inscription unfolded in eleven lines identifies him as Isaac the por-
phyrogennetos and son of the supreme emperor Alexios Komnenos (Figure 11.1).33
His official title is omitted. On the other side of the Deesis mosaic and as a pendant
to Isaac, we see a kneeling female, the nun Melane - roughly a contemporary of
Metochites and distinguished for her imperial associations. She may have contrib-
uted to the restoration ofthe monastery at some point or been buried there." What
is striking here is the divergence of identification between the two supplicants.
While Melane identifies herselfwith her brother, the reigning emperor Andronikos
II Palaiologos (1282-1328) - rather than with her father, the emperor Michael
VIII Palaiologos (1223-1282) - Isaac deviates from the norm, overlooks his con-
nection with the reigning emperor, his brotherJohn lI, and provocatively underlines
his relationship with his father Alexios 1. As we have already seen, this pattern of
identification is idiosyncratic and customary to Isaac. There is no way Metochites
could have known this unless he was faithfully reproducing the pre-existent original
inscription ofIsaac's time.
The Virgin is inscribed as Meter 'Ibeou, while Christ reproduces a Palaeologan
adaptation of Christ of the Chalke Gate, Christ Ghalkites, namely a famous image
of the standing Christ that surmounted the main entrance to the Great Palace."
The selection of Christ Gha/kites is admittedly odd." Yet, the story of the Chalke is
punctuated by a series of Significant imperial initiatives that might have appealed
essentially to Isaac: two successful usurpers of the imperial throne from the Middle
Byzantine period have evidently given special attention on this highly charged
monument. Romanos I Lekapenos (870-948) erected there a small chapel dedi-
31 Parani, RealityofImages, Appendix 3 nos. 38 and 66.

32 C. Mango, Materialsfor thestudyofthi mosaics ofSt. Sophia at Istanbul (Washington, D. C., 1962),
28-9 and pl, 17.
33 Underwood, 'The Deisis Mosaic', 256-8.
34 Ibid., 258-60, fig.A; Underwood, Kariye Djami,I, 46-7; Ousterhout,Architecture oftheKariye, 3.
3S Underwood, 'The Deisis Mosaic', 255. For the Chalke Gate see ODB, I, 405-6; C. Mango, 7he
Brazen House: A studyofthe vestibule oftheImperial Palace ofConstantinople (Copenhagen, 1959), esp.
135-42 (Christ Chalkites); L. Brubaker, 'The Chalke Gate, the construction of the past, and the Trier
ivory', BMGS 23 (1999),258-85.
36 Underwood, Kariye Djami, I, 45-6, where the author characterises the choice 'unusual, if not
unique'.
cated to Christ Chalkites and according to some interpretations," it was there that
the Mandylion, one of the most precious acheiropoieta relics of the capital, was
initially kept. Later, John I Tzimiskes (925-976) endowed it with relics and selected
it as his final resting place." Apparently, Christ Chalkites, the guardian of the Gate,
had proven especially lenient towards those who pursued their illegitimate imperial
aspirations, and Isaac must have regarded such a divine protector as conveniently
relevant and appropriate for his purposes. In addition to this, Christ of the Cha1ke
is reported to have been particularly beneficial to Alexios I: the emperor was cured
of a grave illness thanks to the miraculous power of the veil that hung in front of
the Chalke icon and which was applied over his sick body," The Gate, deprived of
its bronze doors by Isaac II Angelos (1185-1195,1203-1204), is not mentioned
after 1200,40 therefore it would have been rather unlikely for Metochites in the
fourteenth century to have made this connection himse1£ He had no reason to do
so. Directly above the Deesis panel, surmounting the central door of the entrance
into the nave,Metochites made his own personal wishes explicitly clear and without
the aid of an intermediary. His portrait addresses an enthroned Christ significantly
inscribed as 'H XWQa "[wv 'wv"[wv, 'The realm of'living'." Thus, Metochites most
probably respected the choices oflsaac and reproduced faithfully the original com-
position as devised by his illustrious predecessor.
The boldness and explicitness of the visual rhetoric is striking and the tone of
the message conveyed is evidently personal: Isaac, a newly crowned and purple-born
prince addresses, through the intercession of the Virgin, an image of Christ tradi-
tionally guarding the official entrance to the Great Palace. We may safely deduce
that what Isaac wished for was to be granted divine authority to enter the Great
Palace as emperor. In the mind of an ambitious young man such as Isaac, the Great
Palace was the anticipated Paradise and this is exactly what he yearned to ensure
through his Deesis petition. The scandalously improvised stephanos on his head
leaves no room for doubt as to his barely concealed ambition.
A reasonable question would be why Metochites would wish to maintain a
portrait of an individual predating him by almost two centuries in such a monu-
mental composition destined for public view and displayed in a prominent position,
unless he had a special interest in it. Certainly Isaac was an eminent predecessor
in whom Metochites might have taken a particular pride due to his association
with the Chora Monastery.f Yet there seems to have been more than this in his
peculiar choice and I would suggest that the Palaeologan ktetor of Chora may have
37 See Mango, Brazen House, 149 and S.G. Engberg, 'Rornanos Lekapenos and the Mandilion of
Edessa', in}. Durand and B. Flusin (eds.), Byzance et les rellques du Christ (Paris, 2004),123-42.
38 Mango, Brazen House, 145-52.
39 Ibid., 132 and n. 106--7;Zonaras, Epitomae, HI, 750-1.
40 Mango, Brazen House, 34-5.
4\ On the concept ofChora, its various meanings and its connection to the personality ofMetochites
seeT. Tanoulas, 'XwQa: Christian aspects of a platonic concept', DChAE 34 (2013),405-16.

43 Underwood, Kariye Djami,I, 11-2.
164 KALLlRROE LlNARDOU
felt a special allinity and bond with the sophisticated nobleman of the glorious
Komnenian era. He might have even sympathised with Isaac 's unlawful claims,
otherwise he would not have reproduced and perpetuated for posterity such a sub-
versive message.Methochites' own imperial pretensions pursued through a carefully
calculated visual vocabulary that enhanced and propagared his association with the
imperial family of Androniko s II Palaiologos as well as his connection to the impe-
rial ktetors of th e basilike mane have been convincingly demonstrated."
We will temp orarily aband on public art and monumentality to retreat into the pri-
vacy of the min or arts . The ideal environment for such an experience are the pages
of illuminated manuscripts, precisely because Isaac was admittedly a 'bo okworm' .....
A renowned jewel of the Bodleian Library Oxford is the Codex E bnerianus (O xford ,
Bodl eian Library, Auct. T. inf. 1. 10)," fresh, extravagant and in excellent state of
preservation, it retains the brilliance of its colours almost unaffected by time and
continuous usage.
This codex is an illuminated Greek New Testament of the second quarter of the
twelfth century." It contains the Letter ofE usebius to Carpianus, the four Gospels,
the Acts, the Catholic and Pauline Ep istles as well as th e Profession of Faith at its
closing and enjoys the high praise of art historians for a series of different reasons."
Its production has been ascribed to a distinguished Constantinopolitan scripta-
rium specialising in illustrated Gospel books of outstanding quality and stands out
among the avant-garde of Komn enian G ospel illumination. The cycle of its illus-
trati on remains unique in that it combines autho r portraits with narrative scenes
not only for the opening of the four Go spels; a similar design of carefully selected
combinations of autho rs and narrative scenes was applied in the beginning of Acts
4J R. Ous terhout, 'The Virgin of the Cho ra: An image and its context' , in R. O usterho ut and L.
Brubakcr (eds.).1h~ sacred imllgt EaJIand Ub , (Urbana, 1995), 96. See also th e d iscussion in RS. Nelson,
'The Ch ora and the Grea t Church : Intervisuality in fourteeruh-cenrury Consta ntin ople', BM GS 23
(1999),67-101, esp. 74-7 (reprinted in R.S. I':elson, 1.4ttr BYZilntint painting: A rt. agmcy, and Qpprtcia-
tion [Aldershot/Burlingt on, 2007], no. II) and ~ . Sevtcnko, 'The portrait ofTheodore Metochltes at
Cbora', in ].-.\1. Spieser and E. Yot a (eds.), D onation et donateu rs dam It monde byzanlin (Paris, 2012),
189-205.
4.( See Papaaoglou, TU1tu( oV 'Icccoc lov.Hnes 1920-8, where Isaac refers to his own writin gs and
the books he deposited in the Kosmosoreira M onastery.
4~ For the Cod~x Eimeriarua see CiMeredlth, 'The illustratio n of Codex Ebnmanus' J WQrb 29 (1966),
419-24, figs. 69-70; I. H urrer, Ccrpusd"byuntini.Ichm M iniaturmhandschriftrn. Oxford&dlrian Library
- Vols. 1-3 (5 vols., Stuttgart, 1977-1993)..1 (1977), no. 39 , 59--67, col. pI. Il l, figs. 225-55. and IlI.1
(1982),333-4, wherein extensive bibliography. See also R.S. Nelson, 'Byzantine miniatures at Oxford:
CBM 1 and 2', Byzantin e Studi~J 13 (1986),95- 110; ODB, I, 473-4; A. C utler, revi ew of I. Hu rter,
CBM I , in A rt Butta in 61 (1979), 107. See also E. Yota, ' Le terraevangile H arley 1810 de la Briti sh
Library.Contribution a le tude de l'illustration des retraevanglles du X' au XIII' siecle', PhD dissertation
(University of Fribourg, 2001), 224, 242--6.
46 Cutler, revi ew in Art Bul/~tin, 107,
47 For a synopsis of the history of research and primarily for the manuscrip t's date see Nelson,
'Miniatures at Oxford', 95-1 10. See also R. Cormack and M. Vassilaki (eds.), Byzantium 330-1453
(London, 2008), no. 204, 431 (entry by A. \ Veyl-Carr).
IM PERIAL IMPERSONA TION S 165
Figure 11.3. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auet. T . inf. I. 10 (Codex

Ebnerianus}, f. 231', portrait of Luke with an anonymous imperial figure
introducing the opening ofActs (The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford)
and some of the Epistles, and this is a unique feature of this codex . So far it has
been maintained that this selection was dictated by liturgical use and the con tent of
th e prologues to the Gospel text." The ornate canon tables introducing the codex
and the decorated headpieces at the opening of each section are of exceptio nal
beauty and inventiveness. In wh at follows I will t f)' to substantiate the attribution
of the codex to the patronage of the sehastokrato r Isaac Komnenos and date it more
precisely.
.. Meredith, ' Q;;(k~ Ebnm "onui ,419-24.

.On folio 231V (Figure 11.3) a portrait ofLuke, as a seated author and accompanied
by an anonymous standing crowned figure luxuriously dressed, prefaces the open-
ing of Acts. In a medallion beautifully enclosed within the trefoil-shaped arch of
the architectural frame, we see a representation of the Ascension. This was a most
appropriate selection dictated by liturgical use; Acts 1:1-13 was read on the feast
day of the Ascension." Moreover, it was meant to correspond with the juxtaposed
opening lines of the Acts, where the Ascension of Christ is explicitly mentioned:
'In the former treatise, dear friend Theophilus, I have written of all that Jesus began
to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up' (Acts 1:1-2). Further down
the whole episode is narrated in detail, yet we may note that it is specifically men-
tioned in the introductory lines which include the enigmatic recipient of Luke's
treatise, Theophilus.
The identity of Luke's addressee remains hypothetical to this day.The name lit-
erally means 'friend or lover of God'. According to Biblical scholars, it is unclear
whether Luke intended to Identify an actual person by that name, or alternatively
used it as an eloquent wordplay in order to encompass any anonymous Christian
reader. The prefatory lines of his Gospel dedicating the work to the 'most excellent
Theophilus', and the later address in the opening of Acts, are often referred to as
indications that this may have been an actual person, perhaps even one who was
socially eminent. However, more likely is the possibility that the name "Iheophilus'
refers generally to a broader audience of Christians who 'loved God' and his Word. 50
Apparently, modem scholarly considerations were totally irrelevant to the
Byzantine mind and judging by the imposing semi-imperial portrait accompa-
nying Luke in our miniature, we may safely deduce that the Byzantines viewed
Luke's statement as a literal dedication addressed to an individual of the highest
dignity and esteem. Theophilus' imperial figure accompanying Luke before Acts
in the Codex Ebnerianus remains a rare iconographical solution," at least to my
knowledge. In addition to this, a closer examination reveals that his representation
is not a generic and stereotyped rendering of any imperial-looking figure but rather
a meticulously studied and calculated image of a certain individual.
Particularly enlightening is the crown-like coronet adorning the head of
Theophilus. This resembles the improvised crown that Isaac devised for himself
in the Deesis mosaic: it lacks the pendant ornamentation while the semi-spherical
topping is outlined by a thin black line over the golden pearl-studded stephanos
49 Ibid., 423.
50 R.P. Thompson, 'Luke-Acts: The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles', in D.E. Aune
(ed.), The Blackwell Companion to theNew Testament (Chichester, 2010), 328-9.
SI A.M. Friend, 'Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin manuscripts',Art Studies 5 (1927),
115-47; 7 (1929),3-29. For an earlier example see Washington, D.C., Dumbarton Oaks, MS 3, £ 215
(dated to 1084), where Theophilus is placed on the outer margin by the Acts'text proper and is barely
visible today: S. Der Nersessian, ~ psalter and New Testament manuscript at Dumbarton Oaks', DOP
19 (1965),161,180-81 and fig. 32. See also Paris, BNF, MS gr. 64, f.l02 v and Oxford, Christ Church
College Library, MS gr. 12, f 82" (in both cases a representation ofTheophilus in the margins is related
to the opening of the Gospel of Luke).
and its red projected arch, and is surmounted by a trefoil of pearls matching a
barely traceable yet similar adornment on Isaac's crown in the Chora Deesis. The
physiognomy of this fairly young individual is equally interesting: his long, brown
and slightly curly hair extends down from the crown and flanks an oblong delicate
face enlivened by red flashes on the cheeks and a penetrating look directed straight
towards Luke. His tiny mouth is barely visible under the arching moustache and the
medium-length forked beard. He bends his head slightly and gestures with his right
hand meaningfully towards Luke in acknowledgement of the dedication. His left
arm is hidden under a deep-red gold-embroidered mantle bearing a golden tablion,
clasped slightly to the right. Under the mantle, he wears a scarlet long-sleeved tunic
with outlined golden cuffs and hem. His boots match the scarlet of his tunic and
are studded with pearls. To my mind this is a disguised portrait of the sebastokrator
Isaac Komnenos, and therefore I am inclined to suggest that the Codex Ebnerianus
was a commission of his patronage.
Having witnessed the sebastokrators boldness and visual outspokenness in the
Chora Deesis panel, one may reasonably question why Isaac felt the need to 'hide'
behind a disguise. But secrecy does not appear to have been his ultimate aim. Apart
from a disguised manifestation, the portrait constitutes an impersonation, that
is to say a conscious and purposeful disguise, and as happens on such occasions
the impersonator partakes in the qualities and the personality of the character he
impersonates. Isaac did not choose to assume the identity of any of the anonymous
participants attending St James's teaching on folio 287",52 or Prochoros, St John's
apprentice and secretary on folio 178v, 53 since they were irrelevant to his purposes.
An impersonator always claims properties essential and vital to his own self and
therefore carefully weighs his options. The only suitable character in the entire man-
uscript pertinent to Isaac's wishes and self-esteem was Theophilus, the prominent
addressee ofLuke and sponsor of the evangelist's writings, according to some inter-
pretations." Isaac could have perfectly envisaged himself in Theophilus' 'imperial'
shoes and crown and he would have been absolutely content with such a represen-
tation. It is important to remember that illustrated books of such quality were not
prepared for public consumption but ultimately destined to be viewed by the patron.
Another peculiarity in the illustration of the Codex Ebnerianus that has so far
remained without comment is the full-page miniature on folio 312V (Figure 11.4)
introducing the corpus of Pauline Epistles. Paul, a seated author, is paired with a
scene depicting a seminal episode in his life, the miraculous experience of God's
voice on his way to Damascus that resulted in his subsequent short-term blind-
ness and his ultimate conversion to Christianity. The frame of the specific minia-
ture conspicuously deviates from the norm in the context of the manuscript and
therefore distinguishes Paul and his conversion as something special.The decorated
arch enclosing the author and the biographical scene is prominently flanked by two
52 Hutter, Corpus, I, no.39,64-5, fig.242.

S3 Ibid., 63-4, fig. 239.
54 Thompson, 'Luke-Acts', 328.
168 KALLlRROE Ll NARD OU
Figure 11.4. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auet. T . inf. 1. 10 (Codex

Ehnerianm ), f. 312' , author portrait of Paul introducing the Pauline Epistle.
(The BodIeian Libraries , Universiry of Oxford)
well-proportioned golden candelabra with burning candles that add a cultic qual-
ity to the wh ole composition. A s if to reinforce this impression, a tiny go lden cross
surmounts the pinnacle of the arch. It is almost as if we were standing in front of a
venerable icon displayed on an iconostasis.
During his long exile between 1130 and 1138, Isaac visited Palestine where
he undertook a pilgrimage to the holy places." In a poem written by Theodore
Prodromos in which Isaac is supposed to be speaking, he boasts of his adventurous
I1 Varzos, Geneatogia. I, no. 36. 242.

IMPERLfL IMP ER SONATION S 169
wanderings and advertises the construction of an aqueduct he sponsored for the

Monastery of St John the Baptist on the banks of the river Jordan." M oreover,
as part of his missionary work there, he co nverted a j ewi sh co uple to Christianity
and subsequently baptised and named them after his beloved parents, A1exios and
Eirene. V'Ihis couple of converted Jews became part of Isaac's 'oikos' by adoption; in
the Kosmosotei ra Typikon he made special provision s that they should be main-
tained for life by the revenues of the monastery." In this context the image of Paul,
the converted Jew par excellence. acquires a personal reson ance that might have
been especially significant for Isaac's identiry and prid e; following the example of
Ananias depicted in the scene of Paul's co nversion, he received the repentant Jews
and bapti sed them in the name of the Ch ristian God.
In addition to this, in a prose encomium co mposed once again by Theodore
Prodromos and addressed to Isaac between 1136 and 1142," the name of Paul is
menti oned twice, and in one case with an explicit allusion to his conversion. s? In
this instance, Paul is the o nly Christian personage mentioned amon g a multitude
of pagan deities, philosophers and mathematicians. Furthermore , Paul is associ-
ated, albeit indirectly, with St Stephen the Protomartyr as a witness of his execution
by stoning (Acts 7:54-60). Isaac is known to have restored the M onastery of
St Stephen of Aurelian ae (s v ruic AVQ'1AulVai~) in Constantinople; thi s was
later designated as a rest ho stel for the monks of the Kosmosoteira M onastery
in o rder to facilitate their residence in the capital during their visits.v' These indi-
cations tend to confirm Isaac's special interest in Paul and more specifically his
conversion, yot they do not provide a fully satisfactory explanation for why Paul
was so important to him. Finally, in the Chora esonarthe x, a monum ental standing
figure of Paul, pend ant to a similar one of Peter, fram es the right side of the central
entrance into the nave and supports the dedication mosaic panel of Metochites.
One cannot fail to notice that the figure of Paul literally stand s back to back to
Isaac's portrait represented directly to the right. 62 W e will never know for certain
whether Metochites reprodu ced Isaac's stele on the spot designated by the twelfth-
century ktetor" or to what extent he altered th e basic features of the pre-existing
56 D .; anD TOV 7l0pcpIJpoyEl'l'rlrOIJ ,w pov loaarcloIJ roe K01J~'T'(\ 'ov, Kurrz, 'Unedie rte Texte',
107-8; Prodromos, H istorisdx G,dimtr. no. 40, 391-3.
H verses, GnualogUJ, I.251 .
~- Papazoglou, TIJ1ft/cOv 7oam:ioIJ.lin es 1752-62.

5~ Ma~dalino,Manud, 194.
W Kurtz, 'Unedlerte Texre', 112- 7, esp. lines 24-6 and77-8.
6 1 Papazoglou, Tv-u xov 7oaa Kiov.lines 1976-90; j anln , La Glographj, t.ldtsj(ljtiqu~ d~ rEm!,jr~
Byzantin. 1.3, (Paris, 1969), 472- 3; Idem, ConJttlntino!,l~ Byzantin~. Dlwlop~mmt urbllin et repertoire
topogrll!,hiqu~ (Paris , 1964), 317; Varzos, Gm~alogia, I, no. 36, 250; ODB. Il , 1146.
6J Underwood, Kariy~ Dj ami. pI. 13.
6J Ousterhout, Architutur, ofth, Kariye. 69-70, believes that he did. See also S.T. Brooks, 'The hls-
tory and significance of tomb monuments at the Chora Monastery', in ItA. Kleln and R. Ousterhout
(eds.), R~Jtoring Byzant ium: 1IH Kariye Camii in Istanbul and tbr Byzantin~ ln u itute Restoration (New
Yod<,20(4).24-5.
iconographical programme, yet the proximity of the image of Isaac to that of Paul
is intriguing.
Finally, the attribution of the Codex Ebnerianus to the patronage of the sebas-
tokrator may help us determine the circumstances of its creation more accurately.
The manuscript has been dated approximately to the second quarter of the twelfth
century on stylistic grounds and has been attributed to a leading Constantinopolitan
scriptorium active during that period. 64 This workshop has been named for the sake
of convenience either the 'Iakovos atelier' or 'workshop of the animal initials' and
today it is known collectively as the 'Kokkinobaphos group'.65 Irmgard Hutter was
the first to demonstrate the existence of this group and systematically study its
style.66 Based on the quality of the commissions undertaken by the specific atel-
ier and their evident connection with the court aristocracy'" she suggested that
the workshop under consideration was the official imperial scriptorium/" The
leading figure in this workshop was a miniaturist conventionally labelled the
'Kokkinobaphos master'J" whose career can be roughly traced by the outstanding
quality exhibited in his miniatures and the iconographical inventiveness that char-
acterizes his works. His debut can be approximately dated to c.1125 and it is exem-
plified in a minute Gospel book today kept in the Vatican Library'" In it we find an
imperial portrait miniature, which represents the emperor John II Komnenos with
his eldest son Alexios," whom John proclaimed co-emperor probably in the year
1122. 72 It is known that Alexios died in 1142.73 Furthermore there is a later entry
written in the manuscript on folio 2r by a Renaissance humanist at the ducal court
ofUrbino, which commemorates the date 1127/28 as the commission date of the
64 Cutler, review in Art Bulletin, 107; Nelson, 'Miniatures at Oxford', 95; Anderson, 'Seraglio
Octateuch', 96 and n, 95.
6S 1. Hutter, 'Die Homilien des Monchs Jakobus und Ihre Illustrationen', PhD dissertation
(University of Vienna, 1970), 491-2, named the scriptorium under discussion 'Iakovos atelier'. J.C.
Anderson, ~ examination of two twelfth-century centers of Byzantine manuscript production', PhD
dissertation (Princeton University, 1975), 1, named it 'workshop of the animal initials'.
66 Hutter, 'Die Homilien', 491-511.
67 Citta del Vaticano, BAV, MS Urb. gr. 2, f. 19' contains a portrait of John II Komnenos with
his oldest son A1exios: C. Stornajolo, Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo Monaco (cod. Vatic. gr. 1162) e
dell'Evangeliario Greco urbinate (cod. Vatic. Urbin. gr. 2) (Rome, 1910),83. Oxford, Christ Church College,
MS Wake gr, 32 belonged to a member of the Komnenos family, Isaac Komnenos, Hutter, Corpus, IV.1
(1993), 65. Fmally, the Seraglio Octateuch was commissioned by the sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos,
see Anderson, 'Seraglio Ocrateuch', 84; K. Weitzmann, M. Bernabo and R. Tarasconi, The Byzantine
Octateuchs: The iltustrations in the manuscript» ofthe Septuagint (2 vols., Princeton, 1999), I, 335-6.
6S Hutter, 'Die Homilien', 490; 1. Hutter, The Herbert history ofart and architecture: Early Christian
and Byzantine (London, 1988), 142-3; 1. Hutter and P. Canart, Das Marienbomiliar des Monchs]akobos
von Kokkinobaphos Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1162 (2 vols., Zurich, 1991), I, 17.
69 Anderson, 'Seraglio Octateuch', 83-4.
70 Citti\.del Vaticano, BAV,MS Urb. gr.2. Anderson, 'Seraglio Octateuch', 89-90.
71 Stornajolo, Miniature,83.
72 Another suggested date is 1119 see DOC 4, I, 244.
73 Hutter, 'Die Homilien', 492; Anderson, 'Centers', 22-23; 1. Spatharakis, Corpus ofdatedillumi-
natedGreek manuscripts to theyear1453 (2 vols., Leiden, 1981), I, 41; Nelson, 'Miniatures at Oxford', 96.
manuscript." Both the evidence ofthe portrait and the style ofpainting, along with
the entry of the fifteenth century have led art historians to the conclusion that the
manuscript can be dated to around 1125. 75 The same master-painter worked for the
sebastokratorissa Eirene, spouse of Andronikos Komnenos, Isaac's nephew by his
brother John, and her copy of the illustrated homilies ofIakovos the monk, today
housed in the Vatican Library (Citta del Vaticano, BAV,MS gr.1162) and dated to
the late 1140s.76 Finally,he collaborated in the illustration ofthe Seraglio Octateuch
commissioned by Isaac."
Codex Ebnerianus has been attributed to the hand of the Kokkinobaphos mas-
ter," I agree that Isaac's New Testament book was indeed the work of this tal-
ented painter, yet beyond his distinctive style, he left us an unmistakable hallmark
of his work, an iconographical detail that remains exceptional in the context of
this workshop's extant production. It appears in only three cases, in two of which
the execution has been attributed to him: in the Codex Ebnerianus and the Vatican
Kokkinobaphos." Specifically, on folio 23 of the Codex Ebnerianus, in the scene
V
of Christ's Nativity (Figure 11.5) adorning the opening of the arch crowning the
portrait ofthe evangelist Matthew, the midwife customarily represented as engaged
in giving the newborn child his first bath bears an unusual iconographical detail:
one of her breasts extends out of her sleeveless tunic and beneath her armpit. This
has been noted by Hutter, who rightly identified the lady as a wet nurse." Less than
ten years later the 'Kokkinobaphos master'would repeat a roughly similar rendering
of the midwife/wet nurse in the scene of Mary's Birth on folio 29' of the Vatican
Kokkinobaphos." On the top left corner of the miniature a similarly dressed mid-
wife reveals her right breast extended under her armpit.f I believe that apart from
an idiosyncratic hallmark of the painter, this realistic detail preserved in Nativity
74 Hutter, 'Die Homilien', 493; Anderson, 'Centers', 24; Spatharakis, Corpus, I, 41; Nelson,
'Miniatures at Oxford', 96 n. 65; J.C. Anderson, 'The illustrated Sermons of James the Monk: Their
dates, order and place in the history of Byzantine art', Viator 22 (1991),69-120, esp. 84-5.
7S See note above.
76 K. Linardou, 'Reading two Byzantine illustrated books: The Kokkinobaphos manuscripts
(Vilticanus graecus 1162 and Parisinus graecus 1208) and their illustration', PhD dissertation (University
of Birmingham, 2004), 238-44, 278-85; Idem, 'The Kokkinobaphos manuscripts revisited: the internal
evidence of the books', Scriptorium 61 (2007): 384-407.
77 See note and the discussion further below.
78 Anderson, 'Seraglio Octateuch', 96, where the author mentions the manuscript as a product of the
'Kokkinobaphos master' with no further discussion.
79 The third case I have detected appears in Paris, BNF, MS gr. 75, f. l' in the scene of Christ's
Nativity. This manuscript has been attributed to the 'Kokkinobaphos group'. A colour reproduction of
the miniature is accessibleat http://mandragore.bnf.fr (last accessed May 2015).
80 Hutter, Corpus, I, 62, fig. 236.
81 Stornajolo, Miniature, 9-10; Hutter and Canart, Marienbomiliar, 28-9; Linardou, 'Kokkinobaphos
manuscripts', 42-3.
82 For a discussion of this detail in a different interpretative context see M. Meyer, 'Divine
Nourishment: On breasts and bottles in the miniatures ofIakobos Kokkinobaphos', DCME 33 (2012),
265-7, fig. 1.
,
.............. e.c
, {"
"•
w.
..
0
••
~
••r
. \M.'
A'"
.. ...
...
•• •
•,•
-•
••
Figure 11.5. Oxford, BodIeian Library, MS Auet. T . inf. 1. 10

(Cod.",Ebnerianust, f. 23', author portrait ofMaethew and the scene ofthe
:>Iathity introducing the homonymous Gospel (The Bodleian Libraries,
Universiry ofOxford)
scenes reflects contemporary child-rearing practices on the part of the Komnenian

elite. The employment of wet-nurses by the memb ers of the court aristocracy may
have been a more widespread phenom enon than we know today.
IM PERIAL IMPERSON,tT/ONS 173
The attribution of the Codex E bnerianus to the commission of the sebasrokrator

and its association with the 'Kokkinoba phos m aster' can help us narrow down the
span of tim e in whi ch the manu script may have been produ ced and speculate on the
possible circumstances that had led to its creation. Isaac could have commissioned
the manuscript du ring his brief return to th e capital after his pilgrimage to th e
H oly Land, th at is between 1138 and 1139.This is corroborated by the intern al evi-
dence extracted fro m the manu script . The short-lived reunion with his bro the r reaf-
firm s the persistence ofIsaac's imp erial ambitions exemplified imaginat ively in his
Gospel book. For the realisation of his project, he hired th e services of the master
miniaturist of the atelier in vogue during that time, the same painter who worked
on the completion of the Gospel book dedi cated to John II and his co-emperor
Alexios. Isaac would have never accepted anything less th an his brother h ad. Ten
years later the sebastokrator would employ the same miniaturist in a major collabora-
tive commission, the execution of the illustration of the Seraglio Ocrateuch.
The Seraglio Octareuch ," one of three twelfth -century extant illustrated manuscripts
containing the first eight books of the O ld Testament, has been dated approximately
between 1143 and 1152 on the basis of prosopographical inform ation known about
thebook's patron, the sehasfokrator.84 Isaac spent a long period asan exile in the eastern
region s." H e retu rned to C onstanti nople in 1143 after the ascension of his neph ew
M anuel I Kom nenos to the throne, only to abandon the capital once again in order
to retreat to his estate at the KosmosoteiraMonastery until his death around 1152.S6
The most likely periodwhen the sebastokrator could have commissioned an ambitious
and densely illustrated book such as this - in its present state of preservation it con-
sists of 570 parchment folios and 352 min iatures executed by three min iatu rists - are
the years between 1143 and 1152, after his return to the capital. An even mo re pre-
cise datin g of the O ctateuch is suggested by th e fact th at the illustrati on of the book
remained unfinished." A jus tified speculation would be that the death of the patron
Isaac around 1152 prevented the completion of the book. " Thus the Octateuch was a
major project spon sored by Isaac towards the end of his life, around the middle of the
twelfth century, and remained incomplete due to his death "
.., Anderson, 'Seraglio Octateuch', 83-11 4; J. Lowden , 1JN OctatNJdu. A study in Byzan tin~ manu-
scrip t illumination (University Park, 1992),21-6;w etrarnaoo, By zantine Octattuchs, I, 334-7 (with exten-
sive bibliography and full illustration). J. Lowden, 'Illustrated Oc tateuchs manuscripts: A Byzantine
phenomenon', in R.S. Nelson and P. Magdalino (eds.) , 1k Old Testam ent in Byza ntium (Wash ingt on,
D.e.. 2010),111- 5.
... For the patronage of the Seraglio O ctareucb, see \Veitzmann, Byzantin~ CktauudJs, I, 335-6. For
me approximate dating see Anderson,'Illustrated Sermons', 84; \ Veinm ann, BJZIlntin~ Octl1/tudJs, 1, 337.
R~ Varzos, Gm~l1logia , I, no. 36, 239-46.
.. l bld., 246.
I? Blank spaces were left for eighty-nine miniatures that were never executed; see Weitzmann,
Byzantine Octo/tuchs, I, 335.

11 For this suggestion see Weitzmann, BYZllntint Octl1 /tuchs, I, 337.
" H utrer, 'Die Homilien', 506, dated the Oc rateuch to around the mid- twelfth century.
174 KALLIRRO£ LINARDOU
Figure 11.6. Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi Library, MS G . I. 8, f. 11', Demetrios of

Phaleron drafting the memorandum and king Ptolemy ordering the dispatch
ofthe letter (Kurt ' Veinmann Archive, Department ofArt and Archaeology,
Princeton University)
An innovation ofthis book is that it contains a paraphra se of the Letter of'Aristeas

to Pbikxrates (folios 3'-9'), which, according to the opening lines, was penned by
Isaac and exists in this manuscript alone. 90 The illustration to accom pany this para-
phrase, initially planned and outlined, falls wi thin tho se sectio ns of the manuscript
that remained unfinished. However, two illustrations have been provided in the
section o f the Letter proper exclus ively preserved in the eleventh-centu ry Vatican
Ocrareuch (C itta del Vaticano, BAV, M S gc. 747) and the Seraglio one. O n folio
11' of the Seraglio Ocrareuch, a framed miniature located beside Letter ofdristeas
33 represents on the left D ernetrios of Ph aleron - the librarian in charge of the
library of Alexandria under Pt olemy I - drafting the memorandum requesting
the collaboration of the Jewish sages in the translation of the Sepruagint," and
on the right king Ptolemy (Figure 11.6) ordering the dispatch of the letter to the
high priest of the Jewish temple, Eleazar.? Compared to the figure of Ptolemy
'iO \ Veitzmann, Byzantine OetaftUl:hs, I, 326-7.

91 Ibid., 11, fig. 7a.
~ Ibld ., 12, fig. 7b.
IMPERIAL IMPER SONATIONS 175
Figure 11.7. Katholikon of the Virgi n Kosmosoteira Pherrai (Thrace),

St Theodore Teron, north wall ofthe nave (by th e permission ofth e Evros
Ephorate ofAntiquities, G reek Ministry of Culture)
in the miniature illustrating the same extract of the Letter in the Octateuch of
the eleventh century, Vaticanus graecus 747,93 our Ptolemy appears as an imposing,
mature and noticeably personalised individual; he does not reproduce a formulaic
93 Ibid., 11, fig. 6b

rend ering of a rando mly selected imperial figure. In fact, he is not exactly imperially
crowned; compared to the corresponding figure in Vaticanus g raeros 747 or to the
Seraglio yout hful emperor-ki ng crowned in the Byzantin e fashion and highlighted
by a purple nimbus and a heraldic eagle on his throne, on folio 21' ," he is adorned
with a well-m ade Jtemmatogyrion.The lavish attire of the seated Byzantine-looking
emperor reprod uces accurately the current imperial costum e ado rned by the dis-
tinctive foro! as witnessed in many contemporary visual examples. Finally and more
importantl y, the individual facial features, with an emphasis on the high eye brows,
the intense look of the eyes, the strong cheek bon es and the sharp aquiline nose, the
sho rt haircut above th e ears, highlighted by a pink halo and the short dark beard,
match seamlessly the physiognomic characteristics attributed to the painted half-
length port rait of StTheodore Teron (Figure 11.7) on th e north wall of the nave
in the katholikon church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Pherrai (Thrace)." Such a
profou nd and explicit similarity betwee n two commissions assign ed to the aegis of
the sebastokrator is by no means coi ncidental. I woul d rather consider it intentional
and meanin gful.
It ha s been remarked th at the initial cycle of illustr ations devised for the utter
of'riristeas must have been intended specifically to honour the person wh o offered
his patro nage for th e first illustr ated edition of the Octareuch," and that the figure
of king Ptolemy might have been used as a prototype for the Byzantine patron of
this alleged edition th at is known among scholars as the 'Imperial Edition'. We may
not have the name or the dat e of thi s highly hypothetical patro n of the so-called
'Imperial Edi tion';" but in our case, the Seraglio O ctateuch, there are things we
definitely kno w and others we can safely deduce. We have a monumental commis-
sion of the twelfth century that has been securely attributed to the patron age of a
Komn enian prince, and King Ptolemy stands out as an imperial Byzantine-l oo king
figur e with explicitly distin ctive features. So it may very well be th at Isaac exploited
the opportu nity provided by thi s att ested tradition," to smuggle in to the picture
and into his book yet anothe r disguised portrait; th is time of his fath er, Alexios I.
Two twelfth-century por trai ts of Alexios I appear in C trra del Vaticano, BAV,
MS gr. 666, a manuscript containi ng eleven titles from the Panoplia D ogmatica
of Euthymios Zygabenos," a polemical treatise against heresy commissioned by
oN Ibid., 14 , fig. 12.

~ Sec the discussion and note 108 below.
" M. Bernabo, 'Mecenatlsmo Impertale e traduzi one dei Serranta: Lillustrazione della Lertera di
Arlsrea a Bisanaic', .\finiatUTa 3-4 (1990-91), 11- 20; A. lacobini, 'La "Letters di Arisrea": Un pro-
logo Illustrate at ddo degli O rtareuchi Mediobizannni', A rtt .l'ftditf;alr 7 (1993), fig. 2; \ Veitzmann,
Byumtint (Xtalnuhs, I, 319.
f7 \Veitzmann, Byunlinr OetalnJdJs, I, 320.
" Ibid., 320, n. 73, where a briefdiscussion on the possible identifications of King Ptolemyin Val.
K' 747.
?'l For Alexios' portraits in codex fill . gr. 666 and its 'twin' manuscript in Moscow (Moskva, GIM,
MS Slnod.gr, 387 [Vlad. 224]), see Spatharak.is, 1hrpartrail, 122- 9, figs. 78-8 2 ; ~. Mlladlnova,'Panoplia
Dogmalill - a study 00 the antiheretical anthology of Eurhymios Zygaden os in the Post-Byzantine
IMPERIAL IMPERSONATION S 177
Figure 11.8. Citta del Vaticano, BAV, MS gr. 666 , f. 2., detail of portrait of
A1exios I Komnenos presenting the Panoplia Dogmatica to Christ (Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana)
Alexios. Isaac's father wished to be seen and remembered, among other things,
as th e defender of O rthodoxy and the protector of the Church.!OO The Panoplia
was probably commissioned in the second decade of the twelfth century,'?' The
Period ', PhD dissertation (Central Europe an University, Budapest, 20 10), 4-5 and n. 16. wherein exten-
sivebibliography.Thesis now published with the title ]h I' Panoplia Dogma/jAr by Euthymiol ZygadmoJ:A
study on rh/' jirJ/ edit ion publishd in Grul. in 1710 (Letden/ Bosron. 20 14).
100 Angold, Byzantiru Empirl', 141- 5; M agdaltno, Manul'l. 268-75; ~ t. ~l ullen. 'Introduct ion:
Alexios the e nigma', in Mullerr and Sm)'the,AIt'X'ioJ/ , 1- 12.

101 Spatharakis.1ht port rait, 127. For a later dating see M agdalino and Nelson, 'Emperor', 149- 51.
Vatican manuscript is dated on stylistic grounds to the same period and contains
two portraits of the emperor.P' On folio F, a group of nine identifiable Church
Fathers arranged in two rows hand over their consecrated writings to Alexios who
stands with his hands covered under his cloak on the recto ofthe facing folio.l o3 On
folio 2v (Figure 11.8) the emperor is represented again, as he stands in front of the
enthroned Christ tenaciously rifling through the pages of the book, almost as lf he
wished to start reading the treatise aloud in front of the divine recipient. Compared
to Ptolemy in the Seraglio Octateuch (Figure 11.6) and St Theodore Teron in the
Kosmosoteira katholikon (Figure 11.7), his portrait shares the high eyebrows, raised
cheek bones and aquiline nose as well as the sharp look particularly accentuated by
a thin black stroke outlining the exterior corner of his eye - all individual features
that add to these portraits an unmistakable breadth ofvividness and authenticity!"
In the dedicatory illustrations of the Panoplia Dogmatica, Alexios' reaffirmation
and recognition in the eyes of God derive not from the book itself but from its
content, namely his commissioning of the antiheretical compilation contained in it.
Similarly, in the Seraglio Octateuch, Isaac improvised and ingeniously elaborated
on two crucial concepts: the imperial quality of Ptolemy appropriately transferred
to Alexios the emperor, as well as Ptolemy's reputation as the initiator and patron of
a monumental project, the Greek translation of the Septuagint. Both qualities were
perfectly pertinent to Alexios' pretensions and above all to Isaac's own perception
of his father. During his entire life the sebastokrator had capitalised on his relation-
ship to Alexios as his only refuge in his struggle to excel and prevail. In the final
years of his life his need to strengthen the bond with his illustrious father surfaced
once again and this is beautifully illustrated in the Seraglio Octateuch, as well as
in his last grandeur commission on a grand scale, the Monastery of the Virgin
Kosmosoteira in Thrace.
The final years of Isaac's life were spent in the environs of his estates in Thrace.
There, deprived of hope or ambition, he surrendered to his destiny. The last cor-
nerstone of his legacy was the establishment of a private independent monastery,
the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Pherrai, where surrounded by an 'adopted family' of
protegees and the beloved memory of his parents, he supervised its construction
and composed its TJpikon. There he gave explicit instructions to the monks regard-
ing the transfer of his tomb from Chora to Pherrai and the detailed arrangement of
his burial in the narthex of the Kosmosoteira katholikon as well as his future com-
memoration by the community of.the monks. He also made explicit provisions for
the maintenance and burial of the members of his personal 'oikol, which excluded
all members of his family - his wife Eirene and their five children - except for his
parents, Alexios and Eirene.
102 Spatharakis, theportrait, 127-9.

103 Ibid., figs. 78-9.
104 For a description ofAlexios I see Comnena,Alexias, 93-4,11. 7-14; Varzos, Genealogia, I, no.15,93.
The katholikon of the Kosmosoteira Monastery stands today while its interior
decoration survives in fragments. It is considered a pioneering monument for our
understanding of the development of twelfth-century Byzantine monumental
painting. According to Doula Mouriki and her stylistic analysis, the frescoes are
contemporary with the foundation of the monastery (c. 1152).105 Isaac's unconven-
tional choices and inventive character are reaffirmed once again by the design ofthe
iconographical programme and more specificallyby the bizarre selection and place-
ment of the co-officiating hierarchs and their scrolls that have deservedly gained for
this monument its reputation as innovative and transitional.P'
Equally advanced is a series of five surviving half-length portraits of anony-
mous military saints crowned by stemmatogyria, adorning the side walls of the nave
above the hierarchs, on either side of the arched windows.Y Ihey have been cau-
tiously identified on iconographical grounds as St Prokopios, St Theodore Teron
(north wall), St Merkourios, St Theodore Stratelates and St George (in poor state
of preservation) (south wall).108 According to Titos Papamastorakis, the crowning
105 D. Mouriki,'Stylistictrends in monumentalpainting of Greeceduring the eleventhand twelfth

centuries', DOP 34-5 (1980-81),103 ff.; Sinos,Die Klosterkircbe, 207-10. For a later dating of the fres-
coes,see Y.]. Djuric, 'La peinture murale byzantine: XII' et XIII' slecles', Actes du XVe Congres inter-
national des etudes byzantines, Athenes, Septembre 1976, Rapports et Co-rapports, Ill, Art et Archtologie
(4 vols.,Athens, 1979-81), I, 25 ff., pl, 111; M. Panayotidi, 'The wall-paintings in the Church of the
Virgin Kosmosoteira at Ferai (Vira) and stylistic trends in the 12th century painting', in C. Bakirtzis
(ed.), First International Symposium 'Byzantine 'Ibrace: Image and character', Komotini, May 28th-J1th
{987, BF 14 (1989),457-84. More recentlysee also Ousterhout and Bakirtzis,Byzantinemonuments of
theEoros/Meric River Vtzlley, 48-85j N. Sevcenko, 'Revisitingthe frescoes of the church ofKosmosoteira
at Pherrai (1152)',.EvJ.lJ.lELKra: Collection ofpapers dedicated tothe40th anniversary oftheInstitutefor Art
History, Faculty ofPhilosophy, University ofBelgrade (Belgrade, 2012),85-91.
106 C. Konstantinidi, 'IIaQa'rTJQ~(1£IJ; ae naQaaraaEIJ; IEQaQXwv o-to Ka6oAuc6 'rTJ~ Mo~~
IIavaYla<; Koaflo(]W1:ElQCt~ C7'rTJv B~Qa.', in FirstInternational Symposium 'Byzantine 'Ibrace: Image
and Character', 305-28.
10' Sinos,Die Klasterkircbe, 195-6, figs. 121-4.
108 In a paper delivered in 1993 during the Annual Spring Symposium of Byzantinists in Athens,
Charalambos Bakirtzis proposed the identification of the anonymous military saints with members
of the family of Alexios I Komnenos: C. Bakirtzis, 'r.'tQa'tlW'tLKOL ayLoL ~ lToQ-rQaL'ta flEAWv 'rTJ~
OLKoyEVELa<; 'tou AAE~LoU A' KOflVllVOUj', 13" .EVJ.l7t60LO Bv'avnvlj<; KaL Meraf3v'avnvlj<;
ApxaLOAoyia<; Kat TeXVT/<;. IIp6ypaJ.lJ.la Kat IIEptAljtJ!EL<; EtOT/yIjOEWV KaL AvaKoLvwoEWV
(Athens, 1993),35; and in English, Bakirtzis, 'Warrior saints',85-7. His remarks were also published
as a short note: C. Bakirtzis, 'r.'tQa'tLUYrLKOL aYLOL ~ flEATJ 'tTJ<; OLKOYEVELa~ rou AAE~Lou A'
Kouvqvoo;', IIE'ti lCEiJ.leva J.lE r!rAo apxaLOAoytKa! J.lEAt'taL (Athens, 1993),177-86. According
to my opinion,Bakirtzis'identifications of Alexios and Isaacwith St TheodoreTeron and St Merkourios
respectively are correct.The identification of St TheodoreStratelates with John U Komnenos is uncon-
vincing. To state the obvious, it is rather unlikelyIsaacwouldhaveincludedan imageof his brother,his
majorrival, in the monument that was prearranged to receive his tomb.See alsoJohn U's description in
Varzos, Genealogia, I, no. 34,203-28, esp.204 and n. 6 (the emperorwas characterized by a distinctive
dark complexion, which is accurately reproduced in his portrait in Urb. gr. 2). See also M. Panayotidi,
'Donor personality traits in 12th century painting. Some examples', in C. Angelidi (ed.), Byzantium
matures: Choices, sensitivities, and modes ofexpression (eleventh tofifteenth centuries) (Athens,2004), 146-
51. For further discussion on the possible identity of the militarysaints,see the chapter by Ousterhout
in this volume.
180 KALLlRROE LlN/lRDOU
o f military saints with golden circlets, sttm matogyria. is a feature first enco untered in
the Ko mnenian era. 109A n explicit 'contami nation' of sacred iconography by current
secular practices, it was meant to visually underli ne visually the saints' aristoc ratic
descent and to draw a sign ificant parallel between the prowe ss of th e divine prote c-
to rs and thei r mortal patrons, the Kom neni an nobility.
The Kosmosoteira ko/ho/ikon is one of the first surviving monuments - definitely
the first in Byzantine territory - where we can attest the use of stemmatogyria
crown ing the he ads o f military saints.!" Isaac's repu tation can justifY such a choice.
H owe ver,thi s was not his o nly inte rference in the exp ositio n of th e saints' portraits.
We have already seen th at the facial featu res and the s/(m matogyrion of Ptolemyl
A1exios in th e Seraglio O ctateuch match perfectly the portrait of St Theodore Teron
in th e Kosmosoteira katho/ikon (Figure n .?). Therefore I am inclined to suggest
th at this is ano ther disguised and accord ingly adap ted image of the kmor's father
assumi ng the character and special qualities of a renown ed soldie r-sai nt, especially
popular during the Komncni an era.m
Diagonally opposite to Theodorel A1exios, on the south wall of the nave stands
another milit ary saint, tentatively identified as St M erkourios {Figu re 11.9).1Il
Usually portrayed as young, with brown curly hair and an incipient beard, his
iconog raphical features , however, remaine d flexible and adjustable.!" A native o f
Caesarea in C appadoeia, he lived and was martyred und er the emperors D ecius and
Valerian . H e allegedly maint ained a special relationship with his father who had
becom e a Christian before him. Indeed, M erkourio s' pagan name was Philoparor.!"
literally meaning someo ne who loves his own father. M ost prob ably the author of
hi s Passio imp rovised the name in order to exemplify and rein force certain qualities
of the hero's character. Such a quality, th ough, was absolutely fillin g for the pat ron
of the Kosmosoteira wh o used it mo st aptly.
Compared to Is•• c's portraits in the Chora kath o/ikon (Figu re 11.2 ) and the fron-
tispiece of the Codex Ebnerianus (Figure 11. 3), St Merkourios in the Kosmosoteira
nave loo ks aston ishingly familiar. The absence of the imp rovised stephan os is com-
pensated by the saintly aura of the nimbus and the well-made stemma togy rion of
prin ces. The oblong face and its carefully delineated delica te features framed by
brown long curly hair, an arching slim mous tache and a forked beard betray the
10' Papamastorakis, 'E v e £l\W.CTtl~O f)'1<~ll-llO· . 232.

110 I bid., 232 andn. 66-73.
11\ For St Theodore Teron see ODB, HI, 2048-9; Walter, ~ -usarriar saints in Byzanti nr art and
tradition, 44--66, with extensive bibliography. See a1so T. Papamastorakls, 'IO'tOQLn;: Kal lat OQ~at: U:;:
~u:a \'tlVWv naAAllKaQlWv', DCME 20 (1998), 213- 30. Specifically for St 'Iheodore's prominence
during the reign of Manuel I sce an epigram referring to an image where St Theodore Teron appears
offering Manuel I his sword: Lampros, ed., '0 ~faQ K l.£l \"O; K~~ lt. 524', no. 84, 43-4.
111 See M ourik i, 'Stylisitc trends, 103, fig. 45.
1Il 'Merkoun os of Caesarea' in uxilon tilTchrutliJxn 1l000ographit (Freibcr g im. Breisgau. 1976},
V1II,l()-3; \ Valter, tht warrior saints, 101-108; ODD, H, 134; .
11_ H. Delehaye, US /lgnuus gruqun titS saints militaires (Paris, 1909),91-101, Appendices lX-X,
234-58, esp. 239 and 253.
Figure 11.9. Katholikon ofthe Virgin Kosmosoteira Ph errai Thrace,

Sf Merkourios, south wall of the nave (by th e pennission of the Evros
Ephorate ofAntiquities, Creek Ministry of C ulture)
presence of the sebastokrator. Lt is often held that Isaac in his Typik on precisely pro-
hibited the Kosmo soteira monks from making any picture of him in the monastery
precincts. But th e exact phr asing of the sebastokrator states something different:
'May th ey never under any circum stan ces at any time wish to make an image of
me as th e unfortunate founder of the monastery ', 1IS meanin g that they should not
lIJ Papazoglou, Ttm occn' loaoxi ov, lines 1524-7: )...l~ tUxov nOH . .. '(~ ~ lJovil.; KtJiTC>Qtl. f.l£
1tOU T6lV t01t(,1V '[(l VuJ,::: i E.WOOVlo at; :"J. Seveeokc (tr.}, BMf1), ll, 835.
make any image of him as the ktetor of the monastery. The prohibition was there-
fore against any conventional dedicatory composition in which he would be por-
trayed as the founder. Conscious of his imminent death.!" Isaac chose to disguise
himself once again in order to assume the saintly identity of a father-loving divine
prince and to stand eternally alongside his father, the mighty emperor-soldier
AlexiosfIheodore.
Isaac the porphyrogennetos must have died shortly after the completion of his
Typikon, leaving the construction works of his ambitious establishment at Pherrai
in progress. In the final years of his life, alienated from his close relatives, he took
shelter in the company ofa group offaithful friends who followed him in his adven-
turous undertakings, and in the memory of his parents whose images he explicitly
prescribed to be relocated from Chora to the Kosmosoteira Monastery!'?
His career, as demonstrated in the written sources and exemplified in his artistic
commissions reveals a colourful personality, a true intellectual with an innovative
aesthetic mobilised to support and propagate his own personal claims. His system of
patronage drew upon a well-established and therefore recognisable pattern, which
he accordingly adjusted to his distinctive needs. In a consistent attempt to reinforce
his prerogatives, he methodically conscripted the figure of his father upon whom
he depended so heavily in order to authenticate what he thought was his right. In
this light I would endorse what has already been proposedj!" Isaac saw himself
throughout his life as a distinct alternative to his brother John II. He was the intel-
lectual's candidate as his sister Anna Comnena had been before him. Eventually, his
hopes, like hers, were never realised, yet the full appreciation and comprehension of
Isaac's legacy - something which had preoccupied him since his youth - remains a
promising field for exploration.
116 Papazoglou, TV7'rt1cOv 1aac:ndov, lines 40, 1713-5.

117 Ibid., lines 1697-8.
118 Magdalino,Manuel,194-5.
12
Coinage, numismatic circulation and monetary

policyunder]ohn 11 Komnenos (1118-1143)
Pagona Papadopoulou
When the emperor of Nicaea, John III Vatatzes (1222-54), decided sometime in
the late 1220s to resume the minting ofgold coinage that had been suspended since
1204, he selected as his prototype the hyperpyron of his namesake, the twelfth-
century emperor, John Il Komnenos (1118-43) (Figure 12.1).1 Vatatzes closely
imitated not only the iconography of the coin, but its epigraphy as well. Thus, the
porphyrogennetos epithet, to which he had no right, figures prominently on his
hyperpyra. The emperor's choice to imitate coins dating back more than a century
was most probably dictated by the prestige of the Komnenos name and the desire
to connect himself with the celebrated family, something characteristic of every
thirteenth-century Byzantine ruler.' Through imitation, John Vatatzes aimed at
creating a visual connection with the imperial past, and more particularly with
John Komnenos, whose high-standing reputation as a ruler had earned him the
nickname Kaloioannes (John the Good),"
I The great similarity between these thirteenth-century imitative hyperpyra and their twelfth-century
prototypes led numismatists to lengthy discussions regarding the correct attribution ofspecific groups of
coins. It is now generally agreed that hyperpyra of this type bearing mint marks (sigla) should be attrib-
uted to the thirteenth century, but the matter is far from a definitive solution, especially since the Latin
empire of Constantinople seems also to have minted gold hyperpyra of the same type, known as perperi
latini. See E. Lianta, 'John II Comnenus (1118-43) or John III Vatatzes (1222-54)? (Distinguishing the
hyperpyra ofJohn II from those ofJohn III)', NG 166 (2006),269-99. To date, the only secure method
of distinction is metal analysis - twelfth-century specimens contain approximately 20 lh carats of gold,
imitations only 18. DOG 4,475-7.
:l This trend, traceable already in the late twelfth century, continued throughout the period of exile
and under the first Palaiologoi. R. Macrldes, 'What's in the name "Megas Komnenos"?', APXe10v
II6V1:oV 35 (1979),243-5; R. Macrides, 'From Komnenoi to Palaiologoi: Imperial models in decline and
exile', in P. Magdalino (00.), New Constantines: The rhythm of Imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th
centuries (AldershotIBrookfield, VT, 1994), 269-82.
3 Otto of Freising calls John with his nickname (Kaloiohannes), but adds that the destruction he
caused in the area of Antioch in 1143 showed him to be extremely cruel, not good. Otto of Freising,
Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis Ghronica sioeHistoria deduabus cioitatibus, 00. A. Hofmeister, MGH SS rer
From John 11Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son. Copyright © Pagona
Papadopoulou. Published by Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN.
183
184 PAGONA PAPADOPOULOU
Figure 12.1. Hyperpyron ofJohn 11 Hyperpyron ofJohn III Vatatzes

Komnenos (1118-43), Thessalonica (1222-54), Magnesia
(second coinage)
It is perhaps because ofthis reputation th at the coinage issued byJohn Komn enos
drew no commentary from his con tempo raries."Thus, information about mon etary
developm ents during his reign relies exclusively on the coins th emselves and on
some rare literary sources, such as the Pantokrator Typ ikon.51hi s is not so unusual
when it comes to monetary developm ents and financial matters, since Byzantine
historians were generally reluctan t to comment on such issues. In some cases the
gap can be filled by a detailed study of the coinage, its prod uctio n and circulation ,
John's coinage is one of these cases. A s this chapter seeks to demonstrate, close study
of the coins issued by John reveals th e existence of specific patterns in monetary
production and circulation as well as the introduction of a new monetary policy
Germ (H armover/ Leipz ig, 1912, Editio altera), lib. VII, ch . 28, 354. In ge neral, however, historians of th e
period paint a positive image of this ruler, Varzos, Gn u a/ogi4, I, 213- 8.
4 O n the con uary, bot h his father Alextos and his son and successor Manuel had been criticised by
John Zon aras and Niketas C honia res respectively, with regard to th eir monetary practices: Alexios for
his mo netary refor m and M anuel for a debase ment. Zonaras, Epitomar , 738,11. 20-21; for a comme ntary,
M .F. H endy, DJinagt and mon,y in th, Byu Int in( , mp irt 1081-1261 (Was hingto n, D.C., 1969),48-9.
Chordates, H istorie. I, 67, 11.35-6; Comment ary in H end y, Coinag' and money, 22,1 60 and D OC 4, 283
and n. 38, 286-7.
S The Constanti nopoli tan M onastery of C hrist Pant okrator (Zeyrek Cam ii) was founded byJoh n 11
Komnenos, who signs it s Typikan dated October 1136. See th e orig inal text and a Fren ch tra nslation in
G aut ier,'Le T ypikon Pant ocraror', 1- 145; English translation by R.J ord an in BM FD, Il , 725-81. For a
comm entary on the coins me nt ioned in this Typitum, Mom sson, 'Co inage and money', 267- 8.
COINAGE, NUMISMA TIC CIRCULA TI ON AND MONETARY POLICY 185
regardin g the den ominations in precious metal." These latte r denom inations, the
gold hy/"rpyron and the electrum t rilupbalon, form the object of the present study.'
M onetary production
Three types of gold hypapyra were minted during John's reign . Th eir seque nce was
securely established by Michael H endy, wh o also asserted th at monet ary production
under the Komnenoi followed the indictional cycle.' John's reign included three
indictional cycles, and it is only natural to assume th at each of his hy/"rpyra types
correspon ded to an indi ction al cycle. This gives us the sche me of Table 12.1.'
It is evident that th e issuing period for each type d iffers significantly: only four
years for th e first type, fifteen years for th e second and six years for the third type.
On e would have normally expected a much higher production volume for the sec-
ond type with the thi rd and the first types following. This, however, presupposes a
fairly stable rhythm of production, which, as can be seen in Figure 12.5, was not
the case.'?
• The term mQru/llry poJiry is not used in its modem sense (regu lat ion of the: monetary volume with
regard to macroeconomic balances), but by taking into account the context and restr aints of a medieval
economy
7 Unlike DOe 4, the reference catalogue for the coinage of this period, I prefer to use the term
IriJ,phalon in order to describe: the lIJhypn-pyron, made of an alloyof gold and silver (electrum).l he term
is more common in contemporary documents and less ambiguous than its equivalent, the apron trachy.
which was also applied to the billon denomination, otherwise known as uamenon,
• DOe 4, 97~ H endy, CojlIdKr and mont], 107-8.
• DOC 4, 250-1. ='- Hc had Bendy considers that John's hyprTpyra were produced in two mints:
Constantinople (DOC 4,1 - 3) and Tbes salonica (DOe 4, 4-5 , 7). The hyfxrpyra attributed to "Ihessalonlca
are of the same type as the Constannnopoliran ones, but of a smaller diameter and with squat figures (see
Figure 12.1). This attribution, based mainly on the presence of such specimens in the Bulgarian hoard
of Gomoslav, concealed in 1189190, presents problems: there are several transitional f)p:s, combining
eleme nts of th e second and third coinage - a fact that does not abide with the functio n of a provincial
mint which normally receives the designs of its dies from the metropolitan minl,John Il l's hypcrpyra copy
these "Ibessalonican' hypnpyra and not th eir metropolitan equivalents as one would have expected; and,
perhaps more import antly, there is a m ule speci men at Dumbarton Oaks com bini ng the reverse ofJohn
H', "Ibessalomcan' third coinage with an obverse of M anuel I's metropolitan lint coinage (not included
in DOG 4, but mentioned in P. Gnerson, Bp ,anliN coins [Lond on/Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1982], 230).
Regard less of their att ribution and whe ther one accepts it or not, the "lhessalonican hyfmtyra share with
the metro politan ones their sequen~ and chronology, as well as a common trend regarding their production
volume .Th us, in what follows, I prefer to regard both metropolitan and 'Thessalootcan' hJ'!"1'JTa as a whole,
although I have distingu ished them in the hyprrpyra production volume gra phs (Figure s 12.5 and 12.6).
10 For the creation o f Figu re 12.5 and the following graphs, I took into account the ~a
and IT'iArphala in published hoards, as well as the specimens kept in the Dumbarton Oaks collect ion
and in the \ Vh ittemore collection (DOG 4,255-64), in the Bibliotheque Nan onale de France in Paris
(Mo msson, Ga/IlI0CU'drs monMin, lI , 692-4, 697 ), and in the Byzantine Department of the American
Numismat ic Society (http:/ / num ismatics.o rgl searchldeparunentIB yuntine, )' lA XTIS online data base,
last accessed on Nove mb er 12, 20 13).The prod uct ion balances presented in Figu res 12.5,1 2.6 and 12.10
should ideally be tested against a die -study of John's hyfxrpyrtz and 1ri1'PhaJa, a time-consuming and
difficult task given the nature of such a study and the dispers ion of the material.
T abl e 12.1. Chronology ofJohn lI's hyperpyra
Indictional cycles
11 III
1118-1122 1122-1137 1137-1143

First Co inage Second Coinage Third Coi nage
DOC 4,1 DOC4, 2 D OC4,3
Figure 12.2. Hyperpyron Figure 12.3. Hyperpyron Figure 12.4. Hyperpyron

of]ohn 11 Komnenos, ofJohn 11 Komnenos, ofJohn 11 Komnenos,
Constantinople (first Constantinople Constantinople (third
coin age) (secon d coinage) coinage)
Contrary to expectation, we observe a high production volum e for th e first, shorter

period followed by low levels of produ ction during th e second, longest period and a
slight increase duri ng th e third period ." This peculiarity becom es even more striking
when we consider th e time factor. Figure 12.6 presents th e average annual production
of each hyperpyron type , a figure obtained from th e division of the total of surviving
coins of a particular type by th e number of years for whi ch it was produced.
11 As can be observed on figures 12.5-6, both Consrantlnopolltan and "Ihessalonkan' hypn-pyra

follow the same production pattern. This fact offers another argument against the attribution of the
so-called "Ihessalonlcan' hyperpyra to the mint ofThessalonica. Although monetary production does not
depend solely on military needs, provincial mints, such as tha t of 'Ihessalonice, ten d to present increased
production rates during periods of intensive military activity in the areas that they normally supply. If
the "Ihessalonlcan' hyperpyra were indeed produced by the Mace donian mint, one would have expected
a highe r production volume d uring John's military mobilization in the Balkans, and not dur ing the third
ind iction of his reign, when John was campaig ning in the south-eastern terr itories of the empire.
COINAGE, NUMISMATIC CIRCULA TION AND MONETAR Y POLI CY 187
250
,--
200 .--- ~
r-r-r-
150
r=
100
50
0
First Second Third
coinage coinage coinage
ICJ "Thessalonica" Constantinople I
Figure 12.5. John Il's hyptrpyra production (absolute numbers)
First Second Third

ID "Thessalonica" Constantinople I
Figure 12.6.John l l's hyptrpyra production (annual average)
What are the reasons behind this phen omenon and especially behin d th e strik-
ing difference observed between the production volume of the first and the second
indictional cycles? A possible interpretation would be John's decision to replace his
188 PAGONA PAPADOPOULO U
father's coins quickly in order to affirm his right to the throne - a right that had
been questioned by other members of his family." A necessary step in th is process
would have been the systematic withdrawal and melting down of Alexios' hyperpyra.
The numi smatic evide nce, howev er, contradicts thi s assumpti on , since Ale xio s'gold
co ins are still present in later hoards.'!
Response to special military needs and expend iture is another possible expla-
nation, since, as has been observed, John's reign was one perpetual campaign."
Thus, the issuing period of the first type coincides with John's first campaign in the
Maeander Valley (1119- 20) and the defence of the Danube frontier against the
Pechenegs, who had reached as far south as Beroia/Stara Zagora (1122).Two hyper-
pyra hoards can be probably associated with this latt er campaign. Both were found
in present- day Bulgaria, in G oc e Delcev and the Stara Zagora area respectively. IS
The second indictional cycle of John's reign, when the second type of his hyperpyra
was produced, witnessed the conflict on the Byzantine-Hungarian frontier (1127-9)
and John's campaigns against the Danishmendids (1130-6). These events seem to
have caused the concealment oftwo hoards closing with his second issue of hyperpyra.
The first of these is the Safranbolu hoard found near Kastamonu, which is con-
nected with John's military operations on the Paphlagonian fronti er;" the seco nd is
the Bulgarian hoard from Suedin cnie , which can be connect ed with the pene tration
of Hu ngarian troops into imperial territ ories as far south as PhilippopolisIPlovdiv
(1129)." As for the third period, with the exceptio n of the emperor's campaigns
in northern Anatolia (1139-40) and Cappadocia (1136-9, 1142), the main area of
military activity extended from the Ma eander valley to Antioch. No hoard of gold
coins has been recovered f rom this period and area.
11 The power strugg le between John on the one hand and his sister Ann.. Co rnnena, their mother
Eirene and Anna's husband Nikephoros Bryenn ios on the otherhandis described in Chontares, HiJtqria,
1,4-12. Sec Stankov k's chapter in the present volume.
\) Such as the Go rnoslav (Hendy, (;qinagt and M()nty. 3-43-4) and the Tvurdica/1967 hoards
(I. j ordanov, 'The ~rpyra of Tsar Kaloyan (1198- 1207)?', ArdJa~% gia Bulgari(tJ 10 [2006],53-99)
from Bulgaria and the Mehvoia hoard from Greece (V. Penna and LP.Touratsoglou, '0 · OTlcra l'Q6.;-
naALOOwA&yov MEAtfloia <l1988. l:v~ jloA~ uTI] ~ ,Ai,~ TI]'; <vKAa<j>oQia.; XQvuWv
lJ11cQTtl'Q(..rv 'tT'J<; bvva(T([w' O:: ''{(...rv Kouvqvorv orov EAAabl1(6X~'QO', in L. Kypraiou (ed.I, Coim in
tIN 1JNli4/ian RLgion. M ints, tirad4 tion, itr;nography, histury, A ncient , B)'ZIlnti ru, MoJl771. Prom Jings oftht
'Ibird Stimtift Mu ti ng (Athens, 2004), 365- 77). Zonaras claims that there was not much to be found
in the treasury at the time of Alexios' death (Ep itoma~, 765, 1. 15), but this must be regarded as part of
Zo naras' criticism of Alexios' policies. C f M agdalino, 'Byzantin e Kaiserk.ritik', 326-46 and especially
329-33 ,335-8 . John's early production must have relied heavily on Alexios' unctrculared coinage and
bullion reserves kept at the tre:iSury. Sec D OC 4, 253.
I . O nJohn's military activities: Birkenmeier, Komnm ian anny 1081- 1180, 89-99; Angold, B)'ZIlntint
Empirt , 184-9.
I~ Goce Dekev: D.:-'1. M etcalf Coinag~ in th~ Ball.tJnJ, 820-1355 (Thessalonlkl, 1965), 93-4 . Stara
Zago ra area: I. j ordan ov, MOHemu u .\ IOl1entHO 06pb~l1ue 6 cptcJH.06t'"K06I1Q O'b.W p U.lI 1081- 1261
(Sofia, 1984),211 , no. 172. Both these hoards art now lost and their exact composition is unknown.
According to the available information, howe ver, they closed withJohn's first typeof hY/'"PY"a.
16 M .F. Hendy,'Seventeen twelfth - andthirteenth-century Byzantine hoards', CH 6 (1981), 69-70,
no. 232; D Oe 4, 253.

17 Hendy Gmnagt and monq, 38~7 .
COINAGE. N UM ISMA TI C CIRCULATlQN AND.\lONETARY POLICY 189
In each of these cases, the concealment date of the hoard, indicated by the latest
issue included , coincides perfectly with the military events that could have been the
reason for hiding it. This proves beyond doubt th at the proposed order of issue for
John's hyperpyra types is correct. H owever, it does not offer an explanation for the
differences in the production volum e of the three indicti onal cycles.
The production patte rn of electrum Irikephala during the reign ofJohn 11 present s
similarities with that of his hyperpyra. The lrikephala can also be classified in thre e
rypes, each ofwhich was minted during one of the three indictional cycles of John's
reign {Table 12.2)."
Table 12.2. Chronology ofJohn l l's trikepbala
Indictional cycles
11 III
1118-1122 1122-113 7 113 7-1143
First Coin age Seco nd C oinage Third Coinage

DOC 4, 8e DOC 4, 8a- b D OC4, 8e-d
Figure 12.7. Figure 12.8. Figure 12.9.

Trikephalon of Trikepbalon of Trikrpbalon of
John 11 Komnenos, John 11 Komnenos, John 11 Komnenos,
Constantinople (first Constantinople Constantinopl e (th ird
coinage) (second coinage) coinage)
1" ~ly classificatio n differs from thatof Doe 4. Severalreasons, amongwhich the stylistic similarity
of rype DO C 4, ~ with ry~ D Oe 4, 8a-b, and its inclusion in the Adana hoard. lead me to transfer this
issue from me mint of 'Ih essalonlca to that of Constantinople. For a more detailed argumentation on
30,
25
20
15
10
0
First Second Third
Figure 12.10.JohnI1's trikepha/a production (annual average)
As far as their production volume is concerned, however, the trikephala present a

different pattern from the hyperpyra: low levels ofproduction during the first period,
and a sharp increase during the last period (Figure 12.10).
A comparison of the production patterns of gold and electrum coins during
John's reign indicates that the two precious metal denominations tend to comple-
ment one another, despite a general decrease in the mint's output in precious metal
coinage during the second indiction of the reign (Figure 12.11). At the same time, a
shift in the balance ofproduction from gold to electrum is evident. Michael Hendy
noted a steady increase in the production volume ofthe trikephala during the reigns
of the first three Komnenoi." The present analysis demonstrates that the mechan-
isms that provoked this change of balance were set in motion under John, whose
reign marks a turning point within this general trend.
Within the framework of the mint's organisational programme, it would not be
an exaggeration to interpret the shift from gold to electrum as a deliberate decision
on the part ofthe mint and!or the central administration. The stady of numismatic
circulation during John's reign and beyond offers some indication regarding the
reasons that caused this shift.
the classification of John's trillephala, see P. Papadopoulou, 'De l'unite a l'eclatement: la monnaieet son
usagedans le monde byzantin (1092-1261)', PhD disseration (3 vols.,Universite de ParisI - Pantheon-
Sorbonne,Paris,2007), I, 155-8.
19 DOC4,251-4.
COINAGE, NUMISMATIC CIRCULATIONAND MONETARY POLICY 191
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
1118-1122 1122-1137 1137-1143
I0 Trikephala _ Hyperpyra I
Figure 12.11. John Il's hyperpyra and trikephala production in comparison
(annual average)
Numismatic circulation
The study of twelfth-century coin hoards including precious metal coins (hyperpyra
and trikephala) allows us to distinguish three circulation zones (see Figure 12.12).20
1 The Greek mainland is characterised by the prevalence of hyperpyra.21 Although

gold hoards are quite numerous in this area, there is only one hoard containing
trikephala (Magoula, Ithome Trikala/1900).22 Isolated finds offer a similar picture:
20 Theexistence of special circulation zonesfor specific denominations has long been observed in the
caseof the lowervaluedenominations of the Komnenian system. Whereas the stamenaare abundant in
Asia Minor,they are practically absent from the Greek mainland.Vice-versa, the tetartera and the half-
tetartera prevail in the Greek mainland,but are almostnon-existentin Asia Minor.The Balkans present
a mixedcirculation pattern. P.Papadopoulou, 'The big problem of smallchange in the Byzantineworld
(twelfth-thirteenth centuries)', in Odekan, Akyiirek and Neclpoglu (eds.), First International Sevgi
GonulSymposium, 206-10, with the bibliography.
21 Twelfth-century hyperpyra and trikephala hoards, aswellassingle finds belonging to thesedenomina-
tions are illustrated in Figure 12.12. To these shouldbe added sixmore hoards whoseexact provenance is
unknown; theseare listedin the appendix at the end of this chapter. Due to the abundance of publications
of numismatic finds and their dispersion, it is possible that the data on the map and the appendix are not
exhaustive. Nevertheless, anddespite possible omissions, theyrepresent the greatest part ofpublished material
and can thusoffera solidbasis from whichto drawconclusions on monetary circulation duringthis period.
22 I.P. Touratsoglou and Y. Nikolaou (eds.), LvvmY/la pvCavtLvciJv "BT]l1avpciJv" TOU
NO/l!I1/la'wcov MOVI1Eiov (Athens,2002),101-2, no. 88.Another hoard (Hendy,'Seventeenhoards',
79-80, no.240) contained trikephala ofIsaac II Angelos (1185-95).It was reported to havebeen found
in Thessalonica, but its provenance is not certain. Finally; a single trikephalon was included in the
Naxos/1967 hoard.Touratsoglou and Nikolaou,LvvTaypa, 98, no. 85.The Greek islands, however, do
not seemto share the same circulation pattern as mainlandGreece.
Black Sea
c
-"PI
t;
• ~~ . -.,;,
;>
e:
" A,
-, 'iJ; _
..... j •
"·"t" ?" . ....1' "
,"':"';A"';~ ..,..
.'" ' c- , "O!-.
" -c-
"
" . ..
",
••
,
V,1\
2SOO m
2000 m
j <, /
lSOOm
1000 m
SOO m
200 m
lOOm
Om
b.
•
D
o Hoards
Single finds
Hyperpyra
Trikephala
M ixed
'ti';
.' Mediroran ean Sea

••••!::~
O· - .I) 'I· $
~ ""
I'.Pa~f.T.._ deL 2015
Figure 12.12. Twelfth-century hoards and single finds (hyperpyra and trikephala)
COINAGE, NUMISMA TIC CIRCULA TION AND M ONETARY POLICY 193
nine hyperpyra have been registered as single finds from Gree k territories, but not
a single trikepha/on.
2 The northern Balkans present a mixed circulation pattern in as much as both
hyperpyra and trikephala are present. Although the former prevail, the quantities
of the larter are not negligible. We know that coin supply during the twelfth
century was closely linked to military activities undertaken in the area. The evi-
dence of Niketas Choniates with regard to the provisions in coinage carried
by the Byzantine army on campaign is revealing. The historian informs us that
in his last Bulgarian campaign of 1195, Isaac 11 Angelos carried with him ten
kentenaria of hyperpyra (i.e. 72,000 gold coins) and more th an sixty kentenaria of
trikephala (i.e. 432,000 electrum coins)." We can assume th at th e supplies car-
ried on previou s campaigns we re o f a similar, mixed co mposi tio n, a fact that may
explain the presence of both denominations in this part of the empire."
3 Asia Min or and the island s of Cypru s, Crete and Rhodes are characterised by the
preponderance of trikepha/a, both in hoards and as single finds.This is in marked
contrast to the pattern observed on the G reek mainland . The presence of hyper-
pyra in these areas is extremely limited. As far as hoards are concerned, with the
exception of Safranbolu already menti oned, one hoard, found in M akrelFethiye
in western A sia M inor, was comp osed enti rely of hyperpyra from the reign of
Alexios I, and another, from Iznik, was composed of three hyperpyra and one
trikepha/on of Andronikos I (1183-5). Another hoard, found in Cypru s (Paphos
area/ 1939) was reported to have included hyperpyra of Alexios I and John 11.
However, this hoard was immediately dispersed, andits exact composition remains
unknown. Finally, a gold hyperpyron of M anuel I Komn enos was included in
the Rhodes/ 1998 hoard, which was otherwise composed ofAlm ohad dinars and
dob/as. This was clearly a traveller's hoard and does not reflect the island's nor-
mal mone tary circulation." A s far as single finds are concerned, five hyperpyra
of John 11 and one of Isaac 11 have been recorded in Crete, while a hyperpyron of
John is included in the Ama sya Museum collection. In both cases the exact prov-
enance of the go ld co ins remai ns unknown , but one can assume that they were
found locally, although it is noteworthy that by the reign of John Il, Amaseia
had already been und er Danishmendid rule for several decades.These specimens
are, to the best of my knowledge, the only twelfth-cen tury hyperpyra found in
this area. On the contrary, several trikepha/a are recorded as single finds - both
in museum collections and from archaeological excavations. The same picture is
offered by the unpubli shed numismatic holdings exhibited in Turkish museums.
11 Choniares, Historie, 1, 447, 11. 77-78.

24 The Hook cfCeremonia offers evidence of the earlier use of both gold and silvercoinsduring mili-
tar}' campaigns. Porphyr ogenneros, Dr cerimoniis. I, 471, 473.
IS Makre/Ferhlye: Hendy,'Seventeen hoards', 67-8, no. 231; Iznik: r. Planet,'La circulation mone-
taire, etude des mon naies byzannnes du ~ f ustc d'lmik', in B. GC')~r and J. Lefort (eds.) , La Hithy ni,
au Maym Agt (Paris, 2003), 504, n. 13; Paph cs ueal19J9: J.R. Stewart, LWigM n C)'p rw a nd its roiTlilgt
(2 vols., Xicosia, 2002), 11 . 29; Rhodes/1998: P. Papadopoulou, ·XQlCTt lLl. \, O( KLl.l MOll(1ouA~£i\'Ol CTTll
MWOyHO: IJ£ a.4>oQ1J'i to Eh,am.'Q6 P6bo:;I199S', in P. Tselekas (ed.), Coins in tbe Atg tan Islands.
M ints, circulation, i4'onography, history. Promdings oftbeFifth Scim tijic Al ating, Mytilmt, 16-1 9 Stp ttmbtT
2006 (2 vols., Athens. 2010), 11, 176, 179-85 .
194 PAGONAPAPADOPOULOU
The literary evidence offers further confirmation of this particular circulation

pattern. Although twelfth-century documents usually express sums of money in
hyperpyra,26 there is a complete absence of this denomination in the surviving docu-
ments from or referring to the islands included in the third circulation zone. 27The
only exception is a tax exemption of twelve hyperpyra granted to the Monastery of
Machairas in Cyprus by Isaac II Angeles." Given the fact that it is an exemption,
and not a real transaction, dating from a period when Cyprus was no longer under
Byzantine rule, it does not change the picture.
26 Other denominations,including the trikephala, are also mentioned, usuallyin order to express
smaller amounts of money. These references are to be found mainly in typika, narrative and literary
sources. It is noteworthy that, with the exception of a chrysobull issued in July 1104 by Alexios I
Komnenosin favourof the Monastery of Lavra on Mount Athos (;lctes deLaora1. Des origines a1204,
ed.P.Lemerle, A. Guillou,N. Svoronos and D. Papachryssanthou [Paris,1970],no.56, 295,1.104) there
is no mention of trikephala in any document regardingthe Greek mainlandbefore 1204.On coin terms
in the twelfth-centurywritten sources, see Hendy, Coinage andmoney, 26-38; DOC 4,55-58.
27 The relevantdocuments mentioning trikephala are the following: Cyprus:colophon in a Cypriot
manuscript(Paris,BNF,MS gr.625) dated in March 1136:V.Laurent,'Les monnaiestricephales deJean
Il Comnene. Note de numismatiquebyzantine et d'histoire chypriote',RN 13 (1951),97-8; Venetian
document recordinga paymentmadein Paphos:Documenti delcommercio oeneziano ne;secaliXI-XIII, ed.
R. Morozzo de11a Roccaand A. Lombardo (2 vols.,Turin, 1940),I, no. 82, 85-6; the registerof the pos-
sessions of the Monastery ofTheotokos of Krinia (Kriniotissa) near Lapethos (Citta del Vaticano, BAV,
MS Barb.gr.528),which mentions that the land tax of the monasterywas paid in argyria (= trikephala):
J. Darrouzes, 'Notes pour servir a l'histoire de Chypre (quatrierne article)', Kimpuxxai I:1lov6a! 23
(1959) (reprinted in J. Darrouzes, Litterature et bistoire des textes byzantins [London, 1972], no. XVII),
47-9; Venetian documentof 1201,copyingparts of three previous documents,amongwhich one of1173
mentioning bifancios stavaratos (= trik.ephala): Morozzo della Rocca and Lombardo, Documenti, I, no.
455,445; the Typikon of the Monastery of Machairas (c. 1210),to which Manuell Komnenosgranted an
annual subsidyof fifty trikephala: KV1lpLaICa TV1lLlCa, ed. LP.Tsiknopoullos (Nicosia,1969),12,11. 1-2
and English translation by A. Bandy in BMFD, HI, 1128.Crete: A seriesof documents referringto the
rights of the PatrnosMonastery on the akrostichon of Crete (documentsthat do not survive, but whose
existence can be inferred by other documents are omitted): Chrysobull ofJohn Il (1119): Bv'avnva
eyypaepa, ed. Vranousi, I, no. 8, 81-3; two episodes in the testament of the abbot of the Monastery
of PatmosTheoktistos,referring to the aforementionedprivileges: Miklosich and Miiller,Acta,VI, no.
XXVII (1157), 107; an episode in the vita of Leontios, abbot of the Monastery of Patmos and later
patriarch ofJerusalem,referringto these same privileges: The lift of'Leontias, patriarch ofJerusalem, ed. D.
Tsougarakis (LeidenlNewYork/Cologne, 1993),102,11. 13-14; Prostaxis ofManuell (1176)referringto
these privileges and taxexemptions: Bv~avnva eyypaepa, ed.Vranousi, I, no.22,219-21; Graphe of the
megas logariastes John Belissariotes (1197)on these privileges and additionaltax exemptions: Bv~aV'nva
eyypatf>a TTjC; llovTjc; IIaTllov, Vo1. 2: L11JlloCJ!UJV AeLTOVpydJV, ed. M. Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou
(Athens,1980),no.57, 110-1; Lysis of Alexios III Angeles (1195-1203) mentioning an exemptionfrom
the demosiakon telos of forty-eight trikephala: Bv~a:vnva eyypaepa, ed. Vranousi, I, no. 21,208-11;
Venetian document referring to the annual taxation paid by the archbishop of Crete to the Byzantine
emperor before the Latin conquest of the island: Catasticum ealesiarum et monasteriorum, Venezia,
BibliotecaMarciana, MS lat, cl. IX, no. 179, f. 21', cited in S. Borsari, II dominio veneziano a Creta nel
XIII secolo (Naples, 1963),114,n. 30. No relevantliteraryevidenceon Rhodes survives from this period.
28 KV1lp/alCa, ed. Tsiknopoullos, 16, 11. 24-5. In the English translation, the phrase 'eICIC01lt)v
vOIl/CJllaTUJv {mep1lvpUJV 6ciJ6elCa', clearlyreferring to a tax exemptionof twelvehyperpyra, is errone-
ouslytranslated as'the minting of twelve hyperpyra nomismata'.BMFD, lll, 1131.
COINAGE, NUMISMATIC CIRCULATIONAND MONETARY POUCY 195
Unfortunately, the surviving documentation from Asia Minor for this period
is very limited, both in number and geographical range. Only three documents
from the cartulary of Lembos are dated to the twelfth century;" eight are included
in the archive of the Monastery of St Paul in Latrosj'? and one in what survives
from the cartulary of Hiera-Xerochorafion." The evidence of these documents is
less straightforward, since they mention both hyperpyra and trikephala. One among
them also includes the unique-and obscure-term hyperpyra trikephala. Based on
this, one could claim that western Asia Minor was also characterized by a mixed
circulation of both gold and electrum coins. Although this cannot be excluded, it
is contradicted by the numismatic record, from which the hyperpyra are completely
absent.P The discrepancy between the written record, which in several cases is
problematic.P and the archaeological data, leaves us without an unequivocal answer.
However, when we consider that there was a general tendency to hoard gold coins
rather than other denominations, then we can regard the picture offered by the
29 Miklosich and Miiller, Acta, IV, no. LVI (1181), 122-3: hyperpyra; no. C[X]VII (1192),201-3:
no mention of coins; no. CV (1194), 184-5: nomismata (without specification) and trikephala. In this
latter document, the edition by Miklosich and Muller leaves a lacuna in the second line before the end,
since the editors could not recognize the abbreviation r KA' used for the trikephala. Franz Dolger was the
first to point to this error and to correct some of the documents, but not the one in question. F. Dolger,
'Chronologisches und Prosopographisches zur byzantinischen Geschichte des 13. Jahrhunderts', BZ 27
(1927),296-7, n, 4. I am grateful to Alexander Beihammer for allowing me to consult the photographs
of the Lembos cartulary.
30 Miklosich and Miiller, Acta, IV, no. XVI (1128 or 1143),329: no mention of coins; no. XI (1175),
317-8: two hyperpyra and one nomisma without further specification; no. XII (1189), 319-20: two
trikephala and one hyperpyron. This last document reproduces almost verbatim lines 33-43 of the pre-
vious one (1175), which mentions the monastery's tax exemptions and obligations towards the fisc.
Among other minor changes, the two hyperpyra of the previous document become trikephala, whereas
the unspecified nomisma becomes a hyperpyron. The change is difficult to interpret, since it represents a
significant reduction in fiscal revenues (the hyperpyron - trikephalon rate in 1189 is 1:4). Miklosich and
Milller, Acta,IV, no. XIV (between 1189 and 1195),323-7: some hyperpyra, mentioned in a document
of 1127 copied in this later document; no. XIII (1195),320-22: thirty hyperpyra trikephala; no. VII
(1196),305-7: no mention of coins; no. XVIi (shortly before 1204) and XV/2 (1204),327-9: no men-
tion of coins. For the dates and the content of the aforementioned documents of the Latros Monastery
I used the new edition in preparation by Otto Kresten, while keeping the references to the edition by
Miklosich and Miiller. I would like to thank Alexander Beihammer for providing me with a copy of this
long awaited edition.
31 N. Wilson and J. Darrouzes, 'Restes du cartulaire de Hiera-Xerochorafion', REB 26 (1968), no. 9
(1167), 21-6. The document mentions coins, but since itrefers to Constantinople, it will not be discussed
here. To these Byzantine documents should also be added three Venetian documents (one colleganza and
two maritime loans) referring to voyages to Smyrna: Morozzo della Rocea and Lombardo, Documenti, I,
no. 122 (1156), 122: hyperpyra; no. 127 (1157), 127-8: hyperpyra; no. 128 (1157), 128: stauro manuellati
(.. trikephala).
32 On the hyperpyra hoard from MakrelFethiye, see below 197.
33 I am referring to the change from hyperpyra to trikephala in the documents of 1175 and 1189, as
well as to the term hyperpyra trikephala. See note 30 above.
196 PAGONAPAPADOPOULOU
numismatic finds from Asia Minor not as the result of coincidence, but as repre-
sentative of the actual sltuation."
A final point to support this view comes from the coinages issued by two twelfth-
century usurpers and by the successor states based in this area after 1204. Both Isaac
Komnenos (1185-91) in Cyprus and 'Iheodore Mangaphas (c.1188-9; c.1204-6)
in Philadelphia avoided minting in gold, although, at least in the case ofIsaac, his
imperial aspirations are well known/" Isaac Komnenos issued trikephala, stamena,
and tetartera, while Mangaphas minted only trikephala and stamena. In both cases
the denominations correspond to the denominations in circulation in their territo-
ries before their ueurpation/" It is certainly for the same reason that the Lusignan
kings of Cyprus, who ruled the island from 1192 onwards, decided to introduce the
white bezant as the precious metal denomination of their monetary system, a coin
based on the prototype of the Byzantine trikephalon. 37 In my view, this is also how
we should interpret the fact that both the empire of Nicaea - at least during the
first decades of its existence - and the empire ofTrebizond minted trikephala but
not hyperpyra.38
If we accept that the south-eastern territories of the empire were character-
ized by the exclusive circulation of trikephala, how can we interpret the presence
34 A similar discrepancy has been observed also in thirteenth-century Epiros. In that case, the
important presence of trikephala in the written sources and their absence from the archaeological record,
has been attributed to the low hoarding of this denomination compared to gold. A.E. Laiou, 'Use and
circulation of coins in the Despotate of Epiros', DOP 55 (2001),208-11.
35 As an imperial prerogative, the minting of coinage, and especially ofgold coinage, was an impor-
tant step in the process of usurpation. V. Penna and C. Morrisson, 'Usurpers and rebels in Byzantium:
Image and message through coins', in D. Angelov and M. Saxby (eds.), Power and Subversion in
Byzantium.Papersfrom theForty-thirdSpringSymposium oJByzantineStudies, UniversitYoJBirmingham,
March 2010 (FarnhamlBurlington, 2013), 21-42. On Isaac Komnenos, Theodore Mangaphas and their
coinages, see DOG 4,354-64 and 392-6 respectively (with the bibliography).
36 On the absence of tetartera from Asia Minor, see note 20 above.
37 P. Papadopoulou, 'Betwixt Greeks, Saracens and Crusaders: Lusignan Coinage and its Place in
the Eastern Mediterranean (1192-1324)', in G. Grivaud (ed.), France de Ghypre, 1192-1474 (= Gahiers
du Centre des EtudesGhypriotes 43 [2013]),476-79 with the bibliography.
38 Theodore Laskaris, first emperor of Nicaea, only minted trikephala and stamena, in accordance
with the circulation pattern prevai1ingin Asia Minor during the twelfth century. The denominational
range was completed with the issue by John III Vatatzes of hyperpyra and tetartera, but only after the
expansion of the empire's territories towards the north and the west. DOG 4, 474-5, 481, 580. The
prevalence of the trikephala in the territories of the empire until the mid-1230s is also reflected in the
literary evidence. It is impossible to cite here all the relevant documents, but the reader should bear in
mind that the edition of the Lembos cartulary by Miklosich and Muller, which forms our main source
ofinforrnation on the matter, fails to mention the abbreviated trikephala. See note 29 above. No relevant
literary evidence is available for the early decades of the empire ofTrebizond. Recently Simon Bendall
was able to attribute to Andronikos I Giddon (1222-35) an anonymous type of trikephala, the first one
to have been minted by the empire. S. Bendall, ~ early coinage of the "empire" ofTrebizond?', NGirc
110 (2002),113-5; S. Bendall, 'A further note on a possible early coinage of the Empire ofTrebizond',
NGirc 114 (2006),208-10. The empire ofTrebizond never issued gold coins. Under Manuel I Grand
Komnenos (1238-63) it passed from the trik.ephala to the silver aspra. M. Kursanskls,'The coinage ofthe
Grand Komnenos Manuell',Apxelov n6vorov 35 (1979),23-37.
COINAGE, NUMISMATIC CIRCULATION AND MONETARY POliCY 197
of gold hyperpyra in the hoards of MakreIFethiye, Iznik/1975, Safranbolu and

Paphos area/1939, and as single finds in Crete? We could, of course, consider them
as exceptions that confirm the rule, but I would rather interpret them as chrono-
logical indicators of the date at which this particular circulation pattern came to
be applied. With the exception of the Iznik hoard, the recorded finds do not go
beyond the reign ofJohn II Komnenos.This allows us to assume that the shift to the
exclusive circulation of trikephala in this area was implemented during his reign."
Unfortunately, due to the lack ofprecise evidence on the Paphos area hoard and the
Cretan single finds, the numismatic evidence cannot provide a safe terminus post
quem for this development, but some thoughts and suggestions on the matter will be
presented below. As far as the Iznik/1975 hoard is concerned, its small size and the
proximity of Nicaea to Constantinople and Thrace, where hyperpyra are known to
have been in circulation, can help us explain their presence in this area at a later date.
Monetary policy
The next question to arise is whether the implementation of this circulation pat-
tern had an official character. Can it be attributed directly to John II and his megas
logariastes John ofPoutza? The latter is known to have been responsible for another
innovative policy in John's reign, namely the diversion of money levied for the navy
to the treasury so as to cover miscellaneous expenses." Although not without some
reservations, I would answer this question in the affirmative.
There are several indications that the state was not only aware of this peculiar-
ity,but was also responsible for it. The production and circulation of precious metal
coins had always been of great concern for the Byzantine state, which tried to con-
trol it in the most efficient way possible. This control was mainly effected through
the state monopoly on minting and through taxation. Although the Byzantine state
normally calculated and collected land taxes, as well as other levies,in gold, the doc-
uments regarding the akrostichon and the Church of Crete, as well as the register of
the Kriniotissa in Cyprus demonstrate that taxation in these islands was calculated
and most probably collected in trikephala. 41 This is a clear indication that the state
was not only aware of their preponderance in these areas, but probably directed it.
39 The same conclusion can be drawn from the precious metal coins exhibited in the Trabzon
Archaeological Museum, which include hyperpyra of Alexios I and John II, but not of later twelfth-
century emperors. I am grateful to Allyson McDavid for providing me with photographs of the
Museum's numismatic showcase.The Aydm Museum coin collection contains no twelfth-century hyper-
pyra, only two trikephala ofManuel I. No twelfth-century precious metal coins are exhibited in the Izmir
Archaeological Museum.
40 On John ofPoutza, megas logariastes under John II and ManuelI, see Choniates, Historia, I, 54-8;
R. Guilland, 'Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'empire byzantin. Le logariaste, 6 AoyaQlCt(]'t1'J~; le

grand logariaste, 6 ~eya~ AoyaQlCta't1'J~',]6B 18 (1969) (reprinted in R. Guilland, Titres etfonctions de
l'Empire byzantin [London, 1976], no. XXI), 111; H. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la Mer. La marine deguerre.
lapolitique et les institutions maritima de Byzance awe VIP-XV siecle: (Paris, 1966), 230-3; Magdalino,
Manuel, 254; DOC 4,50, 110,245-6.
41 See note 27 above.
,The implementation of this circulation pattern was particularly successful,since

only a few exceptions can be dated after John's reign: the mixed hoard from Iznik,
a hyperpyron of Isaac II in Crete, a gold coin of Manuel Komnenos in the Rhodes
traveller's hoard and the references in the Lembos and Latros documents.P This
successshould not be taken for granted given that money circulates freely and obeys
the rules of the market. Moreover, in the case of the trikephala, the well-known and
understandable preference of the Byzantines for gold coins, as well as a general
mistrust of electrum coins, also had to be overcome." These considerations, along
with the evidence regarding the constant and calculated augmentation in the pro-
duction of electrum trikephala during the reign ofJohn II and beyond, allow us to
consider this particularity in the circulation of precious metal coins as part of the
state's monetary policy.
Before concluding, another two interrelated questions should be addressed: when

and why was this new circulation pattern implemented? The available evidence
does not offer concrete answers, but there are some indications. Following in the
footsteps of his father,John made advances in restoring regular administration in
Anatolia. The reconquest of the Asia Minor littoral and the establishment of a
more or less stable frontier between Byzantium and the Seljuk sultanate allowed
him to begin the restoration of a thematic structure, a process that would be
completed by his son, Manuel. The Thrakesion theme was created shortly after
1133 and the theme of Mylasa shortly before 1143. Here John appointed a doux
and anagrapheus, that is, an official combining both military and administrative,
including financial, functions." It is tempting to see a connection between this
administrative change in Anatolia and the circulation pattern described above.
During that same period, that is, in the mid-1130s, John developed a stronger
interest in the south-eastern parts of the empire, along with Cilicia and the
Antioch region. It was precisely at this time that the production of trikephala
started to increase. These more or less parallel developments point to a date in
the 1130s for the implementation of the exclusive circulation of trikephala in the
south-eastern territories of the empire. They further suggest a connection between
42 It is perhaps Significant that among the latter, the problematic ones are those regarding taxation.
See note 30 above.
4J Zonaras, in describing the denominations of Alexios' monetary reform, identifies the trikephala as
gold coins (xpva!vClJV), that are, however, only half gold (~ptxpva(j)v). Zonaras, Epitomae, XVIII, 738,
n. 20-21. On this passage, see also note 4 above. Mistrust provoked by the fact that the trikephalon was
made of an alloy,is later expressed also by Arnold of Liibeck, who considers it as 'de viliori nummismate,
qui nee totus sit aureus, nee totus cupreus, sed quasi de confusa et viii constat materia'. Arnold ofLiibeck,
n.
Chronica Slaoorum, 136, 18-20.
014 H. Ahrweiler, 'L'hlstoire et la geographie de la region de Smyrne entre les deux occupations
turques (1081-1317), particullerement au XIII' siecle', TM 1 (1965),124-9. Recently Ahrweiler's dates

for the creation of these themes have been contested and transferred earlier, to between 1110 and 1128.
E. Ragia, 'H avabloQYavWOTJ 'twv 6ella'twv C7'tTJ MucQa Aula 'to bwbtKa'to alliNa Kal 'to 6ella
MuMuUT)l; Kal MeAavou/)(ou', BvCavnva :EvppEt!CTa 17 (2005),230.
COINAGE, NUMISMATIC CIRCULATIONAND MONETARY POliCY 199
this phenomenon and the administrative, fiscal and military developments that
took place there during this decade. Unfortunately, however, they do not offer an
explanation for the adoption of this circulation pattern.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although no trace survives in primary sources, John Komnenos,
probably along with his megas logariastes John of Poutza, conceived and put into
effect an innovative monetary policy regarding the south-eastern parts of the
empire (Asia Minor, Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus). The implementation of a specific cir-
culation pattern in this area, namely the exclusivecirculation ofelectrum trikephala,
was well organized as far as production and distribution were concerned, since it
involved changes in the production volume of precious metal denominations and
changes to the system for tax collection in these areas - the latter probably as part
of a broader administrative reform that was taking place in this part of the empire
at the time. The whole operation can be dated to the last decade of the reign of
John Il, Although the reasons that led to this policy remain unknown, it is certain
that it was a successful one. The same circulation pattern would be followed by
John's successors until 1204, while it also determined to a great extent the precious
metal production of the Byzantine successor states during the first decades of the
thirteenth century.
Appendix
Hyperpyra hoards
Unknown provenance! before 1990 (Greece)
Penna and Touratsoglou, '''E>Tju£wQ6C;'' IIaih08eoA6you M€i\L~olac;l1988',371. Possibly
part of the Melivoia hoard.
Trikephala hoards
Asia Minor! before 1977 (Turkey)
M.D. O'Hara, 'A hoard of Electrum Trachea of Alexius III', Ne 17 (1977),186-8.
N. Kapamadji collection (Asia Minor)/ before 1972 (Turkey)

N. Kapamadji and C. Morrisson, 'Trachea d'electrum legers de Jean II et Manuel let
Comnene', Bulletin de la Societe'francaise de Numismatique 27 (1972),163-6.
Asia Minor! before 1971 (Turkey)

Touratsoglou and Nikolaou, L.vvraypa, 126, no. 122; LP. Touratsoglou, "HA€K'tQa
TQaxea 'tT]C; Kouvnveuxc KaL f.l€'ta-K0f.lvrlv€taC; n€QL6bou (1092-1261): Tj
f.laQWQla'twv 8TjuauQwv KaL f.l€QLKec; naQa'tT]Qrlu€te;', in E.G. Papaeuthymiou and
LP. Touratsoglou (eds.), OAoK6nvov. Studies in Byzantine Numismatics andsigil/ography
in memory ofPetros Protonotarios (Athens, 2013), 94.
Possibly part of the same hoard as as the previous parcel.
Unknown provenance (Turkey)

Apxawi\oyL1(Ov LleA'l'Lov 56-59 (2001-2004), Bl, 90; Touratsoglou, "HAeK'tQCt TqaXta', 89.
Unknown provenance! before 1981 (Turkey?)

S. Bendall and D. Sellwood, 'Clipped twelfth century Byzantine electrum trachea', in
R. Margolis and H. Voegtli (eds.), Numismatics- Witness toHistory(Bern, 1986), 98-9.
Bibliography
A/ex Rodriguez Suarez
Primary sources
Abu l-Fida, Tdriy, Rtsume de l'histoire des crolsades tire des Annales d'Abou 'l-Feda, RHC or
(5 vols., Paris, 1872-1906), I: 1-165
Acta et diplomata graeca medii aeoi sacra et profana, ed. F. Miklosich and J. Muller (6 vols.,
Vienna, 1860-1890)
Acta et scripta quae de controuerslis ecclesiae graecae et latinaesaeculo undecimo composita extant,
ed. C. Will (Leipzig/Marburg, 1861)
Actes deDocbeiarou, ed. N. Oikonomides (Paris, 1980)
Actes de Laora L Des origines a 1204, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos and
D. Papachryssanthou, Archives del'Athos 5 (Paris, 1970)
Albert of Aachen, Historia Ieroso/imitana: History of the journey to Jerusalem, ed. and tr,
S.B. Edgington (Oxford, 2007)
AnnatesErphesftrdenses, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS VI (Hannover, 1844)
AnnalesMagdeburgenses, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS XVI (Hannover, 1859)
Annales S. PetriErphesfurdenses, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS XVI (Hannover, 1859)
Anna/ista Saxo, ed. G.H. Pertz, MGH SS VI (Hannover, 1844)
Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234 pertinens, ed. A. Abouna and J. M. Fiey,
CSCO 354, Syr 154 (Leuven, 1974)
Anse1m, Bishop of Have1berg, Dialogi, PL 188: 1139-1248
Anselm, Bishop of Havelberg, Anticimenon: On the unity ofthefaith and the controversies with
the Greeks, tr. A. Criste and C. Neel (Collegeville, 2010)
Arnold of Liibeck, Chronica Slauorum, ed. I.M. Lappenberg, MGH SS rer Germ XIV
(Hannover, 1868; repr. Leipzig, 1930)
Bar Hebraeus, The chronography ofGregory Abu'l Faraj, the son of'Aaron, theHebrew physician
commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, beingthefirst part of hispolitical history ofthe world, tr.
E.A.W. Budge (2 vols., London, 1932)
Barlaam of Calabria, Opere contra i Latini, ed. A. Fyrigos (Vatican City, 1998)
Basilakes, Nikephoros, Progimnasmi e monodie, ed. A. Pignani (Naples, 1983)
Basilakes, Nikephoros, Gli encomi per l'imperatore eper il patriarca, ed. R. Maisano (Naples,
1977)
Basilakes, Nikephoros, Orationes et epistolae, ed. A. Garzya (Leipzig, 1984)
Bryennios, Nikephoros, Histoire, ed. and tr. P. Gautier, CFHB 9 (Brussels, 1975)
Byzantine monastic foundation documents: A complete translation of the surviving founder's
Typikaand testaments, ed. J. Thomas and A. Constantinides Hero (5 vols., Washington,
D.C., 2000)
Bv~avnva eyypacfJa "Cijt; povijt; lltX"Cpov, Vol. 1: AV"COlcpa"Copudr, ed. E.L. Vranousi;
Vol. 2: L11JPOGLCJJV AeL"Covpycbv, ed. M. Nystazopoulou-Pe1ekidou (Athens, 1980)
From John 11Komnenos, Emperor ofByzantium: In the Shadow ofFather and Son. Copyright © Alex
Rodriguez Suarez, Publishedby Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon OX144RN.
201
202 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Byzantios, Niketas, Capita syllogistica, ed. J.AG. Hergenrother, Monumenta Greca ad

Pbotiumejusque historiam pertinentia, qUdt ex oariis codicibus manuscriptis collegit ediditque
J Hergenroether (Regensburg, 1869): 84-138
Canonici Wissegradensis Continuatio Cosmae, ed. D. R. Koepke, MGH SS IX (Hannover,
1851)
Cerbani, Cerbano, Translatio mirificimartyris Isidori a Chioinsula in ciuitatem Venetam, REC
occ (paris, 1895), V: 321-334
Choniates, Michael, Epistulae, ed. F. Kolovou, CFHB 41 (BerlinINew York, 2001)
Choniates, Michael, Ta CTCtJ'opEva, ed. S.P. Lampros (2 vols., Athens, 1879-1880)
Choniates, Niketas, Historia, ed, J-L. van Dieten, CFHB 11 (2 vols., BerlinINew York, 1975)
Choniates, Niketas, 0 City ofByzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates, tr, H. Magoulias
(Detroit, 1984)
Choniates, Niketas, Orationes et epistulae, ed. J -L. van Dieten, CFHB 3 (BerlinINew York,
1972)
Chronicle of1234, 82,11.18-21
Cbronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB (2 vols., Bonn, 1832)
Chronicon pictum Vindobonense, in Cbronica Hungarorum, I: Magistri P. Belae Regis Notarii;
Il: Magistri Simonis de Keza, Gesta Hungarorum; Ill: Cbronicon pictum Vindobonense, ed.
M. Floridn, Historiae Hungaricaefontes domestici 1, Scriptores 2 (Leipzig, 1883): 10(}-245
Comnena, Anna, Alexias, ed. D.R. Reinsch and A Kambylis, CFHB 40 (2 vols., Berlin!
New York, 2001)
Comnena, Anna, Alexiade, tr. B. Leib (3 vols., Paris, 1937-1945)
Comnena, Anna, TheAlexiad, tr. E. Sewter (rev. P. Frankopan) (London, 2009)
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Decerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed.J J. Reiske, CSHB 8 (2 vols.,
Bonn,1829-1830)
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The book ofceremonies, tr. A Moffatt and M. Tall (2 vols.,
Canberra 2012)
Constantine Porphyrogennetos, Three treatises on imperialmilitaryexpeditions, ed. J. Haldon,
CFHB 28 (Vienna, 1990)
Dandolo, Andrea, Cbronicon, ed. L.A. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum, Scriptores XII (Citta di
Caste11o, 1903)
Darrouzes, J., 'Conference sur la primaute du pape a Constantinople en 1357', REB 19
(1961): 76-109
Daskhuranetsi, Movses, Patmut'ium: Moosesi Kalankatowac 'oypatmut 'ium aknoanic' afxarhi,
ed. M. Eninu (Moscow, 1860)
Die byzantinischen Kleincbroniken, ed. P. Schreiner (Vienna, 1975)
DigenisAkritis:The Grottaferrata and Escorial versions, ed. E. Jeffreys (Cambridge, 1998)
Document! del commercia ueneziano nei secoli XI-XIII, ed. R. Morozzo della Rocca and
A. Lombardo (2 vols., Turin, 1940)
Documents inldits d'ecclesiologie byzantin~, ed. J. Darrouzes (Paris, 1966)
Doxapatris, Nilus, Hieroclis Synecdemus et notitiaeGraecae episcopatuum. Accedunt Nili Doxa-
patri!notitiapatriarchatuum etlocorum nominaimmutata,ed. G. Parthey (Amsterdam, 1967)
Draskhanakerttsi, John, Patmut'ium: HistoriaArmeniae (786-925 A.D.), textum armenicum
cumversions georgica, ed. E. V. ZagareiSvili (Tbilisi, 1965)
Eteriano, Hugh, ContraPatarenos, ed. and tr, J. Hamilton (LeidenIBoston, 2004)
Eustratios, Bishop of Nicaea, Orationes de processione Spiritus Sancti, 00. AK. Demetra-
kopoulos, Bibliotbeca ecclesiastica (Vol. 1, Leipzig, 1866; repr. Hildeshelm, 1965): 47-99
BIBLIOGRAPHY 203
Famiglia Zusto, ed. 1. Lanfranchi (Venice, 1955)

FourByzantine novels, tr, E. Jeffreys (Liverpool, 2012)
Gesta Francorum et aliorumHierosolimitanorum: The deeds ofthe Franksand theotherpilgrimsto
Jerusalem, ed. R. Hill (London/EdinburghIParislMelbourne!TorontolNew York, 1962)
Gouillard, J., Le Synodikon de fOrthodoxie: Edition et commentaire, TM 2 (1967), 1-316
Gregory the Priest, iamanakagrut'iwn: Chronique, RHC arm (2 vols., Paris, 1869-1906),
I: 151-201
Grossolano, Peter, Due sermon! inedlti di PietroGrosolano, Arcivescovo di Milano, ed. A Arnelli
(Florence, 1933)
Hethum, iamanakagrut'iwn: Table chronologique de Hetboum, comte de Gorigos, RHC arm
(2 vols., Paris, 1869-1906), I: 471-90
Holtzmann, W., 'Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios I und Papst Urban II
imJahre 1089', BZ 28 (1928): 38-67
Ibn al-Athir, Al-Kiimil' Al-Kdmilfi 't-ta'rikb. Ibn-el-Athiri Cbronicon quodpeifectissimum
inscribitur, ed. C.J. Tornberg (14 vols., Leiden, 1851-1877; repr. Beirut, 1979)
Ibn al-Athir,AI-Tiirikh: Histoiredes Atabecs de Mosulpar Ibn el-Athir, RHC or (5 vols., Paris
1872-1906),11.2
Ibn al-Qglanisi, Dhayl:History ofDamascus, 365-555 a.b. byIbn al-Qalanisifrom the Bodleian
MS. Hunt. 125, beinga continuation ofHildl al-Sdbi, ed. H.F. Arnedroz (Leiden, 1908)
Ibn al-Qglanisi, The Damascus Chronicle ofthe Crusades, tr. H.AR. Gibb (London, 1932)
Isaac Komnenos Porphyrogennetos, Praefatio in Homerum, ed. J.F. Kindstrand (Uppsala, 1979)
Isaac Komnenos Porphyrogennetos, ed. E. Kurtz, 'Ein Gedicht des Sebastokrator Isaac
Komnenos', BNJ 5 (1926-27): 44-46
Italikos, Michael, Lettres et discours, ed. and tr. P. Gautier (Paris, 1972)
I trattati con Bisanzio, 992-1198, ed. M. Pozza and G. Ravegnani (Venice, 1993)
[us graeco-romanum, ed.]. and P. Zepos (8 vols., Athens, 1931-1936)
Kallicles, Nicholas, Carmi, ed, and tr. R. Romano (Naples, 1980)
Kamal ad-Din, Zudbat al-balabfi ta 'rikhHalab, ed. S. Dahhan (Damascus, 1954)
Kamateros, Andronikos, SacrumArmamentarium, ed. A Bucossi, CCSG 75 (Turnhout, 2014)
Kinnamos, John, Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. A Meineke,
CSHB (Bonn, 1836)
Kinnamos, John, The deeds ofJohn and Manuel Comnenus, tr. C.M. Brand (New York, 1976)
Kresten, O. and Milller, AE., 'Die Auslandsschreiben der byzantinischen Kaiser des 11. und
12. Jahrhunderts: Specimen einer kritischen Ausgabe', BZ 86/87 (1993-1994): 402-429
Lampros, S.P., 'Au'toKQa't6Qwv 'tou Bu~av't(ou XQuo6~ouMa Kat XQuoa YQcq..lll£X'ta
ava<j>€Q61l€va €~ 'ti]v EVCtJOLV 'tWv 'EKMTJou:i:>v', NE 11 (1914): 94-128
Leo the Deacon, Historia, ed. C.B. Hase, CSHB (Bonn, 1828)
Liudprand, Bishop ofCremona, Thecomplete works, tr, P. Squatriti (Washington, D.C., 2007)
Magistros, Symeon, Cbronicon, ed. S. Wahlgren, CFHB 44 (BerlinINew York, 2006)
Malalas, John, Chronographia, ed. J.Thurn, CFHB 35 (BerlinlNew York, 2000)
Mango, C., 'The Conciliar Edict of 1166', DOP 17 (1963): 315-330
Marcellinus, Arnmianus, Res Gestae, ed. and tr.J.C. Rolfe (3 vols., London/Cambridge, Mass.,
1963, 4th edn.)
Matthew of Edessa, iamanakagrut'iwn: Cbronique, ed. E. Dulaurier, RHC arm (2 vols.,
Paris, 1869-1906),1: 1-150
Matthew ofEdessa, Armenia and the Crusades, tenth to twelfth century: The chronicle ofMatthew
ofEdessa, tr. AE. Dostourian (LanhamlNewYorkILondon, 1993)
204 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Michae1the Syrian, Extrait delachronique deMichelleSyrien, RHC arm (2 vols., Paris, 1869-
1906), I: 311-409
Michael the Syrian, Chronique deMichelle Syrien, patriarcheJacobite d'Antioche (1166-1199),
ed. and tr. }.-B. Chabot (3 vols., Paris, 1899-1905; repr. Brussels, 1963)
Monumenta spectantia ad unionem Ecclesiarum Grecae et Romanae, ed. A. Theiner and
F. Miklosich (Vienna, 1872)
Moses ofBergamo, '11 "LiberPergaminul' di Mose de Bro1o', ed. G. Gorni, Studi Medievali
11 (1970): 409-460
Moses of Bergamo, 'Mose del Bro1o e la sua 1ettera da Costantinopoli', ed. F. Pontani,
Aevum 72 (1998): 143-175
Nicho1as, Bishop ofMethone, Orationes, ed. A.K. Demetrakopoulos, Bibliotheca ecclesiastica
(Vol. 1, Leipzig, 1866; repr. Hildesheim, 1965): 359-379
Niketas, Archbishop ofThessalonica, First Dialogue, PG 139: 169-221
Niketas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Second, Third and Fourth Dialogues, ed. N. Festa,
'Niceta di Maronea e i suoi dialoghi su11a processione dello Spirito Santo', Bessarione
16 (1912): 80-107, 126-32,266-86; 17 (1913): 104-13,295-315; 18 (1914): 55-75,
243-59; 19(1915):239-46
Niketas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Fifth and Sixth Diaologues, ed. C. Giorgetti, 'Niceta
di Maronea e i suoi dialoghi sulla processione dello Spirito Santo - Un teo1ogo greco
precursore del dialogo ecumenico', License thesis (Pontifical University of the Lateran,
Rome, 1965)
Nikephoros, Antirrhetici: Nicephori archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani refttatio et eoersio delira-
mentorum, PG 100: 205-534
Nikephoros, Historia syntomos: Nikephoros, patriarch of Constantinople, short history, ed.
C. Mango, CFHB 10 (Washington, D.C., 1990)
''0 MaQKlav6~ KWbL~ 524', ed. S.P. Lampros, NE 8 (1911): 3-59, 123-92
Otto, Bishop of Freising, Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis Chronica sive Historia de duabus civi-
tatibus, ed. A. Hofmeister, MGH SS rerGerm (Hannover/Leipzig, 1912, Editio altera)
Otto, Bishop ofFreising, Ottoniset Rahewini Gesta Friderici L imperatoris, ed, G. Waitz and
B. De Simson, MGH SS rerGerm (Leipzig, 1912, 3rd edn.)
Otto, Bishop of Freising, The deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, tr, C. C. Mierow and R. Emery
(New York, 1953; repr. TorontolBuffalolLondon, 1994)
Otto, Bishop of Freising, Chronik oderDie Geschichte der zwei Staaten, ed. A. Schmidt and
W. Lammers (Hamburg, 1959)
Palamas, Gregory, De processione Spiritus Sancti orationes duae, ed. B. Bobrinsky, 'A6yOL
£t7tObeLK'tL1WL Mo 7teQL 'tii~ €K7toQeuaewc; 'tov AyLov I1veufla'to~', in P.K. Chrestou
(ed.), Tpuyoplou 'roD IIaltap.ii avyypapp.am (Thessaloniki, 1962): 23-153
Peter the Deacon, Chronicon Casinense, PL 173: 439-978
Peter the Deacon, Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed. H. Hoffmann, MGH SS XXXIV
(Hannover, 1980)
Peter the Deacon, Leonis Marsicani et Petri Diaconi chronica Monasterii Casinesis, ed.
Wattenbach, MGH SS VII (Hannover, 1846)
Peter the Deacon, Altercatio contra Graecum quendam, siveDefensia RomanaeEcclesiae ad ora-
tionem legati Constantinopolitani imperatoris in aula Lotharii, ed, A. Amelli, Miscellanea
Cassinese (Montecassino, 1897)
Peter the Venerable, The letters of Peterthe Venerable, ed. G. Constable (2 vols., Cambridge,
Mass., 1967)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 205
Petit, L., 'Le monastere de Notre-Dame de Pitie en Macedoine', IRAIK 6 (1900-1901):

1-153
Phournes, John, Oratio antirrbetica deprocessione Spiritus Sancti, ed. AK. Demetrakopoulos,
Bibliotheca ecc!esiastica (Vol. 1, Leipzig, 1866; repr. Hildesheim, 1965): 36-47
Prodromes, Theodore, 'Una nuova poesia di Teodoro Prodromo in greco volgare', ed.
A Maiuri, BZ 23 (1914-1919): 397-407
Prodromos, Theodore, AOyo<; el<; ,"Dv 1TPOpcfJvpoyevv1rrov1CVpDvTaaa1CLov ,"Dv KOlJv1JV6v,
ed. E. Kurtz, 'Unedierte Texte aus der Zeit des Kaisersjohannes Komnenos', BZ 16 (1907):
69-119
Prodromos, Theodore, Historische Gedichte, ed. W. Horandner, Wiener Byzantinische Studien
11 (Vienna, 1974)
Procopius of Caesarea, De bello Gothico, in Opera omnia, ed.]. Haury and G. Wirth (3 vols.,
Leipzig, 1962-1964), II
Procopius of Caesar ea, De bello Vandalico, in Opera omnia, ed.J. Hauryand G. Wirth (3 vols.,
Leipzig, 1962-1964), I
PseUos, Michael, Chronographia, ed. D.R Reinsch, Millennium Studies 51 (BerlinlBoston,
2014), Vol. 1: Einleitung und Text
Pseudo-Dionysios of Tel-Mahre, Incerti auctoris cbronicon anonymum Pseudo-Dionysianum
'lIulgo dictum, ed. J.-B. Chabot, CSCO 91, Syr 43 and CSCO 104, Syr 53 (2 vols., Leuven,
1927-1933)
Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre, Chronicle, part 3, tr. W. Witakowski, Translated Textsfor
Historians 22 (Liverpool, 1997)
Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan court: Offices and ceremonies, ed. R Macrides,
JA Munitiz and D. Angelov (Farnharn, 2013)
Il'rCtJxo1Tp66polJ0<;, ed. H. Eideneier (Heraklion, 2012)
Regesta ImperiiIll: Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unterHeinricb I und Otto I (919-973), ed.
J.F. Bohmer and E. von Ottenthal (Hildesheim, 1967, 2nd edn.)
Regesta pontificum romanorum, ed. P. Jaffe (Leipzig, 1885)
Regesten derKaiserurkunden des Ostromischen Reicbes. Part 2: Teil: Regesten 'lion 1025-1204,
ed. F. Dolger and P. Wirth (Munich, 1995)
RegiiNeapolitaniArchi'lli Monumenta (6 vols., Naples, 1845-1861)
Richard, Prior ofSt Victor, De Trinitate, PL 196: 63-202
Samuel of Ani, Hawak 'munk ': Extrait de la chronographie de Samuel d'Ani, in RHC arm
(2 vols., Paris, 1869-1906), I: 447-68
Scriptor incertus, ed. F. Iadevaia (Messina, 1997, 2nd edn.)
Seides, Niketas, De controoersiis Ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae, ed. R. Gahbauer, Gegen den
Primat des Papstes. Studien zu NiketasSeides (Munich, 1975): 1-78
Sempad the ConstablelSmpat Sparapet, Zamanakagrut'iwn: Chronique du Royaume de la
Petiterlrmenie, RHC arm (2 vols., Paris, 1869-1906), I: 605-672
Sibt b. al-Jawzi, Mirat: Extraits du Mirat ez- Zeman, RHC or (5 vols., Paris 1872-1906), Ill:
511-570
Skylitzes, John, Synopsis Historiarum, ed. H. Thurn, CFHB 5 (BerlinINew York, 1973)
X,t'JVOl!JL<; XpOVL1CrJ, in Mel1aLCtJvL1Cr] BLPAL08rJ1CTj, ed. C.N. Sathas (Venice/Paris, 1894)
S. Giorgio Maggiore, 2: Documenti 982-1159, ed. L. Lanfranchi (Venice, 1968)
Theodosios the Deacon, Theodosii Diaconi de Creta capta, ed. U. Criscuolo (Leipzig, 1979)
Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia. Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata,
Symeon Magister, Georgius Manacbus, ed.L Bekker, CSHB (Bonn, 1838): 1-481
206 BIBliOGRAPHY
Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (2 vols., Leipzig, 1883-1885)

Theophylaktos, Archbishop of Ohrid, Discours, traites, polsies, ed. P. Gautier (Thessaloniki,
1980)
Theophylact Sirnocatta, Historia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1887)
The lift of Leantios, patriarch ofJerusalem, ed. D. Tsougarakis, Medieval Mediterranean 2
(LeidenINew York/Cologne, 1993)
ThePilgrim's Guide to Santiago de Compostela, 00. P. Gerson (3 vols., London, 1998)
Tornikes, George and Demetrios, Lettreset discours, ed. and tr, J. Darrouzes (Paris, 1970)
Vahram of Edessa, Patmut'ium: Chronique rimee des rois de la Petite Armlnie, RHC arm
(2 vols., Paris, 1869-1906), I: 491-535
Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica: TheEcclesiasticalHistoryofOrderic Vitalis, ed. and tr,
M. Chibnall (6 vols., Oxford, 1968-80)
William, Archbishop of Tyre, Cbronicon, ed. R.B.C. Huygens, Identification des sources
historiques et determination des dates by H.E. Mayer et G. Rosch, CCCM 63-63A
(2 vols., Turnhout, 1986)
William, Archbishop of Tyre, A history ofdeeds done beyond the sea, tr. E.A. Babcock and
A.C. Krey (2 vols., New York, 1943)
Wilson, N.G. and Darrouzes, J., 'Restes du cartulaire de Hiera-Xerochorafion', REB 26
(1968): 5-47
Zonaras,John, Epitomae Historiarum, ed. T. Biittner-Wobst, CSHB (3 vols.,Bonn; 1841-1897)
TJpika
Cyprus: Kvnotax« TV1CLKCt, ed. LP. Tsiknopoullos (Nicosia, 1969)
Kecharitomene: 'Le Typikon de la Theotokos Kecharitomene', ed. P. Gautier, REB 43
(1985): 5-165
Kosmosoteira: Typikon du monastere de la Kosmosotira pres d'Ainos (1152)', ed. L. Petit,
lRAIK13 (1908): 17-77
Kosmosoteira: TV1CLKOv 'laaaxiou )1A.e~iov Kouvnvoo "C7je; f!ovrie; ElEO-rOKOV "C7je;
KOIJf!oarJJ"CELpae; (1151/52), ed. G.K. Papazoglou, ElpaKLKrJ BLf3A.L08rJKTJ 3 (Komotini,
1994)
Pantokrator: 'Le Typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator', ed. P. Gautier, REB 32 (1974):
1-145
Secondary literature
Ahrweiler, H., 'L'histoire et la geographie de la region de Smyrne entre les deux occupations
turques (1081-1317), particulierement auXIUc siecle', TM1 (1965): 2-204
Ahrweiler, H., Byzanceet la mer. La marinedeguerre, lapolitiqueet lesinstitutionsmaritimes de
Byzanceaux VII'-XV'siecles. Bibliothe.que byzantine, ltudes 5 (Paris, 1966)
Ahunbay, M. and Z., 'Restoration work at the Zeyrek Camii, 1997-1998', in N. Necipoglu
(ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, topography and everyday lift (Leiden, 2001):
117-132
Althoff, G., 'Inszenierung verpflichtet. Zum Verstlindnis ritueller Akte bei Papst-
Kaiser-Begegnungen im 12. Jahrhundert', in J. Martschukat and S. Patzold (eds.),
Geschichtswissenschaft und 'performative turn'. Ritual, Inszenierung und Performanz oom
Mittelalterbis zur Neuzeit (CologneIWeimarNienna, 2003): 105-132
Amouroux-Mourad, M., Le Comtl d'Edesse, 1098-1150 (paris, 1988)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 207
Anca, A.~., 'Ehrerweisung durch Geschenke in der Komnenenzeit: Gewohnheiten und

Regeln des herrscherlichen Schenkens', Mitteilungen SABK 4 (2005): 185-194
Anca, A.~., Herrscbaftlicbe Reprdsentation und kaiserlicbes Selbstverstiindnis. Beriibrung
der uiestlicben mit der byzantinischen Welt in der Zeit der ersten Kreuzzuge (Munster,
2010)
Anderson, ].C., 'An examination of two twelfth-century centers of Byzantine manuscript
production', PhD dissertation (Princeton University, 1975)
Anderson, ].C., 'The Seraglio Octateuch and the Kokkinobaphos Master', DOP 36 (1982):
83-114
Anderson, ].C., 'The date and purpose of the Barberini Psalter', CA 31 (1983): 35-67
Anderson, ].C., 'The illustrated Sermons of]ames the Monk: Their dates, order and place in
the history of Byzantine art', Vlator 22 (1991): 69-120
Ando, C., Imperialideology andprovincialloyalty in theRoman Empire (BerkleylLos Angeles!
London, 2000)
Angelou, A, 'Nicholas of Methone: The life and works of a twelfth-century Bishop', in
M. Mullett and R. Scott (eds.), Byzantium and the Classical tradition (Birmingham,
1981): 143-148
Angold, M., The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A politicalhistory (London, 1984, 2nd edn.
New York, 1997)
Angold, M., Church and society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081-1261 (Cambridge,
1995)
Angold, M., 'The Venetian chronicles and archives as sources for the history of Byzantium
and the Crusades (992-1204)', in M. Whitby (ed.), Byzantinesand Crusaders in non-Greek
sources 1025-1204 (Oxford, 2007): 59-85
Asbridge,T .S., Thecreation ofthePrincipality ofAntioch, 1098-1130 (W oodbridgelRochester,
2000)
Auge, 1., 'La reconquete des Comnenes en Orient vue par les panegyristes byzantins',
Bizantinistica 3 (2001): 313-328
Auge, 1., Byzantins,Armenienset Francs au temps dela Croisade. Politique religieuse et reconqutt«
en Orientsous la dynastie des Comnenes 1081-1185 (paris, 2007)
Bakirtzis, C., 'E'tQGt'tLW'tL1<O( aYLOL tl /-leAf] 'tT]C; OL1<oyeVELaC; 'tou AAe!;(ou A'
Kouvnvou;', IIe'6: xelueva ue '[hAo apxatOAoyL'Kai fleAe'tat (Athens, 1993):
177-186
Bakirtzis, C., 'E'tQGt'tLW'tLKOl aYLOLtl7IOQ'tQGtL'tGt /-lEAWV'tT]C; OLKOyeVeLaC; 'tou AAe!;(ou
A' Kouvqvoo,', 13" Euunoau: Bv'avnvry~ 'Kat Me'[a{3v'avnvryc; ApXaLoAoyiac;
'KaL reMC;. Ilpoyocquux 'KaLIIepLAryl/JeLC; ELaT/yryae(i)v 'Kat AVa'KOLVWae(i)V (Athens,
1993): 35; in English, 'Warrior saints or portraits of members of the family of Alexios
I Komnenos?', in]. Herrin, M. Mullett, C. Otten-Froux (eds.), Mosaic: Festscbrift fir
A.HS. Megaw (London, 2001): 85-87.
Balivet, M., Romaniebyzantine et pays de Ram turc: Histoire d'un espace d'imbricatlon greco-
turque (Istanbul, 1994)
Balivet, M., 'Integration et exclusion des chretiens dans le sultanat seldjoukide d'Asie-
Mineure (XIIe-XIlIe siecles)', in M. Balivet (ed.), Melanges byzantins, seldjoukides et
ottomans (Istanbul, 2005): 107-124
Balivet, M., 'Entre Byzance et Konya: L'intercirculation des idees et des hommes au
temps des Seldjoukides', in M. Balivet (ed.), Melanges byzantins, seldjoukides et ottomans
(Istanbul, 2005): 47-79
208 BIBliOGRAPHY
Barker, J.W., Manuel 11 Palaeologus (1391-1425): A study in Late Byzantine statesmanship

(New Brunswick, NJ,1969)
Barmine, A., 'Une source rneconnue des Dialogues de Nicetas de Maronee', REB 58 (2000):
231-243
Bauer, A., 'Herrschergaben an St. Peter', Mitteilungen SABK 4 (2005): 65-99
Baynes, N., 'The supernatural defenders of Constantinople', AB 67 (1949): 165-177
Beaton, R, TheMedievalGreek Romance (Cambridge, 1989; repr. London, 1996)
Beck, H.-G., Senat und Volk oon Konstantinopel Probleme der byzantinischen Verfassungs-
geschichte (Munich, 1966)
Beck, H.-G., 'Byzanz und der Westen im 12. Jahrhundert', Vortriige und Forschungen 12
(1968): 227-241
Beck, H.-G., Respublica Romana. Vom Staatsdenken derByzantiner (Munich, 1970)
Beck, H.-G., DasByzantinischeJahrtausend (Munich, 1978; repr. 1994)
Beihammer, A.D., 'Defection across the border of Islam and Christianity: Apostasy
and cross-cultural interaction in Byzantine-Seljuk relations', Speculum 86 (2011):
597-651
Bendall, S., 'An early coinage of the "empire" ofTrebizond?', NCirc 110 (2002): 113-115
Bendall, S., 'A further note on a possible early coinage of the empire ofTrebizond', NCirc
114 (2006): 208-210
Bendall S. and Sellwood D., 'Clipped twelfth century Byzantine electrum trachea', in
R Margolis and H. Voegtli (eds.), Numismatics- Witness to History (Bern, 1986), 97-99
BernabO,M., 'Mecenatismo imperiale e traduzione dei Settanta: L'illustrazione della Lettera
di Aristea a Bisanzio', Miniature 3-4 (1990-1991): 11-20
Bernard, F., Writing and reading Byzantine secularpoetry, 1025-1081 (Oxford, 2014)
Berschin, W., Greek letters and the Latin Middle Ages: From Jerome to Nicbolas of Cusa
(Washington, D.C., 1988)
Berschin, W., 'I traduttori d'Amalfi nell'XI secolo', in C. Alzati (ed.), Cristianita edEuropa.
Miscellanea di studi in onore di Luigi Prasdocimi (2 vols., RomelFreiburgNienna, 1994-
2000), I: 237-243
Birkenmeier, J .W., The development oftheKamnenian army, 1081-1180, History ofWarfare 5
(LeidenIBoston/Cologne, 2002)
Bloch, H., Monte Cassino in theMiddleAges (3 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1986)
Borsari, S., 11 dominlo uenezlano a Creta nel XIII secolo, Universita di Napoli, Seminario di
storia medioeuale e moderna 1 (Naples, 1963)
Borsari, S., 'Il crisobu11o di Alessio I per Venezia', Annali dell1stituto Italiano per gli Studi
Storici2 (1969-1970): 111-131
Brand, C.M., Byzantium confronts the West, 1180-1204 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968)
Brand, C.M., 'An imperial translator at the Comnenian court', Byzantinoslaoica 59 (1998):
217-221
Brehier L., 'Attempts at reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches', in J.R. Tanner,
C.W. Previte-Orton, Z.N. Brooke (eds.), The Cambridge Medieval history, Vol. 4: The
Eastern Roman Empire (717-1453) (Cambridge, 1923): 594-626
Brehier, L., Les institutions derEmpire byzantin (Paris, 1949)
Brill, RH., Chemical analyses ofearly glasses (2 vols., New York, 1999)
Brooks, S.T., 'The history and significance of tomb monuments at the Chora Monastery',
in H. Klein and R. Ousterhout (eds.), Restoring Byzantium: The Kariye Camii in Istanbul
and theByzantineInstitute Restoration (New York, 2004): 23-31
BIBLIOGRAPHY 209
Brown, H.F., 'The Venetians and the Venetian quarter in Constantinople to the close of the
twelfth centurY,jHS 40 (1920): 68-88
Browning, R., 'The death of]ohn 11 Comnenus', Byzantion 31 (1961): 229-235
Browning, R., 'An unpublished funeral oration of Anna Comnena', Proceedings of the
Cambridge Philological Society 188 (1962): 1-12
Brubaker, L., 'The Chalke Gate, the construction of the past, and the Trier Ivory', BMGS
23 (1999): 258-285
Bryer, A., Dunn, A. and Nesbitt, ].W., 'Theodore Gabras, duke of Chaldia (t1098) and
the Gabrades: Portraits, sites and seals', in A. Avramea, A. Laiou and E. Chrysos (eds.),
Byzantium: State and society. In memory ofNikos Oikonomides (Athens, 2003): 51-70
Buckler, G., Anna Comnena:Astudy (Oxford, 1929)
Buckley, P., TheAlexiadofAnna Komnene:Artistic strategy in themakingofa myth (Cambridge,
2014)
Bucossi, A, 'The Six Dialogues by Niketas "Of Maroneia": A contextualising introduc-
tion', in A Cameron and N. Gaul (eds.), Dialogue and debatefrom LateAntiquity to Late
Byzantium (forthcoming).
Burgarella, F., 'Roberto il Guiscardo e Bisanzio', in C.D. Fonseca (ed.), Roberto il Guiscardo
tra Europa, Oriente eMezzogiorno (Galatina, 1990): 39-60
Bury, ].B., 'The treatise De administrando imperio', BZ 15 (1906): 517-577
Cahen, C., La Syrie du Nord Cl l'epoque des croisades et laprincipaut!franque d'Antioche (Paris,
1940)
Cahen, C., Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General surveyof the materialand spiritualculture and
historyc.l071-1330, tr, by].]ones-Williams (London, 1968)
Cahen, C., Orientet Occident au temps des Croisades (Paris, 1983)
Caspar, E., Roger IL (1101-1154) und die Grimdung der normanniscb-siciliscben Monarchie
(Innsbruck,1904)
Chalandon, F., Essaisurle regne d'Alexis 1'''Comnene (1081-1118) (Paris, 1900)
Chalandon, F., Histoire dela domination normande enItalie et en Sicile (Paris, 1907)
Chalandon, F. Les Comnene, II: jean II Comnene (1118-1143) et ManuelI" Comnene (1143-
1180) (Paris, 1912; repr. New York, 1960)
Chalandon, F., 'The later Comneni', in ].R. Tanner, C.W. Previte-Orton, Z.N. Brooke
(eds.), The Cambridge Medieval history, Vol. 4: The Eastern Roman Empire (717-1453)
(Cambridge, 1923): 351-384
Cheynet, ].-C., Pouuoir et contestations Cl Byzance (963-1210) (Paris, 1990)
Cheynet, ].-C., 'The Byzantine aristocracy (8th-13th centuries)', in ].-C. Cheynet, The
Byzantine aristocracy and its militaryfunction, Collected Studies Series 859 (Aldershot,
2006), I
Cheynet,].-C., The Byzantine aristocracy in the 10th-12th centuries: A review of the book
by A Kazhdan and S. Ronchey, in].-C. Cheynet, TheByzantinearistocracy and itsmilitary
function, Collected Studies Series 859 (Aldershot, 2006), 11
Cheynet, ].-C., 'Aristocratic anthroponymy in Byzantium', in ].-C. Cheynet, The Byzantine
aristocracy and its militaryfunction, Collected Studies Series 859 (Aldershot, 2006), Ill:
27-30
Cheynet, ].-C. and Vannier,].-F., Etudesprosopographique (Paris, 1986)
Chrissis, N., 'Byzantine Crusaders: Holy war and Crusade rhetoric in Byzantine contacts
with the West (1095-1341)', inA Boas (ed.), The Crusader world(London, forthcoming).
Chrysos, E. (ed.), To Bv~av'l"LO w, OLlcoVpeVTj (Athens, 2005)
210 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Christophilopoulou, A, 'E KAoyry, avayopeixnc Kat a-rhpu; -roD ~v~aV't woD airtoxpcaooo;
(Athens, 1956)
Christophilopoulou, A, BvCav'ttvr] Iotopla B 2,867-1081 (Athens, 1988)
Christophilopoulou, A, BvCav'ttvr] lmopla T 1,1081-1204 (Thessaloniki, 2001)
Ciggaar, K., Western travellers to Constantinople: The West andByzantium, 962-1204 (Leiden,
1996)
Classen, P., Burgundio von Pisa (Heidelberg, 1974)
Congdon, E., 'Imperial commemoration and ritual in the Typikon of the Monastery of
Christ Pantokrator', REB 54 (1996): 161-199
Cooper, G.M., 'Byzantium between East and West: Competing Hellenisms in the Alexiad
of Anna Komnene and her contemporaries', in A Classen (ed.), East meets West in the
Middle Ages and Early Modern times: Transcultural experiences in the Premodern world
(Berlin/Boston, 2013): 263-287
Cormack, R. and Vassilaki, M. (eds.), Byzantium 330-1453 (London, 2008)
Cowdrey, H.E.]., 'Pope Victor and the Empress A.', BZ 84/85 (1991-1992): 43-48
Cremaschi, G., Most delBrolo e la cultura a Bergamo nei secoli XI-XII (Bergamo, 1945)
Cremaschi, G., 'Nuovo contributo alla biografia di Mose del Brolo', Bergomum 48 (1954):
49-58
Criscuolo, Do, 'La politica orientale di Giovanni Il Comneno alla luce di nuovi testi di
Michele Italico', rlnnali della Facolta di Letteree Filosofia della Unioersita di Macerata 5-6
(1972-1973):539-552
Cutler, Ao, Review of 1. Hutter, Corpus der byzantiniscben Miniaturbandscbrifien, Vol 1:
Oxford, Bodleian Library, in Art Bulletin 61 (1979): 107-110
Cutler, A, 'Silver across the Euphrates: Forms of exchange between Sasanian Persia and the
Late Roman Empire', Mitteilungen SABK 4 (2005): 9-37
Dagron, Go, Naissance d'une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutionsde 330 a 451 (Paris,
1974)
Dagron, G., 'Formes et fonctions du pluralisme linguistique a Byzance (IXe-Xn e siecle)',
TM12 (1994): 219-240
Dagron, G., Emperor andpriest: The imperialoffice in Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003)
Darrouzes, J., 'Notes pour servir a l'histoire de Chypre (quatrieme article)', KV1l'ptaKai
L.1l'ov6ai 23 (1959): 25-56 (reprinted in J. Darrouzes, Litterature et bistoire des textes
byzantins, Collected Studies Series, CS 10 [London, 1972], no. XVII)
de Waha, M., 'La lettre d'Alexis I Comnene a Robert I le Frison: une revision', Byzantion
47 (1977): 113-125
Degni, P., 'I manoscritti dello "scriptorium" di Gioannicio', Segno e Testo 6 (2008): 179-248
Degni, P., '"In margine" a Gioannicio: nuove osservazioni e un nuovo codice (Laur. San
Marco 695)', in M. D'Agostino and P. Degni (eds.), ALETHES PHILIA. Studi in onore
di Giancarlo Prato (2 vols., Spoleto, 2010), I: 321-340
Degni, P., 'Burgundio e i manoscritti di Gioannicio: la questione dei marginalia', Medicina
neisecoli 25 (2013): 797-814
Delehaye, H., Les legendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris, 1909)
Dell'Acqua, F., 'The stained-glass windows from the Chora and the Pantokrator Monasteries:
A Byzantine "mystery"?' in H. Klein and R. Ousterhout (eds.), Restoring Byzantium: The
Kariye Oamiiin Istanbuland the Byzantine Institute restoration (New York, 2004): 68-77
Dell'Acqua, F., 'Enhancing luxury through stained glass from Asia Minor to Italy', DOP 59
(2005): 193-211
BIBLIOGRAPHY 211
Demetrakopoulos, A K., Graecia Orthodoxa (Leipzig, 1871)

Dernus, 0., The Church of San Marco in Venice: History, architecture, sculpture (Washington,
D.C., 1960)
Dernus, 0" The mosaics of San Marcoin Venice (2 vols., Chicago/London, 1984)
Der Nersessian, S., 'A psalter and New Testament manuscript at Dumbarton Oaks', DOP
19 (1965): 155-183
Devaney, T., "Like an ember buried in ashes": The Byzantine-Venetian conflict of 1119-
1126', in T.F. Madden, J.L. Naus and V. Ryan (eds.), Crusades - Medieval worlds in
conflict (Farnham/Burlington, 2010): 127-147
Djuric, V. J., 'La peinture murale byzantine: XI!' et XIII' siecles', Actesdu xV' Congres inter-
national des etudes byzantines,Athenes, Septembre 1976, Rapportset Co-rapports,Ill, Art et
Archeologie (4 vols., Athens, 1979-81), I: 1-96
Dolger, F., 'Chronologisches und Prosopographisches zur byzantinischen Geschichte des
13. jahrhunderts', BZ 27 (1927): 291-320
Dolger, F. and Karayannopoulos, ]., Byzantiniscbe Urkundenlebre, 1: Die Kaiserurkunden
(Munich, 1968)
Dondaine, A, 'Hugues Etherien et Leon Toscan',AHDLMA 27 (1952): 67-134
Ducellier, A., Chretiens d'Orientet Islam au MoyenAge, VIP-XV' siecle (Paris, 1996)
Ebbesen, S., 'Philoponus, "Alexander" and the origins of Medieval logic', in R. Sorabji
(ed.), Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence (London, 1990):
445-461
Ebersolt, J. and Thiers, A., Les eglises de Constantinople (Paris, 1913)
Edbury, P.W. and Gordon Rowe, J., William ofTyre:Historian oftheLatin East (Cambridge,
1988)
Efthymiades, S., 'Niketas Choniates: The writer', in A Simpson and S. Efthymiades (eds.),
Niketas Choniates: A historian and a writer (Geneva, 2009): 35-58
Engberg, S.G., 'Romanos Lekapenos and the Mandilion of Edessa', in J. Durand and
B. Flusin (eds.), Byzanceet lesreliques du Christ (Paris, 2004): 123-142
Engemann, J., 'Diplomatische "Geschenke" - Objekte aus der Spatantike?', Mitteilungen
SABK 4 (2005): 39-64
Failler, A, 'L'eparque de l'armee et le bestiariou', REB 45 (1987): 199-203
Felix, W., Byzanz und die lslamiscbe Welt imfrUheren 11.[abrbundert. Geschichte derpolitischen
Beziebungen von 1001 bis1055 (Vienna, 1981)
Ferluga, J., 'La ligesse dans l'empire byzantin. Contribution a l'etude de la feodalire a
Byzance', in J. Ferluga, Byzantium on the Balkans:Studieson the Byzantine administration
and the Southern Slaosfrom VIlth to theXIIth centuries (Amsterdam, 1976): 399-425
Fischer-Llchte, E., )Isthetische Eifahrung. Das Semiotiscbe und das Performative (Tiibingen/
Basel, 2001)
Fischer- Lichte, E., 'Performance, Inszenierung, Ritual. Zur Klarung kulturwissenschaftli-
cher Schliisselbegriffe', in J. Martschukat and S. Patzold (eds.), Geschichtswissenschaft und
'performative turn'. Ritual, Inszenierung und Performanz: oom Mittelalter bis zur Neuzeit
(ColognelWeimarNienna, 2003): 33-54
Fischer-Lichte, E., 'Einleitung: Theatralitat als kulturel1es Modell', in E. Fischer-Lichte,
C. Horn, S. Umathum and M. Warstat (eds.), Theatralitiit als Modell in den
Kulturwissenschaften (Tubingen/Basel, 2004): 7-26
Flaig, E., 'Fur eine Konzeptionalisierung der Usurpation im Spatromischen Reich', in
F. Paschoud and]. Szidat (eds.), Usurpationen in der Spiitantike (Stuttgart, 1997): 15-34
212 BIBliOGRAPHY
Fogen, T.M., 'Das politische Denken der Byzantiner', in I. Fetscher and H. Miinkler (eds.),
Pipers Handbucb derpolitischen Ideen, V01. 2: Mittelalter, oan denAnflingen des Islamsbis
zur Reformation (Munich/Zurich, 1993): 41-86
Forsyth, ].H., The Byzantine-Arab chronicle {938-1034} ojYa!;lya b. Sa'id al-Antaki (2 vols.,
Ann Arbor, 1977)
Frankopan, P., 'Kinship and the distribution of power in Komnenian Byzantium', EHR
CXXIII495 (2007): 1-34
Frankopan, P., 'The literary, cultural and political context for the twelfth-century commentary
on the Nichomachean Ethic!, in C. Barber and D. ]enkins (ede.), Medieval Greek commen-
taries onthe Nicomachean Ethics (LeidenIBoston, 2009): 45-62
Frankopan, P., The First Crusade: The Callftom the East (London, 2012)
Frazee, C.A., 'The Christian Church in Cilician Armenia: Its relations with Rome and
Constantinople to 1198', Church History 45 (1976): 166-184
Friend, AM., 'Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin manuscripts', Art Studies
5 (1927): 115-47; 7 (1929): 3-29
Frolow, A., 'Les noms de monnaies dans le Typikon du Pantocrator', Byzantinoslaoica 10
(1949): 241-253
Ganshof, F., Histoiredesrelations intemationales L'Le MoyenAge (Paris, 1953)
Gastgeber, C., 'Die rhetorische Ausgestaltung der kaiserlichen Auslandsschreiben an die
Papste (Dolger Wirth, Reg, 1320a, 1320b und 1348)', RHM 40 (1998): 197-235
Gastgeber, C., 'Das Schreiben Alexios' 1. Komnenos an Robert I. von Flandern. Sprachliche
Untersuchung', in G. De Gregorio and O. Kresten (eds.), Document! medievaligreci e
latini. Studi comparativi (Spoleto, 1998): 141-185
Gastgeber, C., 'Das Schreiben Kaiser Ioannes' Il. Komnenos an Konig Konrad Ill. in der
Uberlieferung bei Otto von Freising', in C. Scholz and G. Makris (eds.), IIoiiimiievpoi;
NoDi;: Miscellanea fUr Peter Scbreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag (MunichILeipzig, 2000):
17-36
Gastgeber, C., 'Die lateinische Ubersetzungsabteilung der byzantinischen Kaiserkanzlei
unter den Komnenen und Angeloi. Neue Ergebnisse zur Arbeit in der byzantinischen
Kaiserkanzlei.', in M. Balard, E. Malamut and ].-M. Spieser (eds.), Byzanceet le monde
exterleur. Contacts, relations, {changes (Paris, 2005): 105-122
Gautier, P., 'L'obituaire du Typikon du Pantocrator', REB 27 (1969): 235-262
Glavinas, AA, 'Ot NOQ~vboL 0'tTJ 8eaaaAla Kal TJ 7tOAlOQKla 'tT]<; AaQl.<1a<; (1082-
1083)', BV'aVTLaKtl 4 (1984): 33-45
Glykatzi-Ahrweiler, H., H 7l'OiiLTLKr) L6eoiioyia 't1Ji; Bv'avTLVr)i; Avtoxoacopiac
(Athens, 1997)
Gouma-Peterson, T. (ed.), Anna Komnene and hertimes (New York/London, 2000)
Grierson, P., Byzantine coins (LondonIBerkeley/Los Angeles, 1982)
Grierson, P., Byzantine coinage (Washington, D.C., 1999)
Grumel, V., 'Autour du voyagede Pie~e Grossolanus, archeveque de Milan, aConstantinope,
en 1122. Notes d'histoire et de litterature', EO 32 (1933): 22-33
Grumel, V., 'Les patriarches grecs d'Antioche du nom de Jean (XI. et XII· siecles)', EO 32
(1933): 279-299
Griinbart, M. (ed.), Geschenke erbalten die Freundschaft. Gabentausch und Ne!Zwerkpflege im
europiiischen Mittelalter.Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Munster, 19.-20. November
2009 (Berlin/Munster, 2011)
Guilland, R, Recherches surlesinstitutionsbyzantines (Berlin/Amsterdam, 1967)
BIBLIOGRAPHY 213
Guilland, R. 'Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin. Titres et offices du

Bas-empire byzantin. Le grand inrerprete, 6 flEyac; bl€QflTJveu'ti)C;', EEBS 36 (1968):
17-26
Guilland, R, 'Etudes sur l'histoire administrative de l'Empire byzantin. Le logariaste, 6
AoyaQLau'ti)c;; le grand logariaste, 6 flEyac; AoyaQLaa'tiJc;', JOB 18 (1969): 100-113
(reprinted in R Guilland, Titresetftnctions, no. XXI)
Guilland, R, Titres etfonctions de l'empire byzantin, Collected Studies Series 50 (London,
1976)
Hack, A.T., Das Empfangszeremoniell bei mittelalterlichen Papst-Kaiser-Treffin (Cologne!
WeimarNienna, 1999)
Haldon, J., 'A touch of class?', RechtshistorischesJournal7 (1988): 37-50
Hamilton, R, 'Ralph of Domfront, Patriarch of Antioch (1135-40)', Nottingham Medieval
Studies 28 (1984): 1-21
Harvey, A., 'Financial crisis and the rural economy', in M. Mullett and D. Smythe (eds.),
AlexiosI Komnenos (Belfast, 1996): 167-184
Haskins, C.H., 'Moses of Bergamo', BZ 23 (1914): 133-142
Haskins, C.H., 'The Greek element in the Renaissance of the twelfth century', in
C.H. Haskins, Studies in thehistory ofMediaevalscience (Cambridge, Mass., 1924):141-154
Haskins, C.H., 'The Sicilian translators of the twelfth century', in C.H. Haskins, Studies in
the history ofMediaevalscience (Cambridge, Mass., 1924): 155-193
Haskins, C.H., 'North-Italian translators of the twelfth-century', in C.H. Haskins, Studies
in thehistory ofMediaevalscience (Cambridge, Mass., 1924): 194-222
Haskins, C.H., The Renaissance ofthe twe!fth century (Cambridge, Mass., 1927)
Hatzaki, M., Beautyand the malebody in Byzantium: Perceptions and representations in art and
text (BasingstokelNew York, 2009)
Hendy, M.F., Coinage and money in theByzantine empire 1081-1261, DOS 12 (Washington,
D.C., 1969)
Hendy, M.F., 'Seventeen twelfth- and thirteenth-century Byzantine hoards', CH 6 (1981):
61-72
Hendy, M.F., 'Byzantium, 1081-1204: The economy revisited, twenty years on', in
M.F. Hendy, The economY,fiscal administration and coinage ofByzantium (Northampton,
1989), no. III
Hendy, M.F., Catalogue of the Byzantine coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the
Whittemore Collection, Vol. 4, Part I: FromAlexiusI toAlexiusV (1081-1204) (Washington,
D.C., 1999)
Henn, V., Das ligische Lehnswesen im Westen und Nordwesten des mittelalterlichen deutscben
Reiches (Munich, 1971)
Hiestand, R., 'Ein neuer Bericht iiber das Konzil von Antiochia 1140', Annuarium Historiae
Conciliorum 19 (1987): 314-350
Hill, B., 'Actions speak louder than words: Anna Komnene's attempted usurpation', in
T. Gouma-Peterson (ed.),Anna Komnene andhertimes (New York/London, 2000): 45-62
Hinterberger, M., Autobiographische Traditianen in Byzanz (Vienna, 1999)
Hinterberger, M., Phthonos: Missgunst, Neid und Eifersucht in der byzantinischen Literatur
(Wiesbaden, 2013)
Hoffmann, J., Rudimente oon Territorialstaaten im Byzantiniscben Reich (1071-1210)
(Munich,1974)
Holmes, C., Basil11and thegovernance ofempire (976-1025) (Oxford, 2005)
214 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Holzmann, R, Der Kaiser als Marschall des Papstes. Eine Untersucbung zur Geschichte der
Beziehungen zwischen Kaiser und Papstim Mittelalter (Berlin/Leipzig, 1928)
Honigmann, E., Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis1071 nacbgriechischen,
arabiscben, syrischen und armenischen Quellen (Brussels, 1935)
Horden, P., 'How medicalised were Byzantine Hospitals?', Medicina e Storia 10 (2005):
45-74
Horrocks, G., Greek: A history ofthe language and its speakers (Chichester/Malden, 2010,
2nd edn.)
Houben, H., RogerII ofSicily: A rulerbetween East and West (Cambridge, 2002)
Howard-Johnston, J., 'Anna Komnene and the Alexiad, in M. Mullett and D. Smythe
(eds.), AlexiosI Kamnenos (Belfast, 1996): 260-302
Hunger, H., Die byzantinische Literatur der Komnenenzeit. Versucb einer Neubewertung
(Vienna, 1968)
Hunger, H., Die hochsprachlicheprofaneLiteratur derByzantiner (2 vols., Munich, 1978)
Hunger, H., 'Schriftasthetik in den drei originalen kaiserlichen Auslandsschreiben der
Komnenenzeit', RHM 40 (1998): 187-196
Hutter, I., 'Die Homilien des Monchs Jakobus und Ihre Illustrationen', PhD dissertation
(University of Vienna, 1970)
Hutter, 1., Corpus derbyzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften (5 vols., Stuttgart, 1977-1993)
Hutter, 1., The Herberr history ofart and architecture: Early Christian and Byzantine (London,
1988)
Hutter,1. and Canart, P., Das Marienhomiliar des Monchs]akobos von Kokkinobaphos Codex
Vaticanus Graecus 1162 (2 vols., Zurich, 1991)
Iacobini, A., 'La "Lettera di Aristea": Un prologo illustrato al ciclo degli Ottateuchi rnedio-
bizantini', Arte Medievale 7 (1993): 79-95
Ioannidaki-Dostoglou, E., 'OL NOQ~vbo( KaL TJ 7tOALOQKla 'tTJ~ AaQLaa~', E>eaaaiiLKo
HP.EpoiioyLO 15 (1989): 3-11
Ireland, S., Greek, Roman and Byzantine coins in the Museum at Amasya (ancient Amaseia),
Turkey, Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication 33; British Institute ofArchaeology at
Ankara Monograph 27 (London, 2000)
Jacoby, D., 'Italian privileges and trade in Byzantium before the Fourth Crusade: A recon-
sideration', Anuario deEstudiosMedievales 24 (1994): 349-368
Jacoby, D., 'The Venetian quarter of Constantinople from 1082 to 1261: Topographical
considerations', in C. Sode and S. Takacs (eds.), Novum Millennium: Studies onByzantine
history and culture dedicated to Paul Speck (Aldershot, 2001): 153-170
Janin, R, Constantinople byzantine. Developpement urbain et repertoire topographique (Paris,
1964)
Janin, R, La Geographie Ecclesiastique del'EmpireByzantin, Part 1: Le Siege de Constantinople
et lePatriarcat oecummique, Vo!. 3: Les eglises et Ies monasteres (Paris, 1969)
Jaspert, N., The Crusades (New York/London, 2006)
Jeffreys, E., 'A date for Rhodanthe and Dosikles?', in P. Agapitos and D.R Reinsch (eds.),
Der Roman im Byzanz derKomnenenzeit (Frankfurt am Main, 2000): 127-136
Jeffreys, E., 'Nikephoros Bryennios reconsidered', in V. Vlyssidou (ed.), The empire in crisis
(?): Byzantium in the 11th century (1025-1081) (Athens, 2003): 201-214
Jeffreys, E., 'The sebastokratorissa Irene as patron', in L. Theis, M. Mullett and
M. Griinbart (eds.), Femalefoundersin Byzantium and beyond(Vienna/CologneIWeimar,
2014): 177-194 (= Wiener]ahrbuchftr Kunstgeschichte 60-61 [2011/2012])
BIBLIOGRAPHY 215
joranson, E., 'The spurious letter of Alexius', TheAmerican Historical Reuieu: 55 (1949-1950):
811-832
jordanov, I., Monemu. u .MOHemHO 06p1Jw,eHue 6 cpeOH06elC06Ha bb.AZapWl 1081-1261
(Sofia, 1984)
Jordanov, 1., 'The perpyra of Tsar Kaloyan (1198-1207)?', Archaeologia Bulgarica 10 (2006):
53-99
jurewice, 0., Andronikos I Komnenos (Amsterdam, 1970)
Kahl, H.-D., 'Romische Kronungsplane im Komnenenhause? Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung
des Zweikaiserproblems im 12. Jahrhundert', Archiv fUr Kulturgeschichte 59 (1977):
259-320
Kaldellis, A, Hellenism in Byzantium: The transformation of Greek identityand the reception of
the Classical tradition (Cambridge, 2007)
Kaldellis, A, 'Paradox, reversal,and the meaning of History', in A Simpson and S. Efthymiades
(OOs.), NiketasChoniates:A historian and a writer (Geneva, 2009): 75-99
Kaldellis, A, 'Classical scholarship in twelfth-century Byzantium', in C. Barber and
D. Jenkins (eds.), Medieval Greek commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics (Leiden/
Boston, 2009): 1-43
Kaldellis, A, 'The Byzantine role in the making of the corpus of Classical Greek histori-
ography: A preliminary investigation',]HS 132 (2012): 71-85
Kaldellis, A, 'The original source for Tzimiskes' Balkan campaign (971 AD) and the emper-
or's classicizing propaganda', BMGS 37 (2013): 1-18
Kambylis, A. Prodromea: textkritische Beitrage zu den bistoriscben Gedicbten des Theodoros
Prodromos (Vienna, 1984)
Kapamadji, N. and Morrisson C., 'Trachea d'electrum Iegers de Jean II et Manuel P
Comnene', Bulletin dela Sociltefran;aise de Numismatique 27 (1972),163-166.
Karayannopoulos, 1.,Io..opia f3v'avnvov lCpthov<;, Vol. 3: la r opla va.. epo; f3v'avnv1J<;
nepL660v (1081-1453), Part 1: TeAevr aiei; Aap,l/JeL<; (1081-1204) (Thessaloniki,
1990)
Karpozilos, A., Bv'avnvoi la..opsxo! lCaL Xpovoypacf>oL, r 6p,0<; T (11°' - IP; m.)
(Athens, 2009)
Kazhdan, A., 'Zagadka Komninov (opit istoriografii)', VV25 (1964): 53-98
Kazhdan, A, 'KEV'tQoI.16i\Ee; KlXt KEV'tQ6cj>UYEe; 't£loae; rrro ~uVxv'tLv6 K60I.10 (1081-
1261). H b0l.1rl 'tT]l; ~uVxV'tLVrll; KOlvwviae;', Bv'avnalCa 3 (1983): 93-110
Kazhdan, A., 'Aristocracy and the imperial ideal', in M. Angold (ed.), TheByzantine aristoc-
racy, IX-XIII centuries (Oxford, 1984): 43-57
Kazhdan, A, 'H ~u~v'ttvrl oucoveveux KlXl 'ta 1tQo~i\rl~'ta 'tT]l;', Bv'avnva 14
(1988): 223-236
Kazhdan, A, 'The notion of Byzantine diplomacy', in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds.),
Byzantine diplomacy: Papersfrom the Twenty-fturth SpringSymposium ofByzantine studies,
Cambridge, March 1990 (Aldershot, 1992): 3-21
Kazhdan, A and Ronchey, S., L 'aristocrazia bizantina dalprincipio dell'XI allafine delXII
secolo (Palermo, 1997)
Kazhdan, A and Wharton Epstein, A, Change in Byzantine culture in the eleventh and
twe!fth centuries (Berke1ey/Los Angeles/London, 1985); Greek translation: A Kazhdan
and A Wharton Epsteln, AAAaye<;a..ov f3v'av"Lv6 noAmap,6lCa..a ..ov 110 lCat 120
aLecJva (Athens, 1997)
Kislinger, E., 'Der Pantokrator-Xenon, ein triigerisches Ideal?',]OB 37 (1987): 173-179
216 BIBliOGRAPHY
Koder, ]., 'H yec.uyQaeplKT] bLtX<naUT] 'tT]~ f3u~av'rlvt'J~ Oucouuevnc', in E. Chrysos

'(ed.), To BvC:;;avno cu, OLK:OVIJEVTJ (Athens, 2005): 25-45
Kolb, W., Herrscherbegegnungen im Mittelalter (Bern/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Paris,
1988)
Kolbaba,T.M., TheByzantine lists: Errors ofthe Latins (Urbana/Chicago, 2000)
Kolbaba, T.M., 'The legacy of Humbert and Cerularios: The tradition of the "Schism of
1054" in Byzantine texts and manuscripts of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries', in
C. Dendrinos.], Harris, E. Harvalia-Crook and]. Herrin (eds.), Porphyrogenita: Essays on
thehistory and literature ofByzantium and the Latin East in honour of'[ulian Chrysostomides
(AldershotlBurlington, 2003): 47--61
Kolbaba, T.M., 'The Orthodoxy of the Latins in the twelfth century' in A. Louth and
A. Casiday (eds.), Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papersfrom the Thirty-sixth SpringSymposium of
Byzantine Studies, UniversityofDurham, 23-25 March 2002 (Aldershot, 2006): 205-221
Kolia-Dermitzaki, A., 0 f3vC:;;avTLv6, 'tepo; 1f6AeIJo,' (Athens, 1991)
Kolla-Dermitzaki, A., 'Die Kreuzfahrer und die Kreuzziige im Sprachgebrauch der
Byzantiner',JOB41 (1991): 163-188
Konstantinidi, C., 'IIaQa'tT]QT]ae~ oe 1taQaa'taae~ IeQaQXwv o-ro Ka8oAlKo
'tT]~ Movnc IIavay(a<; Koa/-loaW'teLQa~ o-rqv BT]Qa', in C. Bakirtzis (ed.), First
InternationalSymposium "Byzantine Thrace: Image and Character", Komotini, May 28th-
31th 1987, BF14 (1989): 305-328
Korobeinikov,D., 'A sultan in Constantinople: The feasts of Ghiyath al-Dtn Kay-Khusraw
1', in L. Brubaker and K. Linardou (eds.), Eat, drink, and be merry (Luke 12:19) - Food
and wine in Byzantium. Papers ofthe 37th Annual Spring Symposium ofByzantine Studies,
in honour ofProfessorAA.M. Bryer (Aldershot, 2007): 93-108
Kotzabassi, S. (ed.), The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople, Byzantiniscbes Archiv 27
(BostonIBerlin, 2013)
Kotzabassi, S., 'Feasts at the Monastery of Pantokrator', in S. Kotzabassi (ed.), The
Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople (Boston/Berlin, 2013): 153-189
Koutava-Delivoria, B., 'Les chichata, les protocharaga et la reforrne monetaire d'Alexis I
Comnene', RBN141 (1995): 13-36
Kreiker, S., 'Marschall' in Lexikon des MUte/alters 6 (Munich/Zurich, 1993), 324-5
Kresten, 0., 'Die Auslandsschreiben der byzantinischen Kaiser der Komnenenzeit:
Die literarische Uberlieferung bei Anna Komnene und Ioannes Kinnamos. Mit einem
Exkurs: Zur Chronologie der Auslandsschreiben Dolger-Wlrth, Reg. 1068,1077,1080
und 1114', RHM39 (1997): 21-59
Kresten, O. and Seibt, W., 'Theophylaktos Exubitos',jOB 52 (2002): 231-241
Kursanskis, M., 'The coinage of the Grand Komnenos Manuel 1', ApXeiov Ilovtou 35
(1979): 23-37
Lafond,J., 'Decouverte de vitraux histories du moyen age a Constantinople', CA 18 (1968):
231-238 •
Laiou, A.E., 'Use and circulation of coins in the Despotate of Epiros', DOP 55 (2001):
207-215
Lamma, P., Comnenie Staufer. Ricerche sui rapportifra Bisanzio e l'Occidente nel secolo XII
(2 vols., Rome, 1955-1957)
M. Lau, 'Ioannoupolis: Lopadion as 'city' and military headquarters under Emperor
Ioannes II Komnenos', in N.S.M. Matheou, T. Kampianaki, L.M. Bondioli (eds.), From
Constantinople to thefrontier: The cityand the cities (Leiden, 2016), chapter 25
BIBliOGRAPHY 217
Laurent, V., 'Les monnaies tricephales de Jean II Comnene. Note de numismatique byzan-
tine et d'histoire chypriote', RN13 (1951): 97-108
Lauxtermann, M.D., The springofrhythm (Vienna, 1999)
Lechat, R., 'La patristique grecque chez un theologien latin du XII' siecle, Hughes Etherien',
in E. Rassart-Eeckhout, J.-P. Sosson, C. Thiry and T. van Hemelryck (eds.), Melanges
d'histoire ojfirts aCharles Moeller (2 vols., Leuven, 1914), I: 484-507
Lees, J.T., Anselm ofHavelberg: Deeds into words in the twe{fthcentury (Leiden, 1998)
Leib, B., Rome, Kiev et Byzancealafin du XF siecle (Paris, 1924)
Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, ed. W. Braunfels, Vols. 5-8 (Freiburg im Breisgau,
1968-1976)
Leyser, K., The tenth century in Byzantine-Western relationships', in D. Baker (ed.),
Relations between East and Westin the MiddleAges (Edinburgh, 1973): 29-63
Lianta, E., John II Comnenus (1118-43) or John m Vatatzes (1222-54)? (Distinguishing
the Hyperpyra of John II from those of John m)', NC 166 (2006): 269-299
Lilie, R.-J., Byzanz und die Kreuzfabrerstaaten: Studien zur Politik des byzantinischen Reiches
gegenuber den Staaten der kreuzJahrer in Syrien und Paliistina bis zum Vierten Kreuzzug
(1096-1204) (Munich, 1981); English translation: Lilie, R.-J., Byzantium and the
Crusader states, 1096-1204, tr, byJ.C. Morris andJ.E. Ridings (Oxford, 1993)
Lilie, R.-J., 'Des Kaisers Macht und Ohnmacht. Zum Zerfall der Zentralgewalt in Byzanz
vor dem vierten Kreuzzug', in R.-J. Lilie und P. Speck (eds.), nOLlciita Bv'avuva 4,
Varia I (Bonn, 1984): 9-120
Lilie, R.-J., Handel und Politik zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den italienischen
Kommunen Venedig, Pisa und Genua in derEpoche der Komnenen undderAngeloi (1081-1204)
(Amsterdam, 1984)
Lilie, R.-J., Twelfth-century Byzantine and Turkish states', BP 16 (1991): 35-51
Lilie, R.-J., 'Niketas Choniates und Ioannes Kinnamos', in S. Kotzabassi and G. Mavromatis
(eds.), RealiaByzantina (Berlin/New York, 2009): 89-101
Linardou, K., 'Reading two Byzantine illustrated books: The Kokkinobaphos manuscripts
(Vaticanus graecus 1162 and Parisinus graecus 1208) and their illustration', PhD disserta-
tion (University of Birmingham, 2004)
Linardou, K., The Kokkinobaphos manuscripts revisited: The internal evidence of the
books', Scriptorium 61 (2007): 384-407
Ljubarskij, N. and Frejdenberg, M., 'Devol'skij dogovor 1108 g. meZd.u Alekseem Komninom
I Boemundom', VV21 (1962): 260-274
Lot, F., Lafin du monde antiqueet ledebutdu MoyenAge (Paris, 1927)
Loud, G.A., 'Norman Sicily in the twelfth century', in D. Luscombe and J. Riley-Smith
(eds.), TheNew Cambridge Medieval history (Cambridge, 2004), IV.2: 442-474
Loukaki, M., 'Empress Piroska-Eirene's collaborators in the foundation of the Pantokrator
Monastery: The testimony of Nikolaos Kataphloron', in S. Kotzabassi (ed.), The
Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople (BostonlBerlin, 2013): 191-201
Lounghis, T.C., Les ambassades byzantinesen Occident depuis lafondation des etats barbares
jusqu'aux Croisades (407-1096) (Athens, 1980)
Lowden, J., The Octateuchs. A study in Byzantine manuscript illumination (University Park,
1992)
Lowden, J., 'Illustrated Octateuchs manuscripts: A Byzantine phenomenon', in P. Magdalino
and R.S. Nelson (eds.), The Old Testament in Byzantium (Washington, D.C., 2010):
107-152
218 BIBliOGRAPHY
Macrides, R, 'What's in the name "Megas Komnenos"?', ApXeiov Ilovtov 35 (1979):

238-245
Macrides, R, 'Nomos and canon on paper and in court', in R Morris (ed.), Church andpeople
in Byzantium (Birmingham, 1990): 61-86
Macrides, R, 'Dynastic marriages and political kinship', in]. Shepard and S. Franklin
(eds.), Byzantine diplomacy. Papersfrom the 24th Spring Symposium ofByzantine Studies,
Cambridge, March 1980 (Aldershot, 1992): 263-280
Macrides, R, 'From Komnenoi to Palaeologoi: Imperial models in decline and exile', in
P. Magdalino (ed.), New Constantines: The rhythm ofimperialrenewalin Byzantium, 4th-
13th centuries (AldershotlBrookfield, VT, 1994): 269-282
Macrides, R, 'The pen and the sword: Who wrote the AlexiatP.', in T. Gouma Peterson
(ed.), Anna Komnene and hertimes (New YorkILondon, 2000): 63-81
Macrides, R. and Magdalino, P., 'The Fourth Kingdom and the rhetoric of Hellenism', in
P. Magdalino (ed.), The perception ofthe past in twelfth century Europe (London, 1992):
117-156
Madden, T.F., 'The chrysobull of Alexius I Comnenus to the Venetians: The date and the
debate',jMH28 (2002): 23-41
Magdalino, P., 'Aspects of twelfth-century Byzantine Kaiserkritik', Speculum 58 (1983):
326-346 (reprinted in P. Magdalino, Traditionandtransformation in MedievalByzantium,
Collected Studies Series 343 [AldershotlBurlington, 1991], no. VIII)
Magdalino, P., The empire of Manuel I Komnenas, 1143-1180 (Cambridge, 1993); Greek
edition: P. Magdalino, H airtaxpasopla TOV Mavov7JiI. A' KOflVTJvOV 1143-1180
(Athens, 2008)
Magdalino, P., Constantinople medilvale. Etudes sur l'lvolution des structures urbaines (Paris,
1996)
Magdalino, P., 'Innovations in government', in M. Mullett and D. Smythe (eds.), A/exiosI
Kamnenos (Belfast, 1996): 146-166
Magdalino, P., 'The pen of the aunt: Echoes of the mid-twelfth century in the Alexiad, in
T. Gouma-Peterson (ed.), Anna Kamnene andhertimes (NewYorkILondon, 2000): 15-43
Magdalino, P., 'Prosopography and Byzantine identity', in A. Cameron (ed.), Fifty years of
prosopography«()xford,2003):41-56
Magdalino, P., 'The Byzantine empire, 1118-1204', in D. Luscombe and]. Riley-Smith
(eds.), The New Cambridge Medieval history (Cambridge, 2004), IV.2: 611-643
Magdalino, P., 'The empire of the Komnenoi (1118-1204)', in J. Shepard (ed.), The
Cambridge history ofthe Byzantine Empire c. 500-1492 (Cambridge, 2008): 627-663
Magdalino, P., 'Cultural change? The context of Byzantine poetry from Geometres to
Prodromos', in F. Bernard and C. Demoen (eds.), Poetry and its contexts in eleventh-
century Byzantium (Farnham/Burlington, 2012): 19-36
Magdalino, P., 'The 'columns' and the Acropolis Gate: A contribution to the study
of the ceremonial topography of Constantinople', in N. Asutay-Effenberger and
F. Daim (eds.), <X>Lil.OntI"CLOV. Spaziergang im kaiserlicben Garten: Beitrage zu Byzanz
und seinen Nacbbarn, FestschriftfUr Arne Effinberger zum 70. Geburtstag (Mainz,
2012): 147-156
Magdalino, P., 'The foundation of the Pantokrator Monastery in its urban setting', in S.
Kotzabassi (ed.), The Pantok.rator Monastery in Constantinople (BostonlBerlin, 2013):
33-55
BIBLIOGRAPHY 219
Magdalino P. and Nelson, R.S., 'The emperor in Byzantine art of the twelfth century', BF
8 (1982): 123-183
Makk, F., TheArptfds and the Comneni: Political relations between Hungaryand Byzantium in
the 12th century (Budapest, 1989)
Malamut, E., 'L'image byzantine des Petchenegues', BZ 88 (1995): 105-147
Malamut, E., AlexisIer Comnene (Paris, 2007)
Mango, C., The Brazen House: A studyofthe vestibule ofthe ImperialPalace of Constantinople
(Copenhagen, 1959)
Mango, C., Materia/sforthe studyof the mosaics ofSt Sophia at Istanbul (Washington, D.C.,
1962)
Mango, C., 'Notes on Byzantine monuments. Ill. The tomb ofManuel I Comnenus', DOP
23-24 (1969-1970): 372-375
Mango, C., 'The triumphal way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate', DOP 54 (2000):
173-188
Marinis, V., 'Tombs and burials in the Monastery tou Libos in Constantinople', DOP 63
(2009): 147-166
Marquis de la Force, 'Les conseillers latins du basileus Alexis Comnene', Byzantion 11
(1936): 153-165
Martin, M.E., 'The Venetians in the Byzantine Empire before 1204', in]. Howard-]ohnston
(ed.), Byzantium and the West c.850-c.1200 (Amsterdam, 1988): 201-214
Martschukat,]. and Patzold, S. (eds.), Geschichtswissenschaft und 'performative turn'. Ritual,
Inszenierung und Perfarmanz uom Mittelalter bis zur Neuzelt (ColognelWeimarNienna,
2003)
Mauss, M., 'Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l'echange dans les societes archaiques',
L'AnneeSociologique 1 (1923-1924): 30-186
McCormick, M., Eternal victory: Triumphal rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the
Early Medieval West (Cambridge, 1986)
McQ.11een, W.B., 'Relations between the Normans and Byzantium 1071-1112', Byzantion
56 (1986): 427-476
Megaw, AH.S., 'Notes on the recent work of the Byzantine Institute in Istanbul', DOP 17
(1963): 333-371
Mercati, S.G., 'Stefano Meles e l'autore de11a vita giambica di S. Teodoro Studita del cod.
Barocc. gr. 37', BZ 25 (1925): 43-46
Meredith, C., 'The illustration of Codex Ebnerianul,JWarb 29 (1966): 419-424
Metcalf, D.M., Coinage in theBalkans, 820-1355, InstituteforBalkanStudies 80 (Thessaloniki,
1965)
Meyer, M., 'Divine nourishment: On breasts and bottles in the miniatures of Iakobos
Kokkinobaphos', DCME 33 (2012): 265-276
Mihaljevic, M., 'Change in Byzantine architecture', in M. ]ohnson, R. Ousterhout and
A Papalexandrou (eds.), Approaches to Byzantine architecture and its decoration: Studies in
honorofSlobodan Curcic(Aldershot, 2012): 99-119
Miladinova, N., 'Panoplia Dogmatike - a study on the antiheretical anthology of Euthymios
Zygadenos in the Post-Byzantine Period', PhD dissertation (Central European
University, Budapest, 2010)
Miladinova, N., The Panoplia Dogmatike by Euthymios Zygadenos: A study on thefirst edition
published in Greek in 1710 (LeidenlBoston, 2014)
220 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Miller, D.A., 'The Logothete of the Drome in the Middle Byzantine period', Byzantlon 36
(1966): 438-470
Miller, T.S., The birthofthe hospital in the Byzantine empire (Baltimore, 1997, 2nd edn.)
Miller, T.S., Orphans of Byzantium: Child welfare in the Christian Empire (Washington,
D.C., 2003)
Minio-Paluello, L., 'Iacobus veneticus grecus. Canonist and translator of Aristotle', Traditio
8 (1952): 265-304
Moravcsik, G., Byzantium and theMagyars (Amsterdam, 1970)
Morrisson, C., Catalogue des monnaies byzantinesdela Bibliotheque Nationale (2 vols., Paris,
1970)
Morrisson, C., 'La Logarike. reforme monetaire et reforme fiscale sous Alexis letComnene',
TM7 (1979): 419-464
Morrisson, C., La numismatique, Quesais-je? 2638 (Paris, 1992)
Morrisson, C., 'Byzantine money: Its production and circulation', in A.E. Laiou (ed.), The
economic history ofByzantium:Fromthesevenththrough thefifteenth century, DOS 39 (3 vols.,
Washington, D.C, 2002), Ill: 909-966
Morrisson, C., 'Coinage and money in Byzantine typika', DOP 56 (2002): 263-275
Morrisson, C. and Balbi de Caro, S., 'La monnaie d'or byzantine (IY'-XIY' s.), un «dollardu
Moyen Age»', in S. Balbi de Caro (ed.), L' ecu d' or: monnaie etpouvoird'Auguste aCharles
Quint (Rome/Brussels, 1996): 21-33
Mouriki, D., 'Stylistic trends in monumental painting of Greece during the eleventh and
twelfth Centuries', DOP34-5 (1980-1981): 77-124
Mullett, M., 'Aristocracy and patronage in the literary circlesofComnenian Constantinople',
in M. Angold (ed.), TheByzantine aristocracy, IX to XIII centuries (Oxford, 1984): 173-201
Mullett, M., 'Alexios I Komnenos and imperial renewal', in P. Magdalino (ed.), New
Constantines. The rhythm of imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th centuries. Papers
from the Twenty-Sixth Spring Symposium ofByzantine Studies, St Andrews, March 1992
(Aldershot, 1994): 259-267
Mullett, M., 'Introduction: Alexios the enigma', in M. Mullett and D. Smythe (eds.),Alexios
I Kamnenos (Belfast, 1996): 1-11
Mullett, M., 'The imperial vocabularyof Alexios I Komnenos', in M. Mullett and D. Smythe
(eds.), AlexiosI Kamnenas (Belfast, 1996): 359-398
Mullett, M., Theophylact ofOchrid: Reading the letters of a Byzantine archbishop (Aldershot,
1997)
Mullett, M., 'Constructing identities in twelfth-century Byzantium', in C. Ange1idi (ed.),
Byzantium matures: Choices, sensitivities and modes ofexpression (eleventh tofifteenth centuries)
(Athens,2004): 129-144
Mullett, M., 'Refounding monasteries in Constantinople under the Komnenoi', in
M. Mullett (ed.), Founders and refounders of Byzantine monasteries (Belfast, 2007):
366-378 •
Mullett, M., 'Whose Muses? Two advice poems attributed to Alexios I Komnenos', in
P. Odorico (ed.), La face cacMe de la litterarure byzantine. Le texte en tant que mes-
sage immediat. Actesdu colloque international, Pise, 5-7 juin 2008, organisepar le Centre
d'etudes byzantines, neo-helleniques et sud-esteuropeennes de/'EHESS (Dossiers byzantins,
11) (Paris,2012): 195-220
Mullett, M. and Smythe D. (eds.), AlexiosI Komnenos: Papers ofthe Second BelfastByzantine
InternationalColloquium, 14-16 April 1989 (Belfast, 1996)
BIBUOGRAPHY 221
Mushtaq Butt, A., Boyd, M. and Glikmann, P.A., The Spanish 'reconquista' (Copenhagen,
2002)
Necipoglou, N., 'The coexistence of Turks and Greeks in Medieval Anatolia (eleventh-
twelfth centuries)', HaruardMiddle Easternand Islamic Review 5 (1999/2000): 58-76
Nelson, RS., 'Byzantine miniatures at Oxford: CBM 1 and 2', Byzantine Studies 13 (1986):
79-134
Nelson, RS., 'The Chora and the Great Church: Intervisuality in fourteenth-century
Constantinople', BMGS 23 (1999): 67-101
Nelson, RS., Later Byzantine painting:Art, agency, and appreciation, Collected Studies Series
853 (AldershotIBurlington, 2007)
Nerlich, D., Diplomatische Gesandtschaften zwischen Ost- und Westkaisern 756-1002 (Bern!
BerlinIBmsselsIFrankfurt am MainlNew York/Vienna, 1999)
Neville, L., Heroes and Romans in twelfth-century Byzantium: The Material for History of
Nikephoros Bryennios (Cambridge, 2012)
Nicol, D.M., Byzantium and Venice (Cambridge, 1992)
Nikolaou, G., 'H OLKOuIlEvLKo'tT]'ta rou ~u'av'tLV01) voutouceroc', in E. Chrysos (ed.),
To BvCavTLO CIJ' OLKovflEV1), 'Ope, BvCav'tiov. Epva KaL Huepec a'to BVCav'tLO
(Athens,2001): 195-201
Nilsson, 1., 'Constantine Manasses, Odysseus, and the Cyclops: On Byzantine appreciation
of pagan art in the twelfth century', Byzantinoslaolca 69 (2011): 123-136
Oates, D., 'A summary report on the excavations of the Byzantine Institute in the Kariye
Djami: 1957 and 1958', DOP 14 (1960): 223-231
O'Callaghan, J.F., Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain (Philadelphia, 2003)
Oeconomos, L., La vie religieuse dans l'Empire byzantin au temps des Comnenes et des Anges
(Paris, 1918; repr. New York, 1972)
O'Hara, M.D., 'A hoard of electrum trachea of Alexius III', NC 17 (1977): 186-188
Ohnsorge, W., 'Die Bedeutung der deutsch-byzantinischen Beziehungen im 12.Jahrhundert
fiir den deutschen Osten', Deutscbes Archiv fUr Landes- und Volksforschung 5 (1941):
249-259
Oikonomides, N., 'L'evolution de l'organisation administrative de l'Empire byzantin au XI'
siecle (1025-1118)', TM6 (1976): 126-152
Oikonomides, N., 'L'«unilinguisme» officiel de Constantinople byzantine (VII'-XII' s.)',
BVCaVTLVLl LVflfleLK'ta 13 (1999): 9-22
Orlandos, A.K., 'Ta ~uCav'tLva IlVl1IlELa 'tT]~ BijQa~', eJpaKLKLl 4 (1933): 3-34
Ostrogorsky, G., 'Zum Stratordienst des Herrschers in der byzantinisch-slavischen Welt',
SK7 (1935): 187-204
Ostrogorsky, G., 'Autokrator Johannes Il, und Basileus Alexios', SK10 (1938): 179-183
Ostrogorsky, G., History of theByzantine state, tr, J. Hussey (Oxford, 1980)
Ouspensky, T., 'L'Oetateuque de la bibliotheque du Serail a Constantinople', IRAIK 12
(1907): 1-14
Ousterhout, R, 'The architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul', PhD dissertation
(University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1982)
Ousterhout, R, The architecture of theKariyeCamii in Istanbul, DOS 25 (Washington, D.C.,
1987)
Ousterhout, R, 'The Virgin of the Chora: An image and its contexts', in R Ousterhout and
L. Brubaker (eds.), The sacred image East and West (Urbana, 1995): 91-109
Ousterhout, R., Masterbuilders of Byzantium (Princeton, 1999)
222 BIBliOGRAPHY
Ousterhout, R, 'Contextualizing the later churches of Constantinople: Suggested method-

ologies and a few examples', DOP 54 (2000): 241-250
Ousterhout, R, 'Architecture, art, and Komnenian ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery',
in N. Necipoglu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, topography, and everyday life
(Leiden, 2001): 133-150
Ousterhout, R, 'Interpreting the construction history of the Zeyrek Camii in Istanbul
(Monastery of Christ Pantokrator)', in G. Arun and N. Seckin (eds.), Studies in Ancient
Structures. Proceedings of the Second International Conference (2 vols., Istanbul, 2001), I:
19-27.
Ousterhout, R, 'Byzantine funerary architecture of the twelfth century', Drevnerusskoe
iskustvo. Rusi i straniibyzantinskogo miraXII vek (Saint Petersburg, 2002): 9-17
Ousterhout, R, Theart oftheKariye Camii (LondonlIstanbul, 2002)
Ousterhout, R, 'The Pantokrator Monastery and architectural interchanges in the thir-
teenth century', in G. Ortalli, G. Ravegnani and P. Schreiner (eds.), Quarta Crociata:
Venezia - Bisanzio- Impero Latino (2 vols.,Venice, 2006), II: 749-770
Ousterhout, R, The decoration of the Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii): Evidence old and
new', in A. Odekan, E. Akyiirek and N. Necipoglu (eds.), FirstInternationalSevgi Goniil
Byzantine Studies Symposium: Change in the Byzantine world in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries. Proceedings (Istanbul, 25-29 June 2007) (Istanbul, 2010): 432-439
Ousterhout, R, 'Reading difficult buildings: The lessons of the Kariye Camii', in H. Klein,
R. Ousterhout and B. Pitarakis (eds.), Kariye Camii, Yeniden I TheKariyeCamii reconsid-
ered (Istanbul, 2011): 95-105
Ousterhout, R, Women at tombs: Narrative, theatricality, and the contemplative mode', in
A. Eastmond and L. lames (eds.), Wonderful things: Byzantium through its art (Farnham,
2013): 229-246
Ousterhout, R, Ahunbay, Z. and Ahunbay, M., 'Study and restoration of the Zeyrek Camii
in Istanbul: First report, 1997-98', DOP 54 (2000): 265-270
Ousterhout, R., Ahunbay, Z. and Ahunbay, M., 'Study and restoration of the Zeyrek Camii
in Istanbul: Second report, 2001-5', DOP63 (2010): 235-256
Ousterhout, Rand Bakirtzis, C., The Byzantine monuments ofthe Euros/Meric River Valley
(Thessaloniki, 2007)
Page, G., BeingByzantine:Greek identitybefore the Ottomans (Cambridge, 2008)
Panayotidi, M., The wall-paintings in the church ofthe Virgin Kosmosoteira at Ferai (Vira)
and stylistic trends in the 12th century painting', in C. Bakirtzis (ed.), FirstInternational
Symposium 'Byzantine Thrace: Imageand character', Komotini, May 28th-31st 1987, BF
14 (1989): 457-484
Panayotidi, M., 'Donor personality traits in 12th century painting. Some examples', in
C. Angelidi (ed.), Byzantium matures: Choices, sensitivities, and modes ofexpression (eleventh
tofifteenth centuries) (Athens, 2004): 145-166
Papadopoulou, P., 'De l'unite la l'eclatement: la monnaie et son usage dans le monde byzan-
tin (1092-1261)', PhD dissertation (3 vols., Universite de Paris I - Pantheon-Sorbonne,
2007)
Papadopoulou, P., The big problem of small change in the Byzantine world (twelfth-thir-
teenth centuries)', in A. Odekan, E. Akyiirek and N. Necipoglu (eds.), FirstInternational
SevgiGoniil Byzantine Studies Symposium: Change in theByzantine worldin thetwe{fth and
thirteenth centuries. Proceedings (Istanbul, 25-29 June2007) (Istanbul, 2010): 206-210
BIBLIOGRAPHY 223
Papadopoulou, P., 'XQLO'tLaVO( KaL MouoouA,flC<VOL 0"tTJ Meooveto: fle aepoQfltl 'to
8TjoauQ6 P6bo~/1998', in P. Tselekas (ed.), Coins in the Aegean Islands. Mints, circu-
lation, iconography, history. Proceedings of the Fifth Scientific Meeting, Mytilene, 16-19
September 2006, Obolos 9 (2 vols., Athens, 2010), II: 175-189
Papadopoulou, P., 'Betwixt Greeks, Saracens and Crusaders: Lusignan coinage and its place
in the Eastern Mediterranean (1192-1324)', in G. Grivaud (ed.), France deChypre, 1192-
1474 (= Cahiers du Centre des Etudes Chypriotes 43 [2013]): 473-492
Papageorgiou, A, '0 Iwc<vvTj~ B' Kouvnvoc KaL Tj enoXtl roo', PhD dissertation
(University of Athens, 2007)
Papageorgiou, A., 'BUI';C<V'tLO KaL E€Q~OL: To I';tl'tT]fla 'twv eKO'tQa'tetWv 'tou Iwc<wTj
B ' KOflvTjV01) evavrlov 'twv EEQ~WV', Eoa Kat Eanepta 8 (2008-2012): 353-367
Papamastorakis, T., "Eva elKaO'tLK6 eyKWflLO 'tou MlXatlA, H' ITaAaLOA,6yOU: Ot
e~W'teQlKE~ 'toLxoYQaep(e~ crto Ka80A,lK6 'tT]~ Movqc 'tT]~ MauQLW'tlooa~ o-rqv
KaO'tOQtC<', DCME 15 (1989-1990): 221-240
Papamastorakis, T., 'Io'toQ(e~ KallO'toQJ1oel'; ~ul';av'tlvwv naMTjKaQLWv', DCME 20
(1998): 213-230 •
Parani, M.G., Reconstructing the reality ofimages: Byzantine materialculture and religious ico-
nography (11th -15th centuries) (Leiden/Boston, 2003)
Parani, M.G., 'Dressed to kill: Middle Byzantine military ceremonial attire', in A Odekan,
N. Necipoglu and E. Akyiirek (eds.), The Byzantine court: Source of power and culture
(Istanbul, 2013): 145-156
Parnell, D.A, 'John II Comnenus and Crusader Antioch', in T.F. Madden, J.L. Naus, V.
Ryan (edsi), Crusades - Medievalworlds in conflict (FarnhamIBurlington, 2010): 149-157
Patlagean, E., 'Les debuts d'une aristocratie byzantine et le temoignage de l'historiographie:
Systeme des noms et liens de parente aux IX' et X, siecles', in M. Angold (ed.), The
Byzantine aristocracy, IX to XIII centuries (Oxford, 1984): 23-43
Peirce, H. and Tyler, R., 'A marble emperor-roundel of the XIIth Century', DOP 2 (1941):
1-9
Penna, V. and Morrisson, C., 'Usurpers and rebels in Byzantium: Image and message through
coins', in D. Angelov and M. Saxby (eds.), Powerandsubversion in Byzantium. Papersfrom
the Forty-third Spring Symposium ofByzantine Studies, University ofBirmingham, March
2010, Society for the Promotion ofByzantine Studies Publication 17 (FarnhamIBurlington,
2013): 21-42
Penna, V. and Touratsoglou, LP., '0 "8TjoauQ6~" ITaAl08eoA,6you MeA.l~OLa91988.
EUfl~oA,tl o'tT] fleAE'tT] 'tT]~ KuKAoepoQLa~ XQuoWv uneQTluQwv 'tT]~ buvao'tela~
'twv Kouvqvorv o-rov eMablK6 XWQo', in L. Kypraiou (ed.), Coins in the Tbessalian
region. Mints, circulation, iconography, history, Ancient, Byzantine, Modern. Proceedings of
the Third Scientific Meeting, Obolos 7 (Athens, 2004): 365-408
Personeni, D., 'Un bergamasco a Costantinopoli nel XII secolo: Mose del Brolo', BA dis-
sertation (Universita degli Studi di Milano, 2010)
Pertusi, A, 'Cultura greco-bizantina nel tardo Medioevo nelle Venezie e suoi echi in Dante',
in V. Branca and G. Padoan (eds.), Dante ela cultura veneta (Florence, 1966): 157-197
Peschlow, Urs, 'Am Kai von Konstantinopel. Reste einer Repriisentationsarchitektur an der
Sarayspitze', in Festschriftfor Charalambos Bouras (forthcoming).
Phillips,J., The Second Crusade: Extending thefrontiers of Christendom (New HavenILondon,
2007)
224 BIBliOGRAPHY
Planet, F., 'La circulation monetaire, etude des monnaies byzantines du Musee d'Iznik', in
B. Geyer and J. Lefort (eds.), La Bitbynie au Moyen Age, Realites byzantines 9 (Paris,
2003):499-505
Polemis, I., TheDoukai: A contribution to Byzantineprosopography (London, 1968)
Pontani, F., 'Mose del Brolo fra Bergamo e Costantinopoli', in C. Villa and F. Lo Monaco
(eds.), Maestri e traduttori bergamaschi. Fra medioeuo e rlnascimento (Bergamo, 1998):
13-36
Pontani, F., The first Byzantine commentary on the Iliad: Isaac Porphyrogenitus and his
scholia', BZ 99 (2008): 551-596
Prawer, J., Histoire du Royaume Latin de]erusalem (2 vols., Paris, 1969-1970)
Prinzing, G., 'Zum Austausch diplomatischer Geschenke zwischen Byzanz und seinen
Nachbarn in Ostmittel- und Siidosteuropa', Mitteilungen SABK 4 (2005): 139-171
Radic, R, Bpeue[oeana V'Tlaseoxoza (1332-1391) (Belgrade, 1993)
Radosevic, N., 'L'Oecumene byzantine dans les discours imperiaux du XI" et XIIe siecle',
Byzantinaslaoica 54 (1993): 156-161
Ragia, E., 'H avabLOQyavwOTl 'twv 8e~a'twv u'tTJ ML1<Qa Aula 'to bwbEKa'tO aLWva
KaL 'to 8E~a MuMuOTlC; KaL MeAavoubLou', Bv~av't"Lva L.v/-l/-leL1cra 17 (2005):
223-238
Reinsch, D.R, 'Zum Text der Alexias Anna Komnenes',JOB 40 (1990): 233-268
Reinsch, D.R, Women's literature in Byzantium? - The case of Anna Komnene', in
T. Gouma-Peterson (ed.),AnnaKomneneandhertimes(New YorkILondon, 2000): 83-106
Reinsch, D.R, 'Abweichungen vom traditionellen byzantinischen Kaiserbild im 11. und 12.
Jahrhundert' in P. Odorico (ed.), L'education au gouvernement et a la vie: la tradition des
"regles devie»del'Antiquiteau MoyenAge. Actes du Colloque international, Pise, 18 et 19 mars
2005(Paris,2009): 115-128
Rey, E.-G., 'Les dignitaires de la principaute d'Antioche, grands officiers et patriarches
(XIe-Xm esiecle)', Revue d'Orientlatin 8 (1900-1901): 116-157
Rodriguez Suarez, A., The Western presence in the Byzantine empire during the reigns
of Alexios I and John 11 Komnenos (1081-1143)', PhD dissertation (King's College
London, 2014)
Rowe, J.G., 'Paschal 11, Bohemond of Antioch and the Byzantine Empire', Bulletin ofthe
John RylandsLibrary 49 (1966): 165-202
Runciman, S.,A history ofthe Crusades (3 vols., Cambridge, 1951-1954)
Runciman, S., 'Byzantinelinguists',in flpoaepopa ea;DriAll'cuva Il. Kvptct1<i.6rrv (Thessaloniki,
1953): 596-602
Savvides, A. G., 'Kilij Arslan I of Rum, Byzantines, Crusaders and Danishmendids A.D.
1092-1107', Bul:av'tLva 21 (2000): 365-377
Schreiber, G., 'Byzantinisches und abendHindisches Hospital. Zur Spitalordnung des
Pantocrator und zur byzantinischen Medizin', BZ 42 (1942), 116-49,373-76
Schreiner, P., 'Gli intellettuali nelle ~olonie italiane dell'Oriente bizantino', Storia dei
Genooesi 12 (1995): 355-363
Schreiner, P., 'Der Brief des Alexios I. Komnenos an den Grafen Robert von Flandern und
das Problem gefalschter byzantinischer Kaiserschreiben in den westlichen Qpellen', in G.
De Gregorio and O. Kresten (eds.), Documenti medievali greci e latini. Studi comparativi
(Spoleto, 1998): 111-140
Schreiner, P., 'Diplomatische Geschenke zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen ca. 800-1200:
Eine Analyse der Texte mit Qjrellenanhang', DOP 58 (2004): 252-282
BIBLIOGRAPHY 225
Schwedler, G., Herrschertreffen des Spiitmittelalters. Formen - Rituale- Wirkungen (Ostfildern,

2008)
Setton, K., 'The Byzantine background to the Italian Renaissance', Proceedings oftheAmen'can
Philosophical Society 100 (1956): 1-76
Sevcenko, N., The tomb of Isaak Komnenos at Pherrai', GOThR 29 (1984): 135-140
(reprinted in N. Sevcenko, The celebration of the saints in Byzantine art and liturgy
[Aldershot, 2013], no. VIII)
Sevcenko, N., 'Icons and the liturgy', DOP45 (1991): 45-57
Sevcenko, N., 'The tomb of Manuel I, again', in A Odekan, E. Akyiirek, N. Necipoglu
(eds.), First International Sevgi Gonul Byzantine Studies Symposium: Change in the
Byzantine world in the twe!fth and thirteenth centuries. Proceedings (Istanbul, 25-29 June
2007) (Istanbul, 2010): 609-616
Sevcenko, N., 'Revisiting the frescoes of the church of Kosmosoteira at Pherrai (1152)',
I:U/-l/-lELK'ta: Collection ofpapers dedicated to the 40th anniversary ofthe Institutefor Art
History, Faculty ofPhilosophy, University ofBelgrade (Belgrade, 2012): 85-91
Sevcenko, N., The portrait ofTheodore Metochites at Chora', inJ.-M. Spieser and E. Yota
(eds.), Donationet donateurs dansle monde byzantin (Paris, 2012), 189-205
Shepard,]., 'The English and Byzantium: A study of their role in the Byzantine army in the
later eleventh century', Traditio 29 (1973): 53-92
Shepard, ]., "Father" or "scorpion"? Style and substance in Alexios's diplomacy', in
M. Mullett and D. Smythe (eds.), AlexiosI Komnenos (Belfast, 1996): 68-132
Shepard, ]., 'Cross-purposes: Alexius Comnenus and the First Crusade', in J. Phillips (ed.),
The First Crusade: Origins and impact(Manchester/New York, 1997): 107-129
Shepard, ]., 'How St lames the Persian's head was brought to Cormery: A relic collector
around the time of the First Crusade', in L.M. Hoffmann (ed.), Zwischen Polis, Provinz
und Peripherie: Beitriige zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur (Wiesbaden, 2005):
287-335
Shepard, ]., 'Hard on heretics, light on Latins: The balancing-act of Alexios I Komnenos',
Melanges Cecile Morrisson = TM 16 (2010): 765-777
Simpson, A, 'Before and after 1204: The versions ofNiketas Choniates' Historia', DOP 60
(2006): 189-221
Simpson, A, 'Niketas Choniates: The historian', in A Simpson and S. Efthymiades (eds.),
Niketas Choniates: A historian and a writer (Geneva, 2009): 13-34
Simpson, A., Niketas Choniates: A historiographical study (Oxford, 2013)
Simpson, A and Efthymiades, S. (eds.), Niketas Choniates: A historian and a writer (Geneva,
2009)
Sinos, S., Die Klosterkirche derKosmosoteira in Bera(Vira) (Munich, 1985)
Skoulatos, B., us personnages byzantins del'Alexiade (Leuven, 1980)
Sorabji, R., 'The ancient commentators on Aristotle', in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotletransformed:
The ancientcommentators and theirinfluence (London, 1990): 1-30
Spadaro, M.D., 'Sugli "errori" dei Latini di Teofilatto: obiettivita 0 scelta politica?' in
AM Babbi, A Pioletti, F. Rizzo Nervo and C. Stevanoni (eds.), Medioevo romanzo e
orientale: Testieprospettive storiografiche. Colloquio Internazionale, Verona, 4-6 aprile 1990
(Soveria MannelliIMessina, 1992): 231-244
Spadaro, M.D., 'Chiesa d'oriente e chiesa d'occidente sotto la dinastia dei Cornneni', BF22
(1996): 79-97
Spatharakis, I., Theportrait in Byzantine illuminatedmanuscripts (Leiden, 1976)
226 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Spatharakis, I., Corpus ofdatedilluminatedGreek manuscripts to theyear1453 (2 vols., Leiden,

1981)
Spingou, F., Words and artworks in the twelfth century and beyond: The thirteenth-century
manuscript Marcianus gr. 524 and the twelfth-century dedicatory epigrams on works of
art', DPhil dissertation (University of Oxford, 2013)
Spingou, F., The anonymous poets of the Anthologia Marciana: Qjrestions of collection
and authorship', in A. Pizzone (ed.), The authorin Middle Byzantine literature: Modes,
functions, and identities (Berlin, 2014): 139-153
Stankovic, V., Komniniu Carigradu (1057-1185). Eoolucijajedne uladarsk« porodice (Belgrade,
2006)
Stankovic, V., 'Lest we forget: History writing in the Byzantium of the Komnenoi and the
use of memories', in A Milanova, V. Vatchkova and T. Stepanov (eds.), Memory and
Oblivion in Byzantium (Sofia, 2011): 59-65
Stankovic, V., 'Comnenian monastic foundations in Constantinople: Ql1estions of method
and historical context', Belgrade Historical Review 2 (2011): 47-73
Stankovic, V., 'Tipikon manastira Bogorodice Kosmosotire sevastokratora lsaka Komnina
(1151/1152): specificnosti teksta i istorijski kontekst', Orkuene studije 8 (2011): 279-294
(reprinted in V. Stankovic, Putovanja kroz Vizantiju [Belgrade, 2014], no. XV)
Stankovic, V. and Berger, A, 'The Komnenoi and Constantinople before the building ofthe
Pantokrator complex', in S. Kotzabassi (ed.), ThePantokrator Monastery in Constantinople
(BostonIBerlin, 2013): 3-32
Stephenson, P., Byzantium's Balkanfrontier: A politicalstudy ofthe Northern Balkans, 900-
1204 (Cambridge, 2000)
Stephenson, P., Thelegend ofBasiltheBulgar-slayer (Cambridge, 2003)
Stewart, ].R., Lusignan Cyprus and its coinage (2 vols., Nicosia, 2002)
Stiernon, D., 'Rome et les eglises orientales', Euntes Dacete 15 (1962): 317- 385
Stiernon, L., 'Notes de prosopographie et de titulaire byzantines: Constantine Ange (pan)
sebastohypertate', REB 19 (1961): 273-283
Stiernon, L., 'Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines: Adrien Q'ean) et
Constantin Comnene, sebastes', REB 21 (1963): 178-198
Stiernon, L., 'Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines: sebaste et gambros', REB
23 (1965): 222-243
Stiernon, L., 'Notes de titulature et de prosopographie byzantines: Theodora Comnene et
Andronic Lapardas, sebastes', REB 24 (1966): 89-96
Stollberg- Rilinger, B., 'Symbolische Kommunikation in der Vormoderne. Begriffe - Thesen
- Forschungsperspektiven', Zeitschriftfir Historische Forschung 31 (2004): 489-527
Stornajolo, C., Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo Monaco (cod. Vatic. gr. 1162) e del!
Evangeliario greco Urbinate (cod. Vatic. Urbin. gr. 2) (Rome, 1910)
Stouraitis, I., Kriegund Frieden in derpqJitischen und ideologischen Wahrnehmung in Byzanz,
7.-11.jahrhundert (Vienna, 2009)
Stouraitis, I., 'Biirgerkrieg in ideologischer Wahrnehmung durch die Byzantiner: Die Frage
der Legitimierung und Rechtfertigung', JOB 60 (2010): 141-172
Stouraitis, I., 'Legitimierung und Rechtfertigung von Krieg und Frieden in byzantinischer
Zeit', in A Obenaus and C. Kaindel (eds.), Kriegim mittelalterlichenAbendland (Vienna,
2010): 331-353
Stouraitis, I., 'Jihad and Crusade: Byzantine positions towards the notions of "Holy War"',
Bv'av'twa EV/-I/-IEtlCCa 21 (2011): 11-63
BIBliOGRAPHY 227
Stouraitis, 1., 'just War" and "Holy War" in the Middle Ages: Rethinking theory through
the Byzantine case-study',JOB 62 (2012): 227-264
Stouraitis, I., 'Conceptions of war and peace in Anna Comnena's Alexiad, in J. Koder and
1. Stouraitis (OOs.), Byzantine war ideology between Roman imperial concept and Christian
religion (Vienna, 2012): 69-80
Stouraitis, 1., 'Roman identity in Byzantium: A critical approach', BZ 107 (2014): 175-220
Strassle, P.M., Krieg und Kriegfiihrung in Byzanz. Die Kriege Kaiser Basileios' IL gegen die
Bulgaren (976-1019) (CologneIWeimarNienna, 2006)
Striker, C.L. and Kuban, Y.D., Kalenderbane in Istanbul' Thebuildings, theirhistory, architecture
anddecoration (Mainz, 1997)
Svoronos, N., 'L'eplbole a l'epoque des Comnenes', TM 3 (1968): 375-395
Svoronos, N., 'Le serment de fide1ite al'empereur byzantin et sa signification constitutionelle',
in N. Svoronos, Etudessurl'organisation interieure, lasocieteet l'economie deI'Empire byzantin
(London, 1973): 106-142
Tanoulas, T., 'XWQa: Christian aspects of a Platonic concept', DCME 34 (2013): 405-416
Thomas, J., 'In perpetuum: Social and political consequences ofByzantine patrons' aspirations
for permanence for their foundations', in M. Borgolte (ed.), Stiftungen in Cbristentum,
[udentum und Islam oor der Moderne. Atif' der Suche nach ibren Gemeinsamkeiten und
Untencbieden in religiosen Grundlagen, praktischen Zwecken undbistoriscben Transformationen,
Stiftungsgeschichten 4 (Berlin, 2005): 123-135
Thompson, R.P., 'Luke-Acts: The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles', in
D.E. Aune (ed.), The BlackwellCompanion to the New Testament (Chichester, 2010):
319-343
Tinnefeld, F., Kategorien derKaiserkritik in derbyzantinlscben Historiographie von Prokop bis
NiketasChoniates (Munich, 1971)
Tinnefe1d, F., 'Mira varietas. Exquisite Geschenke byzantinischer Gesandtschaften in ihrem
politischen Kontext (8.-12. Jh.)', Mitteilungen SABK 4 (2005): 121-137
Todt, K.- P., 'Region und griechlsch-orthodoxes Patriarchat von Antiocheia in mittelbyzan-
tinischer Zeit und im Zeitalter der Kreuzziige (969-1204)', Habilitation thesis (2 vols.,
Wiesbaden,2005)
Tounta, E., To Llv't"tlc6 'Sacrum Imperium'scat 1) Bv~av't"LV1J Airtoxpaxopla. 16eoAoytlCEl;
't"pt{3El; lCat aAA1)Aem6paaetl; a't"1)V evpli.nraLlCTJ 1tOAL't"LlCTJ alC1)VTJ 't"ov 12/'V aLCilva
(1135-1177) (Athens, 2008)
Touratsoglou, LP., 'BAEK'tQa TQaxea 'tT]~ K0f.lViJVELa~ KaL f.lE'ta-K0f.lviJVELa~
7tEQl6bou (1092-1261): T] f.laQ'tuQLa 'twv 8T]uauQwv Kal f.lEQlKe~ 7taQa'tT]QiJ-
UE~', in E.G. Papaeuthymiou and LP. Touratsoglou (eds.), OAOlC6't"Lvov. Studies in
Byzantin,e Numismatics and Sigillography in Memory ofPetros Protonotarios (Athens,
2013), 81-98.
Touratsoglou, LP. and Nikolaou, Y. (eds.), Lvv-raypa {3v~av't"LvdJV "e1)aavpdJV" 't"ov
NOpLapa't"LlCOV Movaeiov (Athens, 2002)
Tournebize, H.F., Histoire politique et religieuse de fArmenie (Paris, 1910)
Treitinger, 0., Die ostromische Kaiser- und Reicbsidee nach ibrer Gestaltung im hOfischen
Zeremoniell Gena, 1938; repr. Darmstadt, 1956)
Tsougarakis, D., Byzantine Crete: From the 5th century to the Venetian conquest (Athens,
1988)
Tuley, K.A., 'A century of communication and acclimatization: Interpreters and intermedi-
aries in the Kingdom of Jerusalem', in A. Classen (ed.), East meets West in theMiddleAges
228 BIBLIOGRAPHY
and Early Modern times: Transcultural experiences in the Premadern world (Berlin/Boston,
2013): 311-340
Underwood, P.A., 'The Deisis Mosaic in the Kahrie Cami at Istanbul', in K Weitzmann
(ed.), Late Classical and Mediaevalstudies in honor ofAlbertMathiasFriend,]r. (Princeton,
1955): 254-260
Underwood, P.A., TheKariye Djami (3 vols., New York, 1966)
Underwood, P.A. (ed.), TheKariye Djami, Vol. 4: Studies in the art oftheKariye Djami and its
intellectual background (Princeton, 1975)
Van Millingen, A., Byzantine churches in Constantinople: Their history and architecture
(London, 1912)
Varzos, K, 11 Teveahoyla TcL1V KOfJV17VcL1V (2 vols., Thessaloniki, 1984)
Vassis, I., 'Das Pantokratorkloster von Konstantinopel in der byzantinischen Dichtung', in
S. Kotzabassi (ed.), The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople (BostonIBerlin, 2013):
203-249
Vilimonovic, L., 'The structure and the characteristics of the Alexiad: Creating a personal
history', PhD dissertation (Belgrade, 2014), in Serbian
Von Falkenhausen, V., 'Gli Amalfitani nell'Impero bizantino', in E.G. Farrugia (ed.), Ama!fi
and Byzantium (Rome, 2010): 17-44
Von Falkenhausen, V., '11 commercio di Amalfi con Costantinopoli e il Levante nel secolo
XII', in O. Banti (ed.), Ama!fi, Genooa, Pisae Venezia. 11 commercia con Costantinopoli e il
oicino Oriente nelsecolo XII (Pisa, 1998): 19-38
Voss, I., Herrschertreffen imfrUhen und hohen Mittelalter: Untersuchungen zu denBegegnungen
derostfrankischen und westfrankischen Herrscher im 9. und 1 O.jahrhundert sowiederdeutschen
undfranzdsiscben Konige vom 11. bis13.]ahrhundert (CologneIVienna, 1987)
Vryonis, S., Byzantium and Europe (London, 1967)
Vryonis, S., The decline ofMedieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the process ofIslamizatian
from theeleventh through thefifteenth century (Berkley/Los Angeles/London, 1971); Greek
edition: Vryonis, S., H rrapaKfJT] TOV fJel1aLCJ.JVtKOV EAA17vtl1fJov I1T17 MLKpa Al1ia Kat
17 DLaDtKal1La el;LI1AafJLl1fJOV (ll or; -lSO' aLwvac;) (Athens, 1996)
Vucetic, M.M., 'Zusammenktlnfte byzantinischer Kaiser mit auswartigen Herrschern (395-
1204): Vorbereitung - Gestaltung - Funktionen', PhD dissertation (Munster, 2013)
Vuillemin-Diem, G. and Rashed, M., 'Burgundio de Pise et ses manuscrits grecs d'Aristote:
Laur. 87.7 et Laur. 81.18', Recherches de tbiologie et philosophie medievales 64 (1997):
136-198
WaIter, C., 'The origins of the cult of Saint George', REB 53 (1995): 295-326
Walter, C., The warriorsaintsin Byzantine art and tradition (Aldershot/Burlington, 2003)
Wamser, L. (ed.), Die Welt con Byzanz - Europas astliches Erbe (Stuttgart, 2004)
Wander, S. The]oshua roll (Wiesbaden, 2012)
Weitzmann, K, Bernabo, M. and Tarasconi, R., The Byzantine Octateuchs: The illustrations
in the manuscripts of the Septuagint(2'vols., Princeton, 1999)
Wharton Epstein, A., 'Formulas for salvation: A comparison of two Byzantine monasteries
and their founders', Church History 50 (1981): 385-400
Whittow, M., 'How the East was lost: The background to the Komnenian reconquista', in
M. Mullett and D. Smythe (eds.), AlexiosI Komnenos (Belfast, 1996): 55-67
Wilson, N.G., 'A mysterious Byzantine scriptorium: Ioannikios and his colleagues', Scrittura
e Civilta 7 (1983): 161-176
BIBLIOGRAPHY 229
Wilson, N.G., 'New light on Burgundio of Pisa', Studi italiani difilologia classica 4 (1986):
113-118
Wilson, N.G., 'Ioannikios and Burgundio: A survey of the problem', in G. Cavallo,
G. De Gregorio and M. Maniaci (eds.), Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali di
Bisanzio (2 vols., Spoleto, 1991), II: 447-455
Yewdale, R.B., Bobemond 1,prince ofAntioch (princeton, 1917)
Yota, E., 'Le tetraevangile Harley 1810 de la British Library. Contribution a l'etude de
l'illustration des tetraevangiles du X, au XIII' siecle', PhD dissertation (University of
Fribourg, 2001)
Zacos, G., Byzantine leadseals (Bern, 1984), Vol. 2
Zacos, G. and Veglery, A., Byzantine leadseals (Base1, 1972), Vol. 1
Zorzi, N., 'La croce gemmata recuperata da Giovanni II Comneno a Shayzar (1138)', Bo!!
Grott 55 (2001): 63-98
Index
Compiled by Luigi D'Amelia
Adralestos, hostage ofBohemond 93 Andronikos, sebastokrator (d. c. 1133),

Agathias 62 brother of John Il 114
Ahrweiler, H. 198 Andronikos, sebastokrator (d. c. 1142),
Aleppo 81-2, 87-8 second son of John Il 114, 145
Alexander the Great 4 Angeloi, dynasty 29-32, 36, 71 n. 2
Alexios I Komnenos, emperor (1081-1118) Angold, M. 9, 31, 121
1,2,4,9,11,12,13 n. 6, 14-18, Anna Comnena, daughter of Alexios I,
19-24,32,37-8,43,48 n. 43, 46 n, 35, kaisarlssa 1, 2, 6, 11-15, 18-19,20-1,
49-51,55,57,59,62-3,71,74-5, 32,63,74,85,93,99,107,111,115-16,
80 n. 42, 81, 85 n. 67, 90, 92, 94, 96, 118-19,158,160, 182, 188 n. 12
104, 107, 109, 115, 117, 122-4, 151, Anna Dalassena, mother of Alexios 116,
155-7, 159, 160, 162-3, 169, 176-8, 19 n. 29,108 n, 124, 159
179 n, 108, 180, 182, 184 n. 4, 188, Anselm ofHavelberg 97-8,103-5,123-4,
193,194 n. 26,197 n. 39 129,132-3
Alexios Il Komnenos, emperor Antioch 23-4, 26-7, 38-9, 40, 45-6, 74,
(1180-1183) 145, 151 79,80-3,84-7,88-9,90,125,158,
Alexios III Ange1os, emperor (1195-1203) 188, 198
29,30,34,80 n. 42, 72 n, 5,194 n, 27; Arbantenos, John 145
see also Ange1oi, dynasty Arianism 131
Alexios V Doukas (1204) 72 n. 5 Aristenos, Alexios, orphanotrophos, canon
Alexios, eldest son of John, eo-emperor lawyer 112
(d. 1142) 7,158,170 n. 67, 173 Aristotle 106; commentators and
Amauric I, king ofJerusalem 84 n. 59 commentaries on 98-9,111,117-18;
Amouroux-Mourad, M. 48 n. 40 translation of PosteriorAnalytics97
Ananias 169 Armenian(s) 22, 24, 42 n. 20, 47, 63-4,
Anatolia, Anatolian 32, 34, 47 n. 39, 53, 72 n, 5, 74-5, 79, 85 n. 68, 86-7, 90, 93
63,188,198 Arnold ofLiibeck 123 n. 12, 198 n. 43
Anazarbos 42 n. 20, 87 Ashot Il, king of Armenia 85 n. 68
Anca, A. ~. 71 n. 2, 75 n, 14, 88-9 astrology 141, 153
Andrea, nephew of Moses of Athanaric, Gothic ruler 77
Bergamo 103 Attaleia 23, 145
Andronikos I Giddon (1222-1235) Auge 1., 48 n. 40
196 n. 38 augustus, title of38
Andronikos I Komnenos, emperor autokrator Rbomaion, title of 15,
(1183-1185) 155,193 Axouch, John, megas domestikos 112-13
Andronikos Il Palaiologos, emperor azymes 122
(1282-1328) 162
Andronikos Kamateros, pansebastos Bakirtzis, Ch. 151, 179 n. 108
sebastos, eparchos and later megas Bar Hebraeus 76, 82-3
droungarios (c. 1110-1180) 131 Barberini psalter 11 n, 1
230
INDEX 231
Barlaam of Calabria 129 n. 41 Chronicon Pictum Vindobonense 77

Barmine, A. 129 Chrysopolis 96
Basil I, emperor (867-886) 51 n. 51, 58, Cilicia 22-4, 26, 34, 46-7, 63, 74, 79,
61 n.24 80-2,86,87,158,198
Basil n "Boulgaroktonos", emperor Civitot 108 n. 124
(976-1025) 2, 49, 52, 57, 62 n, 27, Conrad III of Hohenstaufen, king of
78 n. 30 Germany (1138-1152) 5, 38, 75 n. 16,
Basil the "parakoimomenos" 58, 66 108 n. 124, 125
Basilakes, Nikephoros 3, 44, 81, 86, Constantine Doukas 15
108,113 Constantine of Rhodes 62
Bassedello, Domenico, magistrate 102 Constantine, brother of Nikephoros
Bela III, king of Hungary (1172-1196) 78 Basilakes 108, 113
Bendall, S. 196 n. 38 Constantine, emperor (306-337) 145
Beroia (Stara Zagora) 188 Constantine, general 30
Berschin, Walter 101 Cormery 109 n. 127
Bertha ofSulzbach, empress (Eirene) 9, Cremaschi, Giovanni 101,103
125, 136 Crete 193, 197-9; akrostichon of
Birkenmeyer,J. W. 10 194 n. 27; doux of 32, 95 n. 33;
Bogomils 121 recapture of 61 n. 26
Bohemond n, prince of Antioch 17, 19, Criscuolo, U. 48 n. 40
20,38,39 n. 5, 80-1, 85,92 n. 10, 93 Croesus 59
Book ofCeremonies 61,193 n. 24 Cyprus 23, 193-4, 196-7, 199; governor
Boris Il, Bulgarian czar 80 n. 39 of32
Brand, Ch. 94, 96
Browning, R 99 Damascus 167
Bryennios, Nikephoros 19, 50, 113, Dandolo, Enrico, doge 72 n. 5
115-18, 120, 158, 188 n. 12 Danishmend, Danishmendids, dynasty
Bulgarian(s) 42, 57, 72 n. 5, 76 n. 22, 78, 23,47 n. 39, 63-4, 188, 193; see also
80 n. 39, 93, 185 n. 9, 188, 193 Giimiishtigin, Ghazi
Burgundio of Pisa 98, 104-7 Daskhuranetsi, Movses 84 n. 59
David45
Caesarea 23, 81, 180 De La Force, M. 93 n. 14
Callixtus Il, pope (1119-1124) 40 Decius, emperor (249-251) 180
Cappadocia 158, 180, 188 de~~136,142, 157,159,160, 162-3, 166-7
Cerbani, Cerbano 94-8,100,102,107-8 Degni, P. 106
Chalandon, F. 8, 48 n. 40, 63 n. 32, 105 Demetrios ofPhaleron 174
Chalkites, Christ as 162-3 Demus, O. 99
Chios 94,97 Devol, treaty of 19,20,38 n. 4, 80, 85, 93
Choniates, Niketas 1-3, 11, 21-2, 25, diegemata 118
26-7,28-9,30,31-3,34 n. 55, 35-6, Digenes Akritas 120; Manuel I Komnenos
45,46 n. 36,47-8,52-4,64 n. 35, 74, as 119
75n. 12, 76-7,80,82, 85-6, 111-12, Dolger, F. 195 n.29
115-16,184 n. 4,193 Domenico, Venetian, messenger of
Chora (Kariye Camii), monastery of Otto 194
141-2, 148, 153, 156, 159, 163, 167, Dondaine, A. 101
169, 178, 180, 182; typikon of 136 Draskhanakerttsi, John, armenian
Chronicle of1234 79,82,87 katbolikas, annalist 85 n. 68
232 INDEX
Edessa 81 Grepes, king of the Huns 84 n. 58

Eideneier, H. 118-19 Grossolano, Pietro, archibishop of Milan
Eirene Doukaina, empress 11 n. 1, 14, 16, 122, 124
18,19 n. 29, 20, 50,111,114-15,117, Guilland, R. 95
118-19,158 Guillermus Ludovicus, French cleric 109
Eirene, bride ofJohn 11 Komnenos see n. 127
Piroska of Hungary Gumushtigin, Ghazi, emir (1104-1134)
Eirene, sebastokratorissa, wife of 47 n. 39
Andronikos Komnenos 171
ekphrasis, ekphrastic 54-5, 58-9, 62, hagiogeorgaton 41
66,118 Hama81
Eleazar, high priest of the Jewish Haskins, Ch. H. 100 n. 65, 101 n, 73
temple 174 Heliodorus 118
Emesa 81 Hendy, M. 185, 190
Epiros 196 n, 34 Henry I, king of East Francia 77
Erotikos, Manuel49 Henry 11, duke of Babenberg 75 n. 16
Eterianus, Ugo 91, 101 n. 77 Heraclea (Marmara Ereglisf) 72 n. 5, 78
ethl)poiia 113, 118 Heraclea Pontica (Karadeniz Eregll) 159
Eugene Ill, pope (1145-1153) 105, 124 Heraclius, emperor (602-641) 49,
Eumathios Makrembolites 113 50 n. 48, 53, 72, 78, 84 n. 59
Eustathios Makrembolites see Eumathios beroon 13,49,145,151,153
Makrembolites Hiera-Xerochorafion, cartulary of 195
Eustratios ofNicaea 99,122,129 hoards: Adana h. 189 n. 18; Bulgarian h.
Euthymios Zygabenos 176 (from Suedinenie) 188; MakreIFethiye
h. 193,197; Gornoslav h. 185 n. 9,
Festa, N. 126 188 n. 13; Iznik h. 193, 197, 198;
Filioque 121-2, 127-8, 130-2, 134 Paphos area/1939 h. (from Cyprus)
Frederic IV, duke ofSwabia 75 n. 16 193,197; Rhodes/1998 h. 193;
Frederick I of Hohenstaufen (Barbarossa), Safranbolu h. (from Kastamonu) 188,
king of Germany and western emperor 193, 197; Tvurdica/1967 h. 188 n. 13
(1152-1190) 27, 29,123 n. 12 Holy Apostles, church of 145
Fulk, king of Jerusalem 81,82 n. 56, 83 Honorius 11, pope (1124-1130) 40
funerary laments 113-14 Hungarian(s) 17,20,24,47,74,78,
135,188
Gabras, Constantine 32 Hutter, 1.170-1,173 n. 89
Galen 106 hyperpyron (-a) 41,103,183, 185, 188-9,
Gangra, capture of 117 190-1, 193-4, 195-6, 197-8
Gelimer, king of Vandals 80 n. 39
Geometres, John 62 Iakovos atelier see Kokkinobaphos
George of Pisidia 62 group
Ghazi 63; see also Gtimuehtlgtn, Ghazi Iakovos the monk 171
Goce Delcev (Bulgaria) 188 Ibn al-Athir 82
Goibertus-Gausbertus, brother of Ibn al-Qalanisi 82, 87
Guillermus Ludovicus 109 n, 128 Icaria, island 95
Greek mythology 113,141 Iconium see Ikonion
Gregory Palamas 129 n, 41 Ikonion 23,47 n. 39
Gregory the Priest 75 n. 15, 87 imitatio Dei 29
INDEX 233
Innocent Il, pope (1130-1143) 5, 108, kaloioannes, nickname for John Il 183
124-5 Kamal ad-Din 82, 87
Ioannikios, copystlscribe associated with Kamateros, family 114; see also Andronikos
Burgundio of Pisa 106 Kamateros
Isaac Il Angelos Komnenos, emperor Karayannopoulos, 1. 22-4, 33
(1185-1195,1203-1204)29,30,78, Kariye Camii see monasteries: of Chora
163,191 n. 22,193-4,198 Karl the "Simple", king of West Francia 77
Isaac, caesarand sebastokrator (1093-c. 1152), Karykes, doux of Crete 32
brother of John Il 2, 6, 8, 13 n. 6, 47, Kastamon, recapture of 42, 46, 53, 59, 64,
63,65,135-6,141-2,148,151-3, 66,117
155-6,157-9,160,162-3,164-6, Kastamonu 188
167-9,170-1,173-4,176,178-9,180-2 Kazhdan, A. 12, 93 n. 14, 116
Isaac Komnenos of Cyprus, 196 Kecharitomene, monastery of 7, 18, 99
Isaac, sebastokrator, elder brother of Alexios Kilij Arslan I, sultan 46 n. 35
1,17 n. 21,18 Kilij Arslan Il, sultan 76 n, 22
Isaac, third son of John Il 29, 36, 51 Kinnamos, John 1,2, 11, 22,25,26-7, 44,
Italikos, Michael3, 4, 40 n. 10, 81, 86, 48 n. 43, 49, 53-4, 74, 75 n. 12, 80-1,
111-12, 114-16, 124 82 n. 56, 83, 86, 89 n. 90, 96 n. 36, 102
Italos, John 92, 99, 121 Klaudiopolis, siege of 35
Ivanko (Alexios), Bulgarian potentate Kokkinobaphos group 170
72 n.5 Kokkinobaphos master 170-1, 173
Kolbaba, T. 125, 127, 133
Jacobus Graecus see James of Venice Kosmas Romaios, protospathanos 91-2
James of Venice 97-100,106-7 Kosmosoteira at Pherrai (Vira), monastery
Jerusalem 5, 23, 26,43 n. 24, 44, 46, 81-2, of8, 13 n. 6, 136, 149-50, 152-3,
89,95,158 159,164 n. 44,173,175-6,179,180;
Jiwanshir, king of Georgia 84 n. 59 typikon 0/'142, 148, 151, 156-8, 169,
John Doukas Kamateros 124 n. 15 178,181-2
John Elladas, katepan 95 n, 33 Kresten, O. 96
John I Tzimiskes, emperor (969-976) 42, Kriniotissa (Cyprus), register of
49,57-8, 61 n. 26, 71 n. 3, 163 194 n. 27, 197
John III Vatatzes, emperor (1222-1254) Krum, Bulgarian Khan 72 n. 5, 78
183, 196 n. 38
John IX Agapetos, patriarch of Lagopesole 124
Costantinople (1111-1134) 56 Lake of Pousgouse (Asia Minor), incident
John ofPoutza, megaslogariastes 197, 199 of34
John the Spaniard, monk 91 Lamma, P. 122
John, eldest son of the sebastokrator Isaac Laodicaea 62
(brother of emperor Alexios I) 18 Lavra (Mount Athos), monastery of 194
Joscelin Il of Courtenay, count of Edessa Lembos, cartulary of 195, 196 n. 38,198
74,80,81-4,86-9,90 Lemnos 103
Justinian I, emperor (527-565) 49, 53, Leo I the "Thracian", emperor
40 n, 9, 50 n. 48, 76 n. 22,84, 145, 154 (457-474) 55
Leo Il, prince of Armenian Cilicia
Kaldellis, A. 57 n. 17,58 n. 19, 116 (1137-1139/40) 72 n. 5, 74, 79-80
Kalenderhane (Istanbul), katholikon of 147 Leo V the "Armenian" (813-820)
Kallikles, Nicholas 4 72 n. 5, 78
234 INDEX
Liber.Pergaminus 100 1162 171; Venice, Biblioteca Marciana,

Lilie, R-J. 23, 75 Marc. gr. 5244, 49, 145; Marc. lat. cl
Liudprand of Cremona 94, 102 IX, no. 179 194 n. 27
Lizix, Michael, orator 112 Manzikert, battle of 32
Lopadion (fortress on the river Ryndakos) Maria Doukaina 141-2, 159
63 n. 32, 101 n, 78 Maria, porphyrogennete, daughter of
Lord's athlete, John II as 44 Manue1 I Komnenos 123 n. 12
Lothar II, king of Germany and western Maria, queen ofJerusalm 3
emperor (1125-1137) 38-9, 104, 123-4 Masoud I, Se1juk sultan of Rum 47 n. 39,
Louis VII, king of France (1137-1180) 63,74,76-7,79,90
26 n. 19,27,29,75 n. 16 Matthew of Edessa 42 n. 20, 75
Lucius 1Il, pope (1181-1185) 101 n. 77 Maurokatakalon, Marianos 93
Lusignan, kings of Cyprus 196 Mauropous, John 62
Mauros, kouropalates 124; see also John
Macedonia 18, 49, 96 Doukas Kamateros
Macedonian, dynasty 50,51 n. 51; McCormick, M. 58 n. 19,63
"Renaissance" 58 megasdiermeneutes ("chief interpreter") 93,
Machairas (Cyprus), monastery of: typikon 96, 102, 108
of 194 n. 27 Megaw, P. 141
Maeander river 29; valley 188 Me1ane, nun 162
Magdalino, P. 4, 9-10,23,37 n. 1 Meles, Stephen, orator and jurist 112
Makk, F. 48 n. 40 Merseburg 123
Manasses, Constantine 111, 114 Michae1 I Keroularios, patriarch of
Manuel I Komnenos, emperor Constantinople (1000-1059) 91
(1143-1180)2-4,5,9,11,20,22-3, Michae1 of Ephesus 99
25 n. 15,26,29,31-3,35--6,48 n. 43, Michae1 the Syrian 63-4, 76, 82
50 n. 48, 51-3, 71, 74-5, 76 n. 22,84-6, Michael V, emperor (1041-1042) 51 n. 51
88,89 n. 90, 90-1, 96, 99,104-5,107, Michae1 VII Doukas, emperor (1067-
109-10,112 n. 15, 117, 119, 123 n.12, 1078) 92
125,135--6,151-5, 159,173,180n. 111, Michael VIII Palaiologos, emperor
184 n. 4, 185 n. 9, 193, 194 n. 27, (1223-1282) 162
196 n, 38, 197 n, 39,198 Michele, Domenico, doge (1117-1130) 95
Manuel ton Modenon, servant of Miklosich, F. 195 n. 29, 196 n. 38
Euphorbenos Constantine Katakalon Minio-Paluello, Lorenzo 98
92 n.l0 Mitylenaios, Christopher 62
manuscripts: Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi monasteries see Chora (Kariye Carnii);
Miizesi Kiitiiphanesi, GayriIslami Kecharitomene; Kosmosoteira at
8 (Seraglio Oktateuch) 156-7, 171, Pherrai (Vira); Lavra (Mount Athos);
173-4,178,180; Oxford, Bodleian Machairas (Cyprus); Mother of God
Library,Auct. T. inj 1.10 (codex Full of Mercy (on the Strumitza river);
Ebnerianus) 164-8, 170-1, 173, 180; Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii); St john
Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. the Baptist (on the river Jordan); St
gr. 2682 157; Paris. gr. 625 194 n. 27; John at Patmos; St Mary in Paszt6
Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica (Hungary); St Paul in Latros; St
Vaticana, Barb. gr. 528194 n. 27; Urb. Stephen ofAurelianae
gr. 211 n. 1, 170-1, 179 n, 108; Vat. monodies 114
gr. 666176; Vat.gr. 747174-6; Vat.gr. Monophysit(ism) 23, 131
INDEX 235
Mopsuestia 56,58 n. 19 Pechenegs24,48-9,107,188

Moses 45 Pertusi, A. 97-8
Moses of Bergamo see Moses of Brolo Peter the Deacon 124
Moses ofBrolo 98,100-4,108 Peter the Venerable 108 n, 124
Mother of God Full of Mercy (on the Philippopolis 113, 188; metropolitan of 114
Strumitza river), monastery of: typikon philopator see Merkourios
of18, 111 n. 4 Phokas, emperor (602-610) 37, 55
Mouriki, D. 179 Photios, patriarch of Costantinople
MUller,J. see Miklosich, F. (858-867; 877-886) 132, 110; "photian
Musai 20, 116 sophisms" 128
Mylasa, theme of 198 Phournes, John 122
phthonos 114
Neocaesarea 47 Pimaninon (Bithynia) 101 n. 78
Neville, L. 116-17 Piroska of Hungary (Eirene) 9, 17, 18,
New Testament 164, 171 20,135
Nicaria see Icaria Plovdiv see Philippopolis
Nicholas of Methone 112 Pneumatomachians 131
Nicomedia 109 n. 127 Pontani, F. 101-2, 103-4
Nikephoros II Phokas, emperor (963-969) Prodromos, Theodore 3, 4, 12, 33, 42, 47,
55-6, 61 n. 26, 94 50 n. 48-9, 54, 56-8, 59, 60-2, 65, 86,
Nikephoros, brother of Manuel 110-13,114,115 n. 37, 117-19, 157,
Erotikos 49 168-9
Niketas Byzantios 132 progymnasmata 113
Niketas ofMaroneia see Niketas of Psellos, Michaell, 92, 110-11, 148
Thessalonika Pseudo- Kodinos 96
Niketas ofNicomedia 123-4, 132 Ptochoprodromic poems 118-19
Niketas ofThessalonika 126-33 Ptolemyl 174-5, 176, 178, 180
nomisma(ta) 41 n. 12,194 n. 28, Pyrros, translator 91
195 n. 29-30
Ranaud, abbot of Montecassino 124
Old Testament 45, 52, 141, 173 Rapsomates, governor of Cyprus 32
orphanotropheion 107 Raymond Il, count of Tripoli 81
Ostrogorsky, G. 8, 22 Raymond ofPoitiers, prince ofAntioch
Otto of Freising 5,108 n, 124, 183 n. 3 45,74,80-90
Rhodes 62, 97,193,194 n. 27, 198-9
Pamastorakis, T. 179 Robert Guiscard, duke of Apulia 95
Panagia Eleousa, church of43,142 Robert Il of Normandy 85 n. 67
panegyrics 113 Roger Il, king of Sicily (1130-1154) 39,
Panteugenos, Soterichos, dogmatic 105, 123-5
disputes around 113 Romanos I Lakapenos (or Lekapenos),
Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii), monastery of emperor (920-944) 78, 162
9,49,141-2,147-8,151,153-4,184; Romanos III Argyros, emperor
typikon of 6-8,13,64 n. 37, 135-6, (1028-1034) 88
139, 145-6, 184 n. 5 Rus57
Paphos 194 n. 27
Pascal n, pope (1099-1118) 122 Sabinos, Bulgarian khan 76 n. 22
Paul the Silentiary 62 San Marco, church of (Venice) 99, 147
236 INDEX
satire 113,117 Stephen IV, king of Hungary 76 n. 22

sebastokrator, title of 157-8, 160-2, 181 Stephen ofBlois 85 n. 67
and passim Suartuas, ruler over the Heruli 76 n. 22
Seibt, W. 96 SwainlSven, patrikios, "English
Seides, Niketas 122, 131 interpreter" 92
Se1jukTurks 22, 24; sultanate 198; see also Syria 23, 26-7,34,74,79,83 n. 56, 80-1,
MasoudI 86,90,114,119
Sevcenko N. 151
Shaizar, siege of 43-5, 86-7 Tarsus 23, 56, 58,81,
Sibt b. al-Jawzi 82-3 Tatius, Achilles 118
Siderokastron see Valavista Telerig, Bulgarian khan 76 n. 22
Simeon, Bulgarian ruler 78 tetarteron (-a) 41,191 n. 20,196
Skoulatos, B. 12 n. 4, 92 n. 10, 93 n. 14 theatron (-a) 110-16, 117-19
soldier-emperor 41, 49, 50, 52, 182 Theodore I Laskaris, emperor
soldier-saint 180 (1205-1222) 196 n. 38
Sophistes, Longus 118 Theodore Mangaphas 34 n. 55,196
Sozopolis, taking of 62 Theodore Metochites 136, 159,
St Albercius, church of (at Kursunlu): 162-3,169
pastophoria 142 Theodosios the Deacon 61 n, 26
St George 41,179 Theoktistos, abbot of the Monastery of
St Irene, Life of 92 Patmos 194 n. 27
StJames 167 Theophilos, emperor (829-842) 58
St john the Baptist (on the river jordan), Theophylaktos Exubitos, megas
monastery of 169 diermeneutes 96
St John at Patmos, monastery of 5, 194 Theophylaktos of Ohrid 16, 122,
n.27 127, 131
St Leontios, Vita of 194 n. 27 theotokion ("Mother-of-God coin") 41
St Mary in Paszt6 (Hungary), monastery Thessalonica 18 n. 26, 103, 184, 185 n. 9,
of97 186 n. 11, 187, 190 n. 18, 191 n.22
St Merkourios 179 n. 108, 180 Thrace 49,156,159,176,178,197
St Michae1, archangelos 13 Thrakesion, theme of198
St Niccolo, abbot 102 Topkapi Palace 151
St Paul 164, 167, 169-70 Tornikes, George 111, 116
St Paul in Latros, monastery of 195 Toros, prince ofArmenia 86
St Prokopios 179 Trebizond 23, 32; empire of 196 n. 38
St Stephen ofAurelianae, monastery of trikephalon (-a) 185, 190, 193,
156, 169 194 n. 26-7, 195-6, 197-9
St Stephen the Protomartyr 169 Triphilus, maximus palatinorum
St Theodor Stratelates 179 n. 108 interpretum 101 n. 77
St Theodor Teron 176,178,179 n.108: 80 Tripoli 81
stamen/a) 191 n. 20,196 Tsougarakis, D. 95 n. 33
stamenon 185 n. 7 Turks see Seljuk or Danishmend
Stankovic, V. 154 Tuscus, Leo 91, 101
stauropboros 44 n. 27 Typikon of the Pantokrator see monasteries:
stemmatogyrion (-a) 161 n. 30, 176, 179-80 of Pantokrator
stepbanos (-oi) 161 n. 30, 162-3, 166, 180 tyrannusJohn Il as 95
Stephen Il, king of Hungary 74,77-9,90 Tzetzes, John 110, 114
INDEX 237
Urban n, pope (1088-1099) 122 Wharton Epstein A. 7, 93 n. 14

William ofTyre 3, 81, 82 n. 56, 83-5,
Vahram of Edessa 79 86 n. 72, 87, 88-90, 101 n. 77
Valavista (later Siderokastron) 18 Wilson N. 106
Valens, emperor (364-378) 77 workshop of the animal initials see
Valerian, emperor (253-260) 180 Kokkinobaphos group
Varzos, Konstantinos 17
oestiarios 104 Xerxes 78 n. 33
Victor III, pope (1087) 108 n. 124
Vitalis, Ordericus 81, 83 Zoe, empress, porphyrogennete, 51 n, 51
Vladislav, duke of Bohemia 75 n. 16, Zonaras,]ohn 14, 15,62 n. 27,184 n. 4,
86 188 n. 13, 198 n. 43

John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIrstpublished 2016

ISBN 978-1-4724-6024-0 (hbk)

Typesetin Adobe CaslonPro

THE CENTRE FOR HELLENIC STUDIES:

List offigures vii

1. John Il Komnenos: a historiographical essay 1

2. John II Komnenos before the year 1118 11

3. Narratives ofJohn Il Komnenos'wars: comparing Byzantine

4. The political ideology ofJohn Il Komnenos 37

5. The triumph of 1133 53

6. Emperor John Il's encounters with foreign rulers 71

7. From Greek into Latin: Western scholars and translators in

8. Literary trends in the Constantinopolitan courts in the

9. Seeking a way out of the impasse: the Filioque controversy

10. Architecture and patronage in the age ofJohn II 135

11. Imperial impersonations: disguised portraits of a Komnenian

12. Coinage, numismatic circulation and monetary policy under

10.1 Istanbul, Zeyrek Camii (Monastery of Christ Pantokrator), plan

11.1 The Deesis Mosaic in the esonarthex of the katholikon of the

11.4 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. T. inf. 1. 10

12.1 Hyperpyron ofJohn Il Komnenos (1118-43), Thessalonica

12.10 John Il's trikephala production (annual average) 190

All illustrations of coins in Chapter 12 © Dumbarton Oaks, Byzantine Collection,

Alessandra Bucossi is a Research Fellow and Lecturer at Ca' Foscari University

ElizabethJeffreys is Bywater and Sotheby Emerita in the University of Oxford,

Kallirroe Linardou lectures on Byzantine Art as a faculty member in the

Paul Magdalino was Bishop Wardlaw Professor of Byzantine History in the

Robert Ousterhout teaches Byzantine Art and Architecture at the University of

Pagona Papadopoulou is a Lecturer at the Aristotle University ofThessaloniki.

Angeliki Papageorgiou has been a Junior Lecturer in the Department of Slavic

Vlada Stankovic is a Professor of Byzantine Studies and Director of the Centre

Dionysios Stathakopoulos is a Senior Lecturer in Byzantine Studies at King's

Ioannis Stouraitis is a Research Associate and Lecturer at the Institute for

MartinMarko Vucetic is a Research Assistant at the Department of History at

descriptions of conquests and compares the different existing narratives in order to

AHDlMA Archivesd'bistoire doctrinale et Iitteraire du moyen age

JWarb Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes

Alex R odriguez Suarez

John 11 Komnenos: ahistoriographical essay

13 Simpson, A historiographicalstudy, 217-24, with earlier bibliography.

with hindsight what had brought on the conquest of Constantinople in 1204,17

17 A. Simpson,'Beforeand after 1204: The versions ofNiketas Choniates'Historid,DOP 60 (2006),

19 Choniates,Hlstoria, 46-47; seealso]effreysin this volume.

26 P.Magdalino, The empire ofManuelI Kamnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge, 1993),419-34.

MGH SS rerGerm (Leipzig,1912,3rd ed.),lib.I, cap.25,37-40; seeC. Gastgeber, 'Das SchreibenKaiser

S6 Ostrogorsky, History, 377.

history of the Byzantine Empirec.50o-1492 (Cambridge, 2008),627-63, on John, 629-34.

John 11 Komnenos before the year 1118

Our knowledge of John II Komnenos is as scarce as are the surviving visual

7 Gautier, 'Le Typikon Pantocrator', 1-145, at 27-31; Kotzabassi, The Pantokrator.

a Die byzantinischen Kleincbroniken, ed. p. Schreiner (Vienna, 1975), I, 54-6, Chronik 5.

The shortcomings and internal contradictions ofAnna's purposefully misleading

November 1092.21 Konstantinos Varzos proposed 1 September 1092, the beginning

John's status in the years 1092-1118

25 L. Petit, 'Le monastere de None-Dame de Pltie en Macedoine', lRAIK 6 (1900-1901), 3;

Narratives ofJohn 11 Komnenos'wars:

I Kinnamos, Epitome, 5, ll. 4-6; NiketasChonlates,Historia, 4, 11. 13-20.

5 1. Karayannopoulos, latopia Bv~aV'rtVoV Kpa1:ov" Vo!. 3: lirtopia Ya1:Epa, Bv~aV'tlv~,

6 Lllie, Byzantiumandthe Crusader states, 140--1.

Crusade: Origins and impact (ManchesterlNewYork, 1997), 107-29, esp. 113-22.

10Blrkenmeier, Komnenian drmy, 1081-1180,86.

Using these two observations as a point of departure, we can attempt a critical

14 On generic differences in the ideological instrumentalisation of religion in warfare between

'These concluding remarks are preceded by a long speech by the emperor on