Rewriting on Martyrs of Iconoclasm during the Palaiologan period
p. 285-304
Texte intégral
1Some decades ago a volume under the title The Twilight of Byzantium came out and was about understanding the “Byzantine Empire under its last imperial dynasty, the Palaiologoi”. The articles focused on “the pursuit of relatively narrow problems in depth, which permitted their authors to draw some broader conclusions” regarding the conditions of political and social decline of the Byzantine Empire interwoven with the religious controversies that led to its final end in 1453.1 One of the essays related to this specific perspective was the fundamental work by A.-M. Talbot2 on the hagiographical texts of the Late Byzantine period. These literary compositions were considered an integral part of the Palaiologan literary production that furnished a particular way to approach the complicated reality3 of the last centuries of Byzantium. Because the hagiographers of the time often illustrated the prevailing contemporary features of the political scene and society with their unique way, their texts allow us to unveil ways of thinking, detect intentions and decode social concerns and literary practices.
2Numerous literati of the Palaiologan period tried at least once their hand at penning a hagiographical text,4 handing down to us a rich textual material, a great part of which is now digitized.5 The learned hagiographers of the time displayed a keen interest in writing on contemporary holy men, or rewriting on martyrs from earlier Byzantine times as well, a literary activity known as “metaphrasis”.6 Recalling the earlier Byzantine past was a fundamental component used as a widespread pattern firmly entrenched in the Byzantine ideology of the last centuries that inspired politics and cultural expressions.
3As restorer of Constantinople in 1261 Michael VIII Palaiologos reinforced the concept of the continuity with the Byzantine past for dynastic and political reasons.7 He had inaugurated a new era for Byzantium based on the authority of the past, a characteristic component of his political ideology, which, as explicitly couched by Nikephoros Gregoras, his successor Andronikos II Palaiologos followed as well, but in a different way.8 Inevitably, the close correlation between past and present had an influence on the contemporary literary production.9
4The rewriting of texts on the specific subject matter under discussion can be viewed within this context: the martyrs from earlier Byzantine periods were among the necessary elements for revitalizing the religious Orthodox tradition after the bitter break of the Latin occupation of Constantinople (1204-1261). Other motivations also spurred the hagiographers towards this literary genre. They were connected with particular activities and events in relation to religious affairs, for instance the restoration of a church and the revival of the cult of old saints especially after the recovery of Constantinople in 1261, the beneficial effects of miracles,10 the praise of a namesake of the author, or a commission for an oration on the saint’s feast.11
5Let us now examine how the issue of Iconoclasm was elaborated by the hagiographers of the time, since some martyrs from the iconoclast epoch aroused the interest of Palaiologan hagiographers. The hagiographical compositions in their repetitive style could be regarded as tedious and uninteresting narrations, however their content articulated in high rhetorical style often enclosed hidden issues which invite us to trace their real meaning. Some specific questions arise. Why did the hagiographers particularly direct their attention to the martyrs of the iconoclast period? What was the purpose of this literary activity? Who are specifically the martyrs whose deeds and patterns of life inspired the hagiographers of the period? Who were the hagiographers who devoted a part of their rhetorical production to those martyrs and why did they choose to do so?
6I will start from the last question by examining the work of Nikephoros Gregoras.12
Nikephoros Gregoras on the Life of Michael the Synkellos (BHG 1297)
7The hagiographer wrote a text about Michael the Synkellos between 1321-1326, presenting him as one of the “most excellent” martyrs.13 Michael became Synkellos of the Patriarch of Jerusalem ca. 811 and after his arrival in Constantinople during the reign of Leo V the Armenian he was imprisoned due to his iconophile sentiments.14 Later he became abbot of the Chora monastery which he restored to its former glory.15
8Nikephoros Gregoras painted the iconoclast emperor’s portrait with a grim picture16 arguably applying relevant terminology from earlier hagiographical sources. Gregoras states that he was aware of earlier lengthy works on his hero.17 He could thus indicate the known texts, the anonymous Life of Michael Synkellos (BHG 1296), written in the second half of the 9th century or in the early 10th century,18 the late 9th-early 10th century Encomium on Theodoros and Theophanes the Graptoi by Theophanes of Caesarea (BHG 1745z),19 the 10th century Metaphrastic Life of Theodoros Graptos (BHG 1746),20 or perhaps another source unknown to us. When describing the iconoclast policy of Leo V, Gregoras followed the widely fixed image of the iconoclast emperors as it was formulated by the earlier sources.21 The polymath scholar seems to know that it was a truism to insist on a lengthy description about the strict measures that the iconoclast emperors had imposed on the iconophiles, therefore Gregoras abridged the relevant section by stating: “to cut a long story short, they (the iconophiles) experienced everything that the unscrupulous rulers devised in order to inflict severe punishments”.22 Michael II’s lenient policy towards the iconophiles, a view also included in the earlier Life of Michael,23 is characterised by Gregoras as “ignorance of [public] interest”.24 This phrase should be regarded as a cutting comment on imperial authority in which the learned hagiographer was well informed from his own experience,25 but also through his spiritual mentor, the statesman Theodoros Metochites.26 His opinion regarding the iconoclast emperor is also briefly couched with well-known clichés and certainly in his familiar oratory style reproducing fixed and oversimplified patterns on Iconoclasm.27
9Our hagiographer drew from earlier sources, albeit with high rhetorical28 phraseology simplified the stream of events by condensing29 them, as it happens with the account of Chora’s historical background,30 or by omitting controversial issues, such as the real reason behind Michael’s journey from Jerusalem to Constantinople, which was connected with the filioque question.31 The orator finally created an entirely different32 narrative on Michael the Synkellos emphasizing the points he wished, by adding to them images from his own epoch, rather than from the iconoclast past, as for instance in the reference related to the “theatron” in front of the emperor.The term “theatron” was already used within the iconoclast phrasing: for instance, Theodoros Stoudites often refers to “theatron” as a show of the iconophile martyrs that included their ridicule from the iconoclast emperor’s part.33 Gregoras shifted the meaning of the word and transmuted it into its Palaiologan concept and practice of literary gathering with political meaning, especially during the reign of Andronikos II.34
10A particular point on which Gregoras placed great emphasis is Michael’s wide spectrum of learning,35 with special mention of his perfection on astronomy36 (a topic at which our hagiographer was also an expert), a point missing from earlier texts. Gregoras stressed that his hero’s erudition and virtue constituted the reasons for which he had gained the trust of the political authorities.37 Such statements remind us not exactly of Michael the Synkellos, but essentially of Gregoras’ mentor Theodoros Metochites who combined intrinsic nature of wisdom with politics. The author never neglected to consider his hero as a martyr, however several features attached to Michael’s portrait correspond very well with the particular characteristics of the author’s mentor Metochites. He was the emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos’ particular choice for the high office of “megas logothetes”38 on account of his erudition and experience and among his other intellectual and political activities was widely known for his insightful dealing with astronomy.39
11An issue which caused much concern in Gregoras’ narration was the repair of the derelict monastery of Chora.40 In the years of Andronikos II the renovation of an old monastery served to preserve the link with the Byzantine past and continuation of the Byzantine tradition.41 The statesman Theodoros Metochites was involved not only in the restoration and lavish decoration of the monastery of Chora, but also in its monastic life.42 Gregoras had also a long relationship with the monastery of Chora: he entered there in his early youth and never abandoned it;43 since 1321 he was appointed as its librarian by Theodoros Metochites himself;44 furthermore the monastery of Chora was the location of Gregoras’ “Didaskaleion” (private school).45
12In the last section of his text Gregoras set aside the hero-martyr of the story and directly praised the recent renovator of the monastery (τῆς νέας κατασκευῆς), although he is not mentioned by name, with high encomiastic features, portraying him as an eminent person with piety, nobility and wisdom.46 We cannot ignore the reiterated references47 to his hero’s wisdom that were probably meant as an allusion to the wide learning of Theodoros Metochites.
13Gregoras intentionally omitted the earlier history of the monastery of Chora and avoided mentioning historic events and persons of the past.48 Gregoras’ phrase on the refurbishment of the Chora monastery in his time seems to provide us with an idea about his mode of telling his story. As the renovator Theodoros Metochites “had erased everything from the past and given to the monastery a brilliant new look, much better than before”,49 Gregoras correspondingly used figurative devices, such as comparisons and metaphors,50 in order to transform the old texts. In this context the author selected some distinctive features of his teacher, which matched Michael’s hagiographical portrait. As a result, Gregoras composed a new embellished narration with the ultimate purpose of praising his spiritual mentor Theodoros Metochites.
14If the issue of Iconoclasm had been rather slightly51 touched upon by Nikephoros Gregoras, the same cannot be said about the hagiographers of the generation before him, as it will be explained below.
Theodora Raoulaina on the Life of Theophanes and Theodoros the Graptoi (BHG 1793)
15Probably around 1273-1274 Theodora Raoulaina, the daughter of John Kantakouzenos and Eirene-Eulogia Palaiologina, and niece of the Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, with an active presence in the cultural life of the time,52 composed a Life of Theophanes and Theodoros the Graptoi. The martyrs of Iconoclasm are known for the punishment imposed on them by the iconoclast emperor Theophilos to be tattooed on the forehead with iambic iconoclast verses. Their steady stand on the Orthodox iconophile ideas and their following severe punishment by the emperor had inspired Raoulaina to write again about them. With a good dose of exaggeration the author named them as “athletes of piety” and martyrs who fervently defended Orthodoxy,53 justifying thus their characterization also as confessors already in the title of her text. Her account functioned as a parallel reminder of the cruel abuse of her two brothers in law, Manuel and Isaac Raoul, in the hands of Emperor Michael VIII, due to their opposition to the Union of the Churches, as D. Nicol has wisely observed.54 The iconoclast episode offered to Raoulaina an appropriate set of circumstances to express her own anti-unionist resistance,55 as she herself had clashed with the emperor over his unionist religious policy. Besides, I think that she deliberately chose these saints for an additional reason: Theodoros and Theophanes together with Michael the Synkellos were in some way involved in the dispute between the Greek and Frankish monks in Jerusalem over the filioque.56 This religious aspect of the heroes’ life, which is not mentioned in Raoulaina’s narration, though she knew very well their history from earlier sources, as she says,57 may also function as an inspiration for this hagiographical choice.
16In the introductory part of her text, Raoulaina declares that the content of her work will constitute a model for those who are virtuous;58 she therefore considers that her text will function as a “live coal so as to allow the fire to be rekindled and set fire to the souls of the audience”. With this passionate phrase she underlines the aggressive character of her hagiographical work. What follows in her story is based on interweaving the two historical periods in an exceptionally figurative way.
17From the very beginning, Raoulaina clearly placed the timing of her literary composition in a turbulent phase and directed the reader’s attention to the reason of this: “the confusion which afflicted the church now on account of the agreement between the emperor and Rome”,59 that is the controversy over the Council of Lyon and the Union of the Churches of 1274.60 Raoulaina introduces the correlation between her own time and the era of Iconoclasm when she narrates the unholy deeds of the iconoclast emperor, by saying that “the same has been done now by those who dare to set aside the godly dogma”.61 The name of “those” is not mentioned, but it is remarkably obvious, since her phrasing gives us an indication of her hostile tone against the emperor.
18As mentioned above, Raoulaina directly referred to her own time with nuances of criticism against the political authority. There are also several phrases suggesting parallels between her time and the distant iconoclast past. She reinforced her narration by referring to events and situations that took place outwardly in the distant iconoclast era, whereas they were actually bringing together various conceptual elements from her own time. This is the case, for instance, when she described the religious policy of the emperor Michael II, who had held rather moderate iconoclast views.62 For this topic, Raoulaina selectively drew from earlier texts and constructed her account specifically based on the version that reprimands him for “having heretical and God-opposing views”.63 Thus, she presented Michael II as the most treacherous iconoclast emperor. Moreover, she gave an overcritical account of him: “he has taken the life of his master and he has been deprived of thinking and talking; he was ambiguous in his words and deeds and moreover he has lost control of his mental faculties”.64 This passage is filled with excessive zeal against the emperor and easily explains Raoulaina’s intention to provide a negative imperial image, which also befits her uncle, who bore the same name as his distant predecessor. The reference to the way the emperors rose to power65 is equally matching as the reigns of both were founded on a crime.66 Another element, which is perfectly associated with the two epochs, has to do with the noble women who were exiled by the iconoclast emperor Leo V.67 Such occurrences rarely appear in the hagiographical works of the iconoclast era,68 but most likely correspond to the writer’s own time, especially her own fate and that of her mother Eirene-Eulogia.69 Mother and daughter became nuns and they were both imprisoned in the castle of Saint Gregorios in the gulf of Nikomedeia.70 It is noteworthy that Raoulaina projected the characteristic motif of the female martyrs, who had surpassed “women’s weakness”, insinuating their own leading role against the emperor’s policy of Union. Although Raoulaina does not define the place of her exile in her text, she says that she wrote the text on the iconophile martyrs at the instigation of her mother71 when they were in seclusion. From there, both had worked as “willing agents of the anti-unionist propaganda”.72
19Raoulaina skillfully played with the word “now” which is used again and again,73 as the plot of the storyline unfolds. Sometimes she employed the word in its literal meaning and sometimes with an ambiguous significance in order to project events of her own time. For instance, with her particular choice of words pertaining to the (iconoclast) synod she distinguished between the words “council”, with religious connotations, and “assembly”, with a non legislative and religious concept: “he (the emperor) convened assemblies with bribes and other lawful and unlawful means to achieve the support of his hateful to God doctrine, if I can call the abhorrent assemblies synods”.74 Her purpose was to remind of the deceitful procedures that Michael VIII had adopted in order to make the Byzantine clergy sign the Council of Lyon of 1274.75 Phrases relevant to Orthodoxy such as “the fury of Iconoclasm overwhelmed the Church”, “now the martyrs just like the priests cry out to people to follow dogma as maintained by the scripts of the Holy Fathers”76 matched perfectly both with the iconoclast epoch and the years of Michael VIII as well. The concept of traditional Orthodoxy as firmly entrenched in Byzantine ideology runs throughout Raoulaina’s account reflecting her own beliefs.
20As it can easily be perceived, the conditions in Byzantium were hard enough. There were difficulties in freely articulating an opinion that was opposed to the official policy. Openly expressing political thoughts was a risky matter, under the circumstances of the time; this climate has best been described by the eyewitness historian George Pachymeres.77 He highlighted the fundamental principle of freedom of expression that characterized “men, who were created free”.78 Therefore, Raoulaina penned a narration on the iconoclast past that tended to recall her own troubled days. By projecting the iconoclast issue, she could speak openly about Orthodoxy and the tricky situation that ensued from the ecclesiastical policy of the emperor, albeit without naming him. Returning to the iconoclast heritage Raoulaina could promote more freely her own ideas, aiming at sending concrete messages to her followers, as she had forewarned at the beginning of her work.79
The anonymous text on saint Theodosia (BHG 1773z) (by Manuel Holobolos?)
21Another hagiographical work that carries the same range of meanings is the anonymous text on saint Theodosia, in all probability written at about the same time.80 According to earlier hagiographical sources,81 the saint played a leading role in the protection of the Christ’s icon over the Chalke Gate against iconoclast destruction82 and suffered a dramatic execution by the first iconoclast emperor Leo III.83 Therefore, Theodosia earned the name of “martyr” with which she is characterized in all texts written to glorify her deeds and martyrdom.
22Two excerpts from the anonymous text testify that its author lived in difficult conditions fearing not only for his soul, but also his body. The hagiographer is deeply conscious of the danger that his work will cause to him.84 This element indicates that the hagiographical composition was written in an environment of political abuse, in which expressing openly viewpoints or negative political comments caused harm to the opponents. The nature of the arguments, the aggressive style of the discourse and some of the historical inaccuracies point to a date during the reign of Michael VIII. The author does not pay much attention to depict Theodosia’s status of martyr but rather concentrates on the emperor’s negative portrayal. Many of the reports mentioned in the anonymous text have been distorted, emended or altered to fit in with late Byzantine perceptions. For instance, the hagiographer placed the destruction of the Icon of Christ during the reign of Constantine V,85 although this event has been charged to his father Leo III, the initiator of the iconoclast dispute.86 In my view, the author deliberately chose this version in order to defame an emperor bearing the name Constantine. As I have argued elsewhere, the anonymous hagiographer systematically avoided mentioning the emperor by his name. The hagiographer used derogatory terms about the iconoclast emperor, mentioning him only by his nickname Kopronymos, as if he did not deserve to bear the glorious name of the first Byzantine emperor and saint Constantine87 with whom Michael VIII purported to be identified as the New Constantine.88 The textual content gravitated around the imperial power whereas Kaiserkritik occupied considerable space, given that our hagiographer dismantled one by one all the characteristic elements of imperial portrayal. The anonymous text’s phraseology pertaining to imperial matters is virulent, sarcastic and full of feeling,89 whereas statements related to an emperor devoid of sentiment90 perfectly correlated with Michael VIII.91
23Speaking about the “bloody clouds that covered the city”92 the anonymous author concentrated on the terrible situation in the aftermath of the religious measures introduced by the emperor.93 It was the appropriate moment for the writer to censure the illegal way by which the emperor had ascended the throne.94 The phrase was certainly unrelated to the iconoclast emperor Constantine,95 but it was a cryptic remark about Michael VIII’s rise to the throne after the overthrow of the legitimate successor John IV Laskaris. Raoulaina’s text also included identical hints causing the same emphatic effects.96 So, it is evident that the anonymous hagiographer expressed his oppositionist political view through iconoclast perceptions from which he developed the polemical stance that prevails in the text on Theodosia.
24Theodosia held a unique place among her contemporary martyrs for several reasons: she was connected to the first anti-iconoclast act according to a certain tradition;97 she had suffered an extraordinary martyrdom; and the basic element which, as I perceive it, had a great deal of influence among the late Byzantine hagiographers, is that saint Theodosia represented the epitome of Orthodoxy and moreover symbolised the resistance98 and opposition to the imperial innovation over dogma.
25The biting style of this narration justifies its anonymity.99 Analysing the context of the imperial names used in the most negative form by the anonymous hagiographer, I have already put forward my view100 that the paternity of this strange text could belong to Manuel Holobolos. Having the dexterity to construct,101 and respectively to deconstruct, imperial portrayal,102 the expert “rhetor of the rhetors”103 had experienced exemplary punishments in imperial hands.104 Therefore, Theodosia and the iconoclast issue was a cleverly contrived trick on behalf of Holobolos to express his dissent by means of hagiographical code from the past. Thus, he ultimately attained his goal: to avoid dealing openly with precarious religious matters that dominated the reign of Michael VIII. I find it likely that the anonymous author (probably to be identified with Holobolos) was the first among the Palaiologan writers who resuscitated the iconoclast era and prompted the setting up of the iconoclast ambience again in his days, blazing a trail for others to follow. This approach enabled him to painlessly criticize the imperial policy.
26Considering the available evidence, saint Theodosia as the nonpareil model of Orthodoxy, an issue of fanatical discussion at the time, was further praised by the Palaiologan hagiographers.
John Staurakios and Constantine Akropolites on saint Theodosia
27John Staurakios (BHG 1774a)105 first and then the famous orator Constantine Akropolites (BHG 1774)106 dedicated a piece of their literary work to the female martyr of Iconoclasm. As for textual content, the two eminent scholars seem to write in the time of the rejection of the Council of Lyon by Andronikos II Palaiologos. Especially, Akropolites offers evidence for dating his text as he says “it has been a little time since the darkness escaped from Church”,107 meaning the restoration of Orthodoxy by Andronikos II.108 Not surprisingly, Staurakios and Akropolites omit statements about the (iconoclast) council. Apparently, it was pointless for them to make such a reference, in contrast to the anonymous author who had much referred to that point,109 probably because he wrote his text during the agitated period of discussions over the Council of Lyon.
28Each of those literati composed an entirely different version in comparison to the anonymous Encomium. The excessive Kaiserkritik as found in the anonymous text is missing, although some stereotyped phraseology against the iconoclast emperor appears in their texts: θεομισὴς (hated by God),110 ἀνήμερος θὴρ (wild beast),111 μιαρὸς (sacrilegious).112 Unlike the anonymous text, they both have chosen the same version of the story as it appears in the Synaxarion of Constantinople, placing Theodosia’s martyrdom in the reign of Leo III.113
29John Staurakios produced an encomium in a high-level style in order to fire his audience with enthusiasm for Orthodoxy and Theodosia was by definition its appropriate model. Therefore, he introduced his narration by calling her the “pillar of Orthodoxy”,114 who “through the furrows of the whips functioned as an arable land where the pattern of Orthodoxy was set”.115 Staurakios was a spokesman of the Church,116 therefore in his narrative he gave special value in stressing the terrible situation that the Orthodox church had reached due to “persecution of piety”. Mentions of the turmoil within the Church are often reiterated in his text.117 They are rhetorically discussed in order to fervently support Orthodoxy.
30Akropolites eulogized the martyr as “being the spark of piety within a heap of ashes that covered the church with darkness and though she was ignored for a time, then she became immediately a flambeau guiding towards salvation”.118 His words depicted the evolution of saint Theodosia’s cult pointing out her reappearance during his days,119 considering her as fundamental to the process of reestablishment of Orthodoxy. Writing after the restoration of Orthodoxy he focused on keeping the Orthodox dogma constant by stressing the incompatibility between the deviation from the long Byzantine religious tradition and the abrogation of the dogmatic decrees.120
31Staurakios and Akropolites belonged to the same scholarly circle of George of Cyprus together with Raoulaina and Holobolos.121 Appalled by the cruelty of Michael VIII against the intellectuals of his time, Staurakios and Akropolites incorporated in their account on Theodosia an excursus about the oikoumenikos didaskalos,122 a story fabricated by the iconophile party in the 9th century, to censure the iconoclast emperors. The previous blameworthy legendary act aimed at reminding the audience of scholars of indomitable spirit, such as Holobolos,123 maintained the Orthodox tradition firmly fixed. The iconoclast issue was much discussed in those days and terminology from the iconoclast past was further developed and adapted to the Palaiologan religious and political issues.
32Towards which other martyrs from the iconoclast era did the hagiographers of the time turn their gaze?
Constantine Akropolites on saint John of Damascus (BHG 885)
33Akropolites wrote about John of Damascus the strong defender of icons who lived during the first phase of Iconoclasm.
34As it is evident from Akropolites’ letter, John of Damascus was beloved by the scholars of the Palaiologan time, by “those who recompose the rational speech”.124 John of Damascus125 was famous for his fundamental teachings and dogmatic works on systematizing the Orthodox doctrine. Therefore, he is called by our hagiographer “the beacon of God’s knowledge”.126 From this perspective the interest of Akropolites in composing this long account is not in causing surprise, given the prevailing political and religious situation of the time as well as the scholarly status of the writer. The core issue of his discourse focused on John’s wisdom127 that allowed him to put in words his theoretical ideas on Orthodoxy. Akropolites mentioned the first iconoclast emperors Leo III and Constantine in his narration with the most unfavourable characteristics.128 He also attached to his account the legend, fabricated probably in the late 11th century, about the severed hand of John of Damascus.129 Akropolites’s phrase that John of Damascus was a “bloodless martyr” (μάρτυς ὄντως ἀναίμακτε)130 shows that the hagiographer knew very well the Damascene’s real status as a Church Father, but he could reckon him among the martyrs because John had confessed the true doctrine of Orthodoxy, through his writings in which Lives of the early Christian martyrs were included.131
35Akropolites has not neglected to comment on his own time. He declared that political conditions of his epoch shared characteristics with the iconoclast one by comparing both of them as a “field casted to the winds”.132 His personal commentary is riveting and merits our attention: “I saw myself in such a situation, what a disaster, I fell in such a moonless night that caused me incurable wounds”.133 Akropolites revealed the disappointment he felt probably insinuating his father George Akropolites’ support for the unionist policy of Michael VIII.134 The text constitutes a hymn to the theoretical formulation of the Orthodox tradition by highlighting the value of rational discourse. On account of its context it was probably written during the process of restoration of Orthodoxy by Andronikos II.135
Akropolites on saint Barbaros (BHG 220)
36Akropolites’s speech on saint Barbaros includes a different content. The motivation of this work was the praise of the saint who was associated with the miraculous cure of the author’s daughter, perhaps Theodora Akropolitissa.136 Although Barbaros would not be considered stricto sensu as a martyr, it is interesting to note that Akropolites included him in the circle of martyrs because he converted to Christianity by following Orthodoxy during the iconoclast period and found death while living as a hermit. Akropolites chose to speak about Barbaros who became a “martyr and prestigious victor in the fight for Christ”,137 though previously he was considered a Barbarian judged by his language, origins, laws and habits.138 These earlier “barbarian” perceptions of the martyr urged Akropolites to compose his oration with the purpose of begging him to intervene to stop the attacks of the contemporary enemies of Byzantium,139 regarded also as barbarians, as his hero had been before he became Christian. Akropolites underlined in this way the superiority of Byzantium, despite the obvious dire situation in which it found itself, as it was illustrated in the followings. Matters pertaining to the iconoclast issue are mentioned en passant in his oration and strictly speaking were used in order to help the writer to make incisive political comments of his time understandable enough by a statesman.140 Akropolites declared that internal crisis led the state to political instability and to a vulnerable position, therefore rendering it an easy target for its enemies.141 The hagiographer took advantage of Barbaros’ case and the iconoclast issues in order to develop his own views on the troubled situation of his time.
Conclusions
37The hagiographical sources of the Palaiologan period do not touch, as might be reasonably expected, big names, the famous martyrs of the iconoclast period, who went down in history as the fervent defenders of the icons, for instance Theodoros the Stoudite,142 Stephen the Younger, Theophanes the Confessor. Theodoros the Stoudite with his friendly relations with Papacy143 was not the best choice for the hagiographers of the time. On the other hand Stephen the Younger and Theophanes the Confessor whose lengthy and detailed Lives were well known did not offer enough scope for further development in the Palaiologan Period. As it seems they were not the type of martyrs that the prevailing contemporary political and religious order would wish to promote. With the exception of Stephen the Younger144 they had not suffered an eccentric martyrdom like the one that Theodosia and the two brothers Theodoros and Theophanes the Graptoi had, providing a model of fervent opposition to the religious policy launched by the emperor.
38During the reign of Michael VIII the discussions about the Union of the Churches and the Arsenite schism sparked off social unrest. The leading practitioners of hagiography writing in a rhetorical scheme for martyrs of the iconoclast past, more or less known, used the ideological spectrum of Iconoclasm in a misleading fashion. Living in times of political turmoil their primary aim was to criticise the current political and religious reality and disseminate their messages. From this activity, which deals with the literary and conceptual elaboration of earlier texts, known as metaphrasis, new hagiographical compositions emerged. The contemporary political situation had excellent affinity with the earlier years of Iconoclasm and iconoclast issues which were kept in the background had come to dominate the picture. Iconoclasm became a powerful tool for the dissenters of Palaiologan period to form verbal aggression against the imperial authority. Thus, taking as a pretext the martyrdom imposed by the iconoclast emperors on heroes of the distant past, they stigmatized the contemporary policy of Michael VIII. As it seems, the revival of the iconoclast era came into rewriting within a censorious perception particularly in the years of the first Palaiologan emperor. The same movement continued in the reign of his son Andronikos II, in a different view, as a praise of Orthodoxy, found specially in the accounts of John Staurakios and Constantine Akropolites. Nikephoros Gregoras’ text on a martyr of Iconoclasm contained a unique insight, as it was used as a motivation to glorify his mentor Theodoros Metochites and the monastery of Chora. Hagiography of the time should be understood as a social and communicative system, as it had always been, but in the early Palaiologan times it took on a further purpose: to promote ideas, to give publicity to opposition, to contain veiled Kaiserkritik and to glorify the Orthodox dogma.
Notes de bas de page
1 S. Ćurčić, Introduction, in The Twilight of Byzantium. Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late Byzantine Empire, ed. S. Ćurčić and D. Mouriki, Princeton NJ 1991, p. 3-4. If not referred to, English translations belong to the article’s author.
2 A.-M. Talbot, Old Wine in New Bottles: The Rewriting of Saints’ Lives in the Palaeologan Period, in The Twilight of Byzantium (as in n. 1), p. 15-26, repr. in Ead., Women and Religious Life in Byzantium, Aldershot / Burlington VT 2001 (Variorum Collected Studies 733), X.
3 On societal aspects as depicted in Late Byzantine Hagiography, see A. Laiou-Thomadakis, Saints and Society in the Late Byzantine Empire, in Charanis Studies. Essays in Honor of Peter Charanis, ed. A. Laiou-Thomadakis, New Brunswick NJ 1980, p. 84-114. E. Kountoura Galaki, Aspects of Economic Life in Late Byzantium, in ARCBH, vol. 2, p. 401-407. See also R. Macrides, Saints and Sainthood in the Early Palaiologan Period, in The Byzantine Saint. 14th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. Univ. of Birmingham, ed. S. Hackel, London 1981, p. 67-87.
4 A.-M. Talbot, Hagiography in Late Byzantium (1204-1453), in ARCBH, vol. 1, p. 173-195, especially p. 175-178. N. Gaul, Thomas Magistros und die spätbyzantinische Sophistik. Studien zum Humanismus urbaner Eliten in der frühen Palaiologenzeit, Wiesbaden 2011 (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 10), p. 203, used the percipient term “subversive Hagiographie”.
5 On this project of the Institute of Historical Research / NHRF in Athens: http://byzhadb.eie.gr.
6 On the concept and process of “Metaphrasis”, see C. Høgel, Symeon Metaphrastes and the Metaphrastic Moment, in ARCBH, vol. 2, p. 181-196. D. D. Resh, Toward a Byzantine Definition of Metaphrasis, GRBS 55, 2015, p. 754-787; S. A. Paschalides, Παρατηρήσεις στις μεταφράσεις των βυζαντινών αγιολογικών κειμένων, Byzantina 33, 2013-2014, p. 373-386. Specifically, for the Palaiologan Period: Talbot, Old Wine (as in n. 2), p. 15-26; M. Hinterberger, Hagiographische Metaphrasen. Ein möglicher Weg der Annäherung an die Literarästhetik der frühen Palaiologenzeit, in Imitatio - Aemulatio - Variatio. Akten des internationalen wissenschaftlichen Symposions zur byzantinischen Sprache und Literatur (Wien, 22.-25. Oktober 2008), ed. A. Rhoby and E. Schiffer, Vienna 2010 (Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 21), p. 137-151.
7 R. J. Macrides, From the Comnenoi to the Palaiologoi: imperial models in decline and exile, in New Constantines: the Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries. Papers from the Twenty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies St. Andrews, March 1992, ed. P. Magdalino, Aldershot 1992 (Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 2), p. 269-282. D. Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204-1330, Cambridge / New York 2007, p. 44-45, 102-104. E. Kountoura Galaki, O Μέγας Κωνσταντίνος στο αγιολογικό έργο του Κωνσταντίνου Ακροπολίτη: Ιδεολογικές επαναλήψεις και νέες προσεγγίσεις, in Aureus. Volume dedicated to Professor Evangelos K. Chrysos, ed. T. G. Kolias and K. G. Pitsakis, Athens 2014 (Institute of Historical Research. Section of Byzantine Research), p. 417-441. Ead., Constantine Akropolites on Constantine the Great: Motivations and Approaches, in Niš and Byzantium XII. Constantine, in hoc signo vinces, 313-2013, ed. M. Rakocija, Niš 2014, p. 581-590.
8 When describing the political aspect of the emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos’ activity related to renovation of earlier monuments: Gregoras, History, ed. L. Schopen and E. Bekker, Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina Historia, 3 vols, Bonn 1829-1855 (CSHB), here at vol. 1, p. 273.24-275.1.
9 Gaul, Thomas Magistros (as in n. 4), p. 1-5, 121-122.
10 A.-M. Talbot, Metaphrasis in the Early Palaiologan Period: The Miracula of Kosmas and Damian by Maximos the Deacon, in The Heroes of the Orthodox Church: the New Saints, 8th-16th c., ed. E. Kountoura Galaki, Athens 2004 (Institute for Byzantine Research. International Symposium 15), p. 227-237; S. Efthymiadis, Late Byzantine Collections of Miracles and their Implications, in The Heroes (as above), p. 239-250. Id., Collections of Miracles (Fifth-Fifteenth Centuries), in ARCBH, vol. 2, p. 103-142, especially p. 125-131.
11 Talbot, Old Wine (as in n. 2), p. 23-26. Ead., Hagiography (as in n. 4), p. 176.
12 PLP 4443; J. L. van Dieten, Nikephoros Gregoras. Rhomäische Geschichte, Stuttgart 1973 (Bibliothek der Griechischen Literatur 4), vol. 1, p. 1-36. C. N. Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (1204-ca 1310), Nicosia 1982 (Texts and Studies of the History of Cyprus 11), p. 91-99. S. Mergiali, L’enseignement et les lettrés pendant l’époque des Paléologues (1261-1453), Athens 1996, p. 73-83.
13 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos (Βίος καὶ πολιτεία καὶ ἄθλησις τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Συγκέλλου), ed. T. N. Schmit, Kahrié-džami, IRAIK 11, 1906, p. 260-279, here at p. 261.6-7: σὺν μάρτυσι μάρτυς εὑρίσκεται κράτιστος, τὰ πολυειδῆ τῆς ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ μαρτυρίας ὑποστὰς ἀγωνίσματα. For the date of this work, see L. Lukhovitskiy, Nikephoros Gregoras’ Vita of St. Michael the Synkellos. Rewriting Techniques and Reconstruction of the Iconoclast Past in a 14th cent. Hagiographical Metaphrasis, JÖB 64, 2014, p. 177-196, here at p. 195. See also Hinterberger, Hagiographische Metaphrasen (as in n. 6), p. 149.
14 For Michael Synkellos, see the Introduction in M. B. Cunningham, The Life of Michael the Synkellos. Text, Translation and Commentary, Belfast 1991 (Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 1), p. 1-2, 7-17; PmbZ 5059; S. Efthymiadis, Hagiography from the “Dark Age” to the Age of Symeon Metaphrastes (Eighth-Tenth Centuries), in ARCBH, vol. 1, p. 95-142, especially p. 109-110. For Leo V, see PmbZ 4244.
15 Cunningham, The Life of Michael the Synkellos (as in n. 14), p. 28.
16 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 269.8-10; 273.1-3.
17 Ibid., p. 268.16-19. Analysis on the topic by Lukhovitskiy, Nikephoros Gregoras’ Vita (as in n. 13), p. 177-196.
18 According to C. Sode, Jerusalem – Kostantinopel - Rom: Die Viten des Michael Synkellos und der Brüder Theodoros and Theophanes Graptoi, Stuttgart 2001 (Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium 4), p. 146-147. Ead., Creating New Saints: The Case of Michael the Synkellos and Theodore and Theophanes Graptoi, in The Heroes (as in n. 10), p. 177-189, especially p. 188-189.
19 Theophanes, Eἰς τὸν ὁμολογητὴν Θεόδωρον, ἀδελφὸν Θεοφάνους, τὸν γεγραμμένον ἤτοι τὸν Σαββαΐτην, ed. J. M. Featherstone, The Praise of Theodore Graptos by Theophanes of Caesarea, An. Boll. 98, 1980, p. 93-150. For Theodoros and Theophanes, see respectively PmbZ 7526 and 8093.
20 Symeon Metaphrastes, Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ὁμολογητοῦ Θεοδώρου τοῦ Γραπτοῦ Βίος καὶ Πολιτεία, PG 116, col. 653-684. For Symeon, see PmbZ 27504. For specific reasons, Gregoras has not used Raoulaina’s text, see A. Sklaveniti, Women in Nikephoros Gregoras’ Works: Love Stories, Politics, Literacy and Social Conventions, in Women and Monasticism in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean: Decoding a Cultural Map, ed. E. Kountoura Galaki and E. Mitsiou, Athens 2019 (Institute of Historical Research / Section of Byzantine Research. International Symposium 23), p. 139-162, here at p. 155.
21 F. Tinnefeld, Kategorien der Kaiserkritik in der byzantinischen Historiographie von Prokop bis Niketas Choniates, Munich 1971, p. 60-73. N.-C. Koutrakou, La propagande impériale byzantine. Persuasion et réaction (viiie-xe siècles), Athens 1994 (Bibliothèque “Sophie N. Saripolou” 93), p. 132-137, 152-156.
22 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 269.12-14.
23 Life of Michael Synkellos, ed. Cunningham (as in n. 14), p. 72.7-13. For the emperor Michael II, see PmbZ 4990.
24 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 273.18: ἡ τοῦ συμφέροντος ἄγνοια.
25 Gregoras, History, vol. 1, p. 327.10-15, 339.21-340.12. Cf. E. Kountoura Galaki, Πρότυπα αρχαίων νομοθετών κατά τις επιστολές του Νικηφόρου Γρηγορά. Δίκαιο και πολιτική πρακτική, in Antecessor. Festschrift für Spyros N. Troianos zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. V. A. Leontaritou, K. A. Bourdara and E. S. Papagianni, Athens 2013, p. 679-704.
26 Gregoras, History, vol. 1, p. 271.2-273.3. On Metochites’ political and intellectual activity, see I. Ševčenko, Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and the Intellectual Trends of His Time, in The Kariye Djami, vol. 4: Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and Its Intellectual Background, ed. P. A. Underwood, Princeton / New Jersey / London 1975, p. 17-91, especially p. 24-29. Gaul, Thomas Magistros (as in n. 4), p. 30-33, 198-200. I. D. Polemis, Θεόδωρος Μετοχίτης. Οι δύο βασιλικοί λόγοι. Εισαγωγή, κριτική έκδοση, μετάφραση, σημειώσεις, Athens 2007, p. 60-87.
27 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 274.3-8. For the stereotyped mentions to Theodora and Michael III during whose reign “the cloud covering the Church was dissolved”, see ibid., p. 275.4.
28 I. Ševčenko, Levels of Style in Byzantine Prose, JÖB 31/1, 1981, p. 289-312. For the rhetorical methods he followed, see M. Hinterberger, Les Vies des saints du xive siècle en tant que biographie historique : l’œuvre de Nicéphore Grégoras, in Les Vies des saints à Byzance. Genre littéraire ou biographie historique ? Actes du IIe colloque international philologique « ΕΡΜΗΝΕΙΑ » Paris, 6-7-8 juin 2002, ed. P. Odorico and P. A. Agapitos, Paris 2004 (Dossiers byzantins 4), p. 281-301, especially p. 286-289; Id., Hagiographische Metaphrasen (as in n. 6), p. 148-151. On the structure of the text, see I. Paraskevopoulou, Το αγιολογικό και ομιλητικό έργο του Νικηφόρου Γρηγορά, Thessaloniki 2013 (Byzantine Texts and Studies 59), p. 138-146.
29 According to Paraskevopoulou, Το αγιολογικό και ομιλητικό έργο (as in n. 28), p. 146, such omissions were due to the fact that the author wanted to shorten his narration. As claimed by Lukhovitskiy, Nikephoros Gregoras’ Vita (as in n. 13), p. 179-183, 192, Gregoras had focused on psychological characteristics and emotion of his heroes.
30 Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 106.31-110.6; 124.16-126.9. Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 270.9-11. For such omissions, see Paraskevopoulou, Το αγιολογικό και ομιλητικό έργο (as in n. 28), p. 143-144; Lukhovitskiy, Nikephoros Gregoras’ Vita (as in n. 13), p. 180-181.
31 According to Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 269.22-28 the reason of Michael’s journey to Constantinople was the issue of Iconoclasm. Gregoras deliberately omitted the reason provided by the anonymous biographer of the 9th century, that is the dispute over the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed by the Palestinian monks: Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 54.25-58.29. See Sode, Jerusalem (as in n. 18), p. 187-206. Ead., Creating (as in n. 18), p. 182. For another outlook related to the departure of Michael, Theophanes and Theodoros from Jerusalem, see M.-F. Auzépy, De la Palestine à Constantinople (viiie-ixe siècles) : Étienne le Sabaïte et Jean Damascène, TM 12, 1994, p. 183-218, especially p. 209-211, repr. in Ead., L’histoire des iconoclastes, Paris 2007 (Bilans de recherche 2), p. 221-257.
32 For the transformation of the texts, see I. Nilsson, The Same Story, but Another. A Reappraisal of Literary Imitation in Byzantium, in Imitatio (as n. 6), p. 195-208.
33 See Theodoros Stoudites, Epistle 225, ed. G. Fatouros, Theodori Studitae Epistulae, 2 vols, Berlin / New York 1991 (CFHB 31.1/2), here at vol. 2, p. 355.29.
34 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 270.18-19. Such a description of the Palaiologan “theatron” is given by Gregoras, History, vol. 1, p. 560.13-18. “Theatron” was aptly designated as “showplaces of power” by Gaul, Thomas Magistros (as in n. 4), p. 17, 25-38 with further analysis.
35 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 262.27-29; 263.5-6; 263.12-19; 265.3-10; 268. The concept of wisdom permeated also the portrait of his disciples Theodoros and Theophanes the Graptoi: ibid., p. 267.21-22; 268.4-13; 268.20.
36 Ibid., p. 265.6-10: τὴν ἀστρονομίαν, μετέσχε δεόντως καὶ διήσκησε τελεώτατα.
37 Ibid., p. 275.36-276.2.
38 See above note 26.
39 Ševčenko, Theodore Metochites (as in n. 26), p. 42-43. B. Bydén, Theodore Metochites’ Stoicheiosis astronomike and the study of natural philosophy and mathematics in early Palaiologan Byzantium, Göteborg 20032 (Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 66), p. 35-36, 383-474.
40 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 279.7-29.
41 See above note 8.
42 Gregoras, History, vol. 1, p. 303.11-14: ἐφιλοτιμεῖτο συνδιανυκτερεύειν ἐν ταῖς παννυχίσιν ἔσθ’ ὅτε μετὰ τῶν μοναχῶν.
43 Gregoras, History, vol. 2, p. 1045.18-20: Ἐκ γὰρ πάνυ τοι νέας καὶ παιδικῆς ἡλικίας, ἐμαυτὸν ἐγκαθιδρύσας τῇδε τῇ μονῇ, παρέμεινα μέχρι καὶ ἐς τὴν τήμερον, ἔτος ἀμείβων τῆς ἡλικίας ἑξηκοστόν.
44 Gregoras, History, vol. 1, p. 309.1-8. Ševčenko, Theodore Metochites (as in n. 26), p. 35-37. J. M. Featherstone, Metochites’ Poems and the Chora, in The Kariye Camii reconsidered, ed. H. A. Klein, R. Ousterhout and B. Pitarakis, Istanbul 2011, p. 213-237.
45 For Gregoras’ private school at the Chora monastery, called by himself “Didaskaleion”, see A. S. Sklaveniti, To Διδασκαλεῖον του Νικηφόρου Γρηγορά, Byzantina Symmeikta 28, 2018, p. 141-167.
46 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 279.13-17. For references to Antiquity in hagiography as a rhetorical technique, see E. Schiffer, Aussagen byzantinischer hagiographischer Autoren zur rhetorischen Theorie über die Abfassung von Enkomien, in Pontes III. Die antike Rhetorik in der europäischen Geistesgeschichte, ed. W. Kofler and K. Töchterle, Innsbruck /Vienna / Bozen 2005, p. 92-102.
47 See above notes 35, 36. On his literary production as a subtle propaganda medium, see Hinterberger, Hagiographische Metaphrasen (as in n. 6), p. 148-149.
48 Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 106-108. See Paraskevopoulou, Το αγιολογικό και ομιλητικό έργο (as in n. 28), p. 143-144. Lukhovitskiy, Nikephoros Gregoras’ Vita (as in n. 13), p. 180.
49 Gregoras, Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 279.24-26: Καὶ καθῃρηκὼς ἅπαν, ὅσον τῆς παλαιότητος ἦν λείψανον, ἐξ αὐτῶν κρηπίδων καὶ μήκει πλάτος προσθεὶς … ἅπαν κάλλος κερασάμενος πολλῷ πλέον, ἢ πρότερον εἶχε κατασκευῆς, ἀπέφηνε κρείττω.
50 Hinterberger, Les Vies des saints du xive siècle (as in n. 28), p. 287.
51 A brief reference to Iconoclasm is to be found in Gregoras’ work on patriarch Antonios II, ed. P. L. M. Leone, La Vita Antonii Cauleae di Niceforo Gregora, Nicolaus 11, 1983, p. 3-50, here at p. 23.
52 PLP 10943; D. M. Nicol, The Byzantine Lady: Ten Portraits 1250-1500, Cambridge 1994, p. 33-47; C. Reghelin, Un ritratto bizantino: Teodora Raulena, in L’ultima dinastia di Bisanzio: i Paleologi 1259-1453, Porphyra 7, 2006, p. 6-20. On her encomiastic genealogy in verse, see A. Riehle, Καί σε προστάτιν ἐν αὐτοῖς τῆς αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψομεν σωτηρίας: Theodora Raulaina als Stifterin und Patronin, in Female Founders in Byzantium and beyond, ed. L. Theis et al., Vienna / Cologne / Weimar 2011-2012 (Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 60/61), p. 299-315, especially p. 299-300. For her education, see Constantinides, Higher Education (as in n. 12), p. 43-44, 78, 140; A.-M. Talbot, Bluestocking Nuns: Intellectual Life in the Convents of Late Byzantium, in Okeanos. Essays presented to Ihor Ševčenko on his Sixtieth Birthday by his Colleagues and Students, ed. C. Mango and O. Pritsak, Cambridge MA 1983 (Harvard Ukranian Studies 7), p. 604-618, especially p. 605-606, repr. in Talbot, Women and Religious Life (as in n. 2), XVIII; Riehle, Theodora Raulaina (as above), p. 307-314. For her citations from the ancient Greek literature, see Hinterberger, Hagiographische Metaphrasen (as in n. 6), p. 140-141.
53 Raoulaina, Life of Theophanes and Theodoros (Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Θεοφάνους τοῦ ὁμολογητοῦ καὶ τοῦ αὐταδέλφου αὐτοῦ Θεοδώρου, συγγραφεὶς παρὰ Θεοδώρας Ῥαουλαίνης Κατακουζηνῆς τῆς Παλαιολογίνης), ed. A. Papadopoulos Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς σταχυλογίας, Petroupolis 1897, vol. 4, p. 185-223, and 1898, vol. 5, p. 397-399, here at p. 193.23, 207.5, 208.1-3: ἡ τῶν μαρτύρων δυάς.
54 D. Nicol, The Greeks and the Union of the Churches: The Report of Ogerius, protonotarius of Michael VIII Palaiologos, in 1280, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 63, 1962, p. 1-16, especially p. 15, repr. in Id., Byzantium: its ecclesiastical history and relations with the western world, London 1972 [Variorum Collected Studies 12], VII. For Manuel and Isaac Raoul, see respectively PLP 24132 and 24120.
55 Nicol, The Byzantine Lady (as in n. 52), p. 36-37.
56 See above note 31.
57 Raoulaina, Life of Theophanes and Theodoros, p. 187.16-17: προσθεῖναι δὲ καὶ ἃ τοῖς ἄλλοις παρεῖται. See F. Rizzo Nervo, Teodora Raoulena: Tra agiografia e politica, in Σύνδεσμος. Studi in onore di Rosario Anastasi, ed. A. Carile et al., Catania 1991 (Istituto di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici), vol. 1, p. 147-161, especially p. 154-155. See also Hinterberger, Hagiographische Metaphrasen (as in n. 6), p. 139.
58 Raoulaina, Life of Theophanes and Theodoros, p. 185.4-5: Κανόνα καὶ στάθμην προθήσῃ τοῖς φιλαρέτοις, ὡς ἐμπύρευμα ταῖς ψυχαῖς αὐτῶν ἐνιέντα καὶ πρὸς μίμησιν παραθήγοντα.
59 Ibid., p. 187.21-23.
60 A religious issue relevant to the history of her heroes. See above note 31.
61 Raoulaina, Life of Theophanes and Theodoros, p. 197.22-23.
62 Genesios, ed. A. Lesmüller-Werner and I. Thurn, Iosephi Genesii Regum libri quattuor, Berlin / New York (CFHB 14), p. 35.69-70. Further additions and alterations related to his iconoclast policy by Theophanes Continuatus (ed. J. M. Featherstone and J. S. Codoñer, Chronographiae quae Theophanis Continuati nomine fertur libri I-IV, Boston / Berlin 2015 [CFHB 53], p. 72, § 8.4-10), and Skylitzes (ed. I. Thurn, Synopsis Historiarum Ioannis Scylitzae, Berlin / New York 1973 [CFHB 5], p. 27.74-81). See L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (c. 680-850): A History, Cambridge 2011, p. 386-392.
63 Life of Michael Synkellos, p. 72.8-9. See Rizzo Nervo, Teodora Raoulena (as in n. 57), p. 158-160.
64 Raoulaina, Life of Theophanes and Theodoros, p. 205.17-22.
65 For the assassination of Leo V by supporters of Michael II: Theophanes Continuatus, p. 64, § 1.1-5; Skylitzes, p. 21.9-23.64. See Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium (as in n. 62), p. 392-404. For the blinding of John IV Laskaris on Michael VIII’s orders: Pachymeres, ed. A. Failler, Georges Pachymérès. Relations historiques. Édition, traduction française et notes, 5 vols, Paris 1984-2000 (CFHB 24/1-5), here at vol. 1, p. 255.23-257.26; Gregoras, History, vol. 1, p. 93.5-8. See T. Shawcross, In the Name of the True Emperor: Politics of Resistance after the Palaiologan Usurpation, BSl. 66, 2008, p. 203-227.
66 Same remarks on Theodora’s text by Rizzo Nervo, Teodora Raoulena (as in n. 57), p. 159-160.
67 Raoulaina, Life of Theophanes and Theodoros, p. 196.14-17.
68 A.-M. Talbot and A. P. Kazhdan, Women and Iconoclasm, BZ 84-85, 1991-1992, p. 391-408, repr. in Talbot, Women and Religious Life (as in n. 2), III.
69 PLP 21360. See Nicol, The Greeks and the Union of the Churches (as in n. 54), p. 14. V. Puech, The Byzantine Aristocracy and the Union of the Churches (1274-1283): A Prosopographical Approach, in Liquid & Multiple: Individuals & identities in the thirteenth-century Aegean, ed. G. Saint-Guillain and D. Stathakopoulos, Paris 2012 (Monographies 35), p. 45-54, especially p. 47-49.
70 Pachymeres, vol. 3, p. 23.23-25. Rizzo Nervo, Teodora Raoulena (as in n. 57), p. 157-158.
71 Raoulaina, Life of Theophanes and Theodoros, p. 186.13-14.
72 Pachymeres, vol. 2, p. 545.9-13. See Nicol, The Byzantine Lady (as in n. 52), p. 37.
73 Raoulaina, Life of Theophanes and Theodoros, p. 185.10; 186.16; 187.21; 188.21.23; 195.11.14.18.20.25; 197.22; 201.29.30.31; 202.1; 214.15; 223.6.
74 Ibid., p. 196.23-25: Ἀλλὰ καὶ συνόδους ἦν συγκροτῶν μετὰ δώρων ὅτι πολλῶν καὶ δυνάμει πάσῃ τὸ θεοστυγὲς αὐτοῦ δόγμα ἐπιστηρίζων, εἰ τὰ τοῦ πονηροῦ συνέδρια βδελυρὰ χρὴ λέγειν συνόδους καὶ μὴ φοιβάσματ’ ἀπὸ κοιλίας φωνοῦντα. The citation is comparable to the relevant description by Pachymeres, vol. 2, p. 583.18-25.
75 Pachymeres, vol. 2, p. 475.19-21; 495.8-13. D. Nicol, The Greeks and the Union of the Churches: The Preliminaries to the Second Council of Lyons, 1261-1274, in Medieval Studies presented to Aubrey Gwynn, S.J., ed. J. A. Watt, J. B. Morrall and F. X. Martin, Dublin 1961, p. 454-480, especially p. 470-476, repr. in Id., Byzantium: its ecclesiastical history (as in n. 54), V.
76 Raoulaina, Life of Theophanes and Theodoros, p. 222.3-21.
77 Pachymeres, vol. 2, p. 481.14-21. See PLP 22186; Constantinides, Higher Education (as in n. 12), p. 59-62. For his historical work, see S. Lampakis, Γεώργιος Παχυμέρης Πρωτέκδικος καὶ Δικαιοφύλαξ. Εἰσαγωγικὸ Δοκίμιο, Athens 2004 (Institute for Byzantine Research. Monographs 5), p. 39-47. L. Neville, Guide to Byzantine Historical Writing, Cambridge 2018, p. 237-242 (with bibliography). For his philosophical background, see P. Golitsis, Georges Pachymère comme didascale. Essai pour une reconstitution de sa carrière et de son enseignement philosophique, JÖB 58, 2008, p. 53-68.
78 Pachymeres, vol. 2, p. 619.29-30. See E. Kountoura Galaki, Ideological Conflicts in Veiled Language as Seen by the Palaiologan Hagiographers. The Lives of St. Theodosia as a Case Study, in Byzantine Hagiography: Texts, Themes and Projects, ed. A. Rigo, M. Trizio and E. Despotakis, Turnhout 2018 (Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 13), p. 401-418.
79 See above note 58.
80 E. Kountoura Galaki, Constantine V Kopronymos or Michael VIII Paleologos the New Constantine? The Anonymous Encomium of Saint Theodosia, Symmeikta 15, 2002, p. 183-194, especially p. 192-193.
81 H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae. Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum mensis Novembris, Brussels 1902, col. 828-829 (BHG 1774e). Relevant versions of the story with different protagonists in the Life of Stephen the Younger (BHG 1666a), ed. M.-F. Auzépy, La Vie d’Étienne le Jeune par Étienne le Diacre. Introduction, édition et traduction, Aldershot / Brookfield VT 1997 (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 3), § 10, p. 100.20-101.10 and in the Passio of Constantinopolitan Martyrs (BHG 1195), AASS Aug. II, Brussels 19702, col. 428-448. See N. Constas, Life of St. Theodosia of Constantinople, in Byzantine Defenders of Images. Eight Saints’ Lives in English Translation, ed. A.-M. Talbot, Washington DC 1998 (Byzantine Saints’ Lives in Translation 2), p. 1-8. D. A. Afinogenov, A Mysterious Saint: St Theodosia, the Martyr of Constantinople, Kristianskij Vostok 2, 2001, p. 1-13. Kountoura Galaki, Constantine V Kopronymos (as in n. 80), p. 183-194.
82 C. Mango, The Brazen House, A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople, Copenhagen 1959, p. 112-125. On the fabrication of this event: M.-F. Auzépy, La destruction de l’icône du Christ de la Chalcé par Léon III : propagande ou réalité ?, Byz. 60, 1990, p. 445-492. For another approach, see P. Magdalino, The Other Image at the Palace Gate and the Visual Propaganda of Leo III, in Byzantine Religious Culture. Studies in Honor of Alice Mary Talbot, ed. D. Sullivan et al., Leiden / Boston 2012, p. 139-153.
83 PmbZ 4242; Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium (as in n. 62), p. 79-94.
84 Anonymous Encomion of Theodosia (Ἐγκώμιον εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν ὁσιομάρτυρα καὶ θαυματουργὸν Θεοδοσίαν τὴν παρθένον), ed. S. Kotzabassi, Das hagiographische Dossier der heiligen Theodosia von Konstantinopel, Berlin / New York 2009 (Byzantinisches Archiv 21), p. 37-45, here at p. 37.17-19. See Kountoura Galaki, Constantine V Kopronymos (as in n. 80), p. 193.
85 PmbZ 3703; Brubaker and Haldon, Byzantium (as in n. 62), p. 176-189.
86 S. Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm during the Reign of Leo III, with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources, Louvain 1973 (CSCO 346. Subsidia 41), p. 94-112, 212-217. Auzépy, Chalcé (as in n. 82), p. 167-178.
87 Kountoura Galaki, Constantine V Kopronymos (as in n. 80), p. 188-193.
88 R. Macrides, The New Constantine and the New Constantinople – 1261?, BMGS 6, 1980, p. 13-41, especially p. 23-24, 15-18. Angelov, Imperial Ideology (as in n. 7), p. 44-45. T. Papamastorakis, Ένα εικαστικό εγκώμιο του Mιχαήλ H´ Παλαιολόγου: Oι εξωτερικές τοιχογραφίες στο καθολικό της μονής της Mαυριώτισσας στην Kαστοριά, DChAE 15, 1989-1990, p. 221-238, especially p. 237-238. V. Foskolou, “In the Reign of the Emperor of Rome”: Donor Inscriptions and Political Ideology in the time of Michael VIII Paleologos, DChAE 27, 2006, p. 455-462. See also Kountoura Galaki, Μέγας Κωνσταντίνος (as in n. 7), p. 437-441.
89 Anonymous Encomion of Theodosia, p. 37.1-5; 38.30; 39.76-78, 83-85; 40.92-95, 113-116; 41.135-141; 42.166-168, 174-175; 43.196-205, 214-216, 226-227; 44.236, 241-250.
90 Ibid., p. 37.1-2; p. 39.83-91; 42.167-168; 43.214-216.
91 The situation is described by Pachymeres, vol. 2, p. 501.13-15. See D. J. Geanakoplos, The Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258-1282. A Study in Byzantine-Latin Relations, Cambridge 1959, p. 264-274.
92 Anonymous Encomion of Theodosia, p. 39.85-89.
93 Ibid., p. 39.83-91.
94 Ibid., p. 39.90-91.
95 P. Speck, Artabasdos, der rechtgläubige Vorkämpfer der göttlichen Lehren. Untersuchungen zur Revolte des Artabasdos und ihrer Darstellung in der byzantinischen Historiographie, Bonn 1981 (Ποικίλα Βυζαντινά 2), p. 20-24, 53-54 and passim.
96 See above note 73.
97 Kountoura Galaki, Constantine V Kopronymos (as in n. 80), p. 183-185.
98 Anonymous Encomion of Theodosia, p. 45.292-294.
99 For the anonymous libelli against Michael VIII, see Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus (as in n. 91), p. 275. P. Gounaridis, Το κίνημα των Αρσενιατών (1261-1310). Iδεολογικές διαμάχες την εποχή των πρώτων Παλαιολόγων, Athens 1999, p. 217-220.
100 Kountoura Galaki, Ideological Conflicts (as in n. 78), p. 414-418.
101 For his literary constructions, see B. Bydén, “Strangle Them with These Meshes of Syllogisms!”: Latin Philosophy in Greek Translations of the Thirteenth Century, in Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture. Papers read at a Colloquium held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul (1-5 December 1999), ed. J. O. Rosenqvist, Uppsala 2004 (Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul Transactions 13), p. 133-157, especially p. 146.
102 As it is obvious from his panegyrics addressed to the emperor: M. Treu, Manuelis Holoboli Orationes, Potsdam 1906-1907 (Programm des königlichen Victoria-Gymnasiums 2): Oratio I, p. 30-50; Oratio II, p. 51-77; Oratio III, p. 78-98. L. Previale, Un panegirico inedito per Michele VIII Paleologo, BZ 42, 1942, p. 1-49. See Macrides, The New Constantine (as in n. 88), p. 15-20. Angelov, Imperial Ideology (as in n. 7), p. 44-45.
103 For Manuel Maximos Holobolos, see PLP 21047. M. Treu, Manuel Holobolos, BZ 5, 1896, p. 538-559. C. N. Constantinides, Byzantine scholars and the Union of Lyons (1274), in The Making of Byzantine History. Studies dedicated to Donald M. Nicol, ed. R. Beaton and C. Roueché, London 1993 (Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College London. Publications 1), p. 86-93, especially p. 90-91. I. Pérez Martín, Le conflit de l’Union des Églises (1274) et son reflet dans l’enseignement supérieur de Constantinople, BSl. 56, 1995, p. 411-422. Bydén, “Strangle Them” (as in n. 101), p. 137-157.
104 Pachymeres, vol. 2, p. 503.20-505.3. See E. Kountoura Galake, Legend and Reality: the Case of Oikoumenikos Didaskalos in the Early Palaiologan Period, in Hypermachos. Studien zu Byzantinistik, Armenologie und Georgistik. Festschrift für Werner Seibt zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. C. Stavrakos, A.-K. Wassiliou and M. K. Krikorian, Wiesbaden 2008, p. 173-186.
105 See PLP 26708. E. Kountoura Galaki, Ιωάννης Σταυράκιος: Ένας λόγιος στη Θεσσαλονίκη της πρώιμης Παλαιολόγειας εποχής, Symmeikta 16, 2003-2004, p. 379-394.
106 On Constantine Akropolites, see PLP 520. D. Nicol, Constantine Akropolites. A Prosopographical Note, DOP 19, 1965, p. 249-256. R. Romano, Costantino Acropolita: Epistole. Saggio introduttivo, testo critico, indici, Naples 1991, p. 15-29. Constantinides, Higher Education (as in n. 12), p. 38-42. Hinterberger, Hagiographische Metaphrasen (as in n. 6), p. 146-148.
107 Akropolites, On Theodosia (Τοῦ σοφωτάτου μεγάλου Λογοθέτου Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ Ἀκροπολίτου λόγος εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν ὁσιομάρτυρα Θεοδοσίαν), ed. Kotzabassi, Das hagiographische Dossier (as in n. 84), p. 123-140, here at p. 123.20-24.
108 Pachymeres, vol. 3, p. 23.1-15. A. E. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins. The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II 1282-1328, Cambridge MA 1972, p. 32-36. A. Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium. The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289), New York 1986, p. 48-61.
109 Anonymous Encomion of Theodosia, p. 40.109; 43.204-205, 216-217, 219, 224-225; 44.237-238, 255-256.
110 Staurakios, Life of Theodosia (Βίος καὶ Μαρτύριον τῆς ἁγίας καὶ πανενδόξου ὁσιομάρτυρος Θεοδοσίας τοῦ χαρτοφύλακος Θεσσαλονίκης Σταυρακίου), ed. Kotzabassi, Das hagiographische Dossier (as in n. 84), p. 84-98, here at p. 91.232, 245.
111 Ibid., p. 93.310; 85.29; 88.150. Akropolites, On Theodosia, p. 130.253: θηριώνυμος (wild intractable beast); ibid., p. 126.123: ἀτίθασσος θήρ (wild beast).
112 Staurakios, Life of Theodosia, p. 89.183.
113 See above note 83.
114 Staurakios, Life of Theodosia, p. 84.1.
115 Ibid., p. 96.411-413.
116 He was chartophylax of the metropolis of Thessaloniki. See Kountoura Galaki, Ιωάννης Σταυράκιος (as in n. 105), p. 379-381.
117 Staurakios, Life of Theodosia, p. 87.101-113; 89.184-189; 90.190-198; 91.240-244.
118 Akropolites, On Theodosia, p. 123.20-23.
119 For the renovation of her cult during the Palaiologan period, as depicted in iconography, see D. Mouriki, Portraits of St Theodosia in Five Sinai Icons, in Θυμίαμα στη Μνήμη Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα, Athens 1994, vol. 1, p. 213-219; G. Galavaris, Two Icons of St. Theodosia at Sinai, DChAE 17, 1993-1994, p. 313-316.
120 Akropolites, On Theodosia, p. 129.229-236. For another approach to the political aspects enclosed in the hagiographical texts of the time, see L. Lukhovitskiy, Perception of Iconoclasm in Late Byzantine Hagiographical Metaphraseis, in Byzantine Hagiography (as in n. 78), p. 341-363.
121 Constantinides, Higher Education (as in n. 12), p. 38, 43-52. Bydén, “Strangle Them” (as in n. 101), p. 154-156.
122 Staurakios, Life of Theodosia, p. 89.158-179. Akropolites, On Theodosia, p. 127.133-128.173.
123 His shameful punishment imposed by Michael VIII is described by Pachymeres, vol. 2, p. 503.1-505.7. See Kountoura Galake, Legend (as in n. 104), p. 182-186.
124 Epistle 32, ed. Romano, Costantino Acropolita Epistole (as in n. 106), p. 131-132. For his epistles, see ibid., p. 31-103. S. Kotzabassi, Reconsidering the Letters of Constantine Akropolites, in Myriobiblos. Essays on Byzantine Literature and Culture, ed. T. Antonopoulou, S. Kotzabassi and M. Loukaki, Boston / Berlin / Munich 2015 (Byzantinisches Archiv 29), p. 211-216.
125 PmbZ 2969. L. Brubaker and J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680-850): The Sources. An Annotated Survey, Aldershot / Burlington VT 2001 (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 7), p. 248-250.
126 Akropolites, On John Damascene (Λόγος εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Ἰωάννην τὸν Δαμασκηνόν), PG 140, col. 812-885, here at col. 812B, 813B (πυρσὸς θεογνωσίας), 817B.
127 Ibid., col. 812A, 813A-B, 828AB, 857A.
128 Ibid., col. 836D, 840D, 841A.
129 Ibid., col. 845B-849B. For this legend, see T. Detorakis, Κοσμᾶς ὁ Μελωδός. Βίος καὶ Ἔργο, Thessaloniki 1979 (Analecta Vlatadon 28), p. 30-35. For its tenth-century fabrication, see M. Jugie, Jean Damascène, DTC 8, 1924, col. 693-751, here at p. 694-696.
130 Akropolites, On John Damascene, col. 880D.
131 Ibid., col. 876A-B, 881D: Ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἱερὰ τῶν μαρτύρων πληθὺς εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἂν μετεκαλοῦντο, ἐπειδὴ καὶ λαμπρῶς ἄγαν οὗτος ἀνωμολόγηκεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
132 Ibid., col. 837C.
133 Ibid., col. 839C-D: Εἶδον γάρ, εἶδον, ὡς μὴ ὤφελον, τοιαῦτα κἀγώ, καὶ ὁμοίοις καιροῖς, βαβαὶ τῆς συμφορᾶς! περιέτυχον· τοιαύτῃ τε σκοτομήνῃ ἐγκύρσας, μεγάλα προσκέκρουκα, καὶ ἀνίατα μικροῦ τετραυμάτισμαι. A different approach by Hinterberger, Hagiographische Metaphrasen (as in n. 6), p. 148.
134 Pachymeres, vol. 2, p. 491.27-493.3. For George Akropolites, see PLP 518. R. Macrides, George Akropolites. The History. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Oxford / New York 2007, p. 14-16.
135 Pachymeres, vol. 3, p. 23.1-30. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins (as in n. 108), p. 32-36.
136 Akropolites, On Barbaros (Λόγος εἰς τὸν ἅγιον Βάρβαρον), ed. A. Papadopoulos Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς σταχυλογίας, Petroupolis 1891, vol. 1, p. 405-420, here at p. 419.3-420.5. See Efthymiadis, Late Byzantine (as in n. 10), p. 249. PLP 7295.
137 Akropolites, On Barbaros, p. 406.5-6.
138 Ibid. p. 406.1-4. See E. Kountoura Galake and N. Koutrakou, Locals vs “foreigners”: criteria for the formation of local identities in Late Byzantium. An approach to Modern Graecitas through Late Byzantine writers, in Identities in the Greek World (from 1204 to the present day). 4th European Congress of Modern Greek Studies. Granada, 9-12 September 2010. Proceedings, ed. K. A. Dimadis, Athens 2011, vol. 5, p. 107-125, especially p. 108.
139 Akropolites, On Barbaros, p. 420.6-20.
140 Ibid., p. 406-407, 408. See M. Hinterberger, The Byzantine Hagiographer and his Text, in ARCBH, vol. 2, p. 211-246, especially p. 232-234.
141 Akropolites, On Barbaros, p. 407.18-26: Kαὶ τὰ δεινὰ παρὰ πόδας – οὐ γὰρ ὅτι γε ἔνδοθεν τὸ κακὸν κορυφοῦται καὶ ἐμφύλιος ὃ φασι πόλεμος ἀνεγείρεται … Οὐ τοῦτο γοῦν μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἔξωθεν μέγας τις ἐγείρεται κλύδων.
142 Macarios Choumnos (PLP 30956) who became hegoumenos of the Stoudios monastery after leaving Nea Moni in Thessaloniki has written a hagiographical text in honour of Theodoros Stoudites which is still unpublished (BHG 1759m).
143 See Theodoros Stoudites, Epistle 271, vol. 2, p. 400.17-20; Epistle 272, vol. 2, p. 402.18-24, where the Pope of Rome was portrayed, among other particular characteristics relevant to his authority, as “from the very beginning the unadulterated source of Orthodoxy” (ἀκαπήλευτος πηγὴ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας).
144 P. A. Agapitos, Mortuary Typology in the Lives of Saints: Michael the Synkellos and Stephen the Younger, in Les Vies des saints à Byzance (as in n. 28), p. 103-135.
Auteur
Institute of Historical Research
The National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Byzance et le monde extérieur
Contacts, relations, échanges
Michel Balard, Élisabeth Malamut, Jean-Michel Spieser et al. (dir.)
2005
La Cappadoce (ive-vie siècle)
Une histoire provinciale de l’Empire romain d’Orient
Sophie Métivier
2005
Évêques, pouvoir et société à Byzance (viiie-xie siècle)
Territoires, communautés et individus dans la société provinciale byzantine
Benjamin Moulet
2011
Grégoire Antiochos. Éloge du patriarche Basile Kamatèros
Texte, traduction, commentaire suivis d’une analyse des œuvres de Grégoire Antiochos
Marina Loukaki
1996