Videos by Christos Malatras
This presentation explains the use of sigillography for the study of Byzantine provincial adminis... more This presentation explains the use of sigillography for the study of Byzantine provincial administration. It starts with some methodological issues and goes on in more detail with the study of the origins of the middle Byzantine thematic system of administration through the use of Byzantine lead seals. Finally, having as a case study it shows how lead seals can help us review the date of the famous Taktikon Uspenskij (traditionally dated on 842/843) 29 views
Papers by Christos Malatras
IT, 2024
In this paper we present a number of digital approaches in the field of Byzantine sigillography c... more In this paper we present a number of digital approaches in the field of Byzantine sigillography conducted in two projects currently running at the University of Cologne. We describe how technologies and methodologies from the Digital Humanities can help overcome some of the limitations in Byzantine sigillography that result from and contribute to its status as a 'rare subject'. Building on a long tradition and leveraging methods and techniques from the Digital Humanities, this paper describes some important steps already taken towards a digital renewal of the discipline. We are well aware that it takes much more than a locally organised group of scholars to establish any discipline anew, and so this paper aims to be a stimulus to future work.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gephyra, 2023
The collection of lead seals of the Pera Museum consists of 17 unpublished pieces, which are date... more The collection of lead seals of the Pera Museum consists of 17 unpublished pieces, which are dated from the second half of the 7th century to the 13th century. Ten of the seventeen Byzantine lead seals of the Pera Museum collection mention the dignities and the offices of their owners. These offices range from the lower rank of a simple notary (no. 5) up to the highest office of the emperor himself (no. 9). There is only one seal related to the ecclesiastical administration, issued by a bishop (no. 2). Noteworthy are the seals of Georgios (no. 6), who has the uniquely attested office of an imperial apothekarios, as well as the 11th-century seal of Pharasmanes Apokapes, member of a notable Byzantine family of Armenian origin, by whom no other seals have been published so far. Another group of seals consists of the specimens (nos. 11-14 and possibly also no. 17) where only the name or the surname of their owner is mentioned. All these pieces are dated to the period between the second half of the 11th century and the 13th century. In the collection, there are two more iconographic seals (nos. 15-16) depicting on both sides holy figures without any inscription that mentions their owner, and finally, an unidentified seal (no. 17) (dated to the end of the 11th century).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 2023
In light of some unpublished sigillographical material, this paper re-visit the foundation of the... more In light of some unpublished sigillographical material, this paper re-visit the foundation of the thema of the Boukellarioi and places it in its historical context. Based on an unpublished lead seal, the paper proposes a somehow earlier date than the middle of the eighth century accepted so far. This date seems to accord with a number of reforms undertaken during the reign of Leon III (717–741) and the early reign of Konstantinos V (741– 775) which effectively founded the institution of the themata. Moreover, building upon a Catalogue of 19 officials from the eighth century (of which six were unknown so far), this study analyses the early history and the administrative structure of the thema of the Boukellarioi.
The Catalogue includes the pertaining sigillographical evidence (in total 22 seals are being published – plus three in the Appendix –, of which 15 had not been properly published) and includes a historical and/or sigillographical commentary.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta (ZRVI) 59, 2022
In the Barber collection of Fine Arts (University of Birmingham) a seal issued by Konstantinos Ph... more In the Barber collection of Fine Arts (University of Birmingham) a seal issued by Konstantinos Philosophos, krites and strategos of the Islands dated to the 1070s or 1080s has been preserved. With this seal as a starting point, I examine the historical circumstances of the appointment of Konstantinos Philosophos in the Islands and particularly the devaluation of the dignities and the fusion of the civil with the military administration. Furthermore, the members of the rather obscure family of Philosophoi from the 11th to the 13th centuries are identified. Finally, the administrative area where Konstantinos Philosophos exercised his duties is located territorially in the Southern Aegean, with Kos as its capital, and its administrative structure is analyzed. This contribution closes with a short prosopography of the officials who served in the region between the late 10th and the late 13th centuries (in total 23 officials, plus two who had been erroneously considered as officials of the Kyklades Nesoi in previous research).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
D. Katsonopoulou (ed.), Paros through the ages - from prehistoric times to the 16th century AD, Paros V, Paros 2021, 2021
The changes in the Byzantine world after the 7th c. brought fundamental transformations in the so... more The changes in the Byzantine world after the 7th c. brought fundamental transformations in the society and the administration of the Cyclades and the Aegean region. Cyclades maintained their place as a vital region for the empire and the state economy. At the same time, the state, in order to protect the population and the maritime routes, created a defensive network in the Cyclades, in which Paros was included. Administration-wise Paros and the Cyclades were placed first under the authority of the strategos of the Karabesianoi, then to the droungarios of Kos/Dodekanesos, then possibly were included into the thema of Samos until the late 10th c., when they formed the thema of Kyklades Nesoi whose capital was Kos. Besides, archontes grew in a number of islands administering part of the local affairs. A new era dawned in Paros after the recapture of Crete in 961. This new era is also reflected in the ecclesiastical administration; two bishops of Paros are known within a century, while in 1083 the bishoprics of Paros and Naxos were cut off from Rodos and created the unified metropolis of Paronaxia.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Ιστορικά Θέματα, 2011
Το θέμα της ελληνικότητας του Βυζαντίου έχει απασχολήσει έντονα την επιστημονική κοινότητα. Ο κυρ... more Το θέμα της ελληνικότητας του Βυζαντίου έχει απασχολήσει έντονα την επιστημονική κοινότητα. Ο κυριότερος λόγος είναι ότι η σύνδεση της νεώτερης Ελλάδας με την αρχαιότητα περνάει αναγκαστικά μέσα από το Βυζάντιο. Πρώτος που αμφισβήτησε αυτή τη συνέχεια ήταν ο Φαλμεράυερ το 1829, με σαφή πολιτικά κίνητρα, ισχυριζόμενος ότι οι νεώτεροι Έλληνες είναι απόγονοι Σλάβων και Αλβανών. Αν και οι απόψεις του σύντομα ξεχάστηκαν τότε, τη δεκαετία του 1960 ήρθαν μια σειρά Άγγλων κυρίως καθηγητών να αναβιώσουν την θεωρία της ασυνέχειας επεκτείνοντάς την και στο πολιτιστικό επίπεδο. Μια έντονη διαμάχη ξέσπασε τότε που κατασίγασε μονάχα τις μία-δύο τελευταίες μας δεκαετίες.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
ΧΕΡΣΩΝΟΣ ΘΕΜΑΤΑ: Империя и Полис. XI Международный Византийский Семинар: Материалы Научной конференции, Sevastopol 2019, 2019
Seleukeia was a separate administrative unit already in the late seventh century, headed in the b... more Seleukeia was a separate administrative unit already in the late seventh century, headed in the beginning by a droungarios. Three of the five known droungarioi have become known only recently, through seals located in auction catalogues: two anonymi, the second maybe Sisinnios, and a certain Theodoros. The problematic Taktikon Uspenskij does not mention Seleukeia, but we know that it was a kleisoura since the first half of the ninth century. Many kleisourarchai are known from the early ninth century, among them Leon, first with the title spatharokandidatos and later as protospatharios, and Akindynos. The existence of civil officials connected to the thematic administration (protonotarioi, chartoularioi and kritai) show that Seleukeia was an autonomous administrative unit.
Fifteen kleisourarchai are known until the early 10th century, among them a certain Eustathios. Two of his seals were published as anonymi, but after a comparison, it was found out that they are from the same boulloterion as the other seals of Eustathios.
Seleukeia was upgraded to a theme under Romanos I Lekapenos at some time between 927 and 934. In total between the mid-10th c. and the mid-eleventh century 14 strategoi are known. Two unknown strategoi of Seleukeia are presented here: Michael and Theophylaktos. In the eleventh century Seleukeia was included in the doukaton of Antioch. The office of the kritai of Seleukeia was combined to that of megas kourator of the nearby Tarsos, like in the case of Ioannes Kalopsychos.
The metropolis of Seleukeia in Isauria was established in the fifth century and it was subordinate to the Patriarchate of Antioch. Saint Thekla was the most important venerated saint in the area. We have recorded seventeen metropolitans of Seleukeia and today we present, among others, an unpublished seal of Theophanes, metropolitan, dated in the second half of the eleventh century, from the State Numismatic Collection in Munich.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
by CEREN ÜNAL, Cengiz Gürbıyık, Hakan Göncü, Sonia Dimaki, Eugen Marius Paraschiv (-Grigore), Husnu Ozturk, Alekseienko Nikolaj, Zeynep Cizmeli Ogun, Christos Malatras, Ioanna Koukouni, Hüseyin Köker, and Ioana Paraschiv-Grigore
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The discussion touches upon three topics: a) the jurisdiction of the patriarchal court and the i... more The discussion touches upon three topics: a) the jurisdiction of the patriarchal court and the interaction between different courts and authorities, b) the procedure of the trial itself and the legal or non-legal arguments used, c) the application of justice and its nature.
Rather than an ‘increase of the power of Church in the late centuries’, evolving from a diminution of state structures, it is shown that these cases in fact were either dealing with questions of marriage (dowry etc.) and minor persons or took place in specific circumstances. Besides, in Byzantium there was no strict jurisdiction of the courts despite the legislation of early emperors; instead, there was pluralism in the choice of the forum for the plaintiffs at least since the Late Antiquity.
A trial in the patriarchal tribunal did not differ much from one in a lay court, yet it seems to have become more elaborate in the course of the fourteenth century. Taking of evidence was a result of different procedures. The examination of the testimony of witnesses and of the contestants was a most common mean but the strongest evidence remained always a valid document. Besides the court had at its disposal the testimonies of experts (doctors, scholars etc.) or, at times, it was possible to perform a local inspection. But, the main weapon for the discovery of the truth for the patriarchal court was the threat of excommunication. In case that the witness lied, while examined through this ‘ordeal’, he would receive divine punishment in the next life. As was the case with the Western ordeal, the use of excommunication was rather delicate and there are many cases were its imposition had actually a sound effect on the testimony.
Law at the time was not the sophisticated system that is today. The knowledge of law was rather often basic and superficial. Nonetheless, this did not diminish the application of justice by the patriarchal court. An examination of the cases shows that the decisions were mostly based on law and the canons. But justice is not only the application of the law and especially when this concerns a religious institution. There are cases in which the concept of oikonomia or the Christian spirit of philanthropy and mercy are applied. Justice was also a public manifestation of authority and of the proper attitude. The meanness of the guilty and his punishment and, on the opposite side, the piety and the kindness of the “good man” should be demonstrated. This last element is in contrast to the contemporary surviving evidence for justice by a lay court.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The second civil war, fought between the regency for the minor Ioannes V and Ioannes Kantakouzeno... more The second civil war, fought between the regency for the minor Ioannes V and Ioannes Kantakouzenos, has given birth to many discussions about its nature. It has been said that the middle and lower classes supported the regency and attacked, in an act of social reaction, the followers of Kantakouzenos who represented the landed aristocracy. The regency is supposed to have initiated measures in favour of the middle and lower classes. This policy is believed to have culminated in the regime of the Zealots in Thessalonike.
However, a closer examination of the sources reveals that this picture is misleading. The regency, apart from the confiscations against the supporters of Kantakouzenos and which are supposed to have strengthened the state treasury, did not initiate any other measure against aristocracy.
The main supporters of Kantakouzenos named in our sources were none other than his relatives, friends and oikeioi. Many aristocrats adopted a rather ambiguous attitude and shifted their allegiance according to their needs and the balance of power.On the other side, it seems certain that the people in most cities of the empire retained their loyalty to the regency. Their shift of allegiance had only to do with the growing power of Kantakouzenos in the area. Nevertheless, we should not assume that the uprisings were something spontaneous or necessarily had social roots. We have definite evidence that in many cases these uprisings were stirred up by the authorities.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Βυζαντιακά 30, 229-242, 2013
"The “Zealot revolt” became a myth of Byzantine studies, especially in circles of Eastern Europe’... more "The “Zealot revolt” became a myth of Byzantine studies, especially in circles of Eastern Europe’s researchers during the Cold War. The movement was thought to represent a social revolution of the middle and lower social classes against the aristocracy, which was directed by the political party of the Zealots and had a clear political program of changing the social and political status quo (a redistribution of wealth and perhaps another political model of government more “democratic” with the participation of social groups other than the landed aristocracy). Although the major source for this “program”, a homily of Nikolaos Kabasilas, was rejected by I. Sevçenko already in 1357 as referring to the Zealots, many scholars did not abstain from expressing similar views.
The Zealot movement is closely connected with the second civil war (1341-1354) between the regency of the minor Ioannes V and Ioannes Kantakouzenos. When in 1342 the governor of Thessalonike Theodoros Synadenos decided to join Kantakouzenos, a popular revolt led by the anti-Kantakouzenists expelled him along with the supporters of Kantakouzenos. Their properties were raided and were redistributed to the leaders of the revolt, who were none other than known members of the local aristocracy, who had titles and large land possessions. A new governor was appointed by the central government altering nothing in the status quo.
The influence of the Zealots on the people was rather limited. When in 1345 the governor Ioannes Apokaukos, murdered the leader of the Zealots and imprisoned several others, he caused no turbulence among the populace. However when he tried to join Kantakouzenos another Zealot leader, Andreas Palaiologos, aroused the demos of the coastal part of the city, of which part he held the administration. Still, the support of the rest people and the victory of the Zealots were only achieved because of the treason of a military leader named Kokalas, who aroused the populace against Apokaukos and convinced the soldiers to abstain from fighting. The victory ended with the bloodshed of Ioannes Apokaukos and 100 of his supporters. Accordingly, in 1349 the next governor, Alexios Metochites led most of the city’s demos against the coastal demos and Andreas Palaiologos achieving thus a sound victory. The Zealots then started negotiating the surrender of the city to the Serbians but Metochites called Kantakouzenos for aid. The entry of Kantakouzenos next year in the city was peaceful; he imprisoned the rest of the Zealots without any reaction.
Similar efforts trying to link them with the religious controversies of the time (e.g. opposition to the Hesychasts) or with heretic circles have proved fruitless. The Zealots were nothing more than a fraction of the aristocracy that tried to appropriate power and use the force of the people for their cause. Moreover, the city remained attached to the central government and does not represent an effort for self-government. Yet, it can be treated as one more incident in the growing centrifugal tendencies of the late Byzantine centuries, caused by a weakening state machine."
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The topics of Hellenism in Byzantium and the nation-making of Greece have received in the past a ... more The topics of Hellenism in Byzantium and the nation-making of Greece have received in the past a great deal of attention by scholars. In this paper, I suggest that the Byzantines of the 12th century did not consider themselves actual descendants of the ancient Greeks, even though the rehabilitation of ancient Greek literature had been taking place from the time of Michael Psellos.
This however does not mean, as scholars have suggested in the past and even recently, that the Byzantines did not have a sense of ethnic or ‘national’ identity and that they were all united under the banner of the emperor and Orthodoxy. On the contrary, the Byzantines of the 12th century perceived themselves as a distinct ethnic group, among the other ethnic groups in the world and among the subjects of the Byzantine emperor. Moreover, they started building their identity on the basis of some kind of East Romanitas, i.e. descendants of the East Romans, Christianity and language. Language most of the times plays a significant role in distinguishing the various ethnic groups and setting up effectively their boundaries, and this was also the case in 12th century Byzantium. Since the majority of the empire’s inhabitants were in fact native Greek speakers, they proved the best “candidates” for this ethnic group of the Romaioi. However, we have to distinguish between the Greek language and Hellenism. By Hellenism we mean that system of thought that was linked with the study of ancient Greek authors and thought. My view is that it was not Hellenism that helped the ethnic group of the Romaioi be identified with the native Greek speakers, rather it was because the Romaioi were in fact Greek speakers that helped Hellenism emerge. The link that Hellenism might sometimes imply with the ancient Greek past, which many scholars have searched for, is something that simply did not exist during the 12th century.
But the year 1204 proved a most decisive year in terms of Byzantine identity. The writings of the same authors before and after the fall of Constantinople show that. The “ethnic pride” of the Romaioi was hurt decisively and their reaction was fierce. Before the 12th century the Byzantines, the Romaioi, only displayed Hellenism rhetorically but now it becomes their essence and, to a degree, the state ideology. The terms Romaioi and Greeks sometimes are used interchangeably. Nevertheless, the boundaries of the ethnic group do not change. What changes is its essence, the identity of the group. Hellenism served as the most effective way to clearly distinguish Byzantines and Latins; it became the basis of 13th century ethinicity. However, this change of identity would be unthinkable if two basic elements had not made their contribution during the 12th century: the formation of a clearly distinguished ethnic group (that of the Romaioi) and the progress of the element of Hellenism in the ethnic identity of that group.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Book Reviews by Christos Malatras
Phoenix 73.1, 2019
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Conference Presentations by Christos Malatras
Byzantine seals have long emerged as an extremely valuable source in Byzantine Studies. This sess... more Byzantine seals have long emerged as an extremely valuable source in Byzantine Studies. This session highlights the advantages of the sigillographic evidence and its role as an indispensable complement to information provided by other traditional sources on numerous aspects of Byzantine studies: the political culture and prosopography (Karagiorgou, Elam), the administrative structures (Malatras, Catalano), the art and iconography and its symbolism (Charalampakis and Campagnolo-Pothitou), the linguistics (Evdokimova), as well as the Byzantine society in general (Elam).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Videos by Christos Malatras
Papers by Christos Malatras
The Catalogue includes the pertaining sigillographical evidence (in total 22 seals are being published – plus three in the Appendix –, of which 15 had not been properly published) and includes a historical and/or sigillographical commentary.
Fifteen kleisourarchai are known until the early 10th century, among them a certain Eustathios. Two of his seals were published as anonymi, but after a comparison, it was found out that they are from the same boulloterion as the other seals of Eustathios.
Seleukeia was upgraded to a theme under Romanos I Lekapenos at some time between 927 and 934. In total between the mid-10th c. and the mid-eleventh century 14 strategoi are known. Two unknown strategoi of Seleukeia are presented here: Michael and Theophylaktos. In the eleventh century Seleukeia was included in the doukaton of Antioch. The office of the kritai of Seleukeia was combined to that of megas kourator of the nearby Tarsos, like in the case of Ioannes Kalopsychos.
The metropolis of Seleukeia in Isauria was established in the fifth century and it was subordinate to the Patriarchate of Antioch. Saint Thekla was the most important venerated saint in the area. We have recorded seventeen metropolitans of Seleukeia and today we present, among others, an unpublished seal of Theophanes, metropolitan, dated in the second half of the eleventh century, from the State Numismatic Collection in Munich.
Rather than an ‘increase of the power of Church in the late centuries’, evolving from a diminution of state structures, it is shown that these cases in fact were either dealing with questions of marriage (dowry etc.) and minor persons or took place in specific circumstances. Besides, in Byzantium there was no strict jurisdiction of the courts despite the legislation of early emperors; instead, there was pluralism in the choice of the forum for the plaintiffs at least since the Late Antiquity.
A trial in the patriarchal tribunal did not differ much from one in a lay court, yet it seems to have become more elaborate in the course of the fourteenth century. Taking of evidence was a result of different procedures. The examination of the testimony of witnesses and of the contestants was a most common mean but the strongest evidence remained always a valid document. Besides the court had at its disposal the testimonies of experts (doctors, scholars etc.) or, at times, it was possible to perform a local inspection. But, the main weapon for the discovery of the truth for the patriarchal court was the threat of excommunication. In case that the witness lied, while examined through this ‘ordeal’, he would receive divine punishment in the next life. As was the case with the Western ordeal, the use of excommunication was rather delicate and there are many cases were its imposition had actually a sound effect on the testimony.
Law at the time was not the sophisticated system that is today. The knowledge of law was rather often basic and superficial. Nonetheless, this did not diminish the application of justice by the patriarchal court. An examination of the cases shows that the decisions were mostly based on law and the canons. But justice is not only the application of the law and especially when this concerns a religious institution. There are cases in which the concept of oikonomia or the Christian spirit of philanthropy and mercy are applied. Justice was also a public manifestation of authority and of the proper attitude. The meanness of the guilty and his punishment and, on the opposite side, the piety and the kindness of the “good man” should be demonstrated. This last element is in contrast to the contemporary surviving evidence for justice by a lay court.
However, a closer examination of the sources reveals that this picture is misleading. The regency, apart from the confiscations against the supporters of Kantakouzenos and which are supposed to have strengthened the state treasury, did not initiate any other measure against aristocracy.
The main supporters of Kantakouzenos named in our sources were none other than his relatives, friends and oikeioi. Many aristocrats adopted a rather ambiguous attitude and shifted their allegiance according to their needs and the balance of power.On the other side, it seems certain that the people in most cities of the empire retained their loyalty to the regency. Their shift of allegiance had only to do with the growing power of Kantakouzenos in the area. Nevertheless, we should not assume that the uprisings were something spontaneous or necessarily had social roots. We have definite evidence that in many cases these uprisings were stirred up by the authorities.
The Zealot movement is closely connected with the second civil war (1341-1354) between the regency of the minor Ioannes V and Ioannes Kantakouzenos. When in 1342 the governor of Thessalonike Theodoros Synadenos decided to join Kantakouzenos, a popular revolt led by the anti-Kantakouzenists expelled him along with the supporters of Kantakouzenos. Their properties were raided and were redistributed to the leaders of the revolt, who were none other than known members of the local aristocracy, who had titles and large land possessions. A new governor was appointed by the central government altering nothing in the status quo.
The influence of the Zealots on the people was rather limited. When in 1345 the governor Ioannes Apokaukos, murdered the leader of the Zealots and imprisoned several others, he caused no turbulence among the populace. However when he tried to join Kantakouzenos another Zealot leader, Andreas Palaiologos, aroused the demos of the coastal part of the city, of which part he held the administration. Still, the support of the rest people and the victory of the Zealots were only achieved because of the treason of a military leader named Kokalas, who aroused the populace against Apokaukos and convinced the soldiers to abstain from fighting. The victory ended with the bloodshed of Ioannes Apokaukos and 100 of his supporters. Accordingly, in 1349 the next governor, Alexios Metochites led most of the city’s demos against the coastal demos and Andreas Palaiologos achieving thus a sound victory. The Zealots then started negotiating the surrender of the city to the Serbians but Metochites called Kantakouzenos for aid. The entry of Kantakouzenos next year in the city was peaceful; he imprisoned the rest of the Zealots without any reaction.
Similar efforts trying to link them with the religious controversies of the time (e.g. opposition to the Hesychasts) or with heretic circles have proved fruitless. The Zealots were nothing more than a fraction of the aristocracy that tried to appropriate power and use the force of the people for their cause. Moreover, the city remained attached to the central government and does not represent an effort for self-government. Yet, it can be treated as one more incident in the growing centrifugal tendencies of the late Byzantine centuries, caused by a weakening state machine."
This however does not mean, as scholars have suggested in the past and even recently, that the Byzantines did not have a sense of ethnic or ‘national’ identity and that they were all united under the banner of the emperor and Orthodoxy. On the contrary, the Byzantines of the 12th century perceived themselves as a distinct ethnic group, among the other ethnic groups in the world and among the subjects of the Byzantine emperor. Moreover, they started building their identity on the basis of some kind of East Romanitas, i.e. descendants of the East Romans, Christianity and language. Language most of the times plays a significant role in distinguishing the various ethnic groups and setting up effectively their boundaries, and this was also the case in 12th century Byzantium. Since the majority of the empire’s inhabitants were in fact native Greek speakers, they proved the best “candidates” for this ethnic group of the Romaioi. However, we have to distinguish between the Greek language and Hellenism. By Hellenism we mean that system of thought that was linked with the study of ancient Greek authors and thought. My view is that it was not Hellenism that helped the ethnic group of the Romaioi be identified with the native Greek speakers, rather it was because the Romaioi were in fact Greek speakers that helped Hellenism emerge. The link that Hellenism might sometimes imply with the ancient Greek past, which many scholars have searched for, is something that simply did not exist during the 12th century.
But the year 1204 proved a most decisive year in terms of Byzantine identity. The writings of the same authors before and after the fall of Constantinople show that. The “ethnic pride” of the Romaioi was hurt decisively and their reaction was fierce. Before the 12th century the Byzantines, the Romaioi, only displayed Hellenism rhetorically but now it becomes their essence and, to a degree, the state ideology. The terms Romaioi and Greeks sometimes are used interchangeably. Nevertheless, the boundaries of the ethnic group do not change. What changes is its essence, the identity of the group. Hellenism served as the most effective way to clearly distinguish Byzantines and Latins; it became the basis of 13th century ethinicity. However, this change of identity would be unthinkable if two basic elements had not made their contribution during the 12th century: the formation of a clearly distinguished ethnic group (that of the Romaioi) and the progress of the element of Hellenism in the ethnic identity of that group.
Book Reviews by Christos Malatras
Conference Presentations by Christos Malatras
The Catalogue includes the pertaining sigillographical evidence (in total 22 seals are being published – plus three in the Appendix –, of which 15 had not been properly published) and includes a historical and/or sigillographical commentary.
Fifteen kleisourarchai are known until the early 10th century, among them a certain Eustathios. Two of his seals were published as anonymi, but after a comparison, it was found out that they are from the same boulloterion as the other seals of Eustathios.
Seleukeia was upgraded to a theme under Romanos I Lekapenos at some time between 927 and 934. In total between the mid-10th c. and the mid-eleventh century 14 strategoi are known. Two unknown strategoi of Seleukeia are presented here: Michael and Theophylaktos. In the eleventh century Seleukeia was included in the doukaton of Antioch. The office of the kritai of Seleukeia was combined to that of megas kourator of the nearby Tarsos, like in the case of Ioannes Kalopsychos.
The metropolis of Seleukeia in Isauria was established in the fifth century and it was subordinate to the Patriarchate of Antioch. Saint Thekla was the most important venerated saint in the area. We have recorded seventeen metropolitans of Seleukeia and today we present, among others, an unpublished seal of Theophanes, metropolitan, dated in the second half of the eleventh century, from the State Numismatic Collection in Munich.
Rather than an ‘increase of the power of Church in the late centuries’, evolving from a diminution of state structures, it is shown that these cases in fact were either dealing with questions of marriage (dowry etc.) and minor persons or took place in specific circumstances. Besides, in Byzantium there was no strict jurisdiction of the courts despite the legislation of early emperors; instead, there was pluralism in the choice of the forum for the plaintiffs at least since the Late Antiquity.
A trial in the patriarchal tribunal did not differ much from one in a lay court, yet it seems to have become more elaborate in the course of the fourteenth century. Taking of evidence was a result of different procedures. The examination of the testimony of witnesses and of the contestants was a most common mean but the strongest evidence remained always a valid document. Besides the court had at its disposal the testimonies of experts (doctors, scholars etc.) or, at times, it was possible to perform a local inspection. But, the main weapon for the discovery of the truth for the patriarchal court was the threat of excommunication. In case that the witness lied, while examined through this ‘ordeal’, he would receive divine punishment in the next life. As was the case with the Western ordeal, the use of excommunication was rather delicate and there are many cases were its imposition had actually a sound effect on the testimony.
Law at the time was not the sophisticated system that is today. The knowledge of law was rather often basic and superficial. Nonetheless, this did not diminish the application of justice by the patriarchal court. An examination of the cases shows that the decisions were mostly based on law and the canons. But justice is not only the application of the law and especially when this concerns a religious institution. There are cases in which the concept of oikonomia or the Christian spirit of philanthropy and mercy are applied. Justice was also a public manifestation of authority and of the proper attitude. The meanness of the guilty and his punishment and, on the opposite side, the piety and the kindness of the “good man” should be demonstrated. This last element is in contrast to the contemporary surviving evidence for justice by a lay court.
However, a closer examination of the sources reveals that this picture is misleading. The regency, apart from the confiscations against the supporters of Kantakouzenos and which are supposed to have strengthened the state treasury, did not initiate any other measure against aristocracy.
The main supporters of Kantakouzenos named in our sources were none other than his relatives, friends and oikeioi. Many aristocrats adopted a rather ambiguous attitude and shifted their allegiance according to their needs and the balance of power.On the other side, it seems certain that the people in most cities of the empire retained their loyalty to the regency. Their shift of allegiance had only to do with the growing power of Kantakouzenos in the area. Nevertheless, we should not assume that the uprisings were something spontaneous or necessarily had social roots. We have definite evidence that in many cases these uprisings were stirred up by the authorities.
The Zealot movement is closely connected with the second civil war (1341-1354) between the regency of the minor Ioannes V and Ioannes Kantakouzenos. When in 1342 the governor of Thessalonike Theodoros Synadenos decided to join Kantakouzenos, a popular revolt led by the anti-Kantakouzenists expelled him along with the supporters of Kantakouzenos. Their properties were raided and were redistributed to the leaders of the revolt, who were none other than known members of the local aristocracy, who had titles and large land possessions. A new governor was appointed by the central government altering nothing in the status quo.
The influence of the Zealots on the people was rather limited. When in 1345 the governor Ioannes Apokaukos, murdered the leader of the Zealots and imprisoned several others, he caused no turbulence among the populace. However when he tried to join Kantakouzenos another Zealot leader, Andreas Palaiologos, aroused the demos of the coastal part of the city, of which part he held the administration. Still, the support of the rest people and the victory of the Zealots were only achieved because of the treason of a military leader named Kokalas, who aroused the populace against Apokaukos and convinced the soldiers to abstain from fighting. The victory ended with the bloodshed of Ioannes Apokaukos and 100 of his supporters. Accordingly, in 1349 the next governor, Alexios Metochites led most of the city’s demos against the coastal demos and Andreas Palaiologos achieving thus a sound victory. The Zealots then started negotiating the surrender of the city to the Serbians but Metochites called Kantakouzenos for aid. The entry of Kantakouzenos next year in the city was peaceful; he imprisoned the rest of the Zealots without any reaction.
Similar efforts trying to link them with the religious controversies of the time (e.g. opposition to the Hesychasts) or with heretic circles have proved fruitless. The Zealots were nothing more than a fraction of the aristocracy that tried to appropriate power and use the force of the people for their cause. Moreover, the city remained attached to the central government and does not represent an effort for self-government. Yet, it can be treated as one more incident in the growing centrifugal tendencies of the late Byzantine centuries, caused by a weakening state machine."
This however does not mean, as scholars have suggested in the past and even recently, that the Byzantines did not have a sense of ethnic or ‘national’ identity and that they were all united under the banner of the emperor and Orthodoxy. On the contrary, the Byzantines of the 12th century perceived themselves as a distinct ethnic group, among the other ethnic groups in the world and among the subjects of the Byzantine emperor. Moreover, they started building their identity on the basis of some kind of East Romanitas, i.e. descendants of the East Romans, Christianity and language. Language most of the times plays a significant role in distinguishing the various ethnic groups and setting up effectively their boundaries, and this was also the case in 12th century Byzantium. Since the majority of the empire’s inhabitants were in fact native Greek speakers, they proved the best “candidates” for this ethnic group of the Romaioi. However, we have to distinguish between the Greek language and Hellenism. By Hellenism we mean that system of thought that was linked with the study of ancient Greek authors and thought. My view is that it was not Hellenism that helped the ethnic group of the Romaioi be identified with the native Greek speakers, rather it was because the Romaioi were in fact Greek speakers that helped Hellenism emerge. The link that Hellenism might sometimes imply with the ancient Greek past, which many scholars have searched for, is something that simply did not exist during the 12th century.
But the year 1204 proved a most decisive year in terms of Byzantine identity. The writings of the same authors before and after the fall of Constantinople show that. The “ethnic pride” of the Romaioi was hurt decisively and their reaction was fierce. Before the 12th century the Byzantines, the Romaioi, only displayed Hellenism rhetorically but now it becomes their essence and, to a degree, the state ideology. The terms Romaioi and Greeks sometimes are used interchangeably. Nevertheless, the boundaries of the ethnic group do not change. What changes is its essence, the identity of the group. Hellenism served as the most effective way to clearly distinguish Byzantines and Latins; it became the basis of 13th century ethinicity. However, this change of identity would be unthinkable if two basic elements had not made their contribution during the 12th century: the formation of a clearly distinguished ethnic group (that of the Romaioi) and the progress of the element of Hellenism in the ethnic identity of that group.
Ιntroduces the basic patterns, ideas and gestures that governed the system of social relations and the construction of social profiles and roles of Byzantine society
Identifies the main traits of Late Byzantine society and the ideas of the Byzantines about their social system, the social values and the organisation of their society.
Explores the use of modern sociological and anthropological theories in order to better understand Byzantine society.
Provides thorough and up-to-date analysis of the different social groups in the Late Byzantine society (character, composition, relation to the economic, political and ideological resources).
Emphasises the networks of patron-client relations and their effect on the structures of Byzantine society.
Offers a new explanation of the collapse of Byzantine society and the state in the face of external threats.
The introductory chapter (Part I) describes the aims and the methodological principles of the TAKTIKON Research Project, addresses some key questions concerning the institution of the Byzantine themata in relation to the results presented in the volume, and offers a description of the TAKTIKON online database (O. Karagiorgou).
Part II includes a paper on the terms “Eoa, Anatole, Anatolikoi” in the Byzantine literary tradition (A. Kontogiannopoulou), and detailed studies on the strategoi of Hellas (O. Karagiorgou), and the prosopography and administrative structure of Opsikion (C. Malatras), the Anatolikoi (C. Malatras), and the Kibyrraiotai (P. Charalampakis), based on the evidence of sigillographic and non-sigillographic sources. The studies on Hellas and the three Asia Minor themata are accompanied by detailed chronological catalogues of thematic officials and complete records of a total of 1110 relevant thematic molybdoboulla. These were put together by the TAKTIKON research team during inspection of sigillographic collections and the meticulous study of relevant publications. More than 80 (published and unpublished) state and private sigillographic collections in 17 countries, as well as the (printed and online) sale catalogues of more than 40 auction houses have been studied, so far, for the purposes of the TAKTIKON Research Project.
Parts III and IV of the volume present papers by the participants of the One-day International Workshop at the Academy of Athens: N. Alekseienko (Correspondents of Byzantine Cherson), O. Alf’orov (Seals of Eustratios Chrysoberges), V. Bulgurlu (Seals from the Museum of Miletos), J.-C. Cheynet (Sceaux parisiens; Sceaux dans la collection Savvas Kofopoulos, Lesbos), N. Elam (Seals from eleven museums in Turkey), E. Güzel Erdoğan and V. Prigent (Sceaux au musée d’Adana), E. Stepanova (Seals from the Hermitage), I. Jordanov (Byzantine Eastern armies in the Balkans), T. Kourempanas (Σφραγίδεςμε απεικονίσεις αετών), V. Stepanenko (The family of Artzruni) and Z. Zhekova (Thematic seals from Bulgaria). The authors discuss more than 230 Byzantine lead seals (in their overwhelming majority previously unpublished), kept in private and state collections in Bulgaria, France, Greece, Russia, and Ukraine, which are relevant to the administration and the prosopography of Byzantine Asia Minor.
This volume presents the first results of the TAKTIKON Research Project on the administration and prosopography of the Byzantine themata, which is realised at the Research Centre for Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art at the Academy of Athens by Olga Karagiorgou (Principal Investigator), Christos Malatras and Pantelis Charalampakis, as well as the communications of a relevant One-day International Workshop.
The introductory chapter (Part I) describes the aims and the methodological principles of the TAKTIKON Research Project, addresses some key questions concerning the institution of the Byzantine themata in relation to the results presented in the volume, and offers a description of the TAKTIKON online database (O. Karagiorgou).
Part II includes a paper on the terms “Eoa, Anatole, Anatolikoi” in the Byzantine literary tradition (A. Kontogiannopoulou), and detailed studies on the strategoi of Hellas (O. Karagiorgou), and the prosopography and administrative structure of Opsikion (C. Malatras), the Anatolikoi (C. Malatras), and the Kibyrraiotai (P. Charalampakis), based on the evidence of sigillographic and non-sigillographic sources. The studies on Hellas and the three Asia Minor themata are accompanied by detailed chronological catalogues of thematic officials and complete records of a total of 1110 relevant thematic molybdoboulla. These were put together by the TAKTIKON research team during inspection of sigillographic collections and the meticulous study of relevant publications. More than 80 (published and unpublished) state and private sigillographic collections in 17 countries, as well as the (printed and online) sale catalogues of more than 40 auction houses have been studied, so far, for the purposes of the TAKTIKON Research Project.
Parts III and IV of the volume present papers by the participants of the One-day International Workshop at the Academy of Athens: N. Alekseienko (Correspondents of Byzantine Cherson), O. Alf’orov (Seals of Eustratios Chrysoberges), V. Bulgurlu (Seals from the Museum of Miletos), J.-C. Cheynet (Sceaux parisiens; Sceaux dans la collection Savvas Kofopoulos, Lesbos), N. Elam (Seals from eleven museums in Turkey), E. Güzel Erdoğan and V. Prigent (Sceaux au musée d’Adana), E. Stepanova (Seals from the Hermitage), I. Jordanov (Byzantine Eastern armies in the Balkans), T. Kourempanas (Σφραγίδεςμε απεικονίσεις αετών), V. Stepanenko (The family of Artzruni) and Z. Zhekova (Thematic seals from Bulgaria). The authors discuss more than 230 Byzantine lead seals (in their overwhelming majority previously unpublished), kept in private and state collections in Bulgaria, France, Greece, Russia, and Ukraine, which are relevant to the administration and the prosopography of Byzantine Asia Minor.