Et Tenentes Frenum Equi Ipsius A New Ap PDF

The Patriarchate of Constantinople
in Context and Comparison

Edited by
Christian Gastgeber, Ekaterini Mitsiou,

Johannes Preiser-Kapeller,
and Vratislav Zervan
SONDERDRUCK
The Patriarchate of Constantinople
in Context and Comparison
Proceedings of the International Conference Vienna, September 12th–15th 2012
In memoriam Konstantinos Pitsakis (1944–2012)
and Andreas Schminck (1947–2015)
Edited by
CHRISTIAN GASTGEBER, EKATERINI MITSIOU,

JOHANNES PREISER-KAPELLER, and
VRATISLAV ZERVAN
SONDERDRUCK
Content
Preface ................................................................................................................................................ 7
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Keynote Lecture
Jonathan HARRIS
The Patriarch of Constantinople and the last days of Byzantium ...................................................... 9
The Patriarchate before the Register
Frederick LAURITZEN
The synods of Alexios Studites (1025–1043) ...................................................................................... 17
† Paris GOUNARIDIS
Édification du patriarcat à Nicée ....................................................................................................... 25
Ionuţ Alexandru TUDORIE

“Et tenentes frenum equi ipsius …”
A new approach to the 13th-century relationship between the Byzantine emperor and patriarch ..... 31
Michel STAVROU
Une réévaluation du Tomos du Deuxième Concile des Blachernes (1285) :
commentaire, tradition textuelle, édition critique et traduction ........................................................... 47
Privileges, Monasteries, and Institutions
Konstantinos SMYRLIS
Priesthood and empire
Ecclesiastical wealth and privilege under the early Palaiologoi ......................................................... 95
Ekaterini MITSIOU
Female monastic communities and the church from the 13th to 14th c. .............................................. 105
Youli EVANGELOU
Monastic financial contributions to the Great Church
New evidence from the post-byzantine register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople ..................... 115
Marie-Hélène CONGOURDEAU
Athanase, Niphon et Jean Kalékas étaient-ils des patriarches simoniaques ? ................................... 125
Raúl ESTANGÜI GÓMEZ

Les premiers exarques du Patriarcat de Constantinople en Macédoine (dernier quart du XIVe siècle) 135
6 Content
Christos MALATRAS
Trial process and justice in the late patriarchal court ....................................................................... 161
Nicholas MELVANI
The patriarchate and the monasteries of Constantinople in the 15th century ..................................... 175
Charters, Texts, and Copies
Marie-Hélène BLANCHET
Une acolouthie inédite pour la réconciliation des apostats attribuée au patriarche Gennadios II
Édition princeps et commentaire ........................................................................................................ 183
Christian GASTGEBER
Das Formular der Patriarchatskanzlei (14. Jahrhundert) ................................................................. 197
Machi PAÏZI-APOSTOLOPOULOU
La notion de copie identique dans le registre synodal post-byzantin ................................................. 303
Dimitris APOSTOLOPOULOS
Le troisième patriarche après la Prise
Son nom, sa présence au registre synodal, la durée de sa mission .................................................... 311
The Patriarchate beyond Constantinople and after 1453
Maria GEROLYMATOU
L’état, le patriarcat et les îles de l’est de la mer Égée aux XIIIe–XIVe siècles ................................... 317
Natalia SHERWAN
Limits of patriarchal power in the fourteenth-century Balkans
The case of Vidin ................................................................................................................................ 327
Konstantinos VETOCHNIKOV
Le pouvoir et les fonctions des métropolites russes d’après les actes patriarcaux ............................. 333
Johannes PREISER-KAPELLER
The global Patriarch
Aspects of Byzantine ecclesiastical activity and inactivity within the Mongol-Islamic World
of the 13th–15th century ....................................................................................................................... 351
Daniel BENGA
Das Patriarchat von Konstantinopel und die griechische Kirche
in den Veröffentlichungen des Ostkirchenkundlers David Chytraeus (1530–1600) ........................... 361
Late Byzantium and the Church – a Synthesis
Klaus-Peter MATSCHKE
Kaisertum, Kirche und Volk
Formen und Besonderheiten byzantinischer Öffentlichkeit in der Endphase des Reiches .................. 375
Indices of Regest Numbers and Persons .............................................................................................. 395

Preface
This volume presents the papers from the international conference dedicated to “The Patriarchate of Con-
stantinople in Context and Comparison”, held at Vienna, 12th–15th September 2012, and organised by the
Austrian Science Fund (FWF) project “Edition of the Register of the Patriarchate of Constantinople”1 in co-
operation with the EU project POSDRU 89/1.5/S/61104 of the Romanian Academy of Sciences2. The con-
ference and the published results are parts of a large-scale European research focus whose principal investi-
gators and collaborators are united in the common platform PATRHIST3. This international network aims at
a co-operative research and linkage of projects on the second most important, partially also the first ranking
factor of power in Byzantine history and religious policy. This volume thus continues a series of respective
studies such as the proceedings of the first congress in Vienna (2009) entitled “The Register of the Patriar-
chate of Constantinople. An Essential Source for the History and Church of Late Byzantium”4 or the pro-
ceedings of the thematic round table at the 22nd International Conference of Byzantine Studies (Sofia, 2011):
“Le Patriarcat œcuménique de Constantinople et Byzance hors frontières (1204–1586)”5.
Experts on religious, political, social, economical, and administrative history as well as on philology dealt
with the following topics: The Patriarchate before the Register (LAURITZEN, GOUNARIDIS, TUDORIE,
STAVROU) – Privileges, monasteries, and institutions (SMYRLIS, MITSIOU, EVANGELOU, CONGOURDEAU,
ESTANGÜI GÓMEZ, MALATRAS, MELVANI) – Charters, texts, and copies (BLANCHET, GASTGEBER, PAIZI-
APOSTOLOPOULOU, APOSTOLOPOULOS) – The Patriarchate beyond Constantinople (GEROLYMATOU, SHER-
WAN, VETOCHNIKOV, PREISER-KAPELLER, BENGA) – Introduction and Synthesis (HARRIS, MATSCHKE).
The conference was overshadowed by the bereavement of a leading scholar in Byzantine canonical law,
Konstantinos G. Pitsakis, who died shortly before the event. It is therefore our heartfelt desire to dedicate the
conference and the proceedings to his memory. The conference opened with a commemoration of that lead-
ing scholar by his friend and colleague Andreas Schminck of the Max-Planck-Institute for European Legal
History in Frankfurt. The tragedy of life did not allow our colleague and adviser Andreas Schminck to see
this volume published: he died in December 2015 We likewise owe it to him and his constant willingness to
help with questions of canonical law to dedicate the volume to his memory as well.
This book would not have been published had the Austrian Science Fund not covered the costs of printing
and open access. We want to express many thanks to the Austrian Science Fund for this essential support.
Finally, the editors would particularly like to thank their teacher and supervisor, Prof. Otto Kresten, for
his guidance during years of reading and interpreting texts from the register of the patriarchate in his semi-
nars and for evoking interest for this unique source in the Austrian National Library.
A technical remark at the end: the use of abbreviated cited literature—unless stated otherwise in the arti-
cles—follows the guidelines of the Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik6.
The editors
Vienna, March 2016
—————
1 FWF project P22269.
2 Focus of the Vienna subproject: The Byzantine Church in a time of crisis (1204–1500). Sources, structures and methods.
3 http://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/association/patrhist.htm.
4 Edited by Christian Gastgeber, Ekaterini Mitsiou, and Johannes Preiser-Kapeller in the series “Veröffentlichungen zur
Byzanzforschung” (no 32) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (Vienna 2013).
5 Edited by Marie-Hélène Blanchet, Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, and Dan Ioan Muresan in the series “Dossiers byzantins” of the
École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (no 15), Paris 2015.
6 http://www.oeaw.ac.at/byzanz/joeb.htm.
List of Figures and Tables
YOULI EVANGELOU
1–2: Istanbul, Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον, Codex Α΄12, p. 10, 11 (© Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον)
MARIE-HÉLÈNE BLANCHET
1: Meteora, Μονὴ Βαρλαάμ, Cod. 74, f. 233r (© Meteora, Μονὴ Βαρλαάμ)
CHRISTIAN GASTGEBER
1–3: Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Fragmentsammlung (© ÖNB; ÖAW, Herbert Hunger-
Archiv Vienna)
4–7: letters of the Byzantine Emperor of 1188, 1191, 1192 and 1199 (© Munich, Bayerische Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Franz Dölger-Archiv; ÖAW, Diplomata-Archiv, Vienna)
8–9: Athos, Μονὴ τοῦ Δοχειαρίου, dok. 31 (© Athos, Μονὴ τοῦ Δοχειαρίου; fig. in: OIKONOMIDÈS,
Actes de Docheiariou [see n. 51], pl. 36; ÖAW, Diplomata-Archiv, Vienna)
10: Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. hist. gr. 47, f. 156v (© ÖNB; ÖAW, Herbert Hunger-
Archiv Vienna)
11–12: Vatican, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, A. A. Arm I-XVIII, n° 1740 (© Archivio Segreto Vaticano;
Abb. nach PIERALLI, Corrispondenza [see n. 168], tav. 16; ÖAW, Diplomata-Archiv, Vienna)
13: Athos, Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας, Dok. 135 (1, 161) (© Μονὴ Μεγίστης Λαύρας; fig. in: LEMERLE,
GUILLOU, SVORONOS, PAPACHRYSSANTHOU, Actes de Lavra. III [see n. 23], pl. 171; ÖAW)
15–17: Athos, Μονὴ τοῦ Δοχειαρίου, dok. 39 (© Athos, Μονὴ τοῦ Δοχειαρίου; fig in: OIKONOMIDÈS,
Actes de Docheiariou [see n. 51], pl. 44; ÖAW, Diplomata-Archiv, Vienna)
MACHI PAÏZI-APOSTOLOPOULOU
1: Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. hist. gr. 48, f. 50r (© ÖNB; ÖAW, Herbert Hunger-
Archiv)
2: Samos, Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Μητροπόλεως, ms. 12, f. 205r (© Samos, Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς Μητροπόλεως)
3–5: Istanbul, Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον, Register Codex A, p. 15; 1 (© Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον)
6: Athens, Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλοθήκη τῆς Ἑλλάδος, ms. ΜΠΤ 622, p. 162 (© Athens, Ἐθνικὴ Βιβλοθήκη τῆς
Ἑλλάδος)
DIMITRIS G. APOSTOLOPOULOS
1: Ioannina, Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων, Βιβλιοθήκη, ms Kourila 5, f. 322v (© Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων,
Βιβλιοθήκη)
2: Istanbul, Οἰκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον, Νόμιμον τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας, f. ρλη΄r (© Οἰκουμενικὸν
Πατριαρχεῖον)
3: Athos, Μονὴ τοῦ Βατοπεδίου, doc. Γ 4 (3.2) (© Μονὴ τοῦ Βατοπεδίου)
JOHANNES PREISER-KAPELLER
1: The trade network of Tana in 1359/1360 and the network of Metropolitan Symeon of Alania (1350–
1365) (map: © J. Preiser-Kapeller, 2015)
2: Map of localities mentioned in the paper (map: © J. Preiser-Kapeller, 2015)
DANIEL BENGA
1: D. CHYTRAEUS, Oratio … Frankfurt 1583, 75–77 (© Wiki Commons)
IONUŢ ALEXANDRU TUDORIE
“Et tenentes frenum equi ipsius …”

A new approach to the 13th-century relationship between the Byzantine emperor and patriarch
“But since he himself, the most blessed Pope, did not at all allow that crown of gold to be used over the cler-
ical crown which he wears to the glory of the Blessed Peter, we placed upon his most holy head, with our
own hands, a glittering tiara of dazzling white representing the Lord’s resurrection, and holding the bridle of
his horse, out of reverence for the Blessed Peter, we performed for him the duty of groom, decreeing that all
his successors, and they alone, use this same tiara in processions in imitation of our power.”1
This is an excerpt from Donatio Constantini, a document with an interesting career especially in the
West, but also in the East, until the Italian scholar Laurentius Valla proved it to be a fake in the 15th century2.
In the medieval West, based precisely on the relationship between Pope Sylvester I and emperor Constantine
the Great as described by Donatio Constantini, the encounters between the representatives of the Church and
the Empire, respectively, repeatedly included a ritual known as officium stratoris, according to which the
emperor had to act as a mere groom to God’s representative, thus acknowledging divine authority and
implicitly that of the Roman pontiff. On the feast of Epiphany (January 6) in 754, at Ponthion, Pepin the
Short was the first to imitate the ritual described in Donatio Constantini at the time of his encounter with
Pope Stephen II. During the following centuries, this display of the lower position of the emperor before the
bishop of Rome occured repeatedly: in 858, Ludwig II performed this ritual before Pope Nicholas I in Rome;
in 1095, the son of Heinrich IV, Konrad, observed officium stratoris for Pope Urban II at Cremona; in 1131,
Emperor Lothar III held the stirrup of Pope Innocent II’s horse (officium strepae) at Lüttich (present-day
Liège); and on June 8, 1155, at Sutri, the famous German Emperor Friedrich I Barbarossa undertook officium
marscalci (officium stratoris et strepae) for Pope Adrian IV. The same Friedrich I Barbarossa also agreed to
act as such for Pope Alexander III both in Pavia in 1160, and in Venice in 1177. Finally, Emperor Otto IV
performed officium stratoris at the time of his own coronation day (October 21, 1209) for Pope Innocent III.
All these events have been exhaustively discussed by Robert Holtzmann3, Eduard Eichmann4, Ernst Kantor-
owicz5, Jörg Traeger6, Christopher Walter7, John Mitchell8, Mary Stroll9, Achim Thomas Hack10 and Gerd
Althoff11.
—————
 This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian National Authority, CNCS–UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-
2011-3-0255. I would like to express my gratitude to Ekaterini Mitsiou (Vienna/Athens) for reading this article and sending me
her comments.
1 Donatio Constantini 5 (ed. J. FRIED, Donation of Constantine and Constitutum Constantini: The Misinterpretation of a Fiction
and Its Original Meaning (Millennium. Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr. 3). Berlin–New York
2007, 149: ipse vero sanctissimus papa super coronam clericatus, quam gerit ad gloriam beati Petri, omnino ipsam ex auro non
est passus uti coronam, frygium vero candido nitore splendidam resurrectionem dominicam designans eius sacratissimo vertici
manibus nostris posuimus, et tenentes frenum equi ipsius pro reverentia beati Petri stratoris officium illi exhibuimus; statuentes,
eundem frygium omnes eius successores pontifices singulariter uti in processionibus ad imitationem imperii nostri (English
translation 152).
2 L. Valla, De falso credita et ementita Constantini Donatione (ed. W. SETZ [MGH. Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters
10]. Weimar 1976).
3 R. HOLTZMANN, Der Kaiser als Marschall des Papstes. Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Beziehungen zwischen Kaiser und
Papst im Mittelalter (Schriften der Strassburger Wissenschaftlichen Gessellschaft in Heidelberg, Neue Folge, 8. Heft). Berlin–
Leipzig 1928; R. HOLTZMANN, Zum Strator- und Marschalldienst: Zugleich eine Erwiderung. Historische Zeitschrift 145 (1932)
301–350.
4 E. EICHMANN, Das Officium Stratoris et Strepae. Historische Zeitschrift 142 (1930) 16–40.
5 E. H. KANTOROWICZ, The King’s Advent and the Enigmatic Panels in the Doors of Santa Sabina. The Art Bulletin 26 (1944) 207–
231; E. H. KANTOROWICZ, Constantinus Strator. Marginalien zum Constitutum Constantini, in: Mullus. Festschrift Theodor
Klauser, ed. A. STUIDBER – A. HERMANN (JbAC. Ergänzungsband 1). Münster 1964, 181–189.
32 Ionuţ Alexandru Tudorie
Regarding the relationship between the Byzantine patriarch and emperor, respectively, the protocol
observed at the Constantinople court did not constantly prescribe officium stratoris. However, several
opinions were put forward during the last century with regard to this issue. Margarita Alekseeva Andreeva12,
in her book dedicated to 13th-century Byzantine aulic ceremonies, was the first author to connect the episode
of Magnesia, which occured in the fall of 1258, to an excerpt from the chronicle of John Kinnamos.
Subsequently, in an article dedicated to this ritual, Georg Ostrogorsky13 identified and commented on the
sources, mentioning the observance of officium stratoris in both the Byzantine and the Slavic world. Otto
Treitinger14 also summarized Ostrogorsky’s analysis, including it in his famous monograph dedicated to
Byzantine imperial ideology as reflected in the aulic ceremonial. The topic was resumed, long afterwards, by
Marie Theres Fögen15, who placed the Magnesia event (1258) in relation to the spreading of the ideas
comprised in Donatio Constantini, reaching Byzantine society through the Greek translation of this
document. Then Dimiter Angelov16 introduced two new sources (an excerpt from Tractatus contra errores
Graecorum – 1252, as well as another from Panagiotae cum azymita disputatio – 1274/1275), integrating the
discussion in the broader context of the evolution of hierocratic theory formulated during the Palaiologan
dynasty. Subsequently, Lutz Rickelt17 included a brief digression dedicated to the ritual of officium stratoris
in Byzantium in an extensive article on the excommunication of Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos. Briefly
touching upon the most important of the historical sources, the author’s conclusions corroborate those of
Dimiter Angelov. In an article on the superiority of the Byzantine emperor, visibly expressed in his riding
position during public ceremonies, Tudor Teoteoi18 mentioned the episode featuring Michael Palaiologos and
Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos. The Romanian historian concluded that, despite this exceptional moment in
Byzantine history and the considerable confusion between lay and ecclesiastical realms, imperial ideology
did not accept placing the emperor in a lower position than the representatives of the Church. Finally, the
—————
6 J. TRAEGER, Der reitende Papst: Ein Beitrag zur Ikonographie des Papsttums (Münchner Kunsthistorische Abhandlungen 1).
Munich–Zürich 1970.
7 Ch. WALTER, Papal Political Imagery in the Medieval Lateran Palace. Cahiers Archéologiques (fin de l’Antiquité et Moyen Âge)
20 (1970) 155–176, especially 166–169 and 21 (1971) 109–136, especially 123–133 (= Ch. WALTER, Prayer and Power in Byz-
antine and Papal Imagery. Aldershot–Brookfield VT 1993).
8 J. MITCHELL, St. Silvester and Constantine at the SS. Quattro Coronati, in: Federico II e l’arte del duecento italiano. Atti della III
Settimana di Studi di Storia dell’arte medievale dell’Università di Roma (15–20 maggio 1978) vol. II (a cura di A. M. ROMANI-
NI). Galatina 1980, 15–32.
9 M. STROLL, Symbols as Powers. The Papacy following the Investiture Contest (Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 24). Lei-
den–New York–Copenhagen–Cologne 1991, 193–208.
10 A. Th. HACK, Das Empfangszeremoniell bei mittelalterlichen Papst-Kaiser-Treffen (Forschungen zur Kaiser- und Papstgeschich-
te des Mittelalters 18). Cologne–Weimar–Vienna 1999.
11 G. ALTHOFF, Inszenierung verpflichtet. Zum Verständnis ritueller Akte bei Papst-Kaiser-Begegnungen im 12. Jahrhundert.
Frühmittelalterliche Studien 35 (2001) 61–84, especially 71–84.
12 М. А. ANDREEVA, Ocherki po kul'ture vizantiyskago dvora v XIII veke (Rozpravy Král. České spol. nauk, Tř. Fil.-Hist.-
Jazykozpyt., Nová řada (VIII), čís. 3/Travaux de la Société Royale des Sciences de Bohême, Cl. des Lettres, Nouvelle Série VIII,
No. 3). v Praze 1927, 79–80.
13 G. OSTROGORSKY, Zum Stratordienst des Herrschers in der byzantinisch-slavischen Welt. Seminarium Kondakovianum VII
(1935) 187–204, especially 189–193 (= G. OSTROGORSKY, Byzanz und die Welt der Slawen: Beiträge zur Geschichte der byzan-
tinisch-slawischen Beziehungen. Darmstadt 1974, 101–121).
14 O. TREITINGER, Die oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell. Jena 1938, 225–227.
15 M. Th. FÖGEN, Kaiser unter Kirchenbann im östlichen und westlichen Mittelalter. Rechtshistorisches Journal 16 (1997) 527–
549, especially 541–543.
16 D. ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204–1330. Cambridge 2007, 380–383; D. G. ANGELOV,
The Donation of Constantine and the Church in Late Byzantium, in: Church and Society in Late Byzantium, ed. D. G. ANGELOV
(Studies in Medieval Culture 49). Kalamazoo MI 2009, 91–157, especially 113–117, 150–152.
17 L. RICKELT, Die Exkommunikation Michaels VIII. Palaiologos durch den Patriarchen Arsenios, in: Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen
Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantinischen Mittelalter. Akten der internationalen Tagung vom 3. bis 5. No-
vember 2010, ed. M. GRÜNBART – L. RICKELT – M. M. VUČETIĆ (Byzantinistische Studien und Texte 3), I. Berlin 2011, 97–125,
especially 102–104.
18 T. TEOTEOI, Împăratul călare – un detaliu neglijat din ceremonialul bizantin, in: Euharistirion Patriarhului Daniel al României, ed.
†VARLAAM – E. POPESCU. București 2011, 457–469, especially 459–460, 466–468.
“Et tenentes frenum equi ipsius …” 33
most challenging article was published by Andrey V. Korenevskiy and Aleksandr I. Pilyugin19. The two
Russian scholars reached the conclusion that Byzantine ideology had borrowed this ritual of Western origin,
attempting to imbue it with religious symbolism by integrating it into the Palm Sunday procession. Thus,
after the fall of Constantinople, it was Moscow, the third Rome, that inherited the major part of Byzantine
imperial ideology, officium stratoris included.
REVISING AND INTERPRETING THE SOURCES

Surprisingly, although this ceremony of Western origin was not regularly observed at the Byzantine imperial
court, certain Greek and Latin sources mention officium stratoris et strepae as a ritual known in Byzantium.
Some of the most interesting information concerning this ceremony and its observance in the Byzantine
Empire is provided by Georgios Pachymeres’ Συγγραφικαὶ Ἱστορίαι. In his account of the first encounter
between Michael Palaiologos, recently appointed as mega dux and guardian (ἐπίτροπος) of the minor
legitimate basileus John IV Laskaris, and Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos (1254–1260; 1261–1265), which
took place at Magnesia in the fall of 1258, the chronicler described it in the following words: “At this time he
heard that the patriarch was coming with select members of the clergy and the bishops. And as soon as he
[Michael Palaiologos] heard this, he went prior to the others to meet him from a great distance. He showed
the patriarch and his holy retinue great honour in this way: holding the bridle of the priest’s mule, he walked
on foot until such time as the patriarch preceded him into the palace and he installed him there.”20 Although
the chronicler did not make it clear whether the Byzantine imperial court had adopted this ritual previously,
or if it was introduced only at the time of the respective episode, yet Pachymeres’ testimony is a credible
one, confirming not only that this ritual and its symbolism were known in the Byzantine Empire, but also
that it was observed by the future founder of the last dynasty that held the imperial throne.
However, a number of (quite significant) differences distinguished the original ritual, observed in the
Latin West, from the Magnesia episode. Firstly, in the fall of 1258 the representative of temporal power—
Michael Palaiologos—was not yet a legitimate emperor, but he had taken over the government of the Empire
by virtue of his position as legal guardian of John IV Laskaris. Also, the situation of Patriarch Arsenios
Autoreianos, in common with all patriarchs of Constantinople during the Nicene exile (1204–1261), was an
exceptional one, running counter to the stipulations of Church canon law: a patriarch of Constantinople,
residing at Nicaea. This ambiguous state of affairs was promptly condemned by the archbishop of Ohrid,
Demetrios Chomatenos (1216/1217–ca. 1236), in his correspondence with the patriarch at Nicaea, Germanos
II (1223–1240): “As dissolving the old customs from Constantinople was proclaimed [an] emperor and
proposed [a] patriarch in the eparchy of Bithynia (this fact was introduced by the dramatic circumstaces of
the time; indeed, when was it heard that the same man should shepherd the metropolis of Nicaea and [at the
same time should] be called patriarch of Constantinople?”21 Another interesting difference between the
original Western ritual and the encounter described by Pachymeres lies in the symbolic character of the
—————
19 А. V. KORENEVSKIY – А. I. PILYUGIN, Officium stratoris i «shestvie na oslyati»: proishozhdenie i semantika ritualov, in: Cogito.
Al'manah istorii idey, Vypusk 5. Rostov-na-Donu 2011, 203–240, especially 212–221. A. V. Korenevskiy’s first attempt to
explain the adoption of this Latin ceremonial by the Byzantines, then the adoption of the ritual at Moscow – the third Rome, is
available in А. KORENEVSKIY, Officium stratoris i «shestvie na oslyati»: k voprosu o sopostavimosti religiozno-politicheskih
doktrin zapadnoevropeyskogo i russkogo Srednevekov'ja. Ab Imperio. Teorija i istorija nacional'nostey i nacionalizma v
postsovetskom prostranstve 1/2002 185–204.
20 Georgios Pachymeres, Συγγραφικαὶ Ἱστορίαι I 26 (ed. A. FAILLER – V. LAURENT [CFHB XXIV/1]. Paris 1984, 103.18–23): Ἐν
τοσούτῳ δὲ ὁ πατριάρχης σύν τε τοῖς ἐκκρίτοις τοῦ κλήρου καὶ τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι παρεῖναι ἠκούετο· καὶ ὃς αὐτίκα μαθὼν πρὸ τῶν
ἄλλων αὐτὸς ὑπαντᾷ μακρόθεν, τιμὴν τὴν μεγίστην ἀφοσιούμενος τῷ τε πατριάρχῃ καὶ παντὶ τῷ ἱερῷ πληρώματι, πεζῇ τε
βαδίζων καὶ τὰς τῆς ἡμιόνου τοῦ ἱερέως χαλινοὺς κατέχων, ἕως καὶ αὐτῶν ἐντὸς ἀνακτόρων προηγούμενος καθιστᾷ; cf. N. J.
CASSIDY, A Translation and Historical Commentary of Book One and Book Two of the Historia of Geōrgios Pachymerēs
(unpublished PhD thesis). School of Humanities – University of Western Australia 2004, 33.
21 Demetrius Chomatenus, Ponemata Diaphora 114.4 (ed. G. PRINZING [CFHB XXXVIII]. Berlin–New York 2002, 372.70–
373.75): Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ παραλύσει τῶν ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ἀρχαίων ἐθῶν καὶ βασιλεὺς ἀνηγορεύθη καὶ πατριάρχης
προεβλήθη ἐν τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ τῶν Βιθυνῶν (τοῦτο γὰρ ἡ τοῦ καιροῦ περίστασις τυραννήσασα ἐπεισήγαγε· πότε γὰρ ἠκούσθη τὸν
αὐτὸν μητρόπολιν Νικαίας ποιμαίνειν καὶ πατριάρχην Κωνσταντινουπόλεως λέγεσθαι;).
Church’s representative. On the one hand, for all their public appearances, including for the aforementioned
cases when officium stratoris was observed by the representatives of the secular power, the bishops of Rome
usually rode a white horse (albus/candidus equus), supplied by the special tax imposed on the German cities
Reichenau and Bamberg which had to provide the Holy See with two white horses every year. This tradition
was changed only in late 13th century (1294), starting with the triumphal entry of Pope Celestin V into
Aquila riding a donkey22. On the other hand, the Byzantine patriarch is described as coming to the meeting
place on the back of a mule (ἡ ἡμίονος)23. While the impressive appearance of Roman bishops was intended
as a true imitatio imperatoris, the adapted form of this ritual in Byzantium was closer to the biblical pattern
and to the imitatio Christi. Finally, the last remark concerning the episode presented by Pachymeres is the
inexplicable omission of this incident in Georgios Akropolites’ Χρονικὴ Συγγραφή, the main source
documenting the period of Nicene exile.
With all these alterations in mind, obviously in the Magnesia episode (1258) Michael Palaiologos sought
to replicate the Western ritual and flatter Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos24. However, this assertion is
questioned by some other Byzantine sources, both prior and subsequent to the moment described by
Pachymeres. Thus, the chronicler John Kinnamos in his Ἐπιτομή (Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Com-
nenis gestarum), a work written in the second half of the 12th century, expressed his consternation at such a
ritual. In recounting the Sutri episode of 1155, when Emperor Friedrich I Barbarossa performed officium
marscalci on his encounter with Pope Adrian IV, the Byzantine historian stated: “For the rule of Rome has
been sold, like a piece of property, to barbarians and really servile people. Therefore, it has no right to a
bishop nor, much more, to a ruler. For the one who ascends to the imperial greatness, in a fashion unworthy
of himself, runs on foot alongside the mounted bishop and is like his groom. […] Noble sir, how and whence
did it occur to you to treat the Romans’ emperors like grooms?”25
This negative stance taken by John Kinnamos, approximately one century prior to the episode described
by Pachymeres, was later corroborated by a statement by the monk-emperor John VI Kantakouzenos in his
Ἱστορίαι, pointing out that in the Byzantine Empire, the representatives of temporal power were not
—————
22 For bibliographical details, see KANTOROWICZ, King’s Advent 217 (n. 66). See also M. KINTZINGER, Der weisse Reiter. Formen
internationaler Politik im Spätmittelalter. Frühmittelalterliche Studien 37 (2003) 315–353, especially 322–331.
23 One of the most humiliating punishments for a prominent person in Byzantine society was to be forced to tour the city riding a
donkey. It was, however, deemed proper for women and members of the high clergy to ride mules or donkeys and not horses, on
their errands within the city or outside it, cf. T. G. KOLIAS, The Horse in the Byzantine World, in: Le cheval dans les sociétés an-
tiques et médiévales. Actes des journées d’études internationales organisées par l’UMR 7044 (Étude des Civilisations de
l’Antiquité), Strasbourg, 6–7 novembre 2009, éd. S. LAZARIS (Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive 22). Turnhout 2012, 93; D.
HEHER, Heads on Stakes and Rebels on Donkeys. The Use of Public Parades for the Punishment of Usurpers in Byzantium (c.
900–1200), Πορφύρα / Porphyra (Confronti su Bisanzio 2) Dicembre 2015 (= VIes Rencontres annuelles internationales des doc-
torants en études byzantines [2013], éd. L. M. CIOLFI – J. DEVOGE) 17–19. However, Eustathios of Thessalonica, in his trea-
tise De emendanda vita monachica (late 12th century), condemned precisely the increasingly frequent use of horses instead of
donkeys/mules by monks; doing that they would depart from genuine humility. See Eustathius Thessalonicensis, De emendanda
vita monachica 168 (ed. K. METZLER [CFHB XLV]. Berlin–New York 2006, 184.22–186.15).
24 FÖGEN, Kaiser unter Kirchenbann 542; ANGELOV, The Donation of Constantine 113–114. On the other hand, L. RICKELT, Die
Exkommunikation Michaels VIII. Palaiologos 120–123, grounding his argumentation in the presence of Arsenios Autoreianos,
prior to his election as patriarch, among the members of the unionist diplomatic mission sent by the Nicene court to Rome (he
may even have participated in both Byzantine delegations of the period 1250–1252 and 1253–1254), concluded that he certainly
visited the chapel dedicated to St Silvester within the Santi Quattro Coronati basilica, where Donatio Constantini was depicted in
the iconographical program frescoes. Although this hypothesis has the advantage of establishing the moment when Arsenios
would have known the symbolic significance of officium stratoris, the author fails to explain how Arsenios Autoreianos succeed-
ed in persuading Michael Palaiologos to accept this inferior position. It is thus more than obvious that the decision to perform this
ritual rested with the representative of temporal authority, rather than the Byzantine patriarch.
25 Ioannis Cinnamus, Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis Gestarum V.7 (ed. A. MEINEKE [CSHB XXV]. Bonnae 1836,
219.11–18): οἷον γάρ, οἷον ἡ ‘Ρώμης ἀρχὴ βαρβάροις καὶ δεινῶς ἀνδραποδώδεσιν ἀνθρώποις διεκαπηλεύθη χρῆμα· κἀντεῦθεν
οὔτε ἀρχιερέως αὐτῇ μέτεστιν οὔτε πολλῷ δήπουθεν ἄρχοντος. ὁ μὲν γὰρ τῷ τῆς βασιλείας ἐπεμβαίνων μεγαλείῳ, ἀναξίως
ἑαυτῷ ἱππευομένῳ πεζῇ τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ παραθέει καὶ ὅσα καὶ ἱπποκόμος αὐτῷ γίνεται, [...] πῶς, ὦ βέλτιστε, καὶ πόθεν σοι τοῖς
‘Ρωμαίων βασιλεῦσιν εἰς ἱπποκόμους κεχρῆσθαι ἐπῆλθεν; For the French and English translations, see J. ROSENBLUM, Jean
Kinnamos, Chronique. Paris 1972, 144; Ch. M. BRAND, John Kinnamos, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus. New York 1976,
166.
compelled to perform officium stratoris before the representatives of the Church. On the contrary, the official
encounters between the two personalities took place on an equal footing. The context of the assertion is the
moment of negotiations between John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–1354) and the Serbian king Stefan Uroš IV
Dušan (1331–1355), at Tao, near Pristina, in 1342: “And, after the czar sent for [him], he [the emperor] was
also present, not far from there. And when [the emperor] was in the czar’s house, he [the czar] went to the
middle of the courtyard, took the bridle of the horse carrying the archbishop and led it to the place where he
usually dismounted, and after he addressed him, he was blessed by him [the archbishop]. However, he did
not let the emperor come in front of the house, but according to the custom of the Byzantine emperors, he
met him inside the house and, after he addressed him, he too was blessed”26. As the monk-emperor himself
testified, the prescript of Byzantine protocol required that he should wait for the Serbian archbishop
Ioannikije II (1337–1354) inside the residence, where he received his blessing. Interestingly, although at the
Skopje court of Czar Stefan Uroš IV Dušan most Byzantine rituals and ranks of nobility ranks were adopted
and the Greek language was acknowledged as the second official language, this major influence did not
obstruct others. It was thus possible for officium stratoris to be observed in medieval Serbia, even though it
was not adopted via Constantinople27. The description provided by the historian-emperor is conclusive: the
archbishop of Peć came to the meeting riding a horse (ὁ ἵππος), that is, strictly complying with the Western
original of this ritual.
Last but not least, the conclusion allowed by the testimonials of John Kinnamos and John VI
Kantakouzenos, both unequivocally stating that the Byzantine ceremonial did not include officium stratoris,
is indirectly upheld by the lack of any mention of this ritual in the famous treatise authored by Pseudo-
Kodinos, Περὶ ὀφφικιαλίων τοῦ Παλατίου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως καὶ περὶ τῶν ὀφφικίων τῆς Μεγάλης
Ἐκκλησίας (De officialibus palatii Constantinopolitani et de officiis Magnae Ecclesiae), written in the mid-
14th century (1347–1368). If officium stratoris had been observed on a regular basis at the court of
Constantinople, Pseudo-Kodinos would have described it in detail, both as a part of the imperial coronation
ceremony and in some other official occasions that would have required it28.
An analysis of the Byzantine sources presented so far in the investigation (Pachymeres, Kinnamos,
Kantakouzenos and Pseudo-Kodinos) has failed to provide a clear answer regarding the adoption of officium
stratoris among the aulic ceremonies in Constantinople during the encounters between emperor and
patriarch. On the contrary, on the one hand, certain authors, either directly or indirectly, have denied any
Western influence on the matter, and on the other hand, one of the chroniclers described an episode which,
despite the slight differences, replicates the Latin ritual. However, the texts presented above are not the only
ones mentioning officium stratoris and its adoption in the East. Some interesting information is provided by a
polemical pamphlet on the religious union of Lyons (July 1274), entitled Panagiotae cum azymita disputatio
—————
26 Ioannis Cantacuzenus eximperator, Historiarum libri IV. Graece et Latine III 45 (CSHB XX/2). Bonnae 1831, 274.10–18: Καὶ
μεταπεμψαμένου τοῦ Κράλη, παρῆν καὶ αὐτὸς οὐκ ἐν μακρῷ. ἐπεὶ δὲ παρῆν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Κράλη, ἐκεῖνος μὲν ἄχρι τοῦ μέσου
προελθὼν τῆς αὐλῆς, ἐπελάβετό τε τῶν χαλινῶν τοῦ ἵππου, ᾧ ὠχεῖτο ὁ ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, καὶ προήγαγεν ἄχρι οὗ εἰώθει ἀποβαίνειν,
ἔπειτα προσαγορεύσας, εὐλογεῖτο παρ’ ἐκείνου. Βασιλέα δὲ οὐκ εἴασε τῶν οἰκημάτων προελθεῖν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ ‘Ρωμαίων
βασιλέων ἔθος ὑπήντα τε ἔνδον τοῦ οἰκήματος καὶ προσαγορεύσας εὐλογεῖτο καὶ αὐτός.
27 OSTROGORSKY, Stratordienst des Herrschers 203–204 ascribed the existence of this ritual at the court of Czar Stefan Uroš IV
Dušan, to the influence of the Greek-Slavonic translation of the legislative collection Σύνταγμα κατὰ στοιχεῖον (Syntagma
alphabeticum). This compilation of canons and juridical texts, authored by the monk Matthew Blastares who completed it in
1335, included an abridged Greek version of Donatio Constantini. It was through this abridged version, translated into Old Sla-
vonic (1349 is deemed as terminus ante quem), that officium stratoris supposedly entered the protocol of public meetings be-
tween the czar and the archbishop of medieval Serbia. For further details on the Old Slavonic translation, as well as the circula-
tion and impact of Matthew Blastares’ juridical collection on the Orthodox milieus south and north of the Danube, see V.
ALEXANDROV, The Syntagma of Matthew Blastares. The Destiny of a Byzantine Legal Code among the Orthodox Slavs and Ro-
manians (14–17 Centuries) (Forschungen zur byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 29). Frankfurt am Main 2014. For further infor-
mation on the abridged version of Donatio Constantini included in Matthew Blastares’ Syntagma, see ANGELOV, The Donation
of Constantine 100–101.
28 Although Pseudo-Kodinos did not included all kinds of ceremonies, he mentioned the horse etiquette on many occassions. For details on
this topic see R. MACRIDES – J. A. MUNITIZ – D. ANGELOV (eds.), Pseudo-Kodinos and the Constantinopolitan Court: Offices and
Ceremonies (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies 15). Farnham–Burlington VT 2013, 387–391.
(Διάλεξις κυροῦ Κωνσταντίνου καὶ μάρτυρος τοῦ παναγιωτάτου μετὰ τοῦ γαρδιναρίου Εὐφροσύνου)29,
written by an anonymous Byzantine author (perhaps a certain Konstantinos Panagiotes)30, an adversary of
—————
29 The first (incomplete) Greek edition of this text, based on codex Vindobonensis theol. gr. 244, ff. 79r–83v (16th century), pre-
served in the collection of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, was published in A. VASSILIEV, Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina,
pars prior. Moscow 1893, 179–188. To this Greek edition was later added a short fragment, based on codex Mosquiensis gr. 397
(according to the numbering in the catalogue of Greek manuscripts in the Holy Synod Library, compiled by archimandrite
Vladimir in 1894), ff. 518r–533v (15th century), nowadays preserved in the special collection Synodal (Patriarchal) Library at the
National Museum of History in Moscow: М. SPERANSKIY, K istorii Preniy Panagiota s Azimitom. Vizantiyskiy vremennik II
(1895) 527–530. By corroborating the two published parts with two other manuscripts (Atheniensis gr. 472, ff. 218r–229r, 18th
century, preserved in the collection of the National Library in Athens; Panteleimonensis gr. 842, ff. 147–153, 16th century, in-
complete text, in the archive of St. Panteleimon monastery at Mount Athos), and a 14th-century Serbian translation, N. F. Kras-
noselcev published a complete critical edition of the Greek text in: N. F. KRASNOSELCEV, Preniy Panagiota s Azimitom po novym
grecheskim spiskam. Letopis' Istoriko-Filologicheskoe Obshestvo pri Novorossiyskom Universitete VI (1896) 311–328 (= Vi-
zantiyskoe Otdelenie III [1896]; also published as a booklet under the same title in Odessa 1896). Finally, based on codex Cutlu-
musiensis gr. 177, ff. 7–14 (16th century), the same Russian scholar published a second complete Greek version, in abbreviated
form: N. F. KRASNOSELCEV, Addenda k izdanіju A. Vasil'eva: Anecdota graeco-byzantina. Moskva 1893). Odessa 1898, 76–83.
Apart from the Greek manuscripts already mentioned, longer or shorter parts of this text were identified in Parisinus gr. 395, ff. 24–35
(15th–16th centuries); Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1190, ff. 1r–3v; Parisinus Suppl. gr. 1191, ff. 15–21 (16th century); Atheniensis gr. 2420, ff.
107–133 (16th–17th centuries)—a similar version of the text from Atheniensis gr. 472, ff. 218r–229r. Abridged versions of this polemical
dialogue was also included in codex Bucarestiensis gr. 562 (according to the numbering in the catalogue of Greek manuscripts in the
Romanian Academy collection, published by C. Litzica in 1909), ff. 133r–138r (16th–17th centuries) and Laurensis gr. K 13, ff. 21r–
26r (18th century). This fictitious dialogue circulated widely in the Orthodox Slavic-speaking area. Thus, between the 14th and
18th centuries, it was translated and disseminated in the Serbian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Russian languages. Beside the afore-
mentioned Greek editions, A. Popov also published three editions in Slavic languages (all of them, however, were incomplete
versions of the Greek original): 1) a Serbian translation based on a manuscript dated 1384 (ff. 185 sqq.); 2) a Russian translation,
based on a 16th-century Sbornik (ff. 102–109), whose text was compared to that of Metropolitan Macarius’ Menaion for June
(Mosquiensis sl. 181, ff. 668–675, 16th century; codex nowadays in the special collection Synodal (Patriarchal) Library at the
National Museum of History in Moscow); 3) a Russian translation, based on Metropolitan Macarius’ Menaion for August (Mos-
quiensis sl. 183, ff. 597–599, 16th century; manuscript currently held by the same National Museum of History in Moscow, in the
special collection Synodal (Patriarchal) Library; this version notably differs from the others, in that the name of Konstantinos
Panagiotes was replaced with Nikifor). See A. POPOV, Istoriko-literaturnyj obzor drevne-russkich polemičeskich sočinenij protiv
Latinjan (XI–XV v.). London 1972, 251–264, 265–281, 283–286 (anastatic reprint of the first edition: Moscow 1875). Finally, a
third Russian edition was published by P. P. Viazemskiy, based on a 17th-century manuscript (ff. 179–186), discovered in the
private collection of Tihon Fjodorovich Bolshakov and currently preserved by the National Library of Russia: P. P. VIAZEMSKIY,
Tekst Preniy po rukopisi XVII-go v., in: Pamiatniki Drevney Pis'mennosti, Vypusk 4 (ed. F. I. BULGAKOVA). St. Petersburg
1879, 54–66. Also, for details on this polemical pamphlet, see: F. BUSLAEV, Istoricheskie ocherki russkoj narodnoj slovesnosti i
iskusstva, t. I (Russkaja narodnaja pozzіja) (ed. D. E. KOZHANCHIKOVA). St. Petersburg 1861, 501–502; A. POPOV, Istoriko-
literaturnyj obzor 238–286; A. PAVLOV, Kriticheskie opyty po istorii drevneyshey greko-russkoy polemiki protiv Latinian. St.
Petersburg 1878, 81–85; P. P. VIAZEMSKIY, Preniy Panagiota s Azimitom, in: Pamiatniki Drevney Pis'mennosti 37–53; Anecdota
Graeco-Byzantina (ed. A. VASSILIEV) XL–XLII; A. KIRPICHNIKOV, Kritika: А. Vasil'eva, Sbornik pamjatnikov Vizantіjskoj
literatury, Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, Pars prior, Collegit, digessit, recensuit A. Vassiliev, Mosquae 1893, II+LXXIII+345+II
str. 8o. / Apocrypha anecdota by Montague Rhodes James M. A. (Texts and Studies. Contributions to biblical and patristic litera-
ture edited by J. Armitage Robinson B. D. Vol. II, No. 3). Cambridge 1893, XI+202 p., 8o, 6 sh. VV 1 (1894) 201; М.
SPERANSKIY, K istorii Preniy 521–527; N. F. KRASNOSELCEV, Preniy Panagiota s Azimitom 295–311; N. F. KRASNOSELCEV, Ad-
denda k izdanіju A. Vasil'eva 15; V. M. ISTRIN, Novyja izdanіja grecheskih apokrifov: Anonimi Byzantini. De caelo et infernis
epistula, Edidit L. Radermacher, Leipzig, 1898/Addenda k izdanіju A. Vasil'eva Anecdota graeco-byzantina, N. F. Krasnoselcev,
Odessa, 1898. Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshhenija CCCXXIII (1899), № 5, 211; OL. DOROSHKEVICH, Kritichnі
zamіtki pro Prenіe Panagіota s Azimitom. Zapiski іstorichno-fіlologіchnogo vіddіlu (Vseukraїns'ka Akademіja Nauk) II–III
(1920–1922) 60–76; H.-G. BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissen-
schaft, 12. Abt., 2. Teil, 1. Band). Munich 1959, 680 (an anastatic reprint of the volume was also published in Munich 1977); M.-
L. CONCASTY, La fin d’un dialogue contre les Latins Azymites d’après le Paris Suppl. gr. 1191, in: Akten des XI. Internationalen
Byzantinistenkongresses, Munich 1958, ed. F. DÖLGER – H.-G. BECK. Munich 1960, 86–89; A. ARGYRIOU, Remarques sur
quelques listes grecques enumerant les heresies latines. BF 4 (1972) 21–23; D. J. GEANAKOPLOS, A Greek Libellus against
Religious Union with Rome after the Council of Lyons (1274), in: D. J. GEANAKOPLOS, Interaction of the Sibling Byzantine and
Western Cultures in the Middle Ages and Italian Renaissance (330–1600). New Haven–London 1976, 156–170, 346–350
(footnotes); D. M. NICOL, Popular Religious Roots of the Byzantine Reaction to the Second Council of Lyons, in: The Religious
Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150–1300, ed. Ch. RYAN (Papers in Mediaeval Studies 8). Toronto 1989, 327–329; A.
Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, most likely between 1274–128231. The first paragraph of this text
explicitly mentions officium stratoris: “During the time of the emperor Michael Palaiologos, of the oversight
of the ecumenical patriarch Arsenios32 and of the consulate of kyr Euphrosynos in Constantinople33, then
John [Bekkos]34 came from the pope leading the mule by the bridle and on it is a basket and inside is the
portrait of the pope. And [John] Bekkos wears the mitre, as it is called, [and] a ring upon his finger, that is
the insignia of the pope. And when they reached the palace, the emperor came out and stood at the palace
gates, and outside it [were] the cardinals with the mule. And the emperor came, took the bridle of the mule,
and six cardinals were standing on the right, and the other (six) on the left”35. The episode described by the
anonymous author shows the same Michael Palaiologos, this time a legitimate emperor, performing the
ritual. The dissimilarities from the moment described by Pachymeres are striking: instead of Patriarch
Arsenios Autoreianos there is the pope (most likely Gregory X, 1271–1276), however he is not personally
present, but only his effigy is placed in the basket carried by the mule (ἡ μοῦλα). This pamphlet belongs to
the clandestine, anti-unionist and anti-imperial propagada literature, intended to reveal that the emperor and
his acolytes had betrayed the Orthodox faith36. The anonymous author’s intention to discredit Michael VIII
Palaiologos by highlighting the complete submission of the first Palaiologos to the holy see of Rome is quite
apparent. Although the accuracy of historical data presented in this text is questionable, and thus the
encounter at the entrance of the imperial palace should be viewed with scepticism, the very fact that the
author ascribes the performance of this ritual to a Latinized emperor, who had departed from the Byzantine
Orthodox tradition, reveals on the one hand the awareness of the Western origins and symbolism of officium
stratoris, and on the other hand, the rejection of this ceremonial as a foreign one.
—————
ARGYRIOU, L’image de l’Occident à travers quatre textes de polémique anti-latine et anti-musulmane. BF 22 (1996) 193–201; T. M.
KOLBABA, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. Urbana–Chicago 2000, 179, 182–183 (footnotes), 203–204.
30 See PLP 21620.
31 Although several hypotheses have been put forward about the time of this fabricated dialogue, some scholars dating it to the
period closest to the Council of Lyons (1274–1275), while others place it between 1277–1279, the author’s/copyist’s lack of
accuracy about verifiable historical data prevents any exact dating. Anyway, the intention of this anonymous author was to
expose the Latins’ errors in dogma and worship practices, straying from the Orthodox faith, and to incriminate the obedience to
the papacy of the unionist party headed by Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos and John Bekkos.
32 This is an obvious chronological inadvertence on the part of the author/copyist: Arsenios Autorianos had left the patriarchal
office in 1265, and by 1273 he had already died in exile, before the Union of Lyons was signed and then acknowledged officially
at Constantinople (1274). In the two other Greek editions of the text, based on other manuscripts than A. Vassiliev’s edition,
copyists eliminated this mention, KRASNOSELCEV, Preniy Panagiota s Azimitom 311; KRASNOSELCEV, Addenda k izdanіju A.
Vasil'eva 76.
33 This again is a mistake made by either the author or the copyist of the manuscript employed by the publisher. In the other Greek
editions, this Euphrosynos was identified as one of the twelve cardinals who had arrived in Constantinople, as well as the Frank
or the azymite who had engaged in a dispute with Konstantinos Panagiotes.
34 Although D. J. GEANAKOPLOS, A Greek Libellus against Religious Union 158 thinks this John was the Minorite Ioannes
Parastron, who mediated negotiations between Pope Gregory X and Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos during the Council of
Lyons (1274), the other Greek editions that were published explicitly mentioned John Bekkos, however without styling him
Patriarch. This omission of Bekkos’ title made some scholars date this pamphlet either before the election of chartophylax John
Bekkos as a patriarch (late 1274–May/June 1275), or during his temporary retreat from the patriarchal office to the monastery
Theotokos Panachrantos, located in the vicinity of Hagia Sophia (March–August 1279).
35 Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina (ed. VASSILIEV 179): Ἐπὶ τῆς βασιλείας Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Παλαιολόγου ἀρχιερατεύοντος Ἀρσενίου τοῦ
οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου καὶ ἀνθυπατεύοντος κύρου Εὐφροσύνου ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ὁπότε ἐξήλθεν· Ἰωάννης ἀπὸ τοῦ
πάπα σελλωχαλινωμένην ἔχων τὴν μούλαν καὶ ἐπάνωθέν ἐστιν θίβη καὶ ἔσωθεν τῆς στήλης ἐστὶν ὁ πάπας. ὁ δὲ Βέκκων φορῶν
τὴν μίτραν, ἣ λέγεται, δακτυλίδιον εἰς τὸν δάκτυλον αὐτοῦ ἤγουν τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ πάπα. Καὶ ἐλθόντων ἐν τῷ παλατίῳ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ
βασιλεὺς καὶ ἵστατο ἔσωθεν τῆς πόρτας τοῦ παλατίου καὶ ἔξωθεν οἱ γαρδυνάλιοι μὲ τῆς μούλας. καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπίασεν
τὸ χαλινάρι τῆς μούλας καὶ οἱ μὲν ἕξ γαρδυνάλιοι ἵστα(ν)το ἔκ δεξιῶν, οἱ δὲ ἕτεροι (ἓξ) ἐξ εὐωνύμων. Despite the chronological
inconsistencies with the other two Greek editions, I opted for A. Vassiliev’s version for the following reason: the explicit phrase
referring to officium stratoris can be found both in the manuscript Vindobonensis theol. gr. 244 (16th century, ed. A. Vassiliev),
and in the manuscript Atheniensis (EBE) gr. 472 (18th century, ed. N. F. Krasnoselcev). I thus gave precedence to the diplomatic
edition of the older manuscript.
36 NICOL, Popular Religious Roots 326–327; L. RICKELT, Zum Franken geworden. Zum Franken gemacht? Der Vorwulf der Franko-
philie im spätbyzantinischen Binnendikurs, in: Transkulturelle Verflechtungsprozesse in der Vormoderne, ed. W. DREWS – Ch. SCHOLL
(Das Mittelalter. Perspektiven mediävistischer Forschung. Beihefte 3). Berlin–Boston 2016, 42–44.
Another mention was included in Tractatus contra errores Graecorum37, a text written by an anonymous
author in 1252, in Latin Constantinople. This treatise enjoyed wide circulation among the Latin monks in the
capital on the Bosphorus, and its author was very likely one of these monastics residing there temporarily.
Regarding the obedience which the Byzantine emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople were supposed to
show to the Roman Church (De obedientia Romanae Ecclesiae), the anonymous author made the following
statement: “Before the schism38, the apostolic see [of Rome] was held in great respect, because the envoys
sent thence to Constantinople were received with honor and praise. That is why the emperor himself
dismounted from his horse and led on foot the legates’ horses unto a palace, which is called the Cardinals’
Palace, thus imitating Constantius I (sic!), the ruler of the Christians, who rendered so great an honor to the
blessed Sylvester, as it is clearly shown in the mentioned privilege”39. However, the editor Iacobus
Basnagius inserted an explanatory footnote concerning this paragraph: “The Roman pontiffs had their own
emissaries or apocrisiaries at Constantinople, but they were not called legates, nor were they cardinals, and
this did not date from the times of Constantine, but rather was established by Justinian. Nor did the cardinals’
palace exist at that time; indeed, the apocrisiaries were hosted in the imperial palace and not in their own
buildings, as we learn from the epistle of [the emperor] Phocas to Gregory the Great. There never happened
[to be] a palace of cardinals in Constantinople. Never afterwards did exist a custom of the emperors to grant
so many honors to the legates.”40 The anonymous author obviously intended to underline the preeminence of
the Roman Church over the political and ecclesiastical power of the Byzantine Empire, by invoking an
alleged practice of Constantinople, which however the editor of the treatise proved to be nonexistent41.
The same tendentious assertation regarding a Byzantine emperor performing officium stratoris was
evinced by the German scholar Adam Olearius (Adam Ölschläger, 1599–1671)42 in an account of his journey
to Moscow and Persia (Beschreibung der muscowitischen und persischen Reyse), published in the first
edition in 1647, and followed by a second enlarged edition in 1656. In the context of a historical digression
on religious controversies between Latins and Byzantines, referring to the situation of 1054, where he quotes
—————
37 For details on Tractatus contra errores Graecorum, see R. LOENERTZ OP, Autour du traité de fr. Barthélemy de Constantinople
contre les grecs. Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum VI (1936) 361–371; A. DONDAINE OP, Contra Grecos premiers écrits
polémiques des dominicains d’Orient. Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum XXI (1951) 320–446; C. DELACROIX-BESNIER, Les
Dominicains et la Chrétienté grecque aux XIVe et XVe siècles (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 237). Rome 1997, 201–
237.
38 The anonymous author later indicated the moment when the “schism” had occurred: “For it has been more than three hundred
and eighty years, as it is believed, since this schism and enmity began”, (Pantaleon Cp. Diaconus, Tractatus contra errores
Graecorum. PG 140, 539A–B: Transacti sunt enim trecenti octoginta anni et amplius, ut creditur, quod istud schisma et
scandalum coepit oriri). Thus, the moment indicated by the author was that of the controversies between Patriarch Photios (858–
867; 877–886) and Pope Nicholas I (858–867), raher than the events in the summer of 1054. Cf. ANGELOV, The Donation of
Constantine 115, 151–152 (footnote 127).
39 Pantaleon Cp. Diaconus, Tractatus contra errores Graecorum. PG 140, 537D–538A: Imo in cuncta reverentia habita est ante
schisma sedes apostolica, quod legati missi ab ea Constantinopolim summo cum honore et laudibus reciperentur. Inde est, ut
ipse imperator de equo proprio resiliens, equum legatorum pedestre traherent usque ad palatium quod Cardinalium vocabatur,
imitando scilicet Constantium I, Christianorum principem, qui beato Sylvestro talem reverentiam dignoscitur fecisse, prout in
praefato privilegio continetur manifeste. For the English translation, see ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology 380.
40 Pantaleon Cp. Diaconus, Tractatus contra errores Graecorum. PG 140, 537–538 (n. 25): Romani pontifices Constantinopoli suos
habere responsales sive apocrisiarios, sed illi non dicebantur legati, nec fuerunt cardinales, nec id a temporibus Constantini, sed
Justiniani potius institutum. Nec tunc temporis palatium fuit cardinalium; quippe non in aedibus propriis, sed in palatio regio
habitabant apocrisiarii, ut patet ex epistola Phocae ad Gregorium Magnum. Nec ullum occurrit palatium cardinalium apud
Constantinopolim. Nec denique mos fuit imperatoribus tantos honores legatis deferendi.
41 D. Angelov directly related this mention in Tractatus contra errores Graecorum, published in 1252, to the first performance of
officium stratoris in Byzantium in the fall of 1258. Thus, the historicity of this ritual, as presented by the anonymous author of
the treatise, corroborated with the information collected directly from Rome or even from Latin Constantinople, the Byzantines
were willing to adopt officium stratoris in the imperial protocol. Cf. ANGELOV, The Donation of Constantine 115.
42 For details on the life and work of Adam Olearius, see F. BEHZAD, Adam Olearius’ Persianischer Rosenthal. Untersuchungen zur
Übersetzung von Saades Golestan im 17. Jahrhundert (Palaestra 258). Göttingen 1970; G. H. WEISS, In Search of Silk: Adam
Olearius’ Mission to Russia and Persia (The James Ford Bell Lectures 20). Minneapolis 1983; E. Ch. BRANCAFORTE, Visions of
Persia: Mapping the Travels of Adam Olearius (Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 48). Cambridge MA 2003.
the Chronicle authored by the Benedictine monk Sigebertus Gemblacensis (cca. 1030–1112)43, Adam
Olearius stated the following: “Then, in front of all the bishops, emperor Constantine [IX Monomachos]
declared Patriarch Michael [I Keroularios] as head of the Churches throughout the world. And, in order to
confirm to the patriarch such authority and dignity, the emperor took the bridle of the horse carrying the
patriarch and led it around the Hippodrom of the [imperial] palace, as they call it”44. However, quite
surprisingly, the Chronicle of Sigebertus Gemblacensis, written in a first version of 1083–1104 and a second
version between 1105–1112, in the paragraph dedicated to the year 1054, as well as the following ones
documenting the events up to 1058, when Michael I Keroularios (1043–1058) was forced to leave the
patriarchal office, fails to mention the episode described by Adam Olearius45. Also, no Byzantine source
gives details about such a ceremony at the time when Patriarch Michael I started his tenure. Thus, the
account given by the 17th-century German scholar cannot be corroborated, as it is a fictionalized report of the
events occurring in Constantinople after anathemas were cast in the summer of 1054.
On the one hand, some gestures undertaken by Patriarch Michael I Keroularios can account for this
distorted image created by Olearius, as they demonstrate that the patriarch knew and interpreted the
document Donatio Constantini46, which inspired officium stratoris. Thus, through a polemical libellus47,
written in Latin by Pope Leo IX (1049–1054), and addressed in the summer of 1053 to the patriarch Michael
I and Archbishop Leo of Ochrid, the Latin version of Donatio Constantini reached Constantinople. The
famous canonist and patriarch of Antioch, Theodor Balsamon (1185–1190), ascribed the arrogance shown by
Michael I by taking on one of the exclusive insignia of imperial dignity (he wore purple shoes in public), and
then claiming the right to appoint or dismiss an emperor, according to the Western model, to his own
—————
43 For details on the life and work of Sigebertus Gemblacensis, see J. BEUMANN, Sigebert von Gembloux und der Traktat de investi-
tura episcoporum (Vorträge und Forschungen – Konstanzer Arbeitskreis für Mittelalterliche Geschichte 20). Sigmaringen 1976;
M. CHAZAN, L’empire et l’histoire universelle: De Sigebert de Gembloux à Jean de Saint-Victor (XIIe–XIVe siècle) (Études
d’histoire médiévale 3). Paris 1999, 33–104; T. LICHT, Untersuchungen zum biographischen Werk Sigeberts von Gembloux.
Heidelberg 2005; P. VERBIST, Duelling with the Past. Medieval Authors and the Problem of the Christian Era (c. 990–1135)
(Studies in the Early Middle Ages 21). Turnhout 2010, 173–237.
44 A. OLEARIUS, Vermehrte Newe Beschreibung der muscowitischen und persischen Reyse (Schleswig 1656) III.32 (ed. D.
LOHMEIER. Tübingen 1971, 324): “Darauff hat der Käyser Constantinus den Patriarchen Michael in gegenwart aller Bischöffe
zum Haupt der Kirchen in der ganzen Welt erkläret. Und damit der Käyser dem Patriarchen solche Hoheit und Ehre bestätigte/hat
er das Pferd/worauff der Patriarche sass/beym Zügel genommen und durch das Hippodromum palatii, wie sie es neňen/geführet”.
45 See Chronicon Sigeberti Gemblacensis monachi, in: Rerum toto urbe gestarum chronica ad nostra usque tempora, ed. A.
MIRAEUS. Antverpiae 1608, 154–156 (for the period between 1054–1059). This error was spotted and mentioned by
OSTROGORSKY, Stratordienst des Herrschers 190 (n. 14). This piece of information was later reiterated and enlarged upon by
KORENEVSKIY–PILYUGIN, Officium stratoris 217.
46 For the debate on the circulation of the Latin version of Donatio Constantini in the Byzantine society since the 11th century, see
especially: P. J. ALEXANDER, The Donation of Constantine at Byzantium and Its Earliest Use against the Western Empire. ZRVI
VIII (1963) 11–26; H.-G. KRAUSE, Das Constitutum Constantini im Schisma von 1054, in: Aus Kirche und Reich: Studien zu
Theologie, Politik und Recht im Mittelalter. Festschrift für Friedrich Kempf zu seinem fünfundseibzigsten Geburstag und fünf-
zigjährigen Doktorjubiläum, ed. H. MORDEK. Sigmaringen 1983, 131–158; F. TINNEFELD, Michael I. Kerullarios, Patriarch von
Konstantinopel (1043–1058). Kritische Überlegungen zu einer Biographie. JÖB 39 (1989) 95–127, especially 105–108; I.
KALAVREZOU – N. TRAHOULIA – Sh. SABAR, Critique of the Emperor in the Vatican Psalter gr. 752. DOP 47 (1993) 195–219; G.
DAGRON, Empereur et Prêtre: étude sur le «césaropapisme» byzantin. Paris 1996, 242–255; ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology 363–
365; ANGELOV, The Donation of Constantine 93–96. Moreover, some scholars have interpreted a paragraph in Relatio de
Legatione Constantinopolitana by Liutprand of Cremona, a Western ambassador to Constantinople between 968–969, as
peremptory proof of the wide dissemination of the main ideas in Donatio Constantini among the Byzantines even during the 10th
century, see Liudprandus Cremonensis, Opera Omnia. Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana 51 (ed. P. CHIESA [CC.
Continuatio Mediaevalis 156]. Turnhout 1998, 209.818–210.838); F. DÖLGER, Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner.
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 56 (1937) 1–42 (= F. DÖLGER, Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt. Ettal 1953, 70–115);
KORENEVSKIY–PILYUGIN, Officium stratoris 213.
47 The text of this polemical pamphlet was published in C. WILL, Acta et Scripta quae De controversiis Ecclesiae Graecae et
Latinae, saeculo undecimo composita extant. Lipsiae et Marpurgi 1861, 65–85, especially 72–74 (an anastatic reprint of the vol-
ume was also published in: Frankfurt am Main 1963).
understanding of the Donatio Constantini48. On the other hand, it is much more likely that Olearius
considered officium stratoris, a ritual observed at Moscow both for the promotion of a new metro-
politan/patriarch (from late 15th century onwards), and during the yearly solemn procession on Palm Sunday
(from mid-16th century), as an unquestionable expression of the influence of hierocratic theory, developed
under the Palaiologan dynasty, on medieval Russia49. Actually, the observance of officium stratoris, in the
context of the aforementioned public ceremonies, both in Novgorod and Moscow, as early as the 15th
century, cannot be viewed exclusively as an ideological borrowing of the Byzantine hierocratic theory,
which gave the Church precedence over the State, but should also point to the transparency (especially in the
ecclesiastical circles of Novgorod area) regarding the Western tenets defining the relationship between the
two institutions50.
Indeed, at least during the public religious ceremonies celebrated over the liturgical year in Constantino-
ple, the Byzantine patriarch used to mount a draft animal51. Documents recorded this custom as early as the
—————
48 The episode when Patriarch Michael I Keroularios usurped the emperor’s rights is included in Skylitzes Continuatus, in: Ἡ
Συνέχεια τῆς Χρονογραφίας τοῦ Ἰωάννου Σκυλίτση (Ioannes Skylitzes Continuatus) (ed. E. Th. TSOLAKES [Ἑταιρεία Μακε-
δονικῶν Σπουδῶν/Ἵδρυμα Μελετῶν Χερσονήσου τοῦ Αἵμου 105]. Thessalonike 1968, 104.21–106.2). For Balsamon’s inter-
pretation, see G. A. RALLES – M. POTLES, Σύνταγμα τῶν Θείων καὶ Ἱερῶν Κανόνων, I. Athens 1852, 148–149. Also, beside the
bibliographical entries mentioned above (footnote 45), see R. J. H. JENKINS – E. KITZINGER, A Cross of the Patriarch Michael
Cerularius. An Art-Historical Comment. DOP 21 (1967) 233–249; J.-C. CHEYNET, Le patriarche tyrannos: le cas Cérulaire, in:
Ordnung und Aufruhr im Mittelalter. Historische und juristische Studien zur Rebellion, ed. M. Th. FÖGEN (Ius commune.
Sonderhefte 70). Frankfurt am Main 1995, 1–16.
49 The German scholar provided a detailed account of the religious procession in Moscow between the church dedicated to St Basil
“The fool for Christ” and the cathedral of the Dormition of the Theotokos (within the Kremlin walls) on Palm Sunday (April 10th,
1636), A. Olearius, Vermehrte Newe Beschreibung der muscowitischen und persischen Reyse (Schleswig 1656), I.14, ed. D.
LOHMEIER. Tübingen 1971, 132–134. For further details on the introduction of officium stratoris into Novgorod and Moscow, see
HOLTZMANN, Zum Strator- und Marschalldienst 328–331; OSTROGORSKY, Stratordienst des Herrschers 193–196, 198–203; R. O.
CRUMMEY, Court Spectacles in Seventeenth-Century Russia: Illussion and Reality, in: Essays in honor of A. A. Zimin (ed. D. C.
WAUGH). Columbus OH 1985, 130–158; M. S. FLIER, The Iconography of Royal Procession: Ivan the Terrible and the Muscovite
Palm Sunday Ritual, in: European Monarchy. Its Evolution and Practice from Roman Antiquity to Modern Times, eds. H. DUCH-
HARDT – R. A. JACKSON – D. STURDY. Stuttgart 1992, 109–125; M. S. FLIER, Breaking the Code: The Image of the Tsar in the
Muscovite Palm Sunday Ritual, in: Medieval Russian Culture, eds. M. S. FLIER – D. ROWLAND (California Slavic Studies 19), II.
Berkeley–Los Angeles–London 1994, 213–242 (republished in Russian in М. S. FLIER, Rasshifrovka koda: Obraz carja v obrjade
Verbnogo voskresen'ja v Moskovskom gosudarstve, in: Amerikanskaja rusistika. Vehi istoriografii poslednih let. Period Kievskoj
i Moskovskoj Rusi. Antologija, ed. G. MAJESKA. Samara 2001, 203–239); M. LABUNKA, The Legend of the Novgorodian White
Cowl (the Study of Its Prologue and Epilogue) (Monographien 56). Munich 1998, 129–164; KORENEVSKIY, Officium stratoris
196–203; KORENEVSKIY–PILYUGIN, Officium stratoris 221–240.
50 For further information on the circulation of Western ideas between Novgorod–Moscow at the turn of 15th–16th centuries, see
J. L. WIECZYNSKI, The Donation of Constantine in Medieval Russia. The Catholic Historical Review 55 (1969) 159–172; J. L.
WIECZYNSKI, Archbishop Gennadius and the West: The Impact of Catholic Ideas upon the Church of Novgorod. Canadian-
American Slavic Studies 6 (1972) 374–389.
51 However, it is very likely that gradually this means of locomotion came to be employed by the Byzantine patriarch outside the
solemn religious ceremonies, namely for less conventional meetings, either public or private. Without mentioning the source,
Gerhoch of Reichersberg (1093–1169) in his treatise De investigatione Antichristi (written in 1161–1162) stated that “the
emperor of Constantinople and the patriarch so much are trying to honor each other that, if they met each other while sitting on
horses, they would both dismount to the ground and after greeting each other with the ceremony of mutual love, then mount back
the horses and follow their way and peace and love is between them”, MGH. Libelli de lite Imperatorum et Pontificum saeculis
XI et XII conscripti, tomus III. Hannoverae 1897, 394.4–7 (Gerhohi, praepositi Reichersbergensis, De investigatione Antichristi
liber I § 72): Sic Constantinopolitanus imperator et patriarcha honore se invicem preveniunt, qui dum sibi invicem sedentes
equis forte occurrerint, ambo ad terras descendunt cumque se mutuae caritatis officio salutaverint, reascensis equis utrique viam
destinatam pergunt et est pax atque caritas inter eos. For details on the life and works of Gerhoch of Reichesberg, see H. F. A.
NOBBE, Gerloh von Reichersberg: ein Bild aus dem Leben der Kirche im XII. Jahrhundert. Leipzig 1881; D. VAN DER EYNDE,
L’œuvre littéraire de Géroch de Reichersberg (Spicilegium Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani 11). Romae 1957; E. MEUTHEN, Kirche
und Heilsgeschichte bei Gerhoh von Reichersberg (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 6). Leiden 1959; P.
CLASSEN, Gerhoch von Reichersberg: eine Biographie mit einem Anhang über die Quellen, ihre handschriftliche Überlieferung
und ihre Chronologie. Wiesbaden 1960; A. M. LAZZARINO DEL GROSSO, Società e potere nella Germania del XII secolo:
Gerhoch di Reichersberg. Firenze 1974; K. F. MORRISON, The Church as Play: Gerhoch of Reichersberg’s Call for Reform, in:
Popes, Teachers and Canon Law in the Middle Ages, eds. J. R. SWEENEY – S. CHODOROW. Ithaca 1989, 114–144. The description
11th-century patriarchal procession on Palm Sunday. Thus, the Greek manuscript Dresdensis gr. A 104
dating from the second half of the 11th century and transcribed in the Byzantine capital, includes a version of
the Typikon observed by the Great Church in Constantinople (ff. 133–183)52. The patriarch’s procession to
bless the branches on Palm Sunday from Hagia Sophia to the church dedicated to the Forty Martyrs (of
Sebaste) is described in the aforementioned manuscript as follows: “Then, [after] the patriarch has had some
rest in the metatorion, the clergy goes to the Church of the Forty Saints [Martyrs], together with all those
who wish. And, in front goes the adorned Cross, without prayer. The patriarch also comes, riding a foal,
everyone else running on foot in procession, [wearing] cloaks and carrying crosses and [palm] branches,
which they offer lavishly from the sack. Then enter the priests, and deacons, and the rest of the people.”53
—————
provided by the German prelate is not explicitly confirmed by Byzantine sources. Thus, both H. J. MIERAU, Kaiser und Papst im
Mittelalter. Cologne 2010, 228 and RICKELT, Die Exkommunikation 113, n. 51 denied the veracity of this piece of information.
However, for the second half of the 13th century there is implicit evidence on the Byzantine patriarch using a horse as a means of
locomotion. Thus, describing an encounter between Emperor Michael VIII and Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos, Georgios
Pachymeres mentioned that “the patriarch […] mounted the horse, although he had ceased [doing so] since [they] had conquered
[the city of] Constantine, and headed to the emperor”, Georgios Pachymeres, Συγγραφικαὶ Ἱστορίαι IV 5 (341.25 and 341.27–28
FAILLER –LAURENT): τοῦ πατριάρχου […] ἵππου τε ἐπιβαίνει, μὴ πρότερον εἰωθὼς ἐξ οὗ τὴν Κωνσταντίνου κατέλαβε, καὶ
βασιλεῖ πρόσεισιν. Also, from the late 13th century, during the ritual of the patriarch’s enthronement, the elected one would ride
between the Imperial palace and Hagia Sophia. This information is corroborated by both the treatise of Pseudo-Kodinos and the
archbishop Symeon of Thessalonike (De sacris ordinationibus). Thus, despite the insufficient information, it is very likely that
the Byzantine patriarch used this means of locomotion even for less conventional meetings. For a similar view, see also
KORENEVSKIY–PILYUGIN, Officium stratoris 215. Finally, TEOTEOI, Împăratul călare 468 believed that during the time of the
crusades, the influence of Latin ideas was also manifest in the privilege of Byzantine patriarchs to ride a horse/foal on various
occasions. Thus as this right was reinforced for the emperor, the patriarch of the New Rome lost the privilege he had enjoyed in
the previous centuries, at least during religious processions, and was forced to replace the horse/foal with a mule. This distinction
is hard to maintain, for both Patriarch Arsenios, who rode a mule to meet with Michael Palaiologos, and his successors (see the
procession of Athanasios I in 1289 as the elected candidate for the patriarchal office), also used horses in various situations.
52 General information on the manuscript Dresdensis gr. A 104 is available in J. MATEOS SJ (éd.), Le Typikon de la Grande Église
(Ms. Sainte-Croix no. 40, Xe siècle, t. I (Le cycle des douze mois) (OCA 165). Rome 1962, VIII; F. Sch. v. CAROLSFELD, Katalog
der Handschriften der Sächsischen Landesbibliothek zu Dresden, I. Dresden 1979, 45–46 (anastatic reprint with slight
amendments of the first edition Leipzig 1882); J.-M. OLIVIER, Répertoire des bibliothéques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs
de Marcel Richard. Turnhout 31995, 265–266; LABUNKA, The Legend of the Novgorodian White Cowl 131–132, footnote 251;
B. FLUSIN, Les cérémonies de l’Exaltation de la Croix à Constantinople au XIe siècle d’après le Dresdensis A 104, in: Byzance et
les reliques du Christ, éd. J. DURAND – B. FLUSIN (Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance. Monographies 17).
Paris 2004, 61–89, especially 61–63. At the end of the Second World War, this manuscript as well as other manuscripts from the
Dresden library collection, were stored in a basement, and some of them were damaged by a flood. The manuscript Dresdensis
gr. A 104 is currently held by the Sächsische Landesbibliothek, but is virtually unusable. Thus, the only exhaustive presentation
of this manuscript belongs to the Russian Liturgist Aleksey A. Dmitrievskiy, which, however, contains a number of
inconsistencies (for example the very index of this manuscript frequently varies between 104 and 140; also, page numbers
indicated in the bibliographical footnotes are often erroneous, see А. А. DMITRIEVSKIY, Drevneyshie patriarshie Tipikony.
Svjatogrobskiy Ierusalimskiy i Velikoy Konstantinopol'skoy cerkvi. Kritiko-bibliograficheskoe izsledovanie. Kiev 1907, 254–
347 (this part of the book had originally been published in А. А. DMITRIEVSKIY, Novyja dannyja dla istorii Tipikona Velikoy
Cerkvi Konstantinopol'skoy. Trudy Kievskoy Duhovnoy Akademii XLIV [1903] 589–634 and XLIV [1903] 511–556).
53 DMITRIEVSKIY, Drevneyshie patriarshie Tipikony 119–120 (text originally published in: А. А. DMITRIEVSKIY, Drevneyshie
patriarshie Tipikony Ierusalimskiy (Svjatogrobskiy) i Konstantinopol'skiy (Velikoy cerkvi). Kritiko-bibliograficheskiy jetjude.
Trudy Kievskoy Duhovnoy Akademii XLII (1901) 49–88, here 54–55): Εἶτα τοῦ πατριάρχου μικρὸν ἀναπαυομένου ἐν τῷ
μιτατωρίῳ, ἀπέρχεται ὁ κλῆρος ἐν τῷ ναῷ τῶν ἁγίων μ΄ καὶ πᾶς ὁ βουλόμενος, προανέρχεται δὲ καὶ ὁ σταυρὸς μετὰ τῆς θήκης
ἄνευ λιτῆς. Ἀνέρχεται δὲ καὶ ὁ πατριάρχης, ὀχούμενος πώλῳ, τῶν ἄλλων πάντων πεζῶν μετὰ φελωνίων ὀψικευόντων καὶ
βασταζόντων σταυροὺς καὶ βαΐα, ἃ χορηγεῖ ἡ σακέλλη. Εἶτα εἰσέρχονται πρεσβύτεροι καὶ οἱ διάκονοι καὶ ὁ λοιπὸς λαός.
(Dresdensis gr. A 104, f. 127v). This episode was also discussed at length in А. DMITRIEVSKIY, Hozhdenie patriarha
Konstantinopol'skogo na zhrebjati v nedelju vaiy v IX i X vekah, in: Stat'i po slavjanskoy filologii i russkoy slovesnosti (Sbornik
otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Akademii Nauk SSSR, t. СI, № 3). Leningrad 1928, 69–76. As RICKELT, Die
Exkommunikation 103, n. 17 noted, in this very last article the pages indicated by А. Dmitrievskiy are totally inaccurate. Even
the reference to the manuscript he quotes from is wrong (Dresdensis gr. A 140 instead Dresdensis gr. A 104). Unfortunately, it is
impossible to identify the text quoted in the manuscript, because the microfilm kept in the specialized library of the Institut de re-
cherche et d’histoire des textes – Section grecque in Paris does not include the folio indicated by A. Dmitrievskiy. Even this indi-
cation (Dresdensis gr. A 104, f. 127v) contradicts a statement by the same author, according to which the Typikon of the Great
Church in Constantinople starts with f. 133. However, this information may be correct, as the catalogue of the manuscripts held
The same Typikon provides a second description of this religious procession across Constantinople,
symbolizing the Entry of the Lord into Jerusalem. In the special case when the feast of the Annunciation
(March 25) would coincided with Palm Sunday, the Typikon prescribed: “After the Orthros, the patriarch
descends and enters the Altar through the side door. And the service begins, and the chanters start in the
ambo. And the patriarch returns together with the foal, all those running on foot ahead of him bear crosses
and palm branches. And he goes to the church of the Forty Saints [Martyrs] and distributes the branches,
while the service returns to the Forum [of Constantine], and while the chanters glorify [God], the litany is
read; then, after the usual prayers, [they] wait for the patriarch to return. After closing the distribution of
branches in the church of the Forty Saints, as mentioned, the service begins, and the chanters start again the
same troparion: [Thou didst give a pledge of] the general resurrection, and that is chanted until [they reach]
the Forum and so on. Similarly if the emperor is present”54.
However, there are many differences between Palm Sunday’s religious procession in Constantinople and
the Western ritual of officium stratoris, which demonstrates that distinct ideologies were manifest in these
two ceremonies. On the one hand, in Constantinople this ritual was utterly religious, performed once a year55
to symbolize the elation of the Lord’s entry into the city of Jerusalem, while the Byzantine patriarch stood
for Christ, riding a foal (ὁ πῶλος) along the streets. Although the Typikon of the Great Church in
Constantinople required that all these shoud be strictly observed even when the emperor took part in the
procession, the imperial presence in the retinue accompanying the patriarch across Constantinople was a
rather hypothetical one.
In the late 9th century (899), acording to Philotheos’ Κλητορολόγιον, the Palm Sunday procession
attended by both the emperor and the ecumenical patriarch began in the main ceremonial hall in the Great
Palace (chrysotriklinos). All high officials were present; the emperor handed them small crosses, then they
set off in procession heading toward the churches of the Theotokos in Pharos and the Holy Trinity in
Daphne. The event closed with a reception held in the triklinos, a special hall for ceremonies built by
emperor Justinian II (685–695; 705–711)56. By the mid-10th century, as Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos
(945–959) describes in his Περὶ τῆς Βασιλείου Τάξεως (De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae), the patriarch no
longer took part alongside the emperor in the Palm Sunday procession from the imperial palace. Thus,
—————
by this library indicates a Συναξάριον contained between ff. 121v–186r. See: F. SCH. V. CAROLSFELD, Katalog der Handschriften
46. Surprisingly, two previous manuscripts of the Typikon of the Great Church in Constantinople (Patmiacus gr. 266, written in
the 9th–10th centuries and published by Aleksey A. Dmitrievskiy; Hierosolymitanus Sanctae Crucis gr. 40, written in the mid-10th
century and published by Juan Mateos) make no mention of this detail concerning the procession of the patriarch riding a foal on
Palm Sunday. In this case, unless this is a deliberate omission by the authors/scribes, it is possible to conclude that this ritual was
introduced in Constantinople between the mid-10th century and the second half of the 11th century, see А. А. DMITRIEVSKIY,
Opisanie liturgicheskih rukopisey, hranjashihsja v bibliotekah pravoslavnago vostoka, t. I (Τυπικά), Chast 1 (Pamjatniki
patriarshih ustavov i ktitorskie monastyrskie Tipikony). Kiev 1895, 56–60 (Μὴν Μάρτιος κε΄), 127 (τῇ κυριακῇ τῆς βαϊοφόρου)
(an anastatic reprint of this volume was also published in Hildesheim 1965); Le Typikon, t. I (Le cycle des douze mois), 256.1–
10 (Mars 25); t. II (Le cycle des fêtes mobiles) (OCA 166). Roma 1963, 64.27–66.23 (Dimanche des Rameux); M. M. MORO-
ZOWICH, A Palm Sunday Procession in the Byzantine Tradition? A Study of the Jerusalem and Constantinopolitan Evidence.
OCP 75 (2009) 372–376.
54 DMITRIEVSKIY, Drevneyshie patriarshie Tipikony 119, n. 1: Μετὰ τὸν ὄρθρον κατέρχεται ὁ πατριάρχης καὶ εἰσέρχεται διὰ τῆς
πλαγίας εἰς τὸ θυσιαστήριον. καὶ γίνεται ἡ ἔναρξις τῆς λιτῆς, καὶ ἄρχονται οἱ ψάλται ἐν τῷ ἄμβωνι· Καὶ ὁ μὲν πατριάρχης
ἀνέρχεται μετὰ τοῦ πώλου, πάντων τῶν προπορευομένων πεζῶν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ μετὰ σταυρῶν καὶ φοινίκων καὶ βαΐων. Καὶ
οὗτος μέν ἀπέρχεται ἐν τῷ ναῷ τῶν ἁγίων μ΄ καὶ ποιεῖ τήν διανομὴν τῶν βαΐων, ἡ δὲ λιτὴ ἀνέρχεται ἐν τῷ φόρῳ, καὶ τῶν ψαλτῶν
δοξαζόντων, γίνεται ἡ ἐντενὴ καὶ τῶν συνήθων εὐχῶν γινομένων, προσμένουσι τὸν πατριάρχην ἓως τοῦ ὑποστρὲψαι. Ἐν δὲ τῷ
ναῷ τῶν ἁγίων μ΄ τῆς διανομὴς τῶν βαΐων, ὡς εἴρητο, τελεσθείσῃς, γίνεται ἡ ἔναρξις, καὶ ἄρχονται πάλιν οἱ ψάλται τὸ αὐτὸ
τροπάριον· Τὴν κοινὴν ἀνάστασιν, καὶ ψάλλεται τοῦτο μὲχρι τοῦ φόρου κ. τ. λ. ... Ὠσαύτως ἐὰν ἔστιν ὁ βασιλεύς. (Dresdensis
gr. A 104, f. 165v). Unfortunately, although in this case I had the opportunity to verify the editor’s accuracy with the microfilmed
copy of the manuscript, its advanced state of decay does not allow for identification of the quoted text.
55 A. Dmitrievskiy, quoting the same manuscript (Dresdensis gr. A 104, f. 165v), mentions that there were other situations during
the liturgical year, when the patriarch would ride a foal from Hagia Sophia to the church of the Holy Apostles, for instance on
Monday during the Holy Week, when the Annunciation (March 25) fell on the same day, see DMITRIEVSKIY, Drevneyshie
patriarshie Tipikony 121 (n. 2).
56 See N. OIKONOMIDES (ed.), Les Listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles. Paris 1972, 197.6–26.
starting from the chrysotriklinos, where he received several Holy Crosses from the court officials, the
emperor would walk in procession, chanting the troparion: “Thou didst give a pledge of the general resurrec-
tion before Thy Passion”, to the chapels dedicated to the Theotokos and St Stephen, respectively, both of
them located in the imperial palace wing called Daphne. There he lit candles and prayed, then he returned to
the chrysotriklinos, where a deacon placed the Holy Gospel in the middle of the hall and uttered the usual
litany57. Finally, in Περὶ ὀφφικιαλίων τοῦ Παλατίου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως καὶ περὶ τῶν ὀφφικίων τῆς
Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας (14th century), Pseudo-Kodinos describes a different ceremony in which the emperor
attended the feast of the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem (ὁ περίπατος). Holding a cross in his right hand, a
candle and an ἀκακία (ἀνεξικακία, a small purple silk purse containing some dust as a symbol of the
instability of temporal authority) in his left hand, the emperor walked in procession. He was followed by the
despots, by an archdeacon bearing the Holy Gospel—the image of Christ—, then came the patriarch (or
patriarchs, if others were also present in Constantinople) wearing liturgical vestments, and finally five or
more priests bearing the Holy Icons depicting the Entry of Our Lord in Jerusalem. The entire procession took
place in the courtyard of the palace, specially adorned for the event, along the gallery that linked the imperial
residence to the church58.
These four accounts of the Palm Sunday procession in Constantinople evince the differences between the
processions attended by the emperor and the patriarch, respectively: at that special moment when the
patriarch symbolically appeared as Christ, the emperor deliberately avoided appearing in public alongside
the patriarch, but preferred a more private ceremony within the imperial residence, where he was to lead the
procession, depicting Christ. This separation, rendered by the Typikon of the Great Church in Constantinople
and De ceremoniis of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, evinces an ideological conflict in nuce between
emperor and patriarch over the right to represent Christ in public appearances (imago Christi)59. Finally, in
the case of the Byzantine procession, the emperor’s absence alongside the patriarch precludes any possible
connection to officium stratoris.
On the other hand, the Latin ritual was not related to a particular religious feast but, most of the time, it
was observed under strictly political circumstances: imperial coronations or other encounters between
emperor and pope. The majestic appearance of the bishop of Rome, riding a white horse, as a verus
imperator, confirms the idea of a truly political ideology expressed in this ceremony. Thus, it can be asserted
that officium stratoris was a ritual with significant political connotations, the visible expression of the Roman
pontiff’s superiority as the earthly representative of God over those who enjoyed temporal authority, allowed
by God and expressed in the imperial anointment and coronation, both rituals celebrated only by the bishop
of Rome.
Finally, the last text that can be correlated to officium stratoris is written by Archbishop Symeon of
Thessalonica (1416/1417–1429), one of the most ardent supporters of the hierocratic theory, according to
which temporal power (βασιλεία) had to be completely dependent on spiritual power (ἱερωσύνη). In his
treatise Περὶ τῶν ἱερῶν χειροτονιῶν (De sacris ordinationibus), Archbishop Symeon described how the
candidate elected for the patriarchal office went from the imperial palace to Hagia Sophia: “The horse is
adorned with certain insignia, and the elected candidate is seated on it. The horse’s bridle is held by a comes,
—————
57 See A. VOGT (éd.), Constantinus Porphyrogennitus, De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae, I: Livre I. Chapitres 1–46. Paris 1935, 160–
164; A. MOFFATT – M. TALL (trans.), Constantinus Porphyrogennitus, De ceremoniis aulae byzantinae I.32 (Book I, including the
Appendix to Book I – Imperial Expeditions), I. Canberra 2012, 171–177: Ὅσα δεῖ παραφυλάττειν τῇ ἑορτῇ καὶ προελεύσει τῶν
Βαΐων). See also A. CAMERON, The construction of court ritual: the Byzantine Book of Ceremonies, in: Rituals of Royalty. Power
and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, eds. D. CANNADINE – S. PRICE. Cambridge–London–New York–New Rochelle–
Melbourne–Sydney 1987, 106–136, especially 116–117; M. M. MOROZOWICH, A Palm Sunday Procession 378–380.
58 See Pseudo-Kodinos. Traité des Offices, éd. J. VERPEAUX (Le Monde byzantin 1). Paris 1966, 224.5–226.21; MACRIDES–
MUNITIZ–ANGELOV, Pseudo-Kodinos 170.13–172.19. See also MOROZOWICH, A Palm Sunday Procession 380–381; R.
MACRIDES, Inside and Outside the Palace: Ceremonies in the Constantinople of the Palaiologoi, in: The Byzantine Court: Source
of Power and Culture. Papers from the Second International Sevgì Gönül Byzantine Studies Symposium, Istanbul, 21–23 June
2010, eds. A. ÖDEKAN – N. NECIPOĞLU – E. AKYÜREK. Istanbul 2013, 165–170, especially 167–168; MACRIDES–MUNITIZ–
ANGELOV, Pseudo-Kodinos 411–413.
59 FLIER, The Iconography of Royal Procession 113, n. 7; KANTOROWICZ, King’s Advent 230.
who runs on foot on behalf of the emperor himself, as did the great between the emperors Constantine with
Saint Sylvester, is led throughout the imperial court and the public road even up to the patriarchate. If the
emperor has a son, this one follows him riding [a horse], as [does] the entire Senate”60.
One of the best known proponents of the hierocratic theory (along with the metropolitan Makarios of
Ancyra, 1397–1405) again mentioned this ritual as being observed by the Byzantine emperor in Constan-
tinople. However, this text might provide the key to the evolution of the emperor-patriarch relationship, as
expressed by some ceremonials that can be associated with officium stratoris. According to the archbishop of
Thessalonica, during such a special encounter, which is no longer related to any religious feast, the emperor
who should have performed officium stratoris for the future patriarch of Constantinople, assign this task, in
order to avoid the awkward situation generated by such a context. In the excerpt quoted above, the influence
of the ideas conveyed by Donatio Constantini is absolutely obvious. Indicating the horse (ὁ ἵππος) as the
animal chosen for this ceremony, then clearly specifying the episode imitated by this ritual, definitely proves
that the minds of Constitutum Constantini had penetrated the Byzantine society and that an ideological
revolution had occurred in the emperor-patriarch relationship. However, since it is contradicted by Pseudo-
Kodinos61—who described the same event of the accession to the patriarchal office, mentioned the
procession of the elected candidate to be enthroned from the patriarchal palace to Hagia Sophia, but did not
state that the horse was led by a comes on behalf of the Byzantine emperor—Archbishop Symeon’s assertion
can easily be deemed tendencious62.
CONCLUSIONS
This ritual, originating from the Hellenistic times, was adopted and gradually adjusted to the new Christian
context in Western Europe during late Antiquity. Thus, the usual protocol of sumptuous receptions
(adventus) addressed to the representatives of secular power63, who carried out a messianic mission, was also
transfered for the ecclesiastical princes, the bishops who, in their turn, served the Messiah. In adapting this
ceremonial to the clergy, the protocol of greeting the emperor into the city (imitatio imperatoris) received
additional elements pertaining to the evangelical depiction of the Lord’s entrance into Jerusalem (imitatio
Christi)64. Originally, the strator’s role in these ceremonies was a strictly functional one without any
ideological connotations65, but from the 8th century, the bishops of Rome requested the exclusive right for the
emperor, he himself claiming messianic attributes according to the imperial ideology, to lead by the bridle
the horse ridden by the Roman pontiff during public encounters. This new image conveyed by officium
stratoris presented the bishop of Rome as verus imperator, embodying the messianic-eschatological
attributes traditionally ascribed to the emperor66.
—————
60 Symeon Thessalonicensis archiepiscopus, De sacris ordinationibus CCXXIX. PG 155, 441D: Καὶ ἵππος παρασήμοις τισὶ
κοσμεῖται· καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ὁ ὑποψήφιος κάθηται. Καὶ ὑπὸ πεζοῦ τοῦ κόμητος τὸν χαλινὸν τοῦ ἵππου κατέχοντος ἀντὶ τοῦ βασιλέως
αὐτοῦ, ὠς ὁ μέγας ἐν βασιλεῦσι Κωνσταντῖνος τῷ ἱερῷ πεποίηκε Σιλβέστρῳ, προπέμπεται διά τε τῆς βασιλικῆς πάσης αὐλῆς καὶ
τῆς δημοσίας ὁδοῦ ἄχρι καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατριαρχείου. Εἰ ἔστι δὲ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ υἱὸς, ἔπεται ἔφιππος, καὶ ἡ σύγκλητος πᾶσα.
61 See Pseudo-Kodinos 280.16–281.16 (VERPEAUX); MACRIDES–MUNITIZ–ANGELOV, Pseudo-Kodinos 254.12–256.8.
62 Although he pointed out that, in his treatises, Symeon of Thessalonica had constantly challenged imperial authority, asserting its
inferiority to the Church (one of his preferred topics), D. Angelov concluded that the testimony of Archbishop Symeon is fully
credible. His presence in Constantinople as a monk, for a long time before he was appointed as bishop, could have enabled him to
witness five patriarchal promotions between 1391–1416, cf. ANGELOV, The Donation of Constantine 115–117.
63 For example, KANTOROWICZ, King’s Advent 211 describes the protocol strictly observed when the exarch of Ravenna entered
Rome.
64 KANTOROWICZ, King’s Advent 216; OSTROGORSKY, Stratordienst des Herrschers 202–203. For a pertinent analysis of the adjust-
ment of adventus to the Christian standards starting from the 4th century, see: S. MACCORMACK, Change and Continuity in Late
Antiquity: the Ceremony of Adventus. Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 21 (1972) 721–752; S. G. MACCORMACK, Art and
Ceremony in Late Antiquity (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 1). Berkeley–Los Angeles–London 1981, 17-89. An
excellent analysis of triumphal entries in Constantinople during the Byzantine period was published in: H. HUNGER, Reditus
imperatoris, in: Fest und Alltag in Byzanz, ed. G. PRINZING – D. SIMON. Munich 1990, 17–35, 179–184 (footnotes).
65 WALTER, Papal Political Imagery 132–133.
66 KANTOROWICZ, King’s Advent 231.
In the Byzantine Empire, the representatives of Church and state—the emperor and the patriarch,
respectively, chose to maintain their specific prerogatives (to each of them were reserved various forms of a
special relation to God), without any direct interaction placing one above the other. This typology of the
emperor-patriarch Byzantine binomial was manifest on the religious procession of Palm Sunday, when the
patriarch would go from one church to another across Constantinople riding a foal, while the emperor led
another procession within the imperial palace. The basileus’ reluctance to participate in a ceremony that
downplayed his authority in the patriarch’s favor can be traced throughout Byzantine history. Differences
among historical sources, be they Byzantine or Latin, some of them asserting the existence and observance
of this ritual in Constantinople, others utterly denying it, is understandable if they are interpreted correctly.
According to the position they express, the sources may be classified as: a) indubitable denials (John
Kinnamos and Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos, as well as Pseudo-Kodinos, by the lack of any mention); b)
questionable testimonies (Tractatus contra errores Graecorum and Panagiotae cum azymita disputatio); c)
favorable testimonies, however with significant differences (Georgios Pachymeres and Archbishop Symeon
of Thessalonica).
The most convincing argument pleading for the observance of officium stratoris by the Byzantines is
deemed to be the episode of Magnesia, in the fall of 1258, described by Georgios Pachymeres. Without
denying the existence of this moment, the differences between the Latin prototype and the ceremonial then
imported into the Byzantine court society must be pointed out. Actually, the episode in which the
protagonists were mega dux Michael Palaiologos and Patriarch Arsenios Autoreianos is irrefutable evidence
that the ideas of Donatio Constantini had reached Byzantine society by an assimilation process starting as
early as the 11th century (see the attitude of Patriarch Michael I Keroularios regarding his relationship with
the Byzantine emperor). Until the 12th century, this ideological pattern in the relationship between tempo-
ralia and spiritualia, as posited by Donatio Constantini, was almost unknown to the Byzantines. During the
last centuries of the empire, some Byzantine theologians (the proponents of hierocratic theory: Makarios of
Ancyra and Symeon of Thessalonica) claimed a certain number of rights held by the Church over the state.
Although both parties interacting at Magnesia were certainly aware of the symbolism involved in this
ritual67, the episode narrated by Pachymeres cannot confirm that the Byzantines under the Palaiologan
dynasty observed this ceremonial in unaltered Latin form. Two of the main Byzantine sources documenting
this period (John VI Kantakouzenos’ Ἱστορίαι and the treatise Περὶ ὀφφικιαλίων τοῦ Παλατίου Κωνσταν-
τινουπόλεως καὶ περὶ τῶν ὀφφικίων τῆς Μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας by Pseudo-Kodinos) contradict this hypothesis.
The nuanced form of officium stratoris mentioned by Symeon of Thessalonica expresses an ideological
stance rather than a reality68. Thus, the humiliating gesture undertaken in full awareness by the future
Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos was a unique moment and must be seen in the light of his precarious
position at the time: by performing this Latin ritual, he aimed to gain on his side a player who enjoyed great
influence over Byzantine society, even if, at the time, he had to acknowledge the authority and superiority of
a future adversary, in order to reach this goal69.
—————
67 Michael Palaiologos, as megas konostaulos (commander of the contingent of Latin mercenaries in the service of the Empire), a
position he still held, was well acquainted with the Latin ceremonial, and Arsenios Autoreianos, before his election as patriarch,
had been a member of one of the two delegations sent from Nicaea to Rome (1250–1252; 1253–1254). Beside the explanation in
footnote 24, see also ANGELOV, Imperial Ideology 380–381.
68 The arguments put forward by A. Korenevskiy and A. Pilyugin to corroborate the information taken from the treatise of Symeon
of Thessalonica which, implicitly, would lead to the conclusion that the Russian court had modelled this ceremonial after
Constantinople, rely on the enthronements of Patriarchs Athanasios I (1289) and Gennadios II (1454). However, both events, like
the argument of Archbishop Symeon, only attest to the fact that the elected patriarch went from the imperial palace to Hagia
Sophia riding a horse, as is confirmed by the description in Pseudo-Kodinos’ treatise, see KORENEVSKIY–PILYUGIN, Officium
stratoris 215.
69 A connection between January 754 (when this ceremonial was performed for the first time by Pepin the Short for Pope Stephen
II), and the Magnesia episode (1258), that in both examples the representatives of lay authority “spontaneously showed their
sincere respect” to the representatives of the Church, is far-fetched. This hypothesis is detailed in: KORENEVSKIY–PILYUGIN,
Officium stratoris 218.
A comparative analysis of the Church-state relationship during the 13th century in the East and West,
respectively, reveals a completely different timing. Thus, in Western Europe, since the 8th century the
position of the pope as verus imperator and incontestable leader was confirmed by officium stratoris by
virtue of Donatio Constantini ideology. This superiority began to be questioned in the 11th century, and the
late 13th century already witnessed a return to the biblical reception of the message (Pope Celestin V entering
Aquila riding a donkey—1294). On the other hand, in the Byzantine East, these “revolutionary” ideas were
discovered much later (11th century), so that their echoes can be traced as late as the 15th century (the
hierocratic theory).
Although, subsequently, this Latin ritual was never reiterated in the respective form after the Byzantine
court returned to Constantinople, the relationship between the two fundamental institutions of Byzantine
society was greatly altered since the 13th century. The deep ideological crisis opposing the spiritual authority
to the temporal one during the last two centuries of the Byzantine Empire is not exclusively a direct
consequence of Latin influence, constantly exerted on the conservative Byzantine society until the time of
the crusades and the first fall of Constantinople, but it equally reflects the repeated attempts of both Church
and state to gain the upper hand. Thus, during the following decades, after the fall of Constantinople in the
spring of 1204, both the emperor and the patriarch sought to demonstrate their own superiority and to gain
the upper hand over the other by undertaking symbolic actions. Over a short period, the two parties
attempted in turn a decisive coup: the temporal power proceeded to a firm integration of imposing cere-
monies or titles dating back from the Comnenian dynasty (πρόκυψις—in relation to the great Christian feasts
throughout the ecclesiastical year; “epistemonarch—a wise defender of the (Orthodox) faith and
administrator of order within the Church” and to reintroduce the raising of the shield, starting with Theodor
II Laskaris’ imperial coronation in 1254; on the other hand, the Church responded by overrating the act of
physical anointment during the ritual of imperial coronation (a ritual most likely reintroduced in the late 12th
century), as well as downplaying the role of the Byzantine emperor in the election and consecration of the
patriarchs (God is indicated as the One making the election—ψῆφος, while the emperor’s decision has a
limited importance, and the promotion by the emperor—πρόβλησις, προβολή, until then perceived as having
actual sacramental efficacy—μικρὰ σφραγίς, became completely unimportant). Finally, one of the patriarchs
(the same Arsenios Autoreianos) undertoook the radical action of excommunicating the emperor sine die, a
situation which was totally unacceptable to the one who deemed himself to be “chosen by God”. It is in this
symbolic vein that the Magnesia event in the fall of 1258 should be interpreted. Thus, Patriarch Arsenios
received acknowledgement of the Church’s superiority from the representative of temporal authority (de
facto, however not yet de iure), but this Byzantine qualification of the Latin ritual described by Donatio
Constantini was merely an episode in an ideological struggle fought until the fall of Constantinople (1453).
Index of the Regest Numbers
TARASIOS (25.12.780–18.2.806) 1241: 106 n. 7

364: 127 n. 16 1244: 25 n. 2
1259: 325 n. 96
METHODIOS I (4.3.843–14.6.847) 1291: 106 n. 7
430: 183; 184; 185; 186; 187; 188; 189; 190; 191; 192 1297: 106 n. 7
1303: 106 n. 7
ALEXIOS STUDITES (12.12.1025–20.2.1043)
829: 23 MANUEL II. (Aug./Oct. 1243–Oct. 1254)
829a: 23 1319: 290
830: 18; 20; 23 1326: 321 n. 50
832: 18; 21; 23
833: 19; 20 n. 20; 21; 23 ARSENIOS AUTOREIANOS
834: 19; 20 n. 21; 21; 23 1st Patriarchate (Nov. 1254–Feb./March 1260)
835: 19; 20; 21; 23 1331: 320 n. 48
839: 18 n. 14; 19; 20 n. 22; 28; 21 n. 30–31; 23 1332: 290
840: 19; 20 n. 25–26; 23
841: 19 n. 18; 23 2nd Patriachate (May/June 1261–May/June 1264)
842: 19; 21; 24 1374: 128 n. 22
843: 24
844: 19; 21; 24 IOSEPHOS I GALESIOTES
845: 19; 21; 24 1st Patriarchate (28.12.1266–9.1.1275)
846: 19; 20 n. 29; 21 n. 31; 24 1400: 248 n. 228
847: 24
848: 24 IOANNES XI BEKKOS (26.5.1275–26.12.1282)
849: 24 1433: 288–291
850: 18; 19 n. 19; 20 n. 23; 21 n. 30; 24 1439: 290
851: 24
852: 24 GREGORIOS II KYPRIOS (28.3.1283-June 1289)
853: 24 1483: 111 n. 45
854: 20; 21; 24 1519: 111 n. 45
855: 20; 21; 24 1530: 112 n. 47
1531: 112 n. 47
LUKAS CHRYSOBERGES
(Aug./Oct. 1157–n. 19.11.1169/Jan. 1170) IOANNES XII KOSMAS (1.1.1294–21.6.1303)
1052: 339 n. 50 1563: 128 n. 24
1085: 128 n. 27 1568: 354 n. 17
MICHAEL III TU ANCHIALU (Jan. 1170–March 1178) ATHANASIOS I

1131: 324 n. 92 2nd Patriarchate (23.6.1303–c. Sept. 1309)
1595: 112 n. 49
GEORGIOS II XIPHILINOS (10.9.1191–7.7.1198) 1614: 354 n. 17
1179: 325 n. 94 1625: 102 n. 62
1180: 325 n. 95 1627: 102 n. 62
1185: 324 n. 93 1666: 126 n. 4
1202: 25 n. 4 1708: 129 n. 30
1730: 95 n. 1
THEODOROS II EIRENIKOS (28.9.1214–31.1.1216) 1769: 98 n. 26
1219: 27 n. 25 1772: 98 n. 26
1776: 112 n. 50
GERMANOS II (4.1.1223–June 1240) 1778: 112 n. 51
1233: 106 n. 7
1235: 106 n. 7
396 Index of the Regest Numbers
NIPHON I (9.5.1310–11.4.1314) 2365: 154; 256 n. 283

2000: 126 n. 4 2366: 337; 341 n. 64
2002: 126 n. 5 2367: 345 n. 117
2005: 126 n. 6 2368: 342 n. 88
IOANNES XIII GLYKYS (12.5.1315–11.5.1319) KALLISTOS I

2031: 242 n. 174; 253 n. 266; 290; 301 2nd Patriarchate (beg. 1355–Aug. 1363)
2031a: 110 n. 35 2387: 207 n. 51; 248 n. 225; 258 n. 309; 279–287; 293; 294
2036: 247 n. 213; 257 n. 296 2397: 223 n. 102; 242 n. 175; 254 n. 268; 296; 301
2040: 204 n. 37; 256 n. 284 2398: 247 n. 216; 257 n. 299
2044: 133 n. 57 2399: 247 n. 217; 257 n. 300
2045: 242 n. 171; 253 n. 264 2402: 135 n. 5
2046: 242 n. 178; 254 n. 270 2408: 246 n. 211; 256 n. 291; 288–295
2062: 255 n. 275 2411: 209 n. 55; 229 n. 121; 329 n. 14
2079: 157 2412: 209 n. 55; 229 n. 121; 251 n. 248; 260 n. 316; 329 n.
2082: 135 n. 5 15
2088: 154 2413: 244 n. 185; 255 n. 277
2414: 247 n. 218; 257 n. 301
HESAIAS (11.11.1323–13.5.1332) 2415: 223 n. 102; 242 n. 176; 254 n. 267
2101: 136 n. 9 2416: 243 n. 184; 255 n. 276
2107: 242 n. 172; 253 n. 264 2417: 263 n. 347; 265 n. 366
2118: 323 n. 77 2434: 341; 343 n. 89
2119: 141 n. 54; 323 n. 78 2435: 341; 343 n. 89
2157: 109 n. 25; 27 2437: 207 n. 51; 249 n. 226; 258 n. 308; 280; 296; 301
2158: 243 n. 181; 254 n. 272 2442: 257 n. 294
2159: 259 n. 313 2445: 341 n. 71
IOANNES XIV KALEKAS (Febr. 1334–2./8.2.1347) PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS

2185: 296; 302 2nd Patriarchate (8.10.1353–summer 1376)
2188: 250 n. 242 2464: 251 n. 247; 259 n. 314; 296; 301
2198: 257 n. 297 2477: 155
2199: 109 n. 29 2483: 237 n. 145; 253 n. 264
2207: 109 n. 24; 30; 110 n. 31; 34–36 2496: 135 n. 7; 155
2235: 142 n. 54 2497: 155
2251: 245 n. 209; 256 n. 289 2506: 341 n. 72
2255: 357 n. 29 2524: 243 n. 180; 256 n. 280
2262: 126 n. 8 2543: 155
2263: 126 n. 9 2545: 155
2270: 133 n. 59 2552: 155
2558: 155
ISIDOROS I (17.5.1347–Febr./March 1350) 2566: 330 n. 17
2282: 154 2570: 242 n. 176; 254 n. 265
2284: 154 2578: 252 n. 252; 260 n. 320; 337 n. 35
2287: 357 n. 29 2579: 337 n. 35; 347–348
2291: 334; 337 n. 35 2580: 252 n. 254; 260 n. 322; 337 n. 35
2582: 252 n. 255; 260 n. 323
KALLISTOS I 2583: 337 n. 35
1st Patriarchate (10.6.1350–15.8.1353) 2584: 341
2318: 112 n. 52 2586: 155
2319: 135 n. 5 2587: 246 n. 208; 257 n. 293; 288–295; 296; 302
2329: 245 n. 201; 256 n. 286 2588: 330 n. 17
2330: 110 n. 37; 111 n. 38 2593: 330 n. 17
2606: 155
PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS 2607: 330 n. 18
1st Patriarchate (end Aug. 1353–Nov./end 1354) 2608: 156
2354: 154 2610: 156
2353: 285 n. 440 2611: 142 n. 58
2358: 257 n. 298 2612: 143 n. 59
2363: 334; 337 n. 35; 347 2613: 143 n. 60
2364: 154 2614: 142 n. 54; 143 n. 62; 156
Index of the Regest Numbers 397
2617: 245 n. 205; 256 n. 288; 296–297; 302 2831: 344 n. 102
2618: 156 2839: 151 n. 117
2621: 146 n. 85
2622: 333; 334; 336; 337 n. 35; 341; 342 n. 78–79; 345 n. ANTONIOS IV
112 1st Patriarchate (Jan. 1389–July 1390)
2624: 156 2847: 336; 343; 349
2625: 297; 301; 342; 345 n. 112; 348 2856: 158
2626: 297; 301 2860: 147 n. 92
2627: 252 n. 256; 260 n. 324 2862: 346
2629: 244 n. 186; 297; 301 2874: 148 n. 102; 158
2631: 156 2875: 331 n. 25
2632: 245 n. 200; 256 n. 285; 297; 302
2635: 252 n. 256; 260 n. 325; 297; 301 MAKARIOS
2636: 337 n. 35; 349 2nd Patriarchate (30. July – end Sept. 1390/end Jan. 1391)
2641: 156 2881: 145 n. 82
2647: 156
2653: 146 n. 91 ANTONIOS IV.
2654: 331 n. 21 2nd Patriarchate (beg. 1391–May 1397)
2655: 343 n. 91 2884: 147 n. 95
2662: 249 n. 240 2889: 158
2665: 343 n. 100 2890: 159
2668: 254 n. 269; 297; 301 2892: 159
2669: 246 n. 212; 257 n. 295 2893: 344
2896: 332 n. 26
MAKARIOS 2897: 151 n. 120
1st Patriarchate (ca. June 1377–July 1379) 2909: 332 n. 27
2692: 136 n. 13; 140 2918: 143 n. 67
2693: 343 n. 94 2922: 209 n. 56
2924: 344 n. 106
NEILOS KERAMEUS (March/Feb. 1380–1.2.1388) 2929: 252 n. 257; 256 n. 283; 336; 337 n. 35
2705: 335; 336; 337 n. 35; 342 2930: 245 n. 195; 256 n. 281; 346 n. 124
2715: 156 2931: 252 n. 253; 260 n. 321; 344
2716: 157 2934: 252 n. 257; 256 n. 283; 337 n. 35
2718: 331 n. 23 2935: 344 n. 107; 349
2723: 243 n. 191; 297; 301; 302 2938: 346 n. 124
2727: 156 2948: 159
2729: 252 n. 258; 261 n. 326 2958: 159
2738: 298; 301 2960: 147 n. 92; 298; 301; 302
2746: 157 2961: 298; 302
2754: 111 n. 40–42.44 2962: 298; 301; 302
2771: 157 2966: 159
2773: 197 n. 3; 211 n. 64; 223; n. 99; 241 n. 167; 288 n. 443; 2967: 299; 301; 302
290; 291; 298; 301 2969: 159
2776: 157 2971: 141 n. 50; 159
2779: 138 n. 25 2972: 159
2781: 157 2975: 251 n. 251; 260 n. 319
2784: 244 n. 188; 298; 201 2976: 299; 302
2786: 298; 301 2977: 299; 301 n. 475
2797: 157 2979: 151 n. 120–121
2799: 157 2980: 151 n. 120–121
2802: 144 n. 72 2981: 140 n. 40; 141 n. 51
2806: 157 2982: 151 n. 121; 236 n. 141; 238 n. 148; 255 n. 274
2808: 331 n. 24–25 2985: 159
2810: 158; 252 n. 259; 253 n. 260; 261 n. 327 2986: 245 n. 198; 246 n. 206; 256 n. 279; 290
2811: 158 2989: 141 n. 44.47
2815: 158 2990: 141 n. 47; 288–295; 302
2819: 139 n. 35; 143 n. 67; 145 n. 81 2993: 159
2821: 158 2994: 251 n. 249; 260 n. 317
2824: 344 n. 102 2996: 258 n. 306
2829: 158 2997: 160
398 Index of the Regest Numbers
2998: 139 n. 30; 141 n. 47; 246 n. 207; 210; 257 n. 292; 299; 3241: 250 n. 238
302 3262: 152 n. 129
2999: 299 3282: 333; 335; 337 n. 35
3003: 160
3005: 259 n. 312 IOSEPHOS II (21.5.1416–20.6.1439)
3007: 255 n. 273 3302: 345
3008: 255 n. 273 3307: 271
3009: 255 n. 273 3334: 178 n. 31
3011: 323 n. 83 3346: 241 n. 168; 291
3013: 247 n. 219; 257 n. 302; 299; 302
3015: 151 n. 119 METROPHANES II (4./5.5.1440–1.8.1443)
3023: 300; 302 3387: 247 n. 221; 257 n. 304
3029: 300; 301 302 3391: 180 n. 47
3036: 242 n. 179; 254 n. 271; 300; 301
3038: 160 GREGORIOS III (summer 1445–1455)
3039: 251 n. 245; 261 n. 329; 300; 301; 345 3400: 13 n. 26
3040: 300; 345; 349 3402: 15 n. 36
3041: 245 n. 202; 256 n. 287; 300; 302
3043: 300–301
3048: 152 n. 126; 160
MATTHAIOS I (Oct. 1397–10.8.1410)

3076: 250 n. 238
3081: 251 n. 244; 261 n. 331
3082: 250 n. 238
3087: 250 n. 238
3090: 176 n. 12–13
3092: 229; 250 n. 238
3094: 152 n. 124
3095: 253 n. 261; 261 n. 328
3105: 247 n. 220; 258 n. 303
3109: 250 n. 238
3113: 230; 250 n. 238
3115: 230; 250 n. 238
3120: 250 n. 238
3128: 250 n. 238
3155: 250 n. 238
3159: 250 n. 238
3165: 152 n. 125; 255 n. 277
3177: 160
3178: 160
3179: 250 n. 238
3182: 230; 250 n. 238
3189: 377 n. 14, 18
3192: 250 n. 238
3195: 250 n. 238
3196: 248 n. 222; 258 n. 305
3208: 250 n. 238
3210: 250 n. 238
3211: 230; 250 n. 238
3214: 250 n. 238
3216: 250 n. 238
3220: 255 n. 277
3221: 255 n. 277
3222: 255 n. 277
3223: 160
3224: 152 n. 125; 255 n. 277
3227: 176 n. 11; 251 n. 250; 260 n. 318
3236: 249 n. 239; 259 n. 311
3237: 250 n. 238
Index of Persons
῾Aṭā-Malik ĞuvainĪ, ῾Alā᾽-ad-dĪn 357; 358 Aprenos 166

Aaron (priest) 91; 92 Argyropoulos, Ioannes 10; 180
Abaqa 353 Armenopoulos, Konstantinos 161; 169
Abbakum (envoy of Metropolitan Alexios, of Kiev) 348 Arsenios (priest monk and copist) 185
Achyrates, Konstantinos 91; 92 Asanes → Palaiologos
Adae, Guillelmus 354 Asanina Palaiologina, Anna 165; 230
Adorno, Giovanni 383 n. 63 Atachi 358
Agallianos, Theodoros 311; 312; 313; 314; 316 Athanasios (metropolitan of Pisidia) 155
Agallon, Manuel 91; 92 Athanasios (priest monk, patriarchal exarchos) 149; 150; 159
Agapetos, Ioannes IX 320 Athanasios I (patriarch of Constantinople) 95; 96; 98; 99;
Agathoniki (nun) 109 102; 111;112; 114; 125; 128; 129; 131; 133; 169; 354
Akropolites, Georgios 27; 50 Athanasios II (patriarch of Constantinople) 10
Akropolites, Manuel 90; 91 Athanasios III (patriarch of Jerusalem) 242 n. 178; 254 n. 270
Al-Buḫārī, Šamsaddīn 353 Augustinus 192
Aleksandǎr, Ivan III 251; 259; 296; 328; 330 Autoreianos, Arsenios (patriarch of Constantinople) 32; 33;
Aleksandrovič, Michael 252; 260 37; 45; 46; 48; 96; 97; 290; 318; 319; 320; 321; 322; 323;
Alexander III (pope) 31 325
Alexander IV (pope) 290 Autoreianos, Michael IV 25; 26
Alexandru cel Bun 251 n. 250; 260 n. 318
Alexandru, Nicolae 329 Babas, Ioannes (bishop of Luck, metropolitan of Galitza) 344
Alexios (bishop of Vladimir and metropolitan of Kiev) 334; Balsamon, Manouel (protonotarios) 165 n. 38
341; 342; 343; 345; 346; 347; 348; 349; 350 Balsamon, Theodoros 39; 163; 169
Alexios, Aaron 347 Banduri, Anselme 51
Alexios, bishop of Novgorod 154 Bar Hebraeus 353
Alfonso V of Aragon 12 Barypates, Theodoros 91; 92
Alyates 164 Basarab, Nicolae Alexandru 209 n. 55; 214 n. 69; 229 n. 121;
Amarantina 112 251 n. 248; 260 n. 316
Amparis, Ioannes 239 n. 154 Basileios (metropolitan of Zekchia) 88; 89
Andreas (notarios of the patriarchate of Constantinople) 91; Basileios (notarios of the patriarchate) 90; 91
92 Basileios II (emperor) 17; 18
Angelos, Georgios 165 n. 37 Basileios v. Kaisareia 364 n. 31; 367
Anna of Savoia 126; 133; 168 Batatzes, Ioannes III 96; 106 ; 317; 318
Anthopoulos, Theodoros (epi ton gonaton) 165 n. 42 Bāyezīd I 140; 141; 149; 150; 151; 153; 157; 170; 376; 377;
Antonios (archbishop of Berrhoia) 88; 89 379; 381
Antonios (metropolitan of Galitza) 333; 334; 336; 341; 342; Bāyezīd ΙΙ 115
348 Bekkos, Ioannes XI 37; 47; 48; 49; 52; 64; 66; 67; 74; 75; 80;
Antonios II → Kauleas 81; 82; 83; 98; 241 n. 168; 288–289; 290
Antonios IV (patriarch of Constantinople) 139; 141; 145 n Benedictus XII (pope) 358
82; 146 n. 89; 147; 148 n. 103; 149; 150; 152; 158; 209 n. Bessarion 10; 15; 180
56; 244 n. 187; 242 n. 179; 245 n. 195; 197; 198; 202; Billerbeg, Franciscus 363; 368; 370; 371
246 n. 206; 207; 210; 247 n. 219; 249 n. 233; 251 n. 245; Blastares, Matthaios 127; 129; 131; 161; 169
249; 251; 252 n. 253; 257; 254 n. 271; 255 n. 273; 274; Blemmydes, Nikephoros 50; 51; 320
256 n. 279; 281; 283; 287; 290; 257 n. 292; 258 n. 302; Bogoljubskij, Andrej 339
306; 259 n. 312; 260 n. 317, 319, 321; 261 n. 329; 323; Boïlas (diakonos of the imperial clergy) 91; 92
324; 325; 331; 345; 346; 347; 355 Boullotes, Demetrios 152 n. 131
Antonios (patriarchal exarch) 159 Bryennios → Leontares
Antonios (metropolitan of Gotthia) 157 Bryennios, Ioseph 384; 385; 386; 387; 388 n. 109; 390; 391;
Antristos, Michael (copist) 185 392
Apelmenes, Georgios 159 Bryennios, Joseph 177; 178; 179
Apokaukos, Alexios 126 Budowitz von Budowa, Wenzeslaus (Budovec z Budova,
Apokaukos, Ioannes 106; 204 n. 40; 232; 234 n. 129; 235 n. Václav) 363; 368; 369; 370; 372
137; 238; 240 n. 157, 158, 160, 161
400 Index of Persons
Calixtus III (pope) 14 Doukas Glabas Mourinos 167

Camblak, Gregorios (metropolitan of Kiev) 345 Doukas Mamalis, Andreas 167
Chalepes, Michael 91; 92 Doukas Philanthropenos, Georgios 179
Chalkokondyles, Demetrios 364 Doukas (historian) 182 n. 66
Chalkokondyles, Laonikos 364; 383 n. 62 Dragaš, Konstantinos 137; 209; 214; 219 n. 86; 220 n. 90;
Chalkoutzes (notarios, diakonos) 90; 91 224; 226; 229; 251
Chariton (metropolitan of Ungrovlachia) 330; 331 Doukas 376; 382; 383 n. 62; 391 n. 123
Charsianites 176 n. 11 Doukas Alusianos, Thomas 378
Cheilas, Georgios 90; 91 Doukas Diasorenos → Diasorenos
Chioniades, Gregorios 353; 354 Doukas, Ioannes (sebastokrator) 214 n. 67
Chloros, Demetrios (protonotarios) 172 Doukas, Manuel (emperor) 278
Chomatenos, Demetrios 33; 198; 203 n. 29; 204 n. 34, 38; Doukas, Michael II. Komnenos 284
224 n. 105; 231; 235 n. 131; 237 n. 146; 272–278 Doukas, Theodoros (emperor) 273; 277
Choniates, Michael 231; 233 n. 126; 235 n. 131 Dušan → Uroš
Choniates, Niketas 105
Choumnaina Eirene / Eulogia 112; 113 Eck, Johannes 366 n. 43
Choumnos Nikephoros / Nathanael 109; 125; 126; 129; 132 Eirenikos, Theodoros II 27; 28; 29; 30
Christian III (king of Denmark) 366–367 n. 48 Eleutherios (of Paphlagonia) 19; 20; 21
Chrysaphes, Ioannes 91; 92 Emo, Benedetto 390 n. 115
Chrysoberges, Andreas 383 n. 67 Eskammatismenos, Michael 90; 91
Chrysoberges, Lukas 339 Eugenikos Georgios (protekdikos) 165
Chrysokokkes (raiferendarios) 166 Eugenikos, Ioannes 15
Chrysoloras, Manouel 364; 382; 383 n. 67; 384 n. 69 Eugenikos, Markos 14; 175; 177; 179; 180; 181; 182; 219 n.
Chrysostomos, Ioannes 367 85; 231
Choumanos, Georios 250 Eugenius IV (pope) 179; 291
Chytraeus, David 361; 362; 363; 364; 365; 366; 367; 368; Euphrosynos (archbishop of Suzdal) 346
369; 370; 371; 372; 373 Eustathios (metropolitan of Thessalonica) 231
Coelestin V (pope) 34; 46 Eutheiotokios, Isaakios 167
Crusius, Martin 362; 363; 364 n. 27; 366; 368; 369 Euthymios I (patriarch of Antioch) 353
Euthymios II (patriarch of Constantinople) 177; 179
da Montecorvino, Giovanni (Archbishop of Khanbaliq) 358;
359 Favolius, Hugo 365
Daniel (metropolitan of Kamachos) 86; 87 Filelfo, Francesco 386 n. 90; 390 n. 115-116
Daniel (metropolitan of Kyzikos) 49; 84; 85 Fonolleda, Arnoldo 13
Daniel (metropolitan of Vidin) 330; 331 Friedrich I Barbarossa 31; 34
Daniel (monk of Kastamonou) 184 Fudelaici 358
de Massa, Antonius 386; 387; 390 n. 113
de Rubruc, Guillelmus 357 Gabalas, Ioannes 319
de Tadeis, Quilico 377 Gabalas, Leon 317; 320
de Villalón, Cristôbal 365 Gabriel (archbishop of Philadelphia) 368
Demetrios (metropolitan of Kyzikos) 20 Gabriel (metropolitan of Chalkedon) 151 n. 121
Demetrios (metropolitan of Mitylene) 86; 87 Gabriel (metropolitan of Galitza) 340 n. 57
Dermokaïtissa → Palaiologina Gabriel (metropolitan of Thessaloniki) 151 n. 123; 152
di Marco, Nicoloso 375 n. 4 Gabrielopoulos 172
Diasites, Michael 91; 92 Galaktion (abbot of the Hosioi pateres) 323; 324
Diasorenos, Doukas 251; 261 Galesiotes, Georgios 285–287; 292; 294
Dimidier (Demetrios) 358 Gattilusio, Francesco I. 208; 216; 220 n. 90; 225; 229; 266;
Dimitrievič, Vasilij I. 252; 260; 344 269; 271 n. 416
Dionysios (archbishop of Suzdal) 346; 347 Gattilusio, Niccolò I. 205; 209; 216; 220 n. 90; 225; 229;
Dionysios (metropolitan of Mitylene) 323 253; 261; 269
Dionysios I (patriarch of Constantiople) 182; 314 Gaza, Theodoros 364
Dionysios III (patriarch of Constantiople) 310 Gemistos, Demetrios 197
Dionysios (metropolitan of Ainos) 155 Gemistos, Konstantinos 90; 91
Dionysios (metropolitan of Mytilene) 126; 133 Georgios → Trapezuntius
Dionysios (monk, later metropolitan of Sardeis) 180 Georgios (metropolit von Kerkyra) 204 n. 36
Dishypatos, Manouel 290 Gerasimos (metropolitan of Herakleia) 84; 85
Dobrotica, Ioannes 222 n. 93 Gerasimos (metropolitan of Kerkyra) 84; 85
Donskoj, Dmitrij Ivanovič 252; 260 Gerasimos (metropolitan of Philippoupolis) 86; 87
Dorotheos (metropolitan of Melenikon) 88; 89 Gerasimos (patriarch of Constantinople) 109
Dorotheos I (patriarch of Jerusalem) 242 n. 179 Gerlach, Stephan 362; 363; 365; 368; 371
Index of Persons 401
Germanos (abbot of the monastery of St. John the Theologian Jagiełło, Władysław II. 251; 261; 344
on patmos) 319 Iakobina (daughter of Aprenos) 166
Germanos II (patriarch of Constantinople) 33; 277–278; 319; Iakobos (personal physician of sultan) 312
325; 356 Iakobos (abbot of Dionysiou and copist) 185
Germanos (abbot of Saint Basil) 180 Ianoulos 168
Gerontios (abbot of Pantokrator) 181 Ibrahim Pasha 144
Gerontios (abbot of Pantokrator) 180 Jemmega (Zheyan Buhua) 358
Ghazan, Maḥmūd 354 Jiaohua 358
Glabas, Isidoros (metropolitan) 151; 217 n. 73; 218 n. 85; Ignatios II (patriarch of Antioch) 242 n. 175, 176; 254 n. 267,
231; 263 n. 349; 264 n. 354 268
Glabas, Konstantinos (protonotarios of the metropolis of Ignatios (metropolitan of Pegai and Parion) 86; 87
Serres) 137 Ignatios (metropolitan of Thessalonica) 86; 87
Glykys, Ioannes XIII 132; 154; 204 n. 37; 236 n. 140; 242 n. Ignatios of Smolensk (Ignatij Smoljanin) 376 n. 10–11
171; 174; 178; 244 n. 192; 247 n. 213; 253 n. 264, 266; Ignatios (exarch of Thessaly) 160
254 n. 270; 255 n. 275; 256 n. 284; 257 n. 296 Ignatios (patriarchal exarchos) 152
Goudeles, Georgios 164 and n. 25 Ignatios (priest-monk and copist) 186
Gregoras, Nikephoros 107; 108 Innocentius III (pope) 26; 31
Gregorios II (patriarch of Alexandria) 236 n. 143; 240 n. 162; Innocentius IV (pope) 290; 356
242 n. 171, 172; 253 n. 264 Ioakeim of Sinai (monk) 190
Gregorios II Kyprios (patriarch of Constantinople) 47; 48; Ioannes IV Megas Komnenos 12
49; 50; 51; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56; 57; 63; 64; 96; 99; 102; Ioannes X → Kamateros
111; 112; 131 Ioannes XI Bekkos → Bekkos
Gregorios III Mammas (patriarch of Constantinople) 9; 10; Ioannes XI → Kosmas
11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 180; 181; 182 Ioannes XIII Glykys → Glykys
Gregorios V (patriarch of Constantinople) 117; 118 n. 17; Ioannes XIV Kalekas → Kalekas
120 Ioannes (hypomneskon) 90; 91
Gregorios (archbishop of Ohrid) 100 Ioannes (metropolitan of Anastasioupolis) 88; 89
Gregorios (metropolitan of Madyta) 88; 89 Ioannes (metropolitan of Ephesos) 49; 84; 85
Gregorios (metropolitan of Mitylene) 320; 321; 322; 323 Ioannes (metropolitan of Lakedaimon) 88; 89
Gregorios (metropolitan of Peritheorion) 314 Ioannes (metropolitan of Melitene, 11th c.) 21
Gregorios (metropolitan of Philippoupolis) 137; 138 Ioannes (metropolitan of Melitene, 13th c.) 88; 89
Gregorios (patriarchal exarchos) 158 Ioannes (metropolitan of Mokessos) 88; 89
Gregorius X 37 Ioannes (orphanotrophos) 19
Gregorius X 37 Ioannes II Komnenos (emperor), 128
Gudules, Georgios 383; 387 n. 92 Ioannes III bar Abdun (patriarch of Antioch) 18
Guercio, Balduino 283 Ioannès Toxotenos (sakelliou of the Great Church) 156
Guilelmus du Perchay 108 n. 18 Ioannikije II (Serbian archbishop) 35
Güyük 358 Ioasaph (metropolitan of Vidin) 331; 332
Ioasaph II (patriarch of Constantinople) 117
Hadrian IV 31; 34 Iohannes XXI (pope) 288–289; 290
Haplesphares, Pothos (metropolitan of Mitylene) 322 Iohannes XXII (pope) 356
Hauploraudes 387 n. 92 Iohannes XXIII (pope) 383
Hayreddin Pasha 144 Ioseph (metropolitan of Keltzene) 88; 89
Heineccius, Michael 361 Ioseph (metropolitan of Mitylene) 321; 322; 323
Henri I de Hainaut 27; 28 Ioseph (metropolitan of Proikonnesos) 86; 87
Hesaias (patriarch of Constantinople) 239 n. 153; 242 n. 172; Ioseph (metropolitan of Rosion and Kypsella) 86; 87
243 n. 181; 253 n. 264; 254 n. 272; 259 n. 313; 323 Ioseph I (patriarch of Constantinople) 248 n. 228; 259 n. 310;
Hieremias I (patriarch of Constantinople) 306 320 n. 47
Hieremias II (patriarch of Constantinople) 116; 144; 366; Ioseph II (patriarch of Constantinople) 178; 179; 180; 239 n.
368; 371; 372 152; 241 n. 168; 291; 384
Hieremias (metropolitan of Mitylene) 323 Ioseph (bishop of Limnia) 157
Hieremias (exarch of Chios) 157–158 Isaakios, patriarchal exarchos in metropolis Zichna 155
Holobolos, Ioannes (metropolitan of Gotthia) 377 Isbes (monk) 167; 168
Holobolos, Manouel 387 n. 92 Isidore I (patriarch of Constatinople) 111; 112; 154; 169; 240
Hülegü 353 n. 160; 244
Hyakinthos (metropolitan of Bitzina) 329; 330 Isidoros II (patriarch of Constantinople) 182; 311; 312; 314
Hypatios, Theodoros 91; 92 Isidoros (metropolitan of Kiev) 10; 11; 178; 233 n. 126; 350;
382
Iagaris Palaiologos, Manouel 10 Ioustinianos I (emperor) 127
Iagaris Palaiologos, Markos 10 Ioustinianos II (emperor) 42
Ivanovič, Svjatoslav / Simeon 252; 260; 340 Konstantinos (archbishop of Derkos) 88; 89
Konstantinos (metropolitan of Nikaia) 86; 87
Kabasilas, Neilos 239 n. 151 Konstantinos (metropolitan of Side) 20; 21
Kabasilas, Nikolaos 127; 130; 133 Konstantinos I (emperor) 31; 38
Kabasilas, Symeon 364 n. 27; 368 Konstantinos IX Monomachos (emperor) 17; 39
Kalekas, Ioannes XIV (patriarch of Constantinople) 109; 110; Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos (emperor) 42; 43
125; 126; 129; 130; 133; 169; 239 n. 154; 245 n. 209; 247 Konstantinos VIII (emperor) 17; 20; 21
n. 214; 256 n. 289 Konstostephanos, Georgios 230 n. 123
Kallikrenites, Ioannes 178 n. 32 Kontostephanos 166 n. 52
Kallinikos II (patriarch of Constantinople) 309 Korax, Theologos 383 n. 63; 388; 389; 390; 391 n. 123
Kallistos (metropolitan of Alania) 165 n. 35 Koreses 164
Kallistos Anastasios (patriarchal exarch) 156; 157 Korikos, Het᾽um 355; 356; 357
Kallistos I. (patriarch of Constantinople) 112; 165; 207 n. 51; Kosmas, Ioannes XII (patriarch of Constantinople) 131; 354
214 n. 69; 236 n. 140; 239 n. 154; 242 n. 175, 176; 243 n. Kouerji (Georgios) 358
184; 244 n. 185; 245 n. 201; 246 n. 211; 247 n. 216, 217, Kounales, Georgios 109
218; 248 n. 225, 226; 251 n. 248; 254 n. 267, 268; 255 n. Kourounas, Makarios 179
276, 277; 257 n. 291, 294, 299, 300, 301; 258 n. 308, Kritopulos, Anthimos Daniel (metropolitan of Ungrovlachia)
309; 260 n. 316; 284–287; 291–292; 329 330
Kallistos II Xanthopoulos (patriarch of Constantinople) 151; Kritopoulos, Metrophanes 335
177 Kubilai (khan) 358
Kallistos, Ioannes 90; 91 Koutzoumperes, Michael 91; 92
Kaloeidina, Hypomone (nun) 165 n. 41 Kydones, Demetrios 15; 376 n. 9; 377; 378; 380 n. 37; 382;
Kaloethes, Ioannes 167; 168 n. 65 392
Kalokyres 164; 168 Kyprianos (metropolitan of Kiev, Lithuania and Little Rus)
Kalophrenas, Michael 237 336; 342; 343; 344; 345; 346; 349; 350
Kalostratiotes 164 Kyrillos III (patriarch of Antioch) 354
Kamateros, Ioannes X (patriarch of Constantinople) 25 Kyrillos of Naupaktos (copist) 185
Kananos, Ioannes 391 Kyrillos (exarchos of the metropolis of Trapezunt) 160
Kantakouzenos, Demetrios Palaiologos 386 n. 90 Kyrillos (metropolitan of Melnik) 137
Kantakouzenos, Ioannes VI 35; 45; 133; 175; 329; 340; 389 Kyrillos (metropolitan of Nikomedia) 126; 133
Kasianos (metropolitan of Vidin) 331; 332 Kyrisites, Georgios 91; 92
Kasimir III 340 n. 57; 341
Kathiten (Xiang Shan) 358 Lajos I. Nagy (king of Hungary) 327; 329
Kauleas, Antonios II (patriarch of Constantinople) 164 n. 27 Lajos II (king of Hungary) 31
Kephalas, Gregorios 91; 92 Laskarina Tagarina, Anna 166
Kerameus, Neilos (patriarch) 111; 138; 143; 144; 156; 158; Laskarina, Eirene 106
175; 176 n. 11; 197; 223 n. 99; 243 n. 191; 244 n. 188, Laskaris Philanthropenos, Alexiοs 179
189; 252 n. 258, 259; 253 n. 260; 261 n. 326, 327; 291; Laskaris, Ioannes IV (emperor) 33
331; 346; 347 Laskaris (son-in-law of Theodoros Padyates) 163
Keroularios, Michael I (patriarch of Constantinople) 39; 45 Laskaris, Theodoros I (emperor) 25; 26; 29; 30; 96; 317; 318
Kinnamos, Ioannes 32; 34; 35; 45 Laskaris, Theodoros II (emperor) 46; 96; 320 n. 47
Klematides, Ioannikios (monk) 166; 169 Lazarević, Stephan 269
Klemes (metropolitan of Abydos) 86; 87 Lazaros (patriarchal exarch) 155
Kokkas, Ioasaph I 312 Lebadarius, Michael 362; 363; 364; 365
Kokkinos, Philotheos 112; 142; 143 n. 61, 68; 145; 146 n. 90; Leo (metropolitan of Ohrid) 39
154; 155; 158; 162; 226 n. 113; 229 n. 120; 236 n. 140, Leo IX (pope) 39
142; 239 n. 154; 242 n. 176; 244 n. 186; 245 n. 200, 205; Leon (nomophylax) 314
246 n. 208, 212; 247 n. 215; 251 n. 247; 252 n. 252, 254, Leon VI (emperor) 17
255, 256; 254 n. 265, 269; 256 n. 280, 283, 285, 288; 257 Leontares Bryennios 165 n. 38
n. 293, 295, 298; 259 n. 314; 260 n. 320, 322, 323, 324, Łevond IV (king of Armenia) 259
325; 294–295; 302; 330; 331; 341; 343; 345; 355 Loukaris, Kyrillos I (patriarch of Constantinople) 309
Kokkinos, Stephanos 90; 91 Luther, Martin 361; 366 n. 43; 367
Komnene Raoulaina Strategopoulina Anna / Antonia (nun)
107 Magistros, Thomas 132
Komnenos → Ioannes IV Makarios (hieromonachos of Xanthopoulos-Kellion) 387 n.
Komnenos, Alexios I (emperor) 107; 128; 163 92
Komnenos, Alexios II (emperor of Trebizond) 354 Makarios (metropolitan of Ankyra) 44; 45; 379
Komnenos, Isaakios I (emperor) 128 Makarios (metropolitan of Didymoteichon) 86; 87
Komnenos, Manouel I (emperor) 128 Makarios (metropolitan of Tyana) 86; 87
Kompas (monk) 170 Makarios (patriarch of Constantinople) 143; 144; 145 n. 82
Makarios (metropolitan of Ankara) 162; 176 Mouzalon, Theodoros (megas logothetes) 111
Makarios (monk) 177 Murad I 144
Makrembolites, Alexios 130 Murad II 11; 386 n. 90; 387; 388; 390
Makres, Makarios 178; 179; 383; 385 Mūsā Çelebi 388
Mancasole, Thomas 356 Muşat, Stefan 159; 251 n. 249; 260 n. 317
Manegold (podesta of Genova) 283 Mustafa 390
Manikes, Makarios 137 Mousouros, Markos 364
Manouel (metropolitan of Apros) 88; 89 Mylonas, Ioannes 137; 138; 139; 150
Manouel (metropolitan of Milet) 318
Manouel II (patriarch of Constantinople) 152 n. 130; 164; Nathanael (monk and patriarchal exarch) 150; 151 n. 121;
176; 177; 178; 290; 319; 321 152
Marco → di Marco Naupegos 167
Marco de Viterbo 327 Neilos (metropolitan of Larissa) 156
Maroules 109 Nemanjić, Stefan 272; 276
Martinus V (Oddo di Colonna; pope) 384; 385; 386; 390 Neokaisareites, Manouel 240 n. 164
Matthaios I (patriarch of Constantinople) 151; 152 n. 130; Neophytos (metropolitan of Prusa) 86; 87
160; 162; 163 n. 13; 176; 177; 179; 180; 247 n. 220; 248 Nestongonissa 169
n. 222; 249 n. 231; 251 n. 244, 250; 253 n. 261; 255 n. Nicolaus I (pope) 31
277; 258 n. 303, 305; 259 n. 311; 260 n. 318; 261 n. 328; Nicolaus V (pope) 15; 180
261 n. 331; 376; 379 Niegoula / Nikolaos 358
Matthaios (exarchos of Yalita / Yalta) 160 Nikandros (priest monk) 165 n. 39
Matthaios (metropolitan of Chalkedon) 158 Nikephoros (metropolitan of Kreta) 86; 87
Matthaios, (metropolitan of Zichna) 144; 145 Nikephoros II (patriarch of Constantinople) 322
Maurommates 166 n. 52 Niketas (metropolitan of Alania) 88; 89
Maximilian II (emperor) 362 Niketas (metropolitan of Corinth) 20
Maximos (metropolitan of Herakleia Pontike) 86; 87 Nikolaos (metropolitan of Monembasia) 86; 87
Maximos IV (patriarch of Constantinople) 182 n. 71 Nikolaus III (pope) 290
Maximos (patriarchal exarch) 152 Niphon I (patriarch of Constantinople) 107; 108; 125; 129;
Mecklenburg → von Mecklenburg 131; 132; 133; 147 n. 96
Megas Komnenos → Ioannes IV Niphon (metropolitan of Galitza) 340 n. 57
Mehmed I 390 n. 115 Notaras, Chrysanthos (patriarch of Jerusalem) 310 n. 9
Mehmed II 9; 183 Notaras, Ioannes 387 n. 92; 388
Melanchton, Philipp 361; 362; 363 n. 17; 366 n. 48; 367 Notaras, Loukas 10; 13; 14; 15; 16; 181; 384 n. 70, 76
Meliteniotes, Konstantinos 48; 49; 52; 74; 75; 290 Notaras, Nikolaos 383; 384 n. 77; 386 n. 89; 387 n. 92
Mesarites, Ioannes 28
Mesarites, Nikolaos 26; 29; 30 Olearius, Adam 38; 39
Methodios I (patriarch of Constantinople) 183; 184; 185; Olgierd (grand duke of Lithuania) 340; 341; 342
186; 187 n. 29; 188; 189; 192 Öljeitü 354
Metochites Palaiologos, Demetrios 10 Otto IV (emperor) 31
Metochites, Georgios 48; 49; 74; 75
Metrophanes II (patriarch of Constantinople) 11; 180; 181; Pachomios (patriarch of Antioch) 237
182; 247 n. 221 Pachomios (metropolitan of Amaseia) 180
Metrophanes (metropolitan of Melnik) 137; 139 Pachymeres, Georgios 45; 49; 52; 63; 90; 91; 97; 98; 131
Michael I → Keroularios Padyates, Georgios 163
Michael III tu Anchialou (patriarch of Constantinople) 324 Padyates, Theodoros 163
Michael IV (patriarch of Constantinople) 19 Palaiologina → Asanina
Michael III (patriarch of Antioch) 242 n. 176 Palaiologina Dermokaïtissa, Theodora (nun) 165 n. 41
Michael (archbishop of Bethlehem) 344; 345; 346; 347 Palaiologina, Theodora (empress) 106; 107
Michael (exarch of Philadelpheia) 158 Palaiologina, Eirene 230
Michael (hiereus) 91; 92 Palaiologina, Maria (despoina ton Mougoulion) 110
Michael (metropolitan of Ainos) 86; 87 Palaiologina, Maria 353
Michael (erzbischof of Bethleem) 160; 344–345 Palaiologos → Iagaris; Metochites
Michael (titular metropolitan of Amaseia) 157 Palaiologos Asanes, Isaakios 110
Mircea cel Bǎtrân 203 n. 31; 205; 209; 214; 216; 224; 225; Palaiologos Iagaris 166 n. 52; 170
226; 227; 270; 271 n. 416 Palaiologos, Andronikos II (emperor) 47; 51; 66; 67; 83; 84;
Möngke (khan) 358 95; 96; 97; 98; 99; 100; 101; 102; 109; 125; 131; 132;
Montecorvino → da Montecorvino, Giovanni 147 n. 96; 328; 354
Moschampar, Georgios 48; 90; 91 Palaiologos, Andronikos III (emperor) 102; 161; 165; 328
Moses (archbishop of Novgorod) 337 Palaiologos, Andronikos IV (emperor) 143; 144; 145 n. 82;
Mourinos, Demetrios 112 375 n. 4; 376; 380
Palaiologos, Iakobos 362; 363; Raoul 171

Palaiologos, Ioannes V (emperor) 162; 175; 207 n. 51; 284– Raoulaina → Komnene
287; 296; 347; 375 n. 4-5; 376; 379 n. 34; 383 Raphael II (patriarch) 306
Palaiologos, Ioannes VII (emperor) 145 n. 82; 152; 162; 163; Rauwolff, Leonhart 362
164; 376; 377; 379; 380; 381; 382 Rhomaios, Eusthatios 18
Palaiologos, Ioannes VIII (emperor) 10; 11; 15; 16; 177; 178; Robert I of Courtenay (Latin emperor) 106
179; 180; 181; 386; 388; 389; 390; 393 Romanos (metropolitan of Lithuania) 341; 342
Palaiologos, Konstantinos XI (emperor) 10; 11; 12; 15; 181 Romanos III Argyros (emperor) 20; 21
Palaiologos, Manouel II (emperor) 10; 144; 202 n. 23; 271; Rubruc → de Rubruc
347; 375 n. 5; 376; 377; 378; 379; 380; 381; 382; 383;
384; 385; 386; 387 n. 92; 388; 389; 390; 392; 393 Sabbas (Hypertimos) 88; 89
Palaiologos, Michael VIII (emperor) 32; 34; 37; 45; 47; 48; Sabbas (metropolitan of Antioch in Pisidia) 86; 87
96; 97; 98; 99; 103; 180; 320 n. 47; 353 Sarantenos 164
Palaiologos, Michael IX (emperor) 102; 131 Scholarios, Gennardios
Palaiologos, Theodoros I (despotes) 271; 380; 381; 382; 393 Scholarios, Georgios / Gennadios (patriarch of Constantinop-
Palaiologos, Theodoros II (despotes) 13 le) 9; 10; 16; 179; 181; 182; 183; 184; 185; 186; 188;
Palaiologos, Thomas 12; 14 189; 190; 191; 192; 233 n. 126; 266 n. 377; 271 n. 412;
Palamas, Gregorios 50; 51; 64 370
Palatinos (notarios, diakonos) 90; 91 Schweigger, Salomon 362; 366 n. 41; 367; 370
Panaretos, Michael 158 Seraphim II (patriarch of Constantinople) 116
Panaretos, Stephanos 90; 91 Sigeros, Georgios 109
Panopoulos 164 Sigismundus (emperor) 390
Paulos (bishop of Smyrna and papal legate) 329 Sinzendorf → von Sinzendorf
Pazenos, Nikephoros 90; 91 Šišman, Ivan III 209; 216; 219 n. 86; 229; 270; 328; 330
Pediadites, Basileios 28 Skoutariotes, Theodoros 106
Pegas, Meletios (patriarch of Alexandria) 366 Skoutariotes, Nikolaos 90; 91
Pelagius (de Albano) 27; 28; 30 Sophianos (ktetor of St Mamas) 171
Pentekklesiotes, Ioannes 90; 91 Sophianos, Maximos (monk) 184; 185
Perdikes, Akindynos (hypomnematographos) 165; 166 Sophronios I (patriarch of Constantinople) 311; 312; 313;
Perdikes, Georgios 154; 156 314
Petraleiphina 165 Soteriotes (protonotarios) 168
Petriotes, Ioannes 91; 92 Sphrantzes, Georgios 16; 177; 202 n. 23; 393
Petros (metropolitan of Galitza) 340 n. 57; 345 Spyridon (metropolitan of Melnik) 137
Petros (protopapas and patriarchal exarch) 159 Squarciafico, Cosmael 375 n. 4
Phakrases, Moyses 156 Sracimir, Ivan 205; 214; 216; 220; 224; 225; 226; 251; 270;
Phakrases, Matthaios (metropolitan of Serres) 139; 140; 141; 328; 329; 330; 331
142; 143; 144; 145; 149; 150 Stefan → Uroš
Philanthropenos, Ioannes 170 Ștefan cel Mare (Stefan III of Moldoblachia) 209; 214; 216;
Philanthropenos → Doukas; Laskaris 227 n. 114; 266; 270
Philes, Manouel 132 Stephanus II (pope) 31
Philippe III the Good (duke of Burgundy) 13 Stethatos, Niketas 22
Philotheos (patriarch of Alexandria) 10 Stilbes, Konstantinos 105
Philotheos → Kokkinos Strategopoulina → Komnene
Phokas (metropolitan of Gangra) 86; 87 Stoudites, Alexios (patriarch of Constantinople) 17; 18; 19;
Photios (metropolitan of Kiev) 333; 335; 345 20; 21; 22; 23; 24
Photios (bishop of Kaisaroupolis) 137; 139; 140 Stoudites, Theodoros 235 n. 137; 236 n. 139; 239 n. 150
Phoudoules 171 Stoudites, Theoktistos 125
Piano Carpini, Giovanni 356 Sylvester I (pope) 31
Pippin III 31 Symeon I (patriarch of Constantinople) 115; 116; 304
Pius II (pope) 14 Symeon (metropolitan of Thessalonike) 43; 45; 177 n. 16
Planitissa Anysia (nun) 106 Symeon (hieromonachos) 344
Plethon, Gemistos 382 Symeon (metropolitan of Alania) 165; 352
Poimen (metropolitan of Kiev) 335; 336; 342; 343; 344; 349 Synadene, Eirene 164
Polo, Marco 358 Synadene, Theodora 107; 108; 114
Polos, Georgios 312; 313 Synadenos, Ioannes 110
Polyeuktos (patriarch of Constantinople) 309 Syropoulos (doctor) 172
Prophetes, Barlaam 204 n. 36; 232 Syropoulos, Ioannes (megas skeuophylax) 165
Psellos, Michael 18 Syropoulos, Sylvestros 14; 15; 177; 313; 314
Pylles, Michael 383 n. 63; 389
Tadeis → de Tadeis Xanthopoulos → Kallistos
Tagarina → Laskarina Xene (nun) 106
Tagaris, Paulos 355; 358 Xenophon, Manouel 138; 144; 145
Tarchaneiotes, Makarios (monk) 165 n. 39; 167 Xeros, Manuel 322
Tarchaneiotes, Manuel 140 Xiphilinos, Georgios II 324; 325
Temür, Toγōn 358
Theodora (daughter of Maria Palaiologina) 110 Yakob II (Catholicos of Armenia) 239 n. 153; 243; 254
Theodoretos (metropolitan of Kiev) 341; 346 n. 119
Theodoretos (priest monk) 110 Žarković, Mrkša 251; 260
Theodoretos of Kyrros 184 Zygomalas, Ioannes 366
Theodoros → Stoudites Zygomalas, Theodosios 364 n. 27; 366; 368
Theodoros (metropolitan of Alania) 356
Theodoros (metropolitan of Bitzina) 88; 89
Theodoros (metropolitan of Galitza) 340 n. 57
Theodoros (metropolitan of Mesembria) 88; 89
Theodosije (Serbian metropolitan of Serres) 143
Theodosios (monk) 109
Theodosios (metropolitan of Melitene) 154
Theognostos (metropolitan of Kiev) 340; 341; 346
Theoktistos → Stoudites
Theoleptos (metropolitan of Philadelphia) 49; 88; 89; 112;
113
Theophanes 129
Theophanes (metropolitan of Herakleia) 160
Theophanes (metropolitan of Nikaia) 142
Theophilos (metropolitan of Lithuania) 340
Thogay 358
Thomas (metropolitan of Maroneia) 88; 89
Thomas (metropolitan of Smyrna) 88; 89
Thomas Aquinas 192
Thrakesina, Martha (nun) 106
Tiepolo, Giovanni 284
Timotheos (ostiarios of the Great Church) 322
Timur 388; 391
Toktamyš (Tuqtamiş) 347
Tomprotitzas, Ioannes 249 n. 234
Tornikes, Demetrios 250
Tornikes, Georgios 240 n. 156
Touratzos 166
Trapezountios, Georgios 364
Triakontaphyllos 169; 170
Trikanas Demetrios 167; 168
Truber, Primus 361
Tychomenos Theodoros (hypomimneskon) 166
Tzagitzakas, Michael 214 n. 68
Tzyrapes, Konstantinos 230 n. 123
Uglješa → Ioannes Uglješa

Urban II (pope) 31
Urban VI (pope) 197; 202 n. 23; 205; 223 n. 99; 288; 291
Uroš IV Dušan, Stefan 35
Ursinius, Albertus 371
Villalón → de Villalón
Villehardouin, Theodosios 353
Vladislav I (voivode of Wallachia) 329; 330
von Mecklenburg, Johann Albrecht 362
von Sinzendorf, Joachim 369
Vytautas (Vitold) 345

Et Tenentes Frenum Equi Ipsius A New Ap PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Et Tenentes Frenum Equi Ipsius A New Ap PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Patriarchate of Constantinople

in Context and Comparison

Christian Gastgeber, Ekaterini Mitsiou,

CHRISTIAN GASTGEBER, EKATERINI MITSIOU,

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 8

The Patriarchate before the Register

Ionuţ Alexandru TUDORIE

Privileges, Monasteries, and Institutions

Raúl ESTANGÜI GÓMEZ

Charters, Texts, and Copies

The Patriarchate beyond Constantinople and after 1453

Late Byzantium and the Church – a Synthesis

Indices of Regest Numbers and Persons .............................................................................................. 395

“Et tenentes frenum equi ipsius …”

REVISING AND INTERPRETING THE SOURCES

TARASIOS (25.12.780–18.2.806) 1241: 106 n. 7

MICHAEL III TU ANCHIALU (Jan. 1170–March 1178) ATHANASIOS I

NIPHON I (9.5.1310–11.4.1314) 2365: 154; 256 n. 283

IOANNES XIII GLYKYS (12.5.1315–11.5.1319) KALLISTOS I

IOANNES XIV KALEKAS (Febr. 1334–2./8.2.1347) PHILOTHEOS KOKKINOS

MATTHAIOS I (Oct. 1397–10.8.1410)

῾Aṭā-Malik ĞuvainĪ, ῾Alā᾽-ad-dĪn 357; 358 Aprenos 166

Calixtus III (pope) 14 Doukas Glabas Mourinos 167

Palaiologos, Iakobos 362; 363; Raoul 171

Uglješa → Ioannes Uglješa

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi