ByzSlav 68 1-2 (2010) PDF

B Y Z A N T I N O S L A V I C A
REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
Publiée par
l’Institut slave de l’Académie des sciences de la République Tchèque
sous la direction de
PAVEL MILKO
et
LUBOMÍRA HAVLÍKOVÁ
Comité de rédaction
Petr BALCÁREK, Václav ČERMÁK, Vlastimil DRBAL, Kyriaki CHÁBOVÁ,
Hana HLAVÁČKOVÁ, Julie JANČÁRKOVÁ, Markéta KULHÁNKOVÁ, Marina LUPTÁKOVÁ
Comité international de lecture
Michail V. BIBIKOV (Moscou), Růžena DOSTÁLOVÁ (Prague), Axinia DžUROVA (Sofia),

Simon FRANKLIN (Cambridge), Wolfram HÖRANDNER (Vienne), Michel KAPLAN (Paris),
Taxiarchis KOLIAS (Athènes), Ljubomir MAKSIMOVIĆ (Belgrade), Paolo ODORICO (Paris),
Jonathan SHEPARD (Oxford)
La revue Byzantinoslavica est citée par ERIH et Scopus
LXVIII
PRAGUE 2010
Access via CEEOL NL Germany
© Slovanský ústav AV ČR, v. v. i., 2010

T A B L E D E S M A T I È R E S
ET RÉSUMÉS DES ARTICLES
d e l a L X V I I I ème a n n é e ( 2 0 1 0 )
VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek Achtziger (R˘ûena D o s t · l o v · / Praha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
articles
Ěŕðčíŕ ËÓĎŇŔĘÎÂŔ (Ďðŕăŕ)
Îň ěŕńęč ę ëč÷íîńňč.
Čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ îńóůĺńňâĺííîăî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâŕ â čęîíĺ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Stanislav DOLEéAL (»eskÈ BudÏjovice)
Who, if anyone, was a reiks in fourth-century Gothia? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Rafa≥ KOSI—SKI (Bia≥ystok)
Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch (471-488) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Georgios KARDARAS (Athens)
The Byzantine-Antic treaty (545/46 A. D.)
and the defense of the Scythia Minor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Ján BAKYTA (Praha)
Testament des Kaisers Maurikios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Nikos KALOGERAS (Cyprus)
The (Purported) Teacher of John of Damascus
and Kosmas Melodos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Kenneth Rainsbury DARK (Reading)
Pottery production and use in Byzantine Constantinople . . . . . . . . . . 115
Tibor éIVKOVI∆ (Belgrade)
An unknown source of Constantine Porphyrogenitus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Marina BAZZANI (Oxford)
An analysis of Symeon the New Theologian’s Hymn LVI . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Stefan ALBRECHT (Mainz)
Odalric von Reims und sein Bericht über die Translation
der Reliquien des Hl. Clemens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
George C. MANIATIS (Bethesda, MD)
Organization and Modus Operandi of the Manufacturing Industry
in Byzantium, Tenth-Twelfth Centuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Íŕäĺćäŕ Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ – Â˙÷ĺńëŕâ Â. ĘÎÐÍČĹÍĘÎ (Ęčĺâ)
Äðĺâíĺéřčĺ ăðŕôôčňč Ńîôčéńęîăî ńîáîðŕ â Ęčĺâĺ
č ĺăî äŕňčðîâęŕ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
3
Markéta KULHÁNKOVÁ (Brno)
Vaganten in Byzanz, Prodromoi im Westen.
Parallellektüre von byzantinischer und lateinischer
Betteldichtung des 12. Jahrhunderts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241
Polymnia KATSONI (Thessaloniki)
A re-examination of evresis thesavrou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Xanthi PROESTAKI (Athens)
Western influences on 17th-century post-Byzantine wall paintings
in the Peloponnese: Roots in the 16th century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
édition critique
Rudolf Stefec (Wien)
Eine bisher unbekannte griechische Quelle zum ersten
venezianisch-osmanischen Krieg 1463-1479 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
étude critique
Filip IVANOVI∆ (Aarhus ñ Podgorica ñ Trondheim)
Byzantine Philosophy and its Historiography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
comptes-rendus
Eat, drink and be merry (Luke 12:19). Food and wine in Byzantium.
In honour of Professor A. A. M. Bryer. Ed. L. Brubaker –
K. Linardou (Maciej K o k o s z k o / £Ûdü) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381
Florence MEUNIER, Le roman byzantin du XIIe siècle. A la découverte
d’un nouveau monde? (R˘ûena D o s t · l o v · / Praha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Reading Michael Psellos. Ed. Ch. Barber – D. Jenkins
(R˘ûena D o s t · l o v · / Praha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
ÅÉÊÙÍ ÊÁÉ ËÏÃÏÓ. AÅæé âõæáíôéíÝò ðåñéãñáöcò Ýñãùí ôÝ÷íçò.
Ed. P. Agapitis – M. Hinterberger (R˘ûena D o s t · l o v · / Praha) . . . . . . 391
G. F. BASS – S. D. MATTHEWS – J. R. STEFFY – F. H. van DOORNINCK, Jr.,
Serçe Limanï: an Eleventh-Century Shipwreck. Volume I: The Ship and
its Anchorage, Crew, and Passengers (Victoria B u l g a k o v a / Berlin) . . . 392
Severus Sophista Alexandrinus, Progymnasmata quae exstant omnia.
Ed. E. Amato (Rudolf S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
Aik. GALONE, Ãåþñãéïò ÂáñäÜíçò: óõìâïëÞ óôç ìåëÝôç ôïõ âßïõ,
ôïõ Ýñãïõ êáé ôçò åðï÷Þò ôïõ (Rudolf S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Michael LINK, Die Erzählung des Pseudo-Neilos – ein spätantiker
Märtyrerroman (Rudolf S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
D. C. PARKER, Manuscripts, Texts, Theology. Collected Papers 1977-2007
(Rudolf S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
D. STRATEGOPOULOS, FÏ Íéêüëáïò Ìáëáîüò, ðñùôïðáðOò Íáõðëßïõ,
êár ô’ óõããñáöéê’ ôï™ hñãï (Rudolf S t e f e c / Wien) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
4
Robert OUSTERHOUT, A Byzantine Settlement in Cappadocia
(Petr B a l c á r e k / Olomouc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
Johannes Malalas, Weltchronik. Übers. J. Thurn (†), M. Meier (bearb.);
Einl. C. Drosihn, M. Meier, S. Priwitzer; Erläuterungen C. Drosihn,
K. Enderle, M. Meier, S. Priwitzer (Kate¯ina L o u d o v · / Brno) . . . . . . . 412
Adam H. BECKER, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom.
The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic
Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia (Michal ÿoutil / Praha) . . . . . . . . . 416
Andreas RHOBY, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken
(Vlastimil D r b a l / Praha – Markéta K u l h á n k o v á / Brno) . . . . . . . . . . 418
p u b l i c a t i o n s r e ç u e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
l i s t e d e s c o l l a b o r a t e u r s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
résumés des articles

From Mask to Person. The depiction of the realized Humanity in Icon
Marina LUPTÁKOVÁ (Praha)
The long-continued struggle during the 8th and the 9th centuries for the place of icons
in Church essentially always led up to the question of the real possible presence of truth
of the Incarnation in an iconic form. The Paradox of Christ’s mystery, the Incarnated
God, in which Jesus combines in the unity of a person, the whole richness of both the
human and the divine nature is precisely depicted in His icon. In the icon, the painter
expresses a personal mode of being, the only reality not liable to decay or death, which
is the person.
Who, if anyone, was a reiks in fourth-century Gothia?
Stanislav DOLEŽAL (České Budějovice)
In the middle of the fourth century, there existed a Gothic kingdom north of Danube,
in present-day Romania and Moldavia. Roman writers supply us with rather inconsis-
tent reports about the social structure of these so-called Tervingi, and especially the
terms pertaining to the Gothic political elite are highly controversial. The meaning of
some of them (such as regalis or iudex) is hard to establish, while others (reiks and thiu-
dans) may have never been actually used by the Goths themselves.
Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch (471-488)
Rafał KOSIŃSKI (Białystok)
In the 460s, Peter the Fuller was the head of one of the Constantinopolitan monaster-
ies, perhaps the monastery at the Church of St Bassa at Chalcedon. Expelled from that
monastery, he went to Antioch, where he acceded three times to the office of bishop,
however performing the episcopal duties for a period of no more than five years alto-
gether. His first episcopate began probably at the end of 470 or the beginning of 471,
and lasted until the spring of 471; the second one from the summer of 475 until the
summer/autumn of 476; and the third one from the beginning of 485 until his death.
In his public activity, he was known as an ardent adversary of Nestorianism and a litur-
gical reformer. His lasting legacy became his innovative addition to the Trishagion
doxology, which had soon turned into a watchword for the opponents of the Council 5
of Chalcedon. Peter the Fuller himself, however, does not seem to be an explicit adver-
sary of Chalcedon, being more of a moderate opponent ready to accept the compro-
mise as provided by the Henoticon. The second and third episcopates of Peter were
impacted by political issues, even though his generally assumed close relations with
Zeno of Isauria appear to have been deliberately overstated by Theodore Lector, who
was distinctly ill-disposed towards Zeno.
The Byzantine-Antic treaty (545/46 A. D.) and the defense of Scythia Minor
The article looks at the role of the Antes as defenders of the Scythian limes based on the
treaty they concluded with Justinian I in 545/46 and the development of the alliance
between the two sides until the beginning of the seventh century. Considering the
maintenance of the title Anticus by the Byzantine emperors up to 612, the suggestion is
made that the dissolution of the antic hegemony coincides with the collapse of the
Scythian limes in c. 614/15.
Testament of the Emperor Maurice

Ján BAKYTA (Praha)
The article reviews not assured authenticity and historical background of the last will
of the emperor Maurice mentioned by Theophylact Simocatta and tries to explore how
the inhabitans of the Empire and of Constantinople in particular would have received
the division of the empire. Maurice probably wanted his sons to divide the Empire
among themselves as equal rulers, inspired perhaps by the practice of the Merovin-
gians.
The (Purported) Teacher of John of Damascus and Kosmas Melodos

Nikos KALOGERAS (Cyprus)
John of Damascus has been a symbol for Christians due to his Works and Days. Kosmas
Melodos, his adoptive brother, served as a famous hymnographer. Their biographies
report that the two siblings received an excellent education by a well versed teacher.
The controversial information on this issue found in their Lives provides a strong rea-
son to make one consider several elements preserved in their vitae as legendary. Using
various versions of the Lives of both John and Kosmas, this study casts light on their
education by this enigmatic teacher and interprets the creation and the development
of a narrative on legendary education.
Pottery production and use in Byzantine Constantinople

This paper provides a brief review of evidence for pottery use and pottery production
in the Byzantine capital city of Constantinople. Published sources, mostly archaeologi-
cal rather than textual, enable one to outline changing patterns of pottery ‘consump-
tion’ in the city and to show that pottery manufacture took place there. Previously
unpublished evidence is presented for Middle and Late Byzantine pottery production.
An unknown source of Constantine Porphyrogenitus

Tibor ŽIVKOVIĆ (Belgrade)
Chapter 29 of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’s “De administrando imperio” is based on
several sources. The sources were of different and chronologically distant origin. The
source Constantine based his knowledge of Salona, Emperor Diocletian and his palace
appears to be from the last couple of decades of the 4th century. A thorough examina-
tion of particular sections of this chapter may allow us to uncover the nature of the
6 source, the identity of its author, and how the source should be interpreted.
An analysis of Symeon the New Theologian’s Hymn LVI
This article examines Symeon the New Theologian’s Hymn LVI from a literary and
poetic point of view. A careful and detailed analysis of the text reveals how the author
uses words and images in order to achieve poetic effects and express his ideas, how he
gives unity to the poem by means of internal references and recurring topics through-
out the text, as well as providing copious information about the author, his life and his
doctrine.
Odalric of Reims and his narration about the translation

of Pope Clement’s I relics
In the middle of the 11th century Yaroslav I the Wise related Bishop Roger II of Reims
– a minister to Yaroslav I – about one of the apocryphal translations of Pope Clement’s
I relics. There, Pope Julius I was said to have transferred his predecessor’s relics from
Cherson to Rome and, furthermore, when he set the relics down in the Eternal City an
island surfaced where the relics had originally rested in a submarine sarcophagus. It
will be argued that possibly this narrative originated as early as the 5th century in
Cherson as a part of a trilogy involving a martyrdom, a miracle, and a translation.
Organization and Modus Operandi of the Manufacturing Industry

in Byzantium, Tenth-Twelfth Centuries
The manufacturing industry in Byzantium comprised guild-organized and unorga-
nized enterprises. This article analyzes their organizational structures, modus operandi,
strengths and weaknesses, conditions for their growth, the nature of market competi-
tion, norms of business behavior, the implications of the guilds’ occupational exclusiv-
ity, the role of price mechanism in price and wage determination, and the role of the
state.
The ancients inscriptions of Kiev Sophia Cathedral and it’s dating

Nadezda N. NIKITENKO – Vjaceslav V. KORNIENKO (Kiev)
The article is dedicated to publication of results of the latest studies of graffiti of St.
Sophia of Kiev, during which 7 inscriptions dated back to the 20s-30s of the 11th cen-
tury were discovered. This data enabled authors to draw a conclusion about function-
ing of the church in that period and to prove the concept of its erection in 1011-1018.
Goliards in Byzantium, Prodromoi in the West. Parallel Reading

of Byzantine and Latin Begging Poetry
Markéta KULHÁNKOVÁ (Brno)
This study is a comparative analysis of Greek and Latin poems that were written at the
same time, around the middle of the 12th century. They belong to the same genre, beg-
ging poetry. In the Byzantium, I deal with the poems of Theodoros Prodromos, of the
so-called Manganeios Prodromos and of the Ptochoprodromika collection; in the West,
the poems of Hugh Primas of Orleans and of the Archpoet. The first part of the study
analyzes the contents of the texts and compares their themes and the topoi of the beg-
ging poems: hunger, cold, age, weakness and death, the motif of the cloak, work with
the literary persona. The second part demonstrates the similar usage of the tropes and
figures based on irony, hyperbole and antithesis. The aim of the study is not only to
point out the similar features of Latin and Greek begging poetry and partly the analo-
gous non-literary context, but also to foster a better understanding and interpretation
of Byzantine begging poetry based on a comparative analysis. 7
A re-examination of evresis thesavrou
Polymnia KATSONI (Thessaloniki)
The term “Evresis Thesavrou” appears in imperial documents of the 13th and 14th cen-
turies, concerning privileges (chrysobulls), and in deeds (praktika) of tax revenues. It was
a limiting provision, which denoted the State’s entitlement to ownership of any trea-
sure found in public lands, even after the land, or the revenues from these lands had
been granted by the emperor to individuals or institutions.
Western influences on 17th-century post-Byzantine wall paintings in the

Peloponnese: Roots in the 16th century
Xanthi PROESTAKI (Athens)
17th-century wall painting in the Peloponnese shows the trends visible in painting in the
two great currents of the 16th century, that of the Cretan school and the school of NW
Greece. The influx of Western iconographic elements – whether in the overall pattern,
as in the scenes of the Massacre of the Innocents, the Crucifixion and the Noli me tan-
gere, or in details – it is done very discreetly and assimilated into the aesthetic of the
Byzantine tradition. Western motifs exert no more than an indirect influence on the
style of their work. Despite the teachings of the great creators of wall paintings in the
16th century, Frangos Katelanos and Theophanes, and their sensitisation to humanism
and Renaissance art, the Peloponnesian artists of the 17th century, the Kakavas and
Moschos families and Manuel Andronos, proved to be more conservative and re-
mained loyal to the aesthetic of the Byzantine tradition. Western elements infiltrated
their work through the innovations of 16th-century painting. In isolated cases only, such
as the Philosophou Monastery, new themes and motifs were introduced that showed
the influence of painters of portable icons, whose clients included both the Catholic
and Greek Orthodox bourgeoisie, whose good taste and way of life were influenced to
a large degree by the ideas of the Renaissance. The innovations introduced in 17th-cen-
tury wall paintings in the Peloponnese through the great works of the 16th century con-
stitute examples of an art that is trying to renew itself while remaining faithful to its
roots and to its doctrinal content. In this way, the co-existence of various elements of
folk origin from daily life can be explained, as artists showed particular interest in the
world around them and drew many details from it, objects of daily use, clothing, etc.
Despite its conservative nature, 17th-century painting in the Peloponnese succeeded in
responding to its era. It is an art which, in terms of its iconographic content, belongs
to its times, taking on elements even indirectly from Western art, creating eclecticist
agglomerations of features of daily life, and in this way reflecting the thought process-
es of a subjugated people who were trying to survive by preserving their traditions.
étude critique
Byzantine Philosophy and its Historiography
Filip IVANOVIĆ (Aarhus – Podgorica – Trondheim)
The article deals with the question of existence of a separate academic field of
Byzantine philosophy and of its place in the modern philosophical research. In the first
part, author gives an outline of the main trends in the scholarship on Byzantine philo-
sophical tradition, highlighting some of the main works in the field. In the second part,
the author gives his opinion on the questions raised and offers some suggestions and
remarks on the development of the study of Byzantine philosophy.
8
Vladimír Vavřínek Achtziger
Zum achtzigsten Geburtstag (5. 8. 1930) des langjährigen
Chefredakteurs der Zeitschrift Byzantinoslavica
Es scheint, als ob seit dem Tag, als die internationale Zeitschrift Byzan-
tinoslavica mit drei Nummern des 56. Jahrgangs unter dem Titel ÓÔÅÖÁÍÏÓ den
65. Jahrestag des Geburtstags Ihres Redaktionsleiters feierte, nur wenig Zeit ver-
gangen ist.
Es w‰re daher ¸berfl¸ssig, hier den ganzen wissenschaftlichen Lebenslauf
eines unserer bedeutendsten Historiker-Byzantinisten zu wiederholen, der sich in
so bedeutender Weise darum verdiente, dass die Aktivit‰t unseres Faches in der
Tschechoslovakei und sp‰ter in der Tschechischen Republik den Kollegen im
Ausland bekannt wurde. Wir wollen hier nur an die Organisationsf‰higkeit und
wissenschaftliche T‰tigkeit unseres Kollegen in den letzten f¸nfzehn Jahren
zwischen 1996 und 2010 erinnern.
In dieser Zeit wurde VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek Direktor des Slavischen Instituts der
Tschechischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, das auch weiterhin als Her-
ausgeber der Byzantinoslavica fungierte. Seine vielen Pflichten waren der Grund
daf¸r, dass er den Posten des Chefredakteurs der Zeitschrift aufgab, an deren
Redaktion er 30 Jahre mitgewirkt hatte. Nach einer kurzen Einstellung der
Zeitschrift (2000-2002) ¸bertrug er deren Leitung neuen Redakteuren und
unterst¸tzte als Institutsdirektor deren erneute Herausgabe nach vollen Kr‰ften.
Bis zu seiner Ernennung zum Direktor wurde VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek seit 1993 j‰hrlich
als Visiting Professor zu Vorlesungen an die Central European University in Buda-
pest eingeladen. Aber auch w‰hrend seiner Leitungsfunktion setzte er seine p‰da-
gogische T‰tigkeit fort und hielt Vorlesungen an der Karlsuniversit‰t in Prag und
an der Masarykuniversit‰t in Br¸nn, wo es gelang, die Byzantinistik in das
Studium der Neogr‰zistik einzugliedern.
Auch trotz der vielen Aufgaben am eigenen Institut vernachl‰ssigte
V. Vav¯Ìnek nicht die wissenschaftliche Zusammenarbeit mit den ausl‰ndischen
Byzantinisten. Er nahm an mehreren Konferenzen und Symposien im Ausland
und an den internationalen Byzantinistenkongressen in Kopenhagen (1996),
Paris (2001) und London (2006). Er selbst organisierte eine Reihe von ver-
schiedenen wissenschaftlichen Veranstaltungen: 1995 ñ das Symposium Konda-
kovianum zum Andenken an den grossen russischen Gelehrten, der seine letzten
Jahre in Prag verbrachte; 1998 ñ eine Konferenz zum 80. Jahrestag der Gr¸ndung
des Slavischen Instituts; 2003 ñ eine grosse internationale Konferenz zum 250.
Jahrestag des Geburtstags des Gr¸nders der wissenschaftlichen Slavistik Josef
Dobrovsk˝, an der mehrere bekannte Persˆnlichkeiten der internationalen
Slavistik teigenommen haben; 2006 ñ eine Konferenz und Ausstellung in Moskau
unter der Schirmherrschaft akademischer Einrichtungen und diplomatischer
Behˆrden, die die achtzigj‰hrige wissenschaftliche T‰tigkeit des Slavischen
9
Instituts zum Thema hatten; 2010 ñ in Zusammenarbeit mit Prof. Paolo Odorico
aus der …cole des Hautes …tudes en Sciences Sociales das internationale Kol-
loquium Ekphrasis. La représentation des monuments dans les littératures byzantine et
byzantino-slave: Réalités et imaginaires, dessen Beitr‰ge im n‰chsten Band der
Byzantinoslavica erscheinen werden.
Das Hauptthema seiner wissenschaftlichen Forschung ist die Problematik der
T‰tigkeit der kyrillo-methodianischen Mission in Grossm‰hren. So hat er sich auf
einem Symposium auf der Reichenau und in Konstanz (2000) u. a. mit der Frage
besch‰ftigt, aus welchen Gr¸nden diese Mission vom F¸rsten Rastislav nach
M‰hren eingeladen wurde. Im Jahr 2005 hat er zusammen mit den Kollegen in
äumen (Bulgarien) ein Kolloquium zum Andenken an das Todesjahr von
Method veranstaltet, dem eine kleine Ausstellung der Schmuckobjekte von den
grossm‰hrischen Fundorten im Arch‰ologischen Museum in Preslav Veliki folgte.
In der Festschrift f¸r Johannes Koder Byzantina Mediterranea (2008) behandelte er
die enigmatische Angabe in der altkirchenslavischen Vita Constantini 8 ¸ber die
Ñrussischen Buchstabenì im byzantinischen Chersones. Besonders aber befasste
er sich mit den kulturellen Verh‰ltnissen im grossm‰hrischen F¸rstentum, wor-
¸ber er umfangreiche Studie The Encounter of the West and the East in the Formation
of Early Slavonic Literary Culture, in: Die Ost-West-Problematik in den europ‰ischen
Kulturen und Literaturen, hrsg. von S. Ulbrecht und H. Ulbrechtov·, Prag ñ
Dresden 2009, 135-164, verˆffentlichte. Die tschechische interessierte ÷ffentlich-
keit wird sicher auch die Enzyklop‰die der byzantinischen Zivilisation, an deren
Zusammenstellung VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek in den letzten Jahren arbeitete und die im
n‰chsten Jahr im Verlag LIBRI (tschechisch) erscheinen soll, dankbar aufneh-
men.
F¸r seine wissenschaftliche Lebensleistung und f¸r seine Verdienste um
tschechische Byzantinistik wurde VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek im Jahr 2006 vom Pr‰siden-
ten der Tschechischen Akademie der Wissenschaften mit der Josef-Dobrovsk˝-
-Ehrenmedaille und im Jahr 2007 mit der Gedenkmedaille der Hl·vka-Stiftung
ausgezeichnet.
Seit 2007 ist VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek im Ruhestand; als emeritus arbeitet er jedoch
weiterhin f¸r das Slavische Institut, ist im dortigen Institutsrat und auch im
Fachrat der Grantagentur der Akademie der Wissenschaften. Es ist zu w¸nschen,
dass er auch seine p‰dagogische Arbeit im Fach Byzantinistik an den Univer-
sit‰ten in Prag und Br¸nn fortsetzt, um f¸r dieses Fach, das hierzulande einst von
solchen Byzantinisten wie J. Bidlo, M. Paulov· und B. Z·stÏrov· und Slavisten wie
A. Dost·l und B. Havr·nek gepr‰gt wurde, junge Wissenschaftler zu gewinnen, so
dass die tschechische Byzantinistik auf der internationalen wissenschaftlichen
B¸hne auch k¸nftig eine wichtige Rolle spielt.
Quid multis opus est verbis, ubi facta loquntur!

Quod bonum, faustum, felix, fortunatumque sit.
R˘ûena Dost·lov· (Praha)

10
Vladimír Vavřínek Achtziger
Zum achtzigsten Geburtstag (5. 8. 1930) des langjährigen
Chefredakteurs der Zeitschrift Byzantinoslavica
Es scheint, als ob seit dem Tag, als die internationale Zeitschrift Byzan-
tinoslavica mit drei Nummern des 56. Jahrgangs unter dem Titel ÓÔÅÖÁÍÏÓ den
65. Jahrestag des Geburtstags Ihres Redaktionsleiters feierte, nur wenig Zeit ver-
gangen ist.
Es w‰re daher ¸berfl¸ssig, hier den ganzen wissenschaftlichen Lebenslauf
eines unserer bedeutendsten Historiker-Byzantinisten zu wiederholen, der sich in
so bedeutender Weise darum verdiente, dass die Aktivit‰t unseres Faches in der
Tschechoslovakei und sp‰ter in der Tschechischen Republik den Kollegen im
Ausland bekannt wurde. Wir wollen hier nur an die Organisationsf‰higkeit und
wissenschaftliche T‰tigkeit unseres Kollegen in den letzten f¸nfzehn Jahren
zwischen 1996 und 2010 erinnern.
In dieser Zeit wurde VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek Direktor des Slavischen Instituts der
Tschechischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, das auch weiterhin als Her-
ausgeber der Byzantinoslavica fungierte. Seine vielen Pflichten waren der Grund
daf¸r, dass er den Posten des Chefredakteurs der Zeitschrift aufgab, an deren
Redaktion er 30 Jahre mitgewirkt hatte. Nach einer kurzen Einstellung der
Zeitschrift (2000-2002) ¸bertrug er deren Leitung neuen Redakteuren und
unterst¸tzte als Institutsdirektor deren erneute Herausgabe nach vollen Kr‰ften.
Bis zu seiner Ernennung zum Direktor wurde VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek seit 1993 j‰hrlich
als Visiting Professor zu Vorlesungen an die Central European University in Buda-
pest eingeladen. Aber auch w‰hrend seiner Leitungsfunktion setzte er seine p‰da-
gogische T‰tigkeit fort und hielt Vorlesungen an der Karlsuniversit‰t in Prag und
an der Masarykuniversit‰t in Br¸nn, wo es gelang, die Byzantinistik in das
Studium der Neogr‰zistik einzugliedern.
Auch trotz der vielen Aufgaben am eigenen Institut vernachl‰ssigte
V. Vav¯Ìnek nicht die wissenschaftliche Zusammenarbeit mit den ausl‰ndischen
Byzantinisten. Er nahm an mehreren Konferenzen und Symposien im Ausland
und an den internationalen Byzantinistenkongressen in Kopenhagen (1996),
Paris (2001) und London (2006). Er selbst organisierte eine Reihe von ver-
schiedenen wissenschaftlichen Veranstaltungen: 1995 ñ das Symposium Konda-
kovianum zum Andenken an den grossen russischen Gelehrten, der seine letzten
Jahre in Prag verbrachte; 1998 ñ eine Konferenz zum 80. Jahrestag der Gr¸ndung
des Slavischen Instituts; 2003 ñ eine grosse internationale Konferenz zum 250.
Jahrestag des Geburtstags des Gr¸nders der wissenschaftlichen Slavistik Josef
Dobrovsk˝, an der mehrere bekannte Persˆnlichkeiten der internationalen
Slavistik teigenommen haben; 2006 ñ eine Konferenz und Ausstellung in Moskau
unter der Schirmherrschaft akademischer Einrichtungen und diplomatischer
Behˆrden, die die achtzigj‰hrige wissenschaftliche T‰tigkeit des Slavischen
9
Instituts zum Thema hatten; 2010 ñ in Zusammenarbeit mit Prof. Paolo Odorico
aus der …cole des Hautes …tudes en Sciences Sociales das internationale Kol-
loquium Ekphrasis. La représentation des monuments dans les littératures byzantine et
byzantino-slave: Réalités et imaginaires, dessen Beitr‰ge im n‰chsten Band der
Byzantinoslavica erscheinen werden.
Das Hauptthema seiner wissenschaftlichen Forschung ist die Problematik der
T‰tigkeit der kyrillo-methodianischen Mission in Grossm‰hren. So hat er sich auf
einem Symposium auf der Reichenau und in Konstanz (2000) u. a. mit der Frage
besch‰ftigt, aus welchen Gr¸nden diese Mission vom F¸rsten Rastislav nach
M‰hren eingeladen wurde. Im Jahr 2005 hat er zusammen mit den Kollegen in
äumen (Bulgarien) ein Kolloquium zum Andenken an das Todesjahr von
Method veranstaltet, dem eine kleine Ausstellung der Schmuckobjekte von den
grossm‰hrischen Fundorten im Arch‰ologischen Museum in Preslav Veliki folgte.
In der Festschrift f¸r Johannes Koder Byzantina Mediterranea (2008) behandelte er
die enigmatische Angabe in der altkirchenslavischen Vita Constantini 8 ¸ber die
Ñrussischen Buchstabenì im byzantinischen Chersones. Besonders aber befasste
er sich mit den kulturellen Verh‰ltnissen im grossm‰hrischen F¸rstentum, wor-
¸ber er umfangreiche Studie The Encounter of the West and the East in the Formation
of Early Slavonic Literary Culture, in: Die Ost-West-Problematik in den europ‰ischen
Kulturen und Literaturen, hrsg. von S. Ulbrecht und H. Ulbrechtov·, Prag ñ
Dresden 2009, 135-164, verˆffentlichte. Die tschechische interessierte ÷ffentlich-
keit wird sicher auch die Enzyklop‰die der byzantinischen Zivilisation, an deren
Zusammenstellung VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek in den letzten Jahren arbeitete und die im
n‰chsten Jahr im Verlag LIBRI (tschechisch) erscheinen soll, dankbar aufneh-
men.
F¸r seine wissenschaftliche Lebensleistung und f¸r seine Verdienste um
tschechische Byzantinistik wurde VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek im Jahr 2006 vom Pr‰siden-
ten der Tschechischen Akademie der Wissenschaften mit der Josef-Dobrovsk˝-
-Ehrenmedaille und im Jahr 2007 mit der Gedenkmedaille der Hl·vka-Stiftung
ausgezeichnet.
Seit 2007 ist VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek im Ruhestand; als emeritus arbeitet er jedoch
weiterhin f¸r das Slavische Institut, ist im dortigen Institutsrat und auch im
Fachrat der Grantagentur der Akademie der Wissenschaften. Es ist zu w¸nschen,
dass er auch seine p‰dagogische Arbeit im Fach Byzantinistik an den Univer-
sit‰ten in Prag und Br¸nn fortsetzt, um f¸r dieses Fach, das hierzulande einst von
solchen Byzantinisten wie J. Bidlo, M. Paulov· und B. Z·stÏrov· und Slavisten wie
A. Dost·l und B. Havr·nek gepr‰gt wurde, junge Wissenschaftler zu gewinnen, so
dass die tschechische Byzantinistik auf der internationalen wissenschaftlichen
B¸hne auch k¸nftig eine wichtige Rolle spielt.
Quid multis opus est verbis, ubi facta loquntur!

Quod bonum, faustum, felix, fortunatumque sit.
R˘ûena Dost·lov· (Praha)

10
Îň ěŕńęč ę ëč÷íîńňč
Čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ îńóůĺńňâëĺííîăî
÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâŕ â čęîíĺ
Ěŕðčíŕ ËÓĎŇŔĘÎÂŔ (Ďðŕăŕ)
Čęîíŕ íĺ čçîáðŕćŕĺň Áîćĺńňâî.

Îíŕ óęŕçűâŕĺň íŕ ďðč÷ŕńňčĺ ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ
ę áîćĺńňâĺííîé ćčçíč.
Ëĺîíčä Óńďĺíńęčé
Îńĺíü îęðŕřĺíŕ â öâĺňŕ čęîí...
Ďðîęîď Ăîôôěŕí
Ăðĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ńëîâî «čęîíŕ» (eijkwvn), ęŕę č ĺăî ńëŕâ˙íńęčé âčçŕâč

«îáðŕç» (w[braz7, O[braz7), ďĺðĺëčâŕĺňń˙ č ðŕńöâĺ÷čâŕĺňń˙ âńĺěč
îňňĺíęŕěč çíŕ÷ĺíčé č ńěűńëîâ; ýňî č «čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ», č «ďîäîáčĺ», č
«âčäĺíčĺ», č «ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčĺ»; äŕëĺĺ – «ěűńëĺííűé îáðŕç», «óďîäîáëĺ-
íčĺ», «ďðčň÷ŕ», «ńðŕâíĺíčĺ», «ńňŕňó˙» č äŕćĺ «čäîë», «čńňóęŕí» (ďðŕâäŕ, â
ýňîě ďîńëĺäíĺě ńëó÷ŕĺ, ńëîâî «čęîíŕ» ńňîčň âî ěíîćĺńňâĺííîě ÷čńëĺ,
îáîçíŕ÷ŕĺň ńîáńňâĺííî čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ č âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ â ńňčőŕő, îńóćäŕţůčő
čäîëîďîęëîíńňâî).1 Ňŕęŕ˙ ěíîăîçíŕ÷íîńňü ńëîâŕ čęîíŕ íĺ ěîăëŕ íĺ
ďîâëč˙ňü íŕ ðŕçðŕáîňęó áîăîńëîâč˙ čęîíű, íŕ ďîíčěŕíčĺ ńŕěîé čęîíű č
čęîíîďî÷čňŕíč˙ ęŕę îńîáîăî âčäŕ čńęóńńňâŕ, íŕ őŕðŕęňĺð čęîíîďî÷č-
ňŕíč˙ č íŕ îńîáĺííîńňč čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ěűřëĺíč˙.2
Íĺčń÷ĺðďŕĺěî ðŕçíîîáðŕçčĺ ňĺě č ńţćĺňîâ, ńðĺäîňî÷čĺě ęîňîðűő
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ čęîíŕ; îň âńĺîáúĺěëţůĺăî ňĺçčńŕ-ëîçóíăŕ «âńĺ – čęîíŕ, âńĺ –
čęîíč÷íî», âűäâčíóňîăî čçâĺńňíűě ó÷ĺíűě Âŕëĺðčĺě ËĹĎŔŐČÍŰĚ, äî
óňîí÷ĺííîé ęîíöĺďöčč čęîíű, ďðĺäëîćĺííîé âűäŕţůčěń˙ ăðĺ÷ĺńęčě
ěűńëčňĺëĺě Őðčńňîńîě ßÍÍŔÐŔŃÎĚ, ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕţůĺăî îáðŕç-čęîíó â
ďĺðńďĺęňčâĺ ńĺěŕíňčęč ëč÷íîńňíîăî ďðî˙âëĺíč˙ (îäíŕ čç ăëŕâ ĺăî
çŕěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíîé ęíčăč Ëč÷íîńňü č Ýðîń ňŕę č íŕçűâŕĺňń˙: «Îáðŕç (čęîíŕ)
ęŕę «ńĺěŕíňčęŕ» íĺ-óńëîâíîăî ëîăîńŕ).3 Ńîďîńňŕâëĺíčĺ čęîíîďčńč ń
˙çűęîě, ŕ čęîíîďčńíîăî čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ – ń ďčńüěĺííűě čëč óńňíűě
ňĺęńňîě ďîäðîáíî ðŕçðŕáŕňűâŕĺňń˙ â ńĺěčîňčęĺ; îáúĺęňîě ďðčńňŕëüíîăî
čçó÷ĺíč˙ ňîé ćĺ íŕóęč ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ č îńîáŕ˙ ńčńňĺěŕ ďĺðĺäŕ÷č ďðî-
ńňðŕíńňâĺííűő őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę íŕ äâóěĺðíóţ ďëîńęîńňü čçîáðŕćĺíč˙, č
ďðčíöčďű îáðŕňíîé ďĺðńďĺęňčâű, ńâîéńňâĺííűĺ čěĺííî čęîíĺ.
Ńŕěî ó÷ĺíčĺ îá čęîíĺ, î öĺðęîâíîě îáðŕçĺ – čęîíîëîăč˙ – ˙âë˙ĺňń˙
áîăîńëîâńęîé íŕóęîé, ďðĺäěĺň ęîňîðîé – íĺ ďŕě˙ňíčęč öĺðęîâíîé
1 Â. ËĹĎŔŐČÍ, Čęîíŕ č čęîíč÷íîńňü, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2002, 14.

2 Ňŕě ćĺ, 5.
3 C. GIANNARAS, To Provswpo kai o vErw~, Aqhvna 1987, 223-251; ðóńńęčé ďĺðĺâîä: Őð.
ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ, Ëč÷íîńňü č Ýðîń, Ěîńęâŕ 2005, 272. 9
Ěŕðčíŕ Ëóďňŕęîâŕ
äðĺâíîńňč, íĺ čńňîðč˙ čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîăî čçâîäŕ,4 ŕ ńŕě îáðŕç, ń ĺăî

îíňîëîăčĺé č ăíîńĺîëîăčĺé, ńîńňŕâë˙ţůčő äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęóţ îńü
áîăîńëîâńęčő îńíîâ čęîíű. Čęîíîăðŕôčţ ćĺ – ň.ĺ. óńňîé÷čâóţ ňðŕäčöčţ
čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ðŕçëč÷íűő ëčö č ńîáűňčé, ńęëŕäűâŕţůóţń˙ íŕ îńíîâĺ
ðŕçíîîáðŕçíűő čńňî÷íčęîâ (Ńâ. Ďčńŕíčĺ, ŕďîęðčôű, ŕăčîăðŕôč˙,
ďðĺäŕíčĺ č ëĺăĺíäű, ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčĺ ďĺńíîďĺíč˙) č îðăŕíčçóţůóţ čő â
ńîîňâĺňńňâčč ń ďðčí˙ňűěč äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęčěč, ńčěâîëč÷ĺńęčěč č
ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčěč ňîëęîâŕíč˙ěč – äîëćíî ňŕęćĺ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňü íĺ ňîëüęî
ń čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé č ýńňĺňč÷ĺńęîé ňî÷ĺę çðĺíč˙, íî ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî ń
áîăîńëîâńęîé.
×ĺðĺç čęîíîăðŕôčţ čęîíîďčńöű âűðŕćŕëč ńëîćíĺéřčĺ áîăî-
ńëîâńęčĺ čäĺč ( îňíîřĺíčĺ Ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ č îáðŕçŕ, âîďëîůĺíčĺ Ńűíŕ
Áîćč˙, ďðĺîáðŕćĺíčĺ ęîńěîńŕ č îáîćĺíčĺ ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ ), ďîýňîěó íĺ
ńëó÷ŕéíî čęîíó íŕçűâŕţň č «óěîçðĺíčĺě â ęðŕńęŕő»,5 č «áîăîńëîâčĺě â
ęðŕńęŕő», č «ěîëčňâîé â ęðŕńęŕő» č «áîăîńëîâčĺě ęðŕńîňű».
Čęîíîďčńŕíčĺ ďðĺčěóůĺńňâĺííî ďîęîčňń˙ íŕ őðčńňčŕíńęîě ó÷ĺíčč î
âî÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺíčč Áîćčĺě, ýňîě öĺíňðŕëüíîě ńîáűňčč őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ. «Áîă
ďðčí˙ë ÷ĺëîâĺńęčé Ëčę, ŕ Ëčę ńĺé č ĺńňü ďðĺäďî÷ňčňĺëüíîĺ ěĺńňî Ĺăî
Îňęðîâĺíč˙. Čěĺííî íŕ ďîäîáíîě óáĺćäĺíčč ďîęîčňń˙ čńęóńńňâî
čęîíîďčńč, ďðč÷ĺě íĺ ňîëüęî â ĺăî ňĺěŕňčęĺ, íî ňŕęćĺ č â ňĺőíčęĺ,
ęîňîðóţ íĺ ńďóňŕĺřü íč ń ęŕęîé äðóăîé. Âîň čęîíîďčńü č ńňðĺěčňń˙
âűðŕçčňü ýňó ňŕéíó, ń ęîňîðîé, ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî ńîďð˙ćĺíî î÷ŕðîâŕíčĺ, č
ďîíűíĺ čńőîä˙ůĺĺ îň čńęóńńňâŕ čęîíîďčńč».6 Ŕâňîð ďðčâĺäĺííîé
öčňŕňű, ðîäčâřčéń˙ â 1945 ă. â ×ĺőčč, â ěĺńňĺ÷ęĺ Skalken ęŕðäčíŕë
Christoph SCH÷NBORN (Ęð. ŘĹÍÁÎÐÍ), íŕďčńŕâřčé áëĺńň˙ůĺĺ čńńëĺ-
äîâŕíčĺ «Čęîíŕ Őðčńňŕ», ęŕę ðŕç č ďðčçíŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî ĺăî ęíčăŕ č ńŕěŕ
ðîäčëŕńü âńëĺäńňâčĺ čěĺííî ýňîăî î÷ŕðîâŕíč˙, čńőîä˙ůĺăî îň ńëó÷ŕéíî
ďîëó÷ĺííîé čě â ďîäŕðîę čęîíű Őðčńňŕ, îň îńîáîé ňŕčíńňâĺííîńňč,
čçëó÷ŕĺěîé «ńňðîăčě č ě˙ăęčě, ďî÷ňč ďĺ÷ŕëüíűě, íĺďðčńňóďíűě č âńĺ ćĺ
ňŕęčě ðîäíűě»7 Ëčęîě…
Ăëóáî÷ŕéřĺĺ č ęîíĺ÷íîĺ îńíîâŕíčĺ ëţáîé čçîáðŕçčňĺëüíîńňč
őðčńňčŕíńęîĺ áîăîńëîâčĺ íŕőîäčň â Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé Ňðîčöĺ: Áîă, ďĺðâî-
čńňî÷íčę č ďĺðâîďðč÷číŕ âńĺăî čěĺĺň âî âńĺě ńîâĺðřĺííűé îáðŕç
Ńŕěîăî Ńĺá˙, ŕ čěĺííî: â Ńűíĺ, â ďðĺäâĺ÷íîě Ńëîâĺ, Ëîăîńĺ, ĺäčíî-
ńóůíîě îáðŕçĺ Îň÷ĺě. Č â ńëîâŕő ŕďîńňîëŕ Ďŕâëŕ, ęîňîðűé íŕçűâŕĺň
Ńűíŕ «îáðŕç Áîăŕ íĺâčäčěîăî», «eijkw;n tou' Qeou' tou' ajoravtou» (Ęîë. 1,15
2 Ęîð. 4,4) ďî ńóňč óćĺ ˙âëĺíŕ ěűńëü, â ďîëíîé ěĺðĺ ðŕńęðűâřŕ˙ń˙
4 «Čçâîä» ñ â ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîé čęîíîăðŕôčč îäíŕ čç ðŕçíîâčäíîńňĺé óńňŕíîâëĺí-
íîăî ęŕíîíŕ.
5 Oäíî čç âîçěîćíűő ňîëęîâŕíčé öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙íńęîăî ńëîâŕ ou Imn6yi± (nohtov~) ñ
äóőîâíűé, óěîďîńňčăŕĺěűé, ďîíčěŕĺěűé â äóőîâíîě ńěűńëĺ; ouImnoe zr5ny@e ñ
äóőîâíîĺ çðĺíčĺ; ńčí. o=i serdca. Ńě.: Î. A. ŃĹÄŔĘÎÂŔ, Öĺðęîâíîńëŕâ˙íî-
ðóńńęčĺ ďŕðîíčěű. Ěŕňĺðčŕëű ę ńëîâŕðţ, Ěîńęâŕ 2005, 374.
6 Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Die Christus-Ikone. Eine theologische Hinf¸hrung, Schaffhausen
1984, 11; ðóńńęčé ďĺðĺâîä: Ęð. ŘĹÍÁÎÐÍ, Čęîíŕ Őðčńňŕ. Áîăîńëîâńęčĺ îńíîâű,
Ěčëŕí – Ěîńęâŕ 1999, 3.
10 7 Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Die Christus-Ikone, 5.
çíŕ÷čňĺëüíî ďîçćĺ, â ďĺðčîä čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ VIII-IX ââ. (726-843

ăă.), ŕ čěĺííî: ýňîň âíóňðčáîćĺńňâĺííűé îáðŕç ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďĺðâîîáðŕçîě
ëţáîé îáðŕçíîńňč.
Îäíŕęî, â őðčńňčŕíńęîě áîăîńëîâčč ďîí˙ňčĺ «îáðŕç» íĺčçáĺćíî
ďîäíčěŕĺň öĺëűé ð˙ä ďðîáëĺě; âîńďðčí˙ňîĺ č ňîëęóĺěîĺ â ðŕěęŕő
ýëëčíńęîăî áîăîďîçíŕíč˙, îíî ńňŕíîâčëîńü ňĺě ďîäâîäíűě ęŕěíĺě, î
ęîňîðűé â ęîíöĺ ęîíöîâ ðŕçáčâŕëčńü âńĺ ďîďűňęč ÷čńňî ðŕöčîíŕëüíîăî –
îň ŕðčŕíńňâŕ äî čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ – îáú˙ńíĺíč˙ íĺčçú˙ńíčěîé ňŕéíű.
Ăðĺ÷ĺńęŕ˙ ôčëîńîôč˙ ěűńëčň îá îáðŕçĺ ęŕę îá îňðŕćĺíčč, î ńëŕáîě
ďîäðŕćŕíčč íĺäîńňčćčěîěó ďĺðâîîáðŕçó. Čĺðŕðőč˙ ěčðîńîçäŕíč˙
îňðŕćŕĺňń˙ â íĺęîé ďčðŕěčäĺ íčńďŕäŕţůčő îáðŕçîâ; ďî ěĺðĺ ýňîăî
íčńőîćäĺíč˙ ďî áűňčţ, íčçřčĺ č ěĺíüřčĺ ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń ěîäĺëüţ
îáðŕçű âńĺ áîëĺĺ ňĺð˙ţň ďîëíîňó ńâîĺăî ďðîńňîăî, íĺčçěĺí˙ĺěîăî
Ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ, íĺóęëîííî čńňŕčâŕ˙, čńňîí÷ŕ˙ńü č óăŕńŕ˙, ďîęŕ íŕ
ďîńëĺäíĺě ďðĺäĺëĺ ńâîĺăî «ďŕäĺíč˙» – ęîňîðűé, ęîíĺ÷íî ćĺ, ńîâďŕäŕĺň ń
ďðĺçðĺííűě âĺůĺńňâîě-ěŕňĺðčĺé – ń íĺîňâðŕňčěîńňüţ íĺ ďðĺâðŕůŕţňń˙
â áëĺäíóţ ňĺíü, ňëĺţůčé ðŕçð˙ä, ěðĺţůčé, ěĺðöŕţůčé, ĺäâŕ óëîâčěűé
îňńâĺň č ńëŕáî ðŕçëč÷čěűé îňáëĺńę ďîäëčííîăî âĺëčęîëĺďč˙, ďðčńóůĺăî
ňîëüęî âĺðőîâíîěó ŕðőĺňčďó.
Íĺďðĺîäîëčěîĺ ðŕçăðŕíč÷ĺíčĺ ěĺćäó îáðŕçîě č ďĺðâîîáðŕçîě,
ďðčâĺðćĺííîńňü ę čĺðŕðőč÷íîńňč âî âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ő ěĺćäó íčěč
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ îňëč÷čňĺëüíîé ÷ĺðňîé č íĺîďëŕňîíč÷ĺńęîăî ňĺîëîăóěĺíîíŕ
âčäĺíč˙ ěčðŕ. Ýňîň ðĺöčäčâ ďîçäíĺŕíňč÷íîăî ŕáńîëţňíîăî ðŕçëč÷ĺíč˙
ěĺćäó Áîăîě č âńĺě, ÷ňî íĺ ĺńňü Áîă, ěĺćäó ňâŕðíűě č íĺňâŕðíűě č
ńňðĺěčëîńü ďðčâíĺńňč â őðčńňčŕíńęóţ äîăěŕňčęó ŕðčŕíńňâî – ďĺðâîĺ
âĺëčęîĺ čńďűňŕíčĺ äë˙ âńĺëĺíńęîé âĺðű. Çŕäŕ÷ĺé ŕðčŕí áűëî çŕůčňčňü
čńňčíó î ëč÷íîě Áîăĺ îň čçîůðĺííűő ďîďűňîę ýëëčíńęîé ěűńëč (â ëčöĺ
îáðŕçîâŕííîăî ðčěë˙íŕ Ńŕâĺëëč˙, âîńďčňŕííîăî â ňðŕäčöč˙ő ýëëčícęîé
ęóëüňóðű č ćčâřĺăî â íŕ÷ŕëĺ III âĺęŕ) ďðčěčðčňü őðčńňčŕíńęîăî Áîăŕ ń
ňðĺáîâŕíč˙ěč ðŕöčîíŕëüíîăî ěűřëĺíč˙: ëčřü îäčí-ĺäčíńňâĺííűé
ňðŕíńöĺíäĺíňíűé Ďðčíöčď äîëćĺí áűë ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ňü ńîáîé «Áîćĺńňâî â
ńîáńňâĺííîě ńěűńëĺ ńëîâŕ».8 Îäíŕ čç ęëţ÷ĺâűő čńňčí őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ –
âĺðŕ â Ňðîč÷íîăî Áîăŕ – ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëŕńü Ńŕâĺëëčţ íŕńňî˙ůčě áĺçóěčĺě.
Áîă, Ŕáńîëţňíîĺ č áĺńęîíĺ÷íîĺ Áűňčĺ č ěíîćĺńňâĺííîńňü (Ňðîčöŕ) –
ńóňü äâŕ ďðîňčâîðĺ÷ŕůčĺ äðóă äðóă, ŕ ďîňîěó íĺńîâěĺńňčěűĺ ďîí˙ňč˙.
Ňðč Áîćĺńňâĺííűő Ëčöŕ, î ęîňîðűő ńâčäĺëüńňâóĺň čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé îďűň
Öĺðęâč, ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň ńîáîé, â ďîíčěŕíčč Ńŕâĺëëč˙, íĺ ÷ňî číîĺ, ęŕę ňðč
ðŕçíűő ðîëč; ňðč ðŕçíűő ěîäóńŕ ďðî˙âëĺíč˙ č äĺéńňâč˙ ĺäčíîăî Áîăŕ.
Ňŕę, â ýďîőó Âĺňőîăî Çŕâĺňŕ Áîă îňęðűâŕĺň Ńĺá˙ č äĺéńňâóĺň ęŕę Îňĺö, â
Íîâîě Çŕâĺňĺ – ęŕę Ńűí, ŕ â ćčçíč Öĺðęâč – ęŕę Ńâ˙ňîé Äóő.9
Â ńâîĺě ńňðĺěëĺíčč îňńňî˙ňü âçăë˙ä íŕ Îňöŕ, Ńűíŕ č Ńâ˙ňîăî Äóőŕ
ęŕę íŕ ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíűĺ ëč÷íîńňč, íĺ ďîăðĺřčâ ďðč ýňîě ďðîňčâ
ďðčíöčďîâ ëîăč÷ĺńęîăî ěűřëĺíč˙, Ŕðčé – ˙ðűé ďðîňčâíčę ńŕâĺë-
8 C. GIANNARAS, Alfabhtavri th~ pivsti~, Aqhvna 1983, 44; ðóńńęčé ďĺðĺâîä: Őð.
ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ, Âĺðŕ Öĺðęâč, Ěîńęâŕ 1992, 57.
9 Őð. ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ, Âĺðŕ Öĺðęâč, 56. 11
ëčŕíńňâŕ – ďðčřĺë ę âűâîäó, ÷ňî â Áîćĺńňâĺííűő Ëčöŕő íĺîáőîäčěî

âčäĺňü íĺ ňîëüęî ðŕçëč÷íűĺ Čďîńňŕńč, íî č ðŕçëč÷íűĺ ńóůíîńňč.10
Ŕðčé čńďîâĺäîâŕë «ĺäčíîăî Áîăŕ, ĺäčíńňâĺííîăî íĺńîňâîðĺííîăî,
ĺäčíńňâĺííîăî ďðĺäâĺ÷íîăî, ĺäčíńňâĺííîăî áĺńďðč÷čííîăî, ĺäčíńňâĺí-
íîăî čńňčííîăî, ĺäčíńňâĺííîăî áĺńńěĺðňíîăî».11 Čńňîâî îňńňŕčâŕ˙ ýňó
ĺäčíńňâĺííîńňü, ðĺâíčâî îőðŕí˙˙ ýňó ÷čńňóţ ňðŕíńöĺíäĺíňíîńňü Áîăŕ č
ðĺâíîńňíî ďűňŕ˙ńü óńňðŕíčňü âńĺ, ÷ňî óăðîćŕĺň ýňîé ĺäčíńňâĺííîńňč,
Ŕðčé îáðĺęŕĺň Áîăŕ íŕ ďðĺäâĺ÷íîĺ îäčíî÷ĺńňâî. Íč÷ňî íĺ ńěĺĺň
ďîňðĺâîćčňü Ĺăî âĺëč÷ŕâîăî áĺçěîëâč˙, íčęňî íĺ ěîćĺň ďðčîáůčňüń˙ ę
Ĺăî Áîćĺńňâĺííîé ćčçíč, íĺň íč÷ĺăî â ńîňâîðĺííîě Čě ěčðĺ, ÷ňî ěîăëî
áű ðŕçîěęíóňü őîňü íŕ ěčă ýňî íĺďðčńňóďíóţ č íĺďðîíčöŕĺěóţ
îňúĺäčíĺííîńňü. «Ŕðčé ńîňâîðčë čç Ĺäčíîăî č Âńĺâűříĺăî Áîăŕ
ďëĺííčęŕ Ńâîĺăî ńîáńňâĺííîăî âĺëč÷č˙».12
«Áîă Ŕðč˙ – ýňî îäčí, îäčíîęčé Áîă, «ĺäčíńňâĺííűé Ěóäðűé,
ĺäčíńňâĺííűé Áëŕăîé, ĺäčíńňâĺííűé Âńĺěîăóůčé».13 Íčęňî č íč÷ňî íĺ
ěîćĺň čěĺňü ń Íčě ńőîäńňâŕ: Îí ĺäčíńňâĺííűé íĺ čěĺĺň íčęîăî ďîőîćĺăî
íŕ Ńĺá˙, íčęîăî, ęňî áűë áű Ĺěó ďîäîáĺí čëč ðŕâĺí ďî ÷ĺńňč».14 Íĺň
íčęîăî ð˙äîě ń Áîăîě Ŕðč˙, â ňîě ÷čńëĺ íĺň ð˙äîě č Ňîăî, Ęîăî ěű,
őðčńňčŕíĺ, ďî÷čňŕĺě ęŕę Ńűíŕ Áîćč˙! Âŕćíĺéřŕ˙ çŕáîňŕ ŕðčŕíńęîé
âĺðű ńîńňîčň â ňîě, ÷ňîáű íŕâńĺăäŕ ńîőðŕíčňü ŕáńîëţňíîĺ Áîćčĺ
îäčíî÷ĺńňâî: «Ďîńęîëüęó Áîă ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ěîíŕäîé č ďĺðâîďðč÷číîé âńĺăî,
ďîńňîëüęó Îí č ďðĺäřĺńňâóĺň âńĺěó; ďîńĺěó Îí ďðĺäřĺńňâóĺň äŕćĺ
Ńűíó»15ª16.
10 Î ńëîâĺ «čďîńňŕńü» (uJpovstasi~) ńě.: H. DORRIE, ÑHypostasisî. Wort und

Bedeutungsgeschichte, Nachrichten der Akademiĺ der Wissenschaften in Gˆttingen
1 (1955) 35-95. Ęëţ÷ĺâűĺ ńëîâŕ ouÆ siva č uJpovstasi~, ęîňîðűĺ ěű ńĺé÷ŕń
ďĺðĺâîäčě, ęŕę ńóůíîńňü č ëčöî (čďîńňŕńü), ĺůĺ âî âðĺěĺíŕ Íčęĺéńęîăî Ńîáîðŕ
(325) áűëč âĺńüěŕ íĺîďðĺäĺëĺííűěč, ÷ňî č ďðčâîäčëî ę áĺńęîíĺ÷íűě
íĺäîðŕçóěĺíč˙ě. Óńčëč˙ěč îňöîâ-ęŕďďŕäîęčéöĺâ (Âŕńčëč˙ Âĺëčęîăî, Ăðčăîðč˙
Íŕçčŕíçčíŕ č Ăðčăîðč˙ Íčńńęîăî), âíĺńřčő ðĺřŕţůčé âęëŕä â ðŕçú˙ńíĺíčĺ
ňðčíčňŕðíîăî ďîí˙ňč˙ Ëčöŕ, áűë îńóůĺńňâëĺí ďĺðĺâîðîň, âí˙ňíűé ňîëüęî íŕ
ôîíĺ őðčńňčŕíńęîăî îáðŕçŕ ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, ŕ čěĺííî: íŕ ďĺðĺäíčé ďëŕí číňĺðĺńŕ
âűőîäčň îńîáîĺ, óíčęŕëüíîĺ ĺńňĺńňâî äŕííîăî ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ. Áîëĺĺ âűńîęčě ňĺďĺðü
ń÷čňŕĺňń˙ – âîďðĺęč îńíîâíîé ňĺíäĺíöčč ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé ôčëîńîôčč – íĺ âńĺîáůĺ-
ńóůíîńňíîĺ (ďðčðîäŕ, ouÆsiva), ŕ óíčęŕëüíî-ëč÷íîńňíîĺ (ëčöî, uJpovstasi~). Áîëĺĺ
ňîăî, ńóůíîńňü, čëč ďðčðîäŕ – ęŕę â îňíîřĺíčč ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, ňŕę č Áîăŕ – íĺ
ńóůĺńňâóĺň âíĺ îňäĺëüíűő ëč÷íîńňĺé, íî ňîëüęî ëčřü áëŕăîäŕð˙ čě. Ëč÷íîńňč
čďîńňŕçčðóţň ńóůíîńňü, äŕţň ĺé čďîńňŕńü, ň.ĺ. ðĺŕëüíîĺ č ęîíęðĺňíîĺ
ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčĺ. Ďðčðîäŕ íĺ îáëŕäŕĺň áűňčĺě číŕ÷ĺ, ęŕę â ëč÷íîńň˙ő; ëč÷íîńňč
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň ńîáîé ěîäóń ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙ ďðčðîäű. Äŕëĺĺ î ďîí˙ňčč «čďîńňŕńü»
ńě.: C. GIANNARAS, Alfabhtavri th~ pivsti~, 48-51; Ď. Ę. ĂÐĹÇČÍ, Áîăîńëîâńęčé
ňĺðěčí «čďîńňŕńü» â ęîíňĺęńňĺ ďîçäíĺăî ýëëčíčçěŕ, Áîăîńëîâńęčé âĺńňíčę 5-6
(2005-2006) 191-228.
11 PG 26,708D.
12 Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Die Christus-Ikone, 13.
13 PG 26, 708D.
14 PG 26, 705D.
15 PG 26, 708Ń; ńð. 709Ŕ.

Ďîëíîńňüţ îňîðâŕâ Áîăŕ îň ěčðŕ, Ŕðčé «äîăîâîðčëń˙» äî ňîăî, ÷ňî

Ńűí áűë ńîçäŕí, čëč ńîňâîðĺí. Íŕčěĺíîâŕíčĺ Őðčńňŕ «îáðŕçîě
Áîćččě», î ęîňîðîě ăîâîðčň ŕďîńňîë Ďŕâĺë – ďî ŕðčŕíńęîé ëîăčęĺ,
âîńďðîčçâîä˙ůĺé ăðĺęî-ýëëčíńęîĺ ďîíčěŕíčĺ îáðŕçŕ ęŕę íĺ÷ňî íčçřĺăî,
âńĺöĺëî ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůĺăî ěčðó âčäčěîěó – ęŕę ðŕç č ńëóćčň
äîęŕçŕňĺëüńňâîě ňîăî, ÷ňî Őðčńňîń – ěĺíüřĺ, ÷ĺě Áîă. «Îäčíîęčé Áîă»
Ŕðč˙ íĺ ńďîńîáĺí ďîëíîńňüţ ńîîáůčňü î Ńâîĺě ĺńňĺńňâĺ äŕćĺ Ńâîĺěó
Ńűíó – ŕ Ńűí, áóäó÷č ňâŕðíűě ńîçäŕíčĺě, ëčřü óńűíîâëĺííűě Áîăó, íĺ
ěîćĺň âěĺńňčňü îňęðîâĺíč˙ î ďðĺäâĺ÷íîě îňíîřĺíčč. Ńëĺäó˙ ýňîé
âîčńňčíó íĺóěîëčěîé č ćĺńňęîé ëîăčęĺ, Ŕðčé óňâĺðćäŕĺň, ÷ňî Ńűí
ěîćĺň áűňü îáðŕçîě Áîćččě ëčřü â îăðŕíč÷ĺííîé ěĺðĺ Ńâîĺé
ńîáńňâĺííîé ňâŕðíîńňč, ďîýňîěó ćĺ Ńűí íĺ ěîćĺň «ďîńňčăíóňü
Áĺńďðč÷čííîăî, ęŕęîâ Îí ĺńňü ďî ĺńňĺńňâó»,17 íĺ â ńîńňî˙íčč ďîçíŕňü
Îňöŕ ďî ńóůĺńňâó, ŕ ňĺě áîëĺĺ áűňü Ĺăî ńîâĺðřĺííűě îáðŕçîě...
Ŕðčé íĺ ńňŕâčë ďð˙ěî ďîä ńîěíĺíčĺ, ęŕę ýňî ńäĺëŕëč ńňîëĺňč˙ěč
ńďóńň˙ čęîíîáîðöű, âîçěîćíîńňü őðčńňčŕíńęîăî čçîáðŕçčňĺëüíîăî
čńęóńńňâŕ; ěîćíî ăîâîðčňü îá îáůĺé íŕńňðîĺííîńňč, ďîőîćčő äóőîâíűő
óńňŕíîâęŕő, äŕţůčő ďðŕâî íŕőîäčňü ńâ˙çč ěĺćäó îáĺčěč ĺðĺń˙ěč, íî
ďð˙ěî ďðčďčńűâŕňü Ŕðčţ âðŕćäĺáíîńňü ę čęîíĺ áűëî áű čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé
íŕň˙ćęîé. Ĺäčíńňâĺííűé čçâĺńňíűé ňĺęńň Ŕðč˙, â ęîňîðîě óďîěčíŕĺňń˙
îá îáðŕçĺ, ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺň – ďðîńňî ďĺðĺ÷čńë˙ĺň – ďîńëĺäíčé â ð˙äó
áĺń÷čńëĺííűő íŕčěĺíîâŕíčé – ňŕęčő, ęŕę äóő, âńĺěîăóůĺńňâî, ďðĺ-
ěóäðîńňü, ńč˙íčĺ Áîćčĺ, čńňčíŕ, îáðŕç, Ëîăîń, ęîňîðűěč ðŕńďîçíŕĺňń˙
«ĺäčíńňâĺííî âîçíčęřčé Áîă», ň.ĺ. Ńűí.18 Îäíŕęî, íŕńňŕčâŕ˙ – ń ęŕęčě-
ňî äŕćĺ íĺčńňîâńňâîě – íŕ ňîě, ÷ňî ňâîðĺíčĺ íĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďð˙ěűě äĺëîě
Áîćččě; ÷ňî íĺäîńňîéíî âëŕäű÷ĺńňâóţůĺăî č âëŕńňâóţůĺăî Áîăŕ
ňâîðčňü Ńŕěîěó, íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî, «čç íč÷ĺăî» çŕâĺäîěî őóäřčé č
íčçřčé ěčð; ÷ňî ďîňîěó âîçíčęřčé ęîńěîń ěîćĺň áűňü ďðîäóęňîě
ňîëüęî «âîçíčęřĺăî» ćĺ, ńîňâîðĺííîăî Áîăŕ-Ńűíŕ, Őðčńňŕ, ę ňîěó ćĺ
ĺůĺ č íĺńďîńîáíîăî áűňü ńîâĺðřĺííűě îáðŕçîě, ďîëíĺéřčě
îňęðîâĺíčĺě Îňöŕ, Ŕðčé ňĺě ńŕěűě ęîńâĺííî óňâĺðćäŕë, ÷ňî čńęóńńňâî
íĺ â ńčëŕő ńâčäĺëüńňâîâŕňü î ńâîĺě Ňâîðöĺ, íĺ ěîćĺň ďîäŕňü âĺńňü î Íĺě,
íĺ â ńîńňî˙íčč ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ňü Íĺňâŕðíî-Áîćĺńňâĺííîĺ â ńôĺðĺ ňâŕðíîăî.
Ŕðčŕíńňâî â čňîăĺ ďîäðűâŕëî ńŕěűĺ óńňîč őðčńňčŕíńęîăî čńęóńńňâŕ,
ďîęî˙ůĺăîń˙, ęŕę ńďóńň˙ íĺńęîëüęî âĺęîâ ńôîðěóëčðîâŕëč čęîíîďî-
÷čňŕňĺëč, íŕ ďðčíöčďĺ, ÷ňî Őðčńňîń ĺńňü «îáðŕç Áîăŕ íĺâčäčěîăî».
Íîâîĺ, őðčńňčŕíńęîĺ čçěĺðĺíčĺ îáðŕçŕ áűëî íŕéäĺíî â őîäĺ ŕíňč-
ŕðčŕíńęîé ďîëĺěčęč âĺëčęčě Ŕôŕíŕńčĺě, ĺďčńęîďîě Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęčě
(295-373). Â ďîíčěŕíčč Ŕôŕíŕńč˙ ăîâîðčňń˙ î ďŕðŕäîęńĺ ńîâĺðřĺííîăî
îáðŕçŕ, ňŕęîăî îáðŕçŕ, â ęîňîðîě íĺň íčęŕęčő óňðŕň îň ńîâĺðřĺíńňâŕ
ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ – Áîă čěĺĺň îáðŕç Ńŕěîăî Ńĺá˙, ęîňîðűé ðŕâĺí Ĺěó âî âńĺě
– č ďî ÷ĺńňč, č ďî ĺńňĺńňâó. Őðčńňčŕíńňâî, ďîíčěŕ˙ ńďŕńĺíčĺ ęŕę îáîćĺíčĺ
(qevwsi~), ďðčďčńűâŕĺň Ńűíó âńţ ďîëíîňó Áîćĺńňâĺííîăî Áűňč˙, ŕ íĺ
ďðîńňî ęŕęóţ-ňî ÷ŕńňü, ńňĺďĺíü Áîćĺńňâŕ, čëč ňîëüęî ďðč÷ŕńňčĺ
17 PG 26, 708 AB.
18 Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Die Christus-Ikone, 16. 13
Áîćĺńňâó, čáî ńŕě îáëŕäŕ˙ ëčřü äîëĺé Áîćĺńňâŕ, Ńűí íĺ ěîă áű

îáîćĺńňâë˙ňü äðóăčő (ňâŕðü íĺ ěîćĺň áűňü ńďŕńĺíŕ ňâŕðüţ). Â
ňðčíčňŕðíîě áîăîńëîâčč ďîí˙ňčĺ îáðŕçŕ óňðŕ÷čâŕĺň âń˙ęčé îňňĺíîę
ěĺíüřĺé çíŕ÷čěîńňč; íĺň áîëĺĺ íč íčńőîćäĺíč˙ ďî áűňčţ, ęŕę â
ýëëčíńęîé ôčëîńîôčč, íč íĺčçáĺćíîăî óěŕëĺíč˙ ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ â îáðŕçĺ.
Ńűí ĺńňü ĺäčíîńóůíűé (áóęâŕëüíî: «ňîé ćĺ ńŕěîé ńóůíîńňč») îáðŕç
Îňöŕ. Ňŕęîĺ ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕíčĺ Ŕôŕíŕńčĺě ĺäčíńňâŕ ďðčðîäű-ńóůíîńňč íĺ
ďðčâĺëî ę ďðčóěĺíüřĺíčţ ðŕçëč÷č˙ ěĺćäó ëčöŕěč Ďðĺńâ˙ňîé Ňðîčöű
(âďðî÷ĺě, ĺůĺ Ŕðčé îńîáî çŕáîňčëń˙ îá óďðî÷ĺíčč ýňîăî ðŕçëč÷č˙ Ëčö,
ďðîňčâîďîńňŕâë˙˙ «ňðč čďîńňŕńč» ó÷ĺíčţ Ńŕâĺëëč˙ î ðîë˙ő, čëč
ðŕçëč÷íűő ńďîńîáŕő ˙âëĺíč˙ ĺäčíîăî Áîăŕ; îäíŕęî, čďîńňŕńü ŕðčŕíĺ
îňîćäĺńňâë˙ëč ń ńóáńňŕíöčĺé, č ÷ňîáű íĺ âďŕńňü â ó÷ĺíčĺ î ňðîĺáîćčč,
ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕţň Áîăŕ Ňðîčöó «čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíî â ęŕňĺăîðč˙ő ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęčő
ďðîĺęöčé î âëŕńňâîâŕíčč č ďîä÷číĺíčč»19). Ďîëíîňó čńňčíű, ďîíčěŕ-
ĺěîé ęŕę ĺäčíńňâî, íĺâîçěîćíî âűðŕçčňü íŕ ˙çűęĺ ôîðěŕëüíîé ëîăčęč č
ńőĺěŕňčçčðîâŕííűő ďîí˙ňčé, âńĺăäŕ ďî íĺîáőîäčěîńňč č ŕáńîëţ-
ňčçčðóţůčő, č óďðîůŕţůčő ęŕęóţ-ňî îäíó ńňîðîíó čńňčíű, ďűňŕ˙ńü
ďðčńďîńîáčňü ĺĺ ëîăč÷ĺńęîěó ňîćäĺńňâó ďîí˙ňč˙ č ďîí˙ňîăî.20
Âńĺëĺíńęŕ˙ âĺðŕ čńďîâĺäóĺň ďîýňîěó ďŕðŕäîęńű: ňîćäĺńňâî Îňöŕ č Ńűíŕ,
íî áĺç ńěĺřĺíč˙ ěĺćäó íčěč; ńîĺäčíĺíčĺ äâóő ďðčðîä, Áîćĺńňâĺííîé č
÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé, â ĺäčíîé Čďîńňŕńč Őðčńňŕ, č ńîĺäčíĺíčĺ ýňî ĺńňü
«íĺńëčňíî, íĺčçěĺííî, íĺðŕçäĺëüíî, íĺðŕçëó÷íî» (ejn duvo fuvsesin ajsug-
cuvtw~, ajtrevptw~, ajdiairevtw~, ajcwrivstw~);21 ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ Ńűíŕ îň Îňöŕ
(íî ďðîčńőîćäĺíčĺ íĺ îçíŕ÷ŕĺň óěŕëĺíčĺ); íŕęîíĺö, îáðŕç, čńőîä˙ůčé îň
ńŕěîăî Áîăŕ, íî âńĺ ćĺ îáëŕäŕţůčé âńĺě, ÷ĺě îáëŕäŕĺň ńŕě Áîă.22
Äë˙ áîăîńëîâč˙ čęîíű âęëŕä Ŕôŕíŕńč˙ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺňń˙ âĺńüěŕ
ńóůĺńňâĺííűě: îňńňŕčâŕ˙, âîďðĺęč ŕðčŕíŕě, ďŕðŕäîęńŕëüíîĺ ďîí˙ňčĺ
ńîâĺðřĺííîăî č ĺäčíîńóůíîăî îáðŕçŕ Îňöŕ, îí äĺðćŕëń˙ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíč˙ î
ďîëíîé ðĺŕëüíîńňč Áîăîâîďëîůĺíč˙. Őðčńňîń, ęîňîðűé č â áűňčč
÷ĺëîâĺęîě îńňŕĺňń˙ Ńűíîě, ňĺě, ÷ňî Îí ĺäčíîńóůĺí Îňöó, ďîçâîë˙ĺň íŕě
íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî ďðčńňóďčňü ęî Îňöó. Ŕ ďîńęîëüęó Ńűí ĺńňü îäíî-
âðĺěĺííî č ńîâĺðřĺííűé îáðŕç Îňöŕ, íč â ÷ĺě íĺ íŕðóřŕţůčé
«ďðĺńâĺňëîé ńčëű ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ», Îí č ěîćĺň «áĺç čńęŕćĺíčé č óěŕëĺíčé
îňęðűâŕňü íŕě Îňöŕ. Ëčřü â ňŕęîě ńëó÷ŕĺ Ńűí ĺńňü ďîëíîĺ îňęðîâĺíčĺ
Îňöŕ, ëčřü ňîăäŕ Îí ďîçâîë˙ĺň áĺńďðĺď˙ňńňâĺííî ďðčńňóďčňü ę Îňöó.
Çäĺńü ěű ďðčęŕńŕĺěń˙ ę ďîńëĺäíĺěó îńíîâŕíčţ áîăîńëîâč˙ čęîí: Áîă
îáëŕäŕĺň ńîâĺðřĺííîé čęîíîé Ńĺá˙ Ńŕěîăî».23
19 Ňŕě ćĺ, 12.
20 C. GIANNARAS, Alhvqeia kai enovthta th~ Ekklhsiva~, Aqhvna 1997, 83; ðóńńęčé
ďĺðĺâîä: Őð. ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ, Čńňčíŕ č ĺäčíńňâî öĺðęâč, Ěîńęâŕ 2006, 41.
21 Äîăěŕň, ďðčí˙ňűé íŕ IV Âńĺëĺíńęîě Ńîáîðĺ â Őŕëęčäîíĺ â 451 ă., ăäĺ Öĺðęîâü
čńďîâĺäŕëŕ Őðčńňŕ ęŕę čńňčííîăî Áîăŕ č čńňčííîăî ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ. Öčň. ďî: Dokumenty
SoborÛw Powszechnych. Tekst grecki, ≥aciÒski, polski. Tom I: Nicea I ñ Konstantynopol I ñ
Efez ñ Chalcedon ñ Konstantynopol II ñ Konstantynopol III ñ Nicea II (325-787). Uk≥ad
i opracowanie Arkadiusz Baron, Henryk Pietras SJ, KrakÛw 2002, 222.
14 23 Ňŕě ćĺ, 20.

Č çíŕ÷čň čęîíŕ Őðčńňŕ – ýňî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęčé ëčę Áîăŕ.

Őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ ńďîðű, ďðčâĺäĺííűĺ â äĺéńňâčĺ ŕðčŕíńňâîě,
çŕň˙íóëčńü íŕ íĺńęîëüęî ńňîëĺňčé. Č íŕ ďðîň˙ćĺíčč âńĺăî ýňîăî âðĺěĺíč
Öĺðęîâü íĺ ďĺðĺńňŕâŕëŕ čńďîâĺäîâŕňü ďŕðŕäîęń «âî÷ĺëîâĺ÷čâŕíč˙ Áîăŕ»,
ňŕéíó Őðčńňîâó, ďî ęîňîðîé Ččńóń Őðčńňîń ńîâěĺůŕĺň â ëč÷íîńňíîě
ĺäčíńňâĺ âńţ ďîëíîňó ęŕę ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé, ňŕę č áîćĺńňâĺííîé ďðčðîäű –
ňŕéíó, ńóůóţ č çŕďĺ÷ŕňëĺííóţ â ńâ˙ůĺííîě ëčęĺ Ččńóńŕ – Ĺăî čęîíĺ.
Ďîďűňęč ďðčňóďčňü îńňðîňó ýňîăî ďŕðŕäîęńŕ ďðĺäďðčíčěŕëčńü íĺ ðŕç, íî
âń˙ęčé ðŕç ðŕńöĺíčâŕëčńü öĺðęîâüţ (č čěĺííî â ňŕęîě ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ
ďðĺîäîëĺâŕëčńü č îňâĺðăŕëčńü ĺţ) ęŕę ĺðĺňč÷ĺńęčĺ, ň.ĺ. ęŕę ňŕęčĺ,
ęîňîðűĺ ďîä÷čí˙ţň ďîëíîňó čńňčíű, äŕííóţ â Îňęðîâĺíčč, ěĺðęŕě
číäčâčäóŕëüíîăî áűňč˙ ňîăî čëč číîăî ăëŕřŕňŕ˙ ĺðĺńč.24 Ýňŕ âń˙ęčé ðŕç
ďî-číîěó óůĺðáëĺííŕ˙ čńňčíŕ ńíîâŕ č ńíîâŕ âîńďîëí˙ëŕńü íŕ Âńĺëĺíńęčő
Ńîáîðŕő ĺůĺ íĺðŕçäĺëĺííîé öĺðęâč... Â îňâĺň íŕ ŕðčŕíńňâî, îňðčöŕâřĺĺ
ðŕâĺíńňâî âîďëîňčâřĺăîń˙ Ëîăîńŕ Îňöó, Öĺðęîâü čńďîâĺäŕëŕ íŕ
Íčęĺéńęîě ńîáîðĺ 325 ăîäŕ Őðčńňŕ ęŕę ĺäčíîńóůíűé îáðŕç Áîăŕ-Îňöŕ;
íĺńňîðčŕíńňâî, íŕďðîňčâ, ňŕę ðĺçęî ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕëî ðŕçëč÷čĺ ěĺćäó
÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé č áîćĺńňâĺííîé ďðčðîäŕěč âî Őðčńňĺ, ÷ňî ďîňĺð˙ëî
ðŕâíîâĺńčĺ č, ðŕçâĺä˙ ďî îáĺ ńňîðîíű Áîăŕ-Ëîăîńŕ č ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ Ččńóńŕ,
ńîðâŕëîńü íŕ óňâĺðćäĺíčĺ, ÷ňî Äĺâŕ Ěŕðč˙ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íĺ Áîăîðîäčöĺé ŕ
Őðčńňîðîäčöĺé – č ňîăäŕ íŕ Ĺôĺńńęîě ńîáîðĺ 431 ă. öĺðęîâü čńďîâĺäŕëŕ
Őðčńňŕ ęŕę íĺčçěĺííîĺ âîďëîůĺííîĺ Ńëîâî. Ęîăäŕ â ěîíîôčçčňńňâĺ
ěŕ˙ňíčę ęŕ÷íóëń˙ â îáðŕňíóţ ńňîðîíó – áîćĺńňâĺííŕ˙ ďðčðîäŕ Ëîăîńŕ
ďîëíîńňüţ ďîăëîůŕĺň ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęóţ ďðčðîäó Őðčńňŕ – íŕ ńîçâŕííîě
ńîáîðĺ â Őŕëęčäîíĺ (451 ă.), Öĺðęîâü îňâĺňčëŕ çíŕěĺíčňűě âĺðîó÷čňĺëü-
íűě îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺě îňíîńčňĺëüíî ńîĺäčíĺíč˙ áîćĺńňâŕ č ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňŕ ęŕę
«íĺńëčňíî, íĺčçěĺííî, íĺðŕçäĺëüíî č íĺńëč˙ííî».
Ěîíîôĺëčňńňâî č ěîíîýíĺðăčçě, îňðčöŕâřčĺ ńâîáîäó ëč÷íîńňč,
ďîðŕáîůŕâřčĺ ëč÷íîńňü ďðčðîäíîé âîëĺ (ŕ ěîíîýíĺðăčçě ďîä÷čí˙ë ëčöî
ĺůĺ č ëţáîé äðóăîé ďðčðîäíîé ýíĺðăčč), č ďî ńóňč îňęŕçŕâřčĺń˙
îňëč÷ŕňü «÷ňî» ďðčðîäíîé âîëč îň «ęŕę» ĺĺ ëč÷íîăî ďðî˙âëĺíč˙,25 áűëč
ďîńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíî ďðĺîäîëĺíű íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęčő ńîáîðŕő â 553 č
681 ăîäŕő...
Ńóňü äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ ńâîäčëŕńü ę ďðčçíŕíčţ-ðŕçëč÷ĺíčţ â
Áîăĺ ńóůíîńňč, ëčöŕ č ýíĺðăčé č îáðĺňĺíčţ čő ďðŕâčëüíîăî ńîîňíîřĺíč˙
č íŕčěĺíîâŕíč˙; č íŕéäĺííűĺ ńîáîðíűĺ îďðĺäĺëĺíč˙, îňëčňűĺ â äîăěŕňű
– âńĺăî ëčřü ďðĺäĺë, ďîëîćĺííűé íŕřĺěó ðŕńńóäęó; îăðŕäŕ, âîçâĺäĺííŕ˙
24 «Ĺðĺńü-ýňî ŕáńîëţňčçŕöč˙ ÷ŕńňíűő čńňčí, č îíŕ íĺčçáĺćíî ńîďðîâîćäŕĺňń˙

ðĺë˙ňčâčçŕöčĺé ŕáńîëţňŕ...Ňŕę ćĺ č â áîăîńëîâńęîě ńěűńëĺ ńëîâŕ äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęŕ˙
ĺðĺńü – ýňî íĺ ďðîńňî ðŕöčîíŕëüíŕ˙ ăčďîňĺçŕ. Ĺðĺňč÷ĺńęčé âçăë˙ä íčęîăäŕ íĺ
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ňîëüęî číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíűě ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčĺě...Îí čńęŕćŕĺň âńţ ęŕðňčíó
ěčðŕ, ęîňîðŕ˙ čç-çŕ ĺðĺńč ńňŕíîâčňń˙ «áĺçóěíîé»... Äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ĺðĺńü čěĺň íĺ
ňîëüęî ðĺëčăčîçíîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ, ýňî îřčáî÷íîĺ ďîâĺäĺíčĺ íŕ âńĺő óðîâí˙ő ćčçíč...
Â ňî âðĺě˙, ęŕę čńňčíŕ ĺäčíŕ, ĺðĺńü ĺńňü ðŕçðűâŕíčĺ čńňčíű, ÷ŕńňíŕ˙ čńňčíŕ» ñ I.
CARUSO, Psychoanalyse und Synthese der Existenz, Wien 1952. Öčň. ďî: Őð. ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ,
Čńňčíŕ č ĺäčíńňâî öĺðęâč, 35.
25 Őð. ßÍÍŔÐŔŃ, Čńňčíŕ č ĺäčíńňâî öĺðęâč, 43. 15
âîęðóă íĺďîńňčćčěîé ňŕéíű; ďðčçűâ ę ńîáëţäĺíčţ ěĺðű č âęóńŕ – ýňîěó

ěŕăíčňíîěó ďîëţ, óäĺðćčâŕţůĺěó č îôîðěë˙ţůĺěó ďëŕçěó ÷ĺëîâĺ-
÷ĺńęîé ěűńëč..
Č âîň, ęîăäŕ ęŕçŕëîńü, ÷ňî óęëîíčňüń˙ îň čńňčíű áîëüřĺ íĺęóäŕ; ÷ňî
óćĺ čńőîćĺíű âńĺ îęîëüíűĺ ňðîďčíęč, č Öĺðęîâü ðŕń÷čńňčëŕ č óęŕçŕëŕ
öŕðńęčé ďóňü, âĺäóůčé ęî ńďŕńĺíčţ, íĺîňäĺëčěîěó îň ďðŕâčëüíîăî
ďîíčěŕíč˙ čńňčíű, â VIII âĺęĺ ðŕçðŕçčëŕńü íîâŕ˙ ĺðĺńü – čęîíî-
áîð÷ĺńňâî. «Čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâî, ñ ďčřĺň ŘĹÍÁÎÐÍ26- ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé
ďîńëĺäíţţ ôŕçó őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčő äĺáŕňîâ, čěĺâřčő ěĺńňî â äðĺâíĺé
Öĺðęâč, č â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ňŕęîâîé (çŕâĺðřŕţůĺé č âńĺ ďðĺäűäóůčĺ â ńĺá˙
âîáðŕâřĺé) ôŕçű ěű č áóäĺě čńńëĺäîâŕňü ĺăî äŕëĺĺ».
Čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčé ńďîð, çŕň˙íóâřčéń˙ ďî÷ňč íŕ 120 ëĺň (726/730-843),
çŕňðîíóâřčé âńĺ îáëŕńňč ćčçíč Âčçŕíňčéńęîé čěďĺðčč, çŕďóńňčâřčé ďî
ńâîĺé îðáčňĺ âńĺ ńëîč îáůĺńňâŕ, ęîňîðűĺ ę ňîěó ćĺ ĺůĺ č âńňóďčëč â
îćĺńňî÷ĺííóţ áîðüáó č âň˙íóâřčé â ńâîé âîäîâîðîň äŕćĺ Çŕďŕä,
ęîňîðűé îäíŕęî «íĺ ńëĺäîâŕë çŕ ěűńëüţ Âîńňîęŕ č íĺ ďîíčěŕë âńĺő
ňîíęîńňĺé âčçŕíňčéńęîăî áîăîńëîâč˙ čęîíű»27 ńňŕë ďîâîðîňíűě
ďóíęňîě â čńňîðčč őðčńňčŕíńęîăî Âîńňîęŕ. Ďðĺîäîëĺíčĺ čęîíî-
áîð÷ĺńňâŕ, ýňîé – ďî îďðĺäĺëĺíčţ VII Âńĺëĺíńęîăî Ńîáîðŕ – «ńîâî-
ęóďíîńňč âńĺő ĺðĺńĺé» ďîňðĺáîâŕëî ďðĺäĺëüíîăî, ńîâîęóďíîăî ćĺ
íŕďð˙ćĺíč˙ âńĺő ńčë. Čęîíŕ ďîáĺäčëŕ â äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęîé áîðüáĺ, íî ńŕěč
čńňî÷íčęč íŕďð˙ćĺíč˙ óńňðŕíčňü íĺ óäŕëîńü, č «âíóňðĺííĺĺ ĺäčíńňâî,
čńęŕćĺííîĺ č ďîäîðâŕííîĺ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčě ńďîðîě, íčęîăäŕ áîëĺĺ íĺ
âĺðíóëîńü ę Âčçŕíňčéńęîé Öĺðęâč».28
Ĺäčíîé «ňĺîðčč ďîë˙», îáú˙ńí˙ţůĺé ďîäîďëĺęó čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő
ńďîðîâ – âńţ ńîâîęóďíîńňü âűçâŕâřčő čő ďðč÷čí č ńâîĺâðĺěĺííî
ďîäâĺðíóâřčőń˙ ďîâîäîâ-îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâ, ďîçâîëčâřčő îńíîâŕňĺëţ
Čńŕâðčéńęîé äčíŕńňčč čěďĺðŕňîðó Ëüâó III Čńŕâðó (714-741) ââĺńňč
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâî â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîăî âĺðîčńďîâĺäŕíč˙ äî ńčő ďîð
íĺ ńóůĺńňâóĺň; óäĺëüíűé âĺń ňîăî čëč číîăî ôŕęňîðŕ, ńâ˙çŕííîăî ń
ďî÷čňŕíčĺě čęîí č âűçűâŕţůĺěó ďîýňîěó íĺäîâîëüńňâî – ðŕçóěĺĺňń˙
«âçâĺřčâŕĺěîăî» ęŕćäűě čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺě ďî-ńâîĺěó – ńňŕíîâčňń˙ íĺęčě
ńðĺäîňî÷čĺě, öĺíňðîě ň˙ćĺńňč, âîęðóă ęîňîðîăî ďîňîě âűńňðŕčâŕĺňń˙ ňî
čëč číîĺ ňîëęîâŕíčĺ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ęðčçčńŕ.
Ďîćŕëóé, čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâî VIII âĺęŕ ďðîůĺ âńĺăî îďčńűâŕĺňń˙ â
ńîöčŕëüíî-ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîé ňĺðěčíîëîăčč; â ðŕěęŕő ýňîé «íŕó÷íîé
ďðîăðŕěěű» čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčé ęðčçčń ń÷čňŕĺňń˙ ńëĺäńňâčĺě ńňîëęíî-
âĺíčĺě őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ ń çŕðîäčâřĺéń˙ íîâîé ðĺëčăčĺé – čńëŕěîě.29 Äŕëĺĺ,
ýňî íŕďðŕâëĺíčĺ ðŕńůĺďë˙ĺňń˙, č čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ âĺäóňń˙ îäíîâðĺěĺííî ďî

27 G. FLOROVSKY, Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy, Church History
XIX (1950) 77.
28 Ňŕě ćĺ, 77.
29 R. GUILLAND, LíexpÈdition de Maslama contre Constŕntinopole (717-718), in: …tudes
byzantines (= Publications de la FacultÈ des lettres et sciences humaines de Paris,
16 7), Paris 1959, 109-133.
äâóě ëčíč˙ě: áîðüáŕ ń čęîíŕěč ňðŕęňóĺňń˙, âî-ďĺðâűő, ęŕę ðĺçóëüňŕň

ďîëčňč÷ĺńęîăî äŕâëĺíč˙ íŕ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ ńî ńňîðîíű ńčë čńëŕěŕ, č âî-
âňîðűő, ęŕę ðĺçóëüňŕň áîăîńëîâńęčő ńďîðîâ ěĺćäó ěóńóëüěŕíŕěč č
őðčńňčŕíŕěč, îňðŕćŕţůčő â ďĺðâóţ î÷ĺðĺäü ńčëüíîĺ âëč˙íčĺ
ńĺěčňńęîăî (ĺâðĺéńęîăî č ěóńóëüěŕíńęîăî) ňðŕíńöĺíäĺíňŕëčçěŕ,30
ęîňîðîĺ íŕńňŕčâŕĺň íŕ íĺčçîáðŕçčěîńňč č íĺďîçíŕâŕĺěîńňč Áîćĺńňâŕ «â
óůĺðá Âîďëîůĺíčţ č «×ĺëîâĺęîëţáčţ».31
Ňðóäíîďðĺîäîëčěîĺ ň˙ăîňĺíčĺ ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî ńîçíŕíč˙ č ěűřëĺíč˙
ę ďîčńęó îďîð âîâíĺ, ę ńňðĺěëĺíčţ îáú˙ńí˙ňü âńĺ ńîáűňč˙ č ˙âëĺíč˙
íĺęčěč «âíĺříčěč âëč˙íč˙ěč»32 ďðčâĺëŕ â äŕëüíĺéřĺě ňîëüęî č ďðîńňî
ę ðŕńřčðĺíčţ ńďčńęŕ-ďĺðĺ÷í˙ ðŕçëč÷íűő âíĺříčő ôŕęňîðîâ,
îňâĺňńňâĺííűő çŕ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâî. Ę čńëŕěó äîáŕâčëîńü ĺůĺ ěîíîôč-
çčňńňâî, ęîňîðîĺ, ęŕę äóěŕë, íŕďðčěĺð, ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, č ńňŕëî îńíîâíîé
ďðč÷číîé ńňîëęíîâĺíč˙ ěĺćäó ďðîňčâíčęŕěč č ńňîðîííčęŕěč čęîíî-
ďî÷čňŕíč˙. Ěîíîôčçčňű ďðčäĺðćčâŕëčńü ěíĺíč˙, ÷ňî íŕ čęîíĺ âîç-
ěîćíî čçîáðŕćŕňü ňîëüęî âčäčěîĺ, ňî ĺńňü ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâî Őðčńňŕ; îäíŕęî,
čçîáðŕćŕ˙ ëčřü çðčěóţ č îń˙çŕĺěóţ ďëîňü, ěű ęŕę áű îňńĺęŕĺě
Áîćĺńňâî Őðčńňŕ, ðŕçäĺë˙ĺě äâŕ Ĺńňĺńňâŕ č ňĺě ńŕěűě ńîńęŕëüçűâŕĺě â
íĺńňîðčŕíńňâî – č čěĺííî ńňðŕő âďŕńňü â ýňó ĺðĺńü č ďîńëóćčë äë˙
ěîíîôčçčňîâ ďðč÷číîé îňęŕçŕ îň čęîí.33
Âîîáůĺ, ó ěîíîôčçčňîâ čęîíîďî÷čňŕíčĺ čěĺëî íŕčáîëĺĺ ńëîćíóţ
čńňîðčţ.34 Ń îäíîé ńňîðîíű – ęŕę óňâĺðćäŕĺň ËÓÐÜĹ – čěĺííî â čő ńðĺäĺ,
â VII âĺęĺ, â Ŕðěĺíčč âďĺðâűĺ ďî˙âčëîńü ðĺëčăčîçíîĺ ňĺ÷ĺíčĺ,
îňâĺðăŕâřĺĺ čęîíű. Ń äðóăîé ńňîðîíű, â äîřĺäřčő äî íŕń čńňîðč÷ĺńęčő
äîęóěĺíňŕő ěîíîôčçčňîâ íĺ ňîëüęî îňńóňńňâóţň ďð˙ěűĺ âűńęŕçűâŕíč˙,
30 Â ďîäĺðćęó ýňîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ îáű÷íî ďðčâîäčňń˙ â ďðčěĺð čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčé

óęŕç 721 ă., čçäŕííűé őŕëčôîě ßçčäîě Âňîðűě ďîä âëč˙íčĺě ďðîňčâíčęŕ
őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ ęŕááŕëčńňŕ Ňĺńńŕðŕęîíňŕďčőóńŕ (ăðĺ÷. Tessarakontapivcu~),
ęîňîðűé ďðîðĺę ßçčäó 30 ëĺň áëŕăîâðĺěĺíč˙ č ěčðíîăî ďðŕâëĺíč˙, ĺńëč ňîň
î÷čńňčň ăîðîäŕ ńâîĺăî őŕëčôŕňŕ îň őðčńňčŕíńęčő čęîí; ďî ďðĺäďîëîćĺíčţ
íĺęîňîðűő ó÷ĺíűő (Ńâ. Ôĺîôŕí Ëĺňîďčńĺö, Ëĺňîďčńü, 400; A. A. VASSILIEV, The
Iconoclastic Edict of the Caliph Yazid II, A. D. 721, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 9 (1956)
30-31. Öčň. ďî: Í. ŃŔŐŔÐÎÂ, Î ďðč÷číŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ ńîăëŕńíî
ňðŕęňŕňó ďðĺďîäîáíîăî Čîŕííŕ Äŕěŕńęčíŕ «Ďĺðâîĺ çŕůčňčňĺëüíîĺ ńëîâî
ďðîňčâ îňâĺðăŕţůčő ńâ˙ňűĺ čęîíű», Ŕëüôŕ č Îěĺăŕ 2 (28) (Ěîńęâŕ 2001),
Ňĺńńŕðŕęîíňŕďčőóń áűë ĺůĺ ďî ńîâěĺńňčňĺëüńňâó č íĺęčě ńčðčéöĺě Áĺńńĺðîě,
ďðč÷ĺě ěíîăčĺ âčçŕíňîëîăč ńęëîííű óňâĺðćäŕňü, ÷ňî «áëŕăîäŕð˙ ýňîěó
ńčðčéńęî-ĺâðĺéńęîěó ÷ŕðîäĺţ, ďîä ďð˙ěűě âëč˙íčĺě ęîňîðîăî íŕőîäčëń˙ Ëĺâ,
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîĺ ěčðîâîççðĺíčĺ čńëŕěŕ îęŕçŕëî íŕ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ ðĺřŕţůĺĺ
çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ» (Í. ŃŔŐŔÐÎÂ, Î ďðč÷číŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâÖ, 112).
31 P. EVDOKIMOV, L’ art de l’icône: Theologie de la beauté, Bruges 1970, 205.
32 Ęðčňčęó ăčďîňĺç î «âíĺříčő âëč˙íč˙ő» â 70-ĺ ăă. ďðîřëîăî ńňîëĺňč˙
îńóůĺńňâčë – ďî îďðĺäĺëĺíčţ Â. Ëóðüĺ – «ćčâîé ęëŕńńčę č ńňîëď ńîâðĺěĺííîé
ďŕňðîëîăčč Őðčńňčŕíńęîăî Âîńňîęŕ» Ń. Ăĺðî; cě.: S. GERO, Notes on Byzantine
Iconoclasm in the Eighth Century, Byzantion 44 (1974) 23-42. Cě.: Â. ËÓÐÜĹ, Čńňîðč˙
âčçŕíňčéńęîé ôčëîńîôčč. Ôîðěŕňčâíűé ďĺðčîä, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2006, 410.
33 Ă. ÎŃŇÐÎĂÎÐŃĘČÉ, Ńîĺäčíĺíčĺ âîďðîńŕ î ńâ˙ňűő čęîíŕő ń őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîé
äîăěŕňčęîé â ńî÷číĺíč˙ő ďðŕâîńëŕâíűő ŕďîëîăĺňîâ ðŕííĺăî ďĺðčîäŕ
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ, Seminarium Kondakovianum I (Prague 1927) 35-48.
34 Ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě. Â. ËÓÐÜĹ, Čńňîðč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ôčëîńîôčč..., 427. 17
ęîňîðűĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâîâŕëč áű îá čő ńäĺðćŕííîě îňíîřĺíčč ę čęîíŕě,35

íî áîëĺĺ ňîăî, čěĺííî â ýňó âčçŕíňčéńęóţ ýďîőó čęîíű č îáðŕçŕ áűëč
÷ŕńňüţ ěîíîôčçčňńęîé áîăîńëóćĺáíîé ďðŕęňčęč.36 Ę ňîěó ćĺ, čęîíî-
áîðöű áűëč íĺ ěĺíĺĺ ˙ðîńňíűěč ďðîňčâíčęŕěč ěîíîôčçčňńňâŕ, ÷ĺě ńŕěč
čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëč. Íčęîăäŕ íĺ ďîäâĺðăŕ˙ ńîěíĺíčţ ďîëíîňó ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺń-
ęîé ďðčðîäű Őðčńňŕ, čęîíîáîðöű, îäíŕęî ń÷čňŕëč, ÷ňî čęîíŕ Áîăî-
÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, ňî ĺńňü, čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ č Áîćĺńňâĺííîé, č ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé ďðč-
ðîäű Őðčńňŕ ďðčâîäčň ę čő ńëč˙íčţ č ńěĺřĺíčţ, ÷ňî č ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ çŕáëóć-
äĺíčĺě ěîíîôčçčňîâ.37
Îáâčí˙˙ ďðŕâîńëŕâíűő ńðŕçó â äâóő íĺńîâěĺńňčěűő ĺðĺń˙ő –
íĺńňîðčŕíńňâĺ č ěîíîôčçčňńňâĺ – çŕăîí˙˙ čő â ďîëĺěč÷ĺńęčé ňóďčę č
îáú˙âë˙˙ čě ńâîĺîáðŕçíűé äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęčé zugzwang, čęîíîáîðöű íŕ
ńŕěîě äĺëĺ îáíŕðóćčëč ńîáńňâĺííóţ áîăîńëîâńęóţ íĺńîńňî˙ňĺëüíîńňü.
Ďűňŕ˙ńü čńőîäčňü â ńâîĺé ŕðăóěĺíňŕöčč čç őŕëęčäîíńęîăî äîăěŕňŕ,
ďðĺäďîëŕăŕţůĺăî ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî ˙ńíîĺ ðŕçëč÷čĺ ěĺćäó ďðčðîäîé ń îäíîé
ńňîðîíű č ëč÷íîńňüţ, čďîńňŕńüţ ń äðóăîé, čęîíîáîðöű ęŕę ðŕç č ˙âčëč
ðîęîâîĺ íĺďîíčěŕíčĺ ýňîăî ðŕçëč÷č˙. Ďðčðîäŕ, ńóůíîńňü íĺ čěĺĺň
ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíîăî áűňč˙, îíŕ ńóůĺńňâóĺň ňîëüęî â ëč÷íîńň˙ő, čďîńňŕń˙ő č
íĺ ěîćĺň áűňü ďîýňîěó čçîáðŕçčěŕ ńŕěŕ ďî ńĺáĺ – íĺ ňîëüęî ďðčðîäŕ
Áîćĺńňâĺííŕ˙, íî č ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęŕ˙. Čçîáðŕćŕ˙ Ńďŕńčňĺë˙, ěű čçîáðŕćŕĺě
Ĺăî Čďîńňŕńü, «íĺďîńňčćčěî ńîĺäčí˙ţůóţ â Ńĺáĺ ýňč äâĺ ďðčðîäű
«íĺńëč˙ííî č íĺðŕçäĺëüíî», ďî âűðŕćĺíčţ őŕëęčäîíńęîăî äîăěŕňŕ».38
Âń˙ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęŕ˙ äčëĺěěŕ ňĺě ńŕěűě ďðîńňî óďðŕçäí˙ëŕńü: č čęîíŕ
Őðčńňŕ č ńâ˙ňűő, č ďîðňðĺň ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ ńâ˙çŕí ńî ńâîčě ďĺðâîîáðŕçîě íĺ â
ńčëó ňîćäĺńňâŕ ń íčě, ŕ ňĺě, ÷ňî îíč čçîáðŕćŕţň čő ëč÷íîńňü č íîńčň čő
čě˙.
«Âíĺříčĺ ďðč÷číű», ďîëŕăŕĺěűĺ â îńíîâó čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî, ýňîăî –
ďî ěíĺíčţ íĺęîňîðűő čńńëĺäîâŕíčé – áëčćíĺâîńňî÷íîăî ęîíôëčęňŕ,39
äŕćĺ ń ăĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ âűňŕëęčâŕëčńü íŕ ňĺððčňîðčč çŕ
ďðĺäĺëŕěč ńŕěîé Âčçŕíňčč, îňňĺńí˙˙ńü â «ĺðĺňč÷ĺńęîĺ» ďîëĺ ěîíî-
ôčçčňńňâŕ, čńëŕěŕ, čóäŕčçěŕ»;40 ďîďűňęč âűâîäčňü čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâî čç
âîńňî÷íîăî, ńčðčéńęîăî ďðîčńőîćäĺíč˙ čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ëüâŕ III ěîćíî
îňíĺńňč, ďîćŕëóé, ę ňĺě ćĺ ňĺîðč˙ě î «âíĺříčő âëč˙íč˙ő», ˙ęîáű
ńűăðŕâřčő ðĺřŕţůóţ ðîëü â ðŕçðŕçčâřčěń˙ ńďîðĺ îá čęîíŕő.
35 Í. ŃŔŐŔÐÎÂ, Î ďðč÷číŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ..., 107.

36 S. BROCK, Iconoclasm and the Monophysites, in: Iconoclasm, ed. A. Bryer ñ
J. Herrin, Birmingham 1975, 57. Ńě. ňŕęćĺ: M. ÿOUTIL, Na v˝chod od Antiochie.
ÿeckÈ myölenÌ za hranicemi Byzance, 2.-8. stoletÌ. Syrsk· tradice, in: P. Milko, ⁄vod do
byzantskÈ filosofie, Praha 2009. Â ýňîé ńŕěîńňî˙ňĺëüíîé č âî ěíîăîě îðčăčíŕëü-
íîé ðŕáîňĺ ŕâňîð äŕĺň ęŕðňčíó íĺâĺðî˙ňíî íŕńűůĺííîé číňĺëëĺęňóŕëüíîé č
ęóëüňóðíîé ćčçíč ńčðčéńęčő őðčńňčŕí (çŕęëĺéěĺííűő «íĺńňîðčŕí» č «ěîíî-
ôčçčňîâ»), â ńčëó ěíîăčő îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâ îęŕçŕâřčőń˙ ďî ňó ńňîðîíó «ęŕíîíŕ
őŕëęčäîíńęîăî ďðŕâîâĺðč˙».
37 Í. ŃŔŐŔÐÎÂ, Î ďðč÷číŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ..., 107.
38 Ë. ÓŃĎĹÍŃĘČÉ, Áîăîńëîâčĺ čęîíű Ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé Öĺðęâč, Ěîńęâŕ 1989, 94.
39 A. GRABAR, Líiconoclasme byzantin: Dossier archÈologique, Paris 1957.

Ďîčńę âíóňðčâčçŕíňčéńęčő čńňîęîâ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ őîň˙ č

âîçâðŕůŕë čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺé â ďðĺäĺëű ńŕěîé čěďĺðčč, ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ, îíč
ňî÷íî ňŕęćĺ ďðîřëč ěčěî ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő čńňî÷íčęîâ ńŕěîăî ęîíôëčęňŕ, ęŕę
č ňĺ, ęňî ń÷čňŕë, ÷ňî ďðč÷číű ĺăî íŕäî čńęŕňü íŕ äŕëĺęîé ńňîðîíĺ ó
âîńňî÷íűő ĺðĺňčęîâ...41
Îňęóäŕ áű íč ďðčřĺë âíĺříčé ňîë÷îę – îň čóäĺĺâ, ěóńóëüěŕí,
ďŕâëčęčŕí42 čëč ěîíîôčçčňîâ – ňîëüęî íŕ «ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé ńňîðîíĺ»
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîĺ äâčćĺíčĺ ďðčîáðĺëî ńňŕňóń äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęîăî ęîíôëčęňŕ,
č ňîëüęî íŕ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé ďî÷âĺ âçîřëč ďĺðâűĺ âńőîäű ďîíčěŕíč˙ ňîăî, ÷ňî
čńňčííŕ˙ ňĺěŕ ńďîðŕ ëĺćčň â ńôĺðĺ áîăîńëîâč˙, č ÷ňî čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâî
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďðîäîëćĺíčĺě âĺëčęčő őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ.
Ďĺðâűě, ęňî ńâ˙çŕë áîăîńëîâčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîăî čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ ń
îðčăĺíčçěîě, ńňŕë â 1950 ă. Ă. Â. ÔËÎÐÎÂŃĘČÉ. Ĺůĺ â 1929 ă. î. Ăĺîðăčé
íŕďčńŕë çŕěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíóţ ðŕáîňó «Ďðîňčâîðĺ÷č˙ îðčăĺíčçěŕ»,43 â ęîňîðîé
îďðĺäĺëčë îðčăĺíčçě ęŕę «ĺðĺńü î âðĺěĺíč».44 Ĺńëč ńðĺäîńňĺíčĺě
őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ ĺńňü «îďðŕâäŕíčĺ âðĺěĺíč, ôčëîńîôč˙ ňâŕðč, ó÷ĺíčĺ î
âîçíčęŕţůĺě čç íč÷ĺăî č âőîä˙ůĺě â âĺ÷íîńňü, – ó÷ĺíčĺ î ńňŕíîâ˙ůĺéń˙
âĺ÷íîńňč»,44 ňî äë˙ Îðčăĺíŕ čěĺííî ňŕęîé áĺńďîůŕäíűé čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé
ðĺŕëčçě ęŕçŕëń˙ – ŕ â ęîíöĺ ęîíöîâ č îęŕçŕëń˙ – ńîâĺðřĺííî íĺ-
ďðčĺěëĺěűě. Íĺň, ýňîň âĺëč÷ŕéřčé őðčńňčŕíńęčé ěűńëčňĺëü íĺ îňðčöŕë
ðĺŕëüíîńňč čńňîðčč ńŕěîé č âðĺěĺíč ęŕę ňŕęîâîăî, íî îí íĺ ďðčçíŕâŕë çŕ
íčěč ďðŕâŕ íŕ îáëŕäŕíčĺ ńîáńňâĺííîé öĺííîńňüţ č çíŕ÷čěîńňüţ. Ëčřü
âĺ÷íîĺ č íĺčçěĺí˙ĺěîĺ áűňčĺ íŕäĺëĺíî č âńĺě ńěűńëîě, č âńĺé ďðŕâäîé,
č âńĺé ďîëíîňîé.. Âðĺěĺíŕ, čńňîðč˙, ńîáűňč˙ – âńĺ ńëó÷ŕéíî č ďðĺőîä˙ůĺ,
č îíč ďðîéäóň, ðŕçâĺţňń˙ áĺç ńëĺäŕ; čő ďîäëčííűé ńěűńë âíĺďîëîćĺí čě
ńŕěčě, âńĺ îíč – ňîëüęî ńčěâîëű, âčäĺíč˙, ďðčň÷č č ŕëëĺăîðčč íŕä-
âðĺěĺííîé č íŕä-čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé ðĺŕëüíîńňč.45 Îðčăĺí íĺ íóćäŕëń˙ íč âî
âðĺěĺíč, íč â čńňîðčč – čáî âń˙ ďîëíîňŕ áűňč˙ «óćĺ áűëŕ», č ňâŕðíűé
ěčð ďðîńňî äîëćĺí â ýňó âĺ÷íîńňü ęîăäŕ-ňî âîçâðŕňčňüń˙, – ýňî-ňî č
ńîńňŕâë˙ĺň ńěűńë îáůĺčçâĺńňíîăî ó÷ĺíč˙ Îðčăĺíŕ î «âńĺîáůĺě
âîńńňŕíîâëĺíčč», îá ŕďîęŕňŕńňŕńčńĺ. Ęŕę čńňűé ýëëčí, Îðčăĺí íĺ
ńíčńőîäčň ę ňĺëĺńíîńňč, ęî âńĺé ýňîé «ńňĺíŕţůĺé č ěó÷ŕůĺéń˙ ňâŕðč»,
ęŕę áű äŕćĺ č íĺ çŕěĺ÷ŕĺň ĺĺ: îí íĺ ěîćĺň ďðčí˙ňü ýěďčðč÷ĺńęîăî ěčðŕ.
41 G. FLOROVSKY, Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy, 79.
42 Čńńëĺäó˙ âíóňðčâčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ďðč÷číű ęîíôëčęňŕ, ó÷ĺíűĺ ÷ŕńňî óęŕçűâŕţň
íŕ äóŕëčńňč÷ĺńęóţ ńĺęňó ďŕâëčęčŕí, ęîňîðűĺ, ęŕę č âńĺ äóŕëčńňű âîîáůĺ –
ěŕíčőĺč, áîăîěčëű – âčä˙ň ěčð äâî˙ůčěń˙ č ðŕçäâŕčâŕţůčěń˙, ðŕńńĺ÷ĺííűě íŕ
äâŕ íĺďðčěčðčěűő ďðčíöčďŕ: äîáðî č çëî, ňĺëî č äóő č ňď. Ęŕçŕëîńü áű, ňŕęŕ˙
äóŕëčńňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ óńňŕíîâęŕ äîëćíŕ ń íĺčçáĺćíîńňüţ ďðčâîäčňü č ę čęîíî-
áîð÷ĺńęčě íŕńňðîĺíč˙ě, îäíŕęî, ęŕę ďîęŕçŕëč íĺęîňîðűĺ čçűńęŕíč˙, äë˙ ňŕęčő
âűâîäîâ íĺň íčęŕęčő čńňîðč÷ĺńęčő îńíîâŕíčé (ńě. D. OBOLENSKY, The Bogomils,
Cambridge 1949, 53).
43 Ă. Â. ÔËÎÐÎÂŃĘČÉ, Ďðîňčâîðĺ÷č˙ îðčăĺíčçěŕ, Ďóňü 18 (1929) ńĺíň˙áðü, 107-
115. Ńňŕňü˙ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ î÷ĺðęîě î ðŕáîňĺ E. DE FAYE, Origène. Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa
penseÈ, Paris 1923-1928 (T. I: Sa biographie et ses Ècrits. T. II: Líambiance
philosophique. T. III: La doctrine).
44 Ňŕě ćĺ, 302.
45 Ňŕě ćĺ, 296-297. 19
Ýňó ěűńëü çŕěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíî âűðŕçčë î. Ăĺîðăčé: «Ŕďîńňîëüńęŕ˙ ďðîďîâĺäü č

ďðŕâčëî âĺðű îńňŕţňń˙ äë˙ íĺăî áĺçóěčĺě – čěĺííî ďîňîěó, ÷ňî îí íĺ
ěîćĺň ďðčí˙ňü ýěďčðč÷ĺńęîăî ěčðŕ. Íĺ ěîćĺň ďðčí˙ňü íĺ çŕ ňî, ÷ňî îí
ăðĺřĺí č âî çëĺ ëĺćčň, íî çŕ ňî, ÷ňî îí ýěďčðč÷ĺí».46 Č ńŕěî Âîďëî-
ůĺíčĺ Îðčăĺí íĺ ěîă ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňü ęŕę ĺäčíńňâĺííî-íĺďîâňîðčěîĺ
čńňîðč÷ĺńęîĺ ńîáűňčĺ. Č őîň˙ čěĺííî ó Îðčăĺíŕ âďĺðâűĺ âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙
íŕčěĺíîâŕíčĺ Őðčńňŕ Áîăî÷ĺëîâĺęîě, ńŕěî Âîďëîůĺíčĺ «îęŕçűâŕĺňń˙
ňîëüęî ˙âëĺíčĺě óćĺ ďðĺäńóůĺńňâóţůĺăî Áîăî÷ĺëîâĺęŕ â ýěďčðč÷ĺńęîě
ěčðĺ»,47 č ęîňîðîĺ ę ňîěó ćĺ íĺ ěîćĺň áűňü îęîí÷ŕňĺëüíűě, čáî
ďðčí˙ňűé Őðčńňîě «çðŕę ðŕáŕ», ňĺëĺńíîńňü ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńîńňî˙íčĺě
âðĺěĺííűě, ńëĺäńňâčĺě ăðĺőîďŕäĺíč˙ – ňĺě, ÷ňî íóćíî ďðĺîäîëĺňü. Čäĺ˙
îðčăĺíčńňîâ î ńîâëĺ÷ĺíčč ňĺë, ďóńňü č â óńëîćíĺííîé č çŕňĺíĺííîé
ôîðěĺ, áűëŕ âńĺ ćĺ áëčćĺ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîěó ěűřëĺíčţ, ÷ĺě ňŕčíńňâî
čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî Âîďëîůĺíč˙, ďðîäîëćŕţůĺăîń˙ â Âîçíĺńĺíčč. Ďîńňî-
˙ííîĺ âëč˙íčĺ ďëŕňîíč÷ĺńęîăî ó÷ĺíč˙ î äóřĺ ęŕę î çŕâĺðřĺííîé č
íĺçŕâčńčěîé ńóáńňŕíöčč íŕńňčăŕĺň čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęóţ ěűńëü íŕ ęŕćäîě
řŕăó. Íŕ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîě ńîáîðĺ â 754 ă. áîăîńëîâčĺ ńîáîðíűő «čęî-
íîáîð÷ĺńęčő îňöîâ» ń ęŕęîé-ňî äŕćĺ íŕâ˙ç÷čâîńňüţ ďîńňî˙ííî
âîçâðŕůŕĺňń˙ â ęðóă íĺîďëŕňîíč÷ĺńęčő čäĺé î íĺďðĺîäîëčěîě ðŕçëč÷čč
ěĺćäó äóőîâíűěč č ěŕňĺðčŕëüíűěč ěčðŕěč, ďðč÷ĺě ěŕňĺðčŕëüíűé ěčð
íĺ ńďîńîáĺí ďĺðĺäŕňü âĺëčęîëĺďčĺ äóőîâíîăî. Čçëţáëĺííűě č
ęŕçŕâřčěń˙ ńŕěčě čęîíîáîðöŕě íĺîňðŕçčěűě ŕðăóěĺíňîě ďðîňčâ ńŕěîé
âîçěîćíîńňč íŕďčńŕíč˙ čęîíű ęŕę ðŕç č áűëŕ čő «čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęŕ˙ âĺðŕ»
â ňî, ÷ňî ďîńëĺ Âîçíĺńĺíč˙ Őðčńňîń ńáðîńčë «çðŕę ðŕáŕ» č îáëŕ÷čëń˙ â
ňŕęîĺ âĺëčęîëĺďčĺ, ęîňîðîĺ íĺëüç˙ čçîáðŕçčňü áĺçćčçíĺííűěč
ęðŕńęŕěč, äŕ ĺůĺ č íŕ ăðóáîé äĺðĺâ˙ííîé äîńęĺ. Ňŕęčĺ «îðčăĺíčńňńęčĺ»
ňĺíäĺíöčč, îňðűâŕţůčĺ ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîĺ ďðîčçâĺäĺíčĺ čńęóńńňâŕ, ę ňîěó
ćĺ ĺůĺ č íŕ÷ĺðňŕííîĺ íĺńîâĺðřĺííîé ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé ðóęîé îň
čçîáðŕćĺííîăî íŕ íĺě, äĺëŕĺň čęîíîďčńŕíčĺ áĺńńěűńëĺííűě, ďîńęîëüęó
îíî çŕďĺ÷ŕňëĺâŕĺň ňĺëĺńíîĺ áűňčĺ – ńîńňî˙íčĺ, ęîňîðîĺ äîëćíî
ďðĺîäîëĺňü – č íŕðóřŕĺň ÷čńňóţ, äóőîâíóţ ňðŕäčöčţ Öĺðęâč.
ÔËÎÐÎÂŃĘČÉ ăîâîðčň îá îðčăĺíčçěĺ ęŕę î íĺęîě ďîâňîð˙ţůčěń˙
ňčďĺ ěűńëč;48 ęî âðĺěĺíč čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ äóőîâíîĺ ňĺ÷ĺíčĺ, íŕçűâŕĺěîĺ
îðčăĺíčçěîě, ĺůĺ íĺ áűëî ďîáĺćäĺíî.49 Â čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðŕő â
46 Ňŕě ćĺ, 300.
47 Ňŕě ćĺ, 297.
48 Ňŕě ćĺ, 302.
49 Ăîâîð˙ îá «îðčăĺíčçěĺ» ęŕę ńčńňĺěĺ čëč ńďîńîáĺ áîăîńëîâńęîăî ěűřëĺíč˙,
îáű÷íî ďîäðŕçóěĺâŕţň ňó óďðîůĺííóţ, ńőĺěŕňčçčðîâŕííóţ č ńčńňĺěŕňčçč-
ðîâŕííóţ «ŕěŕëüěŕăó», â ęîňîðóţ ýďčăîíű, çŕ˙âë˙ţůčĺ ńĺá˙ ó÷ĺíčęŕěč
âîčńňčíó íĺńðŕâíĺíííîăî Îðčăĺíŕ ďðĺâðŕňčëč ĺăî ó÷ĺíčĺ, cě. áëĺńň˙ůĺe
čńńëĺäîâŕíče: P. SHERWOOD, Maximus and Origenism, in: ARCI KAI TELOS. Be-
richte zum XI. internationalen Byzantinistenkongrefl III/1, M¸nchen 1958, 1-26.
Ďð˙ěî íŕ ďĺðâîé ńňðŕíčöĺ îí íŕçűâŕĺň čő «ýęńňðĺěčńňŕěč, ęîňîðűĺ âďîńëĺäńňâčč
ďðĺňĺíäîâŕëč íŕ ňî, ÷ňî Îðčăĺí – čő ó÷čňĺëü»). Ýňč «ýęńňðĺěčńňű» âűď˙÷čâŕëč
îäíó čç ńňîðîí, ŕ čěĺííî ńďčðčňóŕëčçě, â ó÷ĺíčč Îðčăĺíŕ. Îäíŕęî, ęŕę îňěĺ÷ŕĺň
Ř¸íáîðí «ńŕě Îðčăĺí ńëčřęîě âĺëčę, ńëčřęîě ďðĺäŕí Áčáëčč, ńëčřęîě
20 «ęŕôîëč÷ĺí», ÷ňîáű ĺăî ěîćíî áűëî ńâĺńňč ę ęŕęîé-ëčáî îäíîé ëčíčč â ĺăî
ďĺðâóţ î÷ĺðĺäü ðĺ÷ü řëŕ î ďðîáëĺěĺ, ęîňîðóţ čěĺë â âčäó Îðčăĺí, ŕ

çŕňĺě č Ĺâńĺâčé Ęĺńŕðčéńęčé (îę. 264-340), íŕ ďčńüěî ęîňîðîăî ę ŕâăóńňĺ
Ęîíńňŕíöčč, íŕďîëíĺííîĺ «îðčăĺíčńňńęîé ôðŕçĺîëîăčĺé»,50 ńńűëŕëčńü
čęîíîáîðöű ęŕę íŕ ńâ˙ňîîňĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî íĺóěĺńňíîńňč č
íĺäîďóńňčěîńňč čęîíű Őðčńňŕ. Ńóňü ďðîáëĺěű â ńëĺäóţůĺě: ěîćíî ëč
âîńďðîčçâĺńňč ďîäëčííűé îáðŕç Őðčńňŕ «ěĺðňâűěč č áĺçćčçíĺííűěč
ęðŕńęŕěč č ðčńóíęŕěč»?51 Ĺăî çĺěíîé îáðŕç ďî Âîńęðĺńĺíčč, ęîňîðűé â
ďðĺäâîńőčůĺíčč Îí îňęðűë ńâîčě ó÷ĺíčęŕě (č îíč, ęŕę ěű ďîěíčě, íĺ
ěîăëč âçčðŕňü íŕ Íĺăî) ńňŕë ďðĺîáðŕćĺííűě, áĺńńěĺðňíűě,
íĺðŕçðóřčěűě. Ďðĺćíčé âčä Ĺăî îáëĺęń˙ â «íĺńęŕçŕííîĺ âĺëčęîëĺďčĺ»,
íĺčçðĺ÷ĺííűé ńâĺň, íĺäîńňóďíűé äë˙ ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî ăëŕçŕ – ęŕę ćĺ
ěîćíî íŕďčńŕňü čęîíó ýňîăî ÷óäĺńíîăî č íĺďîńňčćčěîăî âčäŕ, ęňî
äĺðçíĺň čçîáðŕçčňü íĺčçîáðŕçčěîĺ?
Čęîíîáîðöű âîńďðčíčěŕëč ďî÷čňŕíčĺ čęîí ęŕę ďîęëîíĺíčĺ
ěĺðňâîé, íĺîäóřĺâëĺííîé ěŕňĺðčč č ďðîňčâîďîńňŕâë˙ëč ĺăî ďîäëčííîěó
ęóëüňó Áîăŕ «â äóőĺ č čńňčíĺ». Ďðĺçðĺíčĺ ę ěŕňĺðčč ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ îäíîé čç
íŕčáîëĺĺ ˙ðęčő č óńňîé÷čâűő őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ. Ĺńëč
ďðî÷čĺ äîâîäű, ňŕęčĺ, ęŕę čçëţáëĺííî-čçáčňŕ˙ ńńűëęŕ íŕ áčáëĺéńęčé
çŕďðĺň íŕ čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ čëč îňîćäĺńňâëĺíčĺ čęîíű ń «čçâŕ˙ííűě
čäîëîě», ŕ čęîíîďî÷čňŕíč˙ ń čäîëîńëóćĺíčĺě âńĺ-ňŕęč ěĺí˙ëčńü íŕ
ďðîň˙ćĺíčč ńňîëĺňč˙, ňî ýňîň ŕðăóěĺíň, âűíĺńĺííűé ęŕę îęîí÷ŕňĺëüíűé
ďðčăîâîð â äĺëĺ çŕůčňíčęîâ čęîí, âńĺăäŕ óäĺðćčâŕëń˙ áĺç čçěĺíĺíčé.
Îáâčíĺíčĺ čęîíîáîðöĺâ ńâîäčëîńü ę ęðŕňęîé č, ęŕę čě ęŕçŕëîńü,
íĺîďðîâĺðćčěîé ęîíńňŕňŕöčč: čęîíîďî÷čňŕíčĺ ĺńňü ďîęëîíĺíčĺ
âĺůĺńňâó, ŕ íĺ Áîăó. Ðŕçâĺðíóňŕ˙ âĺðńč˙ ýňîăî îáâčíĺíč˙ ďðîçâó÷ŕëŕ íŕ
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîě ńîáîðĺ 754 ă., ăäĺ áűëî çŕ˙âëĺíî: «Äŕ áóäĺň ďðîęë˙ň, ęňî
ďűňŕĺňń˙ çŕďĺ÷ŕňëĺňü âíĺříčé âčä ńâ˙ňűő íŕ áĺçćčçíĺííűő č íĺěűő
čęîíŕő ďîńðĺäńňâîě ěŕňĺðčŕëüíűő ęðŕńîę, čáî ňŕęčĺ čęîíű îňíţäü íĺ
ďîëĺçíű; čçăîňŕâëčâŕňü čęîíű – ýňî áĺçóěíŕ˙ čäĺ˙ č čçîáðĺňĺíčĺ
äü˙âîëüńęîĺ. Âěĺńňî ýňîăî ńëĺäóĺň íŕ íŕń ńŕěčő, ęŕę íŕ ćčâűő čęîíŕő,
čçîáðŕćŕňü äîáðîäĺňĺëč ńâ˙ňűő, î ęîňîðűő íŕďčńŕíî â ęíčăŕő, č ňĺě
ńŕěűě îäóřĺâë˙ňüń˙ ðŕâíűě čě ðâĺíčĺě».52
ňðóäŕő», cě. Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Die Christus-Ikone, 56. Ňðóäű Îðčăĺíŕ, îňëč÷ŕţůčĺń˙
č óäčâčňĺëüíîé ďîëíîňîé č íĺâĺðî˙ňíîé řčðîňîé, íĺëüç˙ î÷ĺðňčňü ęŕęîé-ňî
îäíîé ńŕěîäîâëĺţůĺé čäĺĺé, íĺëüç˙ çŕěęíóňü îäíîé čń÷ĺðďűâŕţůĺé ňĺîðčĺé,
ęîňîðŕ˙ ńňŕëŕ áű äŕćĺ íĺ ęëţ÷ĺě, ŕ – îňěű÷ęîé, âçëŕěűâŕţůĺé âńĺ ňŕéíčęč ĺăî
ěűńëč. Â ðŕáîňŕő Îðčăĺíŕ îäíîâðĺěĺííî ńîďðčńóňńňâóţň ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čâűĺ
ďîëîćĺíč˙: ňŕę, îðčăĺíčçě îďðĺäĺëĺííîăî ňîëęŕ äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî âńęîðěčë
«áîăîńëîâčĺ, âðŕćäĺáíîĺ îáðŕçŕě»; íĺ ěĺíĺĺ ńďðŕâĺäëčâî č îáðŕňíîĺ óňâĺð-
ćäĺíčĺ: áîăîńëîâű (Ěŕęńčě Čńďîâĺäíčę), îňńňŕčâŕţůčĺ ďðŕâî íŕ ńâ˙ůĺííűĺ
čçîáðŕćĺíč˙, ðŕçâčâŕëč Îðčăĺíîâű ěűńëč, áëŕăîćĺëŕňĺëüíűĺ ę čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ě.
Äĺðçíîâĺííî-íîâîĺ č ďŕíîðŕěŕňč÷ĺńęî-îáúĺěíîĺ čçëîćĺíčĺ ó÷ĺíč˙ Îðčăĺíŕ
ďðčíîńčň íĺäŕâíî âűřĺäřŕ˙ ęíčăŕ ěîëîäîăî ÷ĺřńęîăî ó÷ĺíîăî Ďŕâëŕ Ěčëęŕ, cě.
P. MILKO, ”rigenÈs uËitel, »erven˝ Kostelec ñ Praha 2008.
50 G. FLOROVSKY. Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy, 362.
51 PG 20, ęîë. 1545 Ń.
52 Mansi 13, 345CD. Öčň. ďî: Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Gott sandte seinen Sohn. Christologie,
Lugano 2002; ðóńńęčé ďĺðĺâîä: Ęð. ŘĹÍÁÎÐÍ, Áîă ďîńëŕë Ńűíŕ Ńâîĺăî.
Őðčńňîëîăč˙, Ěîńęâŕ 2003, 212. 21
Čňŕę, íŕčáîëüřčě ńîáëŕçíîě äë˙ čęîíîáîðöĺâ áűëŕ čěĺííî

ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîńňü čęîí, ęîňîðŕ˙ â čő ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíčč áĺń÷ĺńňčëŕ č îńęîð-
áë˙ëŕ Áîćĺńňâĺííűé ďĺðâîîáðŕç, ŕ ňî, ÷ňî čęîíŕě âîîáůĺ âîçäŕâŕëîńü
ďî÷čňŕíčĺ âîçěóůŕëî čő äŕćĺ áîëüřĺ, ÷ĺě ńŕěî ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčĺ čęîíű
(âî âðĺěĺíŕ áîëĺĺ ňĺðďčěîăî îňíîřĺíč˙ ę ęóëüňó čęîí, ďĺðĺěĺ-
ćŕâřčőń˙ ń ďĺðčîäŕěč ćĺńňîęčő ăîíĺíčé, čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčĺ čěďĺðŕňîðű
äîâîëüńňâîâŕëčńü ňĺě, ÷ňî ďðîńňî ďðčęŕçűâŕëč ďîäí˙ňü čęîíű âűřĺ,
ńäĺëŕňü čő íĺäîń˙ăŕĺěűěč äë˙ ďðî˙âëĺíčé âńĺő âčäčěűő ôîðě
ďî÷čňŕíč˙ čęîí: ëîáűçŕíč˙, ęŕćäĺíč˙ č âîçćčăŕíč˙ ńâĺ÷ĺé, çĺěíűő č
ďî˙ńíűő ďîęëîíîâ).
Ďîýňîěó č çŕůčňŕ čęîíîďî÷čňŕíč˙ â ďĺðâűé ďĺðčîä čęîíîáîð-
÷ĺńňâŕ, çŕâĺðřčâřčéń˙ VII Âńĺëĺíńęčě Ńîáîðîě â Íčęĺĺ â 787 ă. ďîňðĺ-
áîâŕëŕ îň ńňîðîííčęîâ čęîí ęŕę ðŕç őðčńňčŕíńęîăî ðŕçðĺřĺíč˙ âîďðîńŕ î
áîăîńëîâńęîě ńňŕňóńĺ ěŕňĺðčč, čëč äðóăčěč ńëîâŕěč: î ňîě, ęŕę ňâŕðíîĺ
ńîîňíîńčňń˙ ń Íĺňâŕðíűě.53
Â VIII âĺęĺ ďðîčçîřĺë ðĺřŕţůčé ńäâčă â ðŕçâčňčč áîăîńëîâč˙
čęîíű č íĺěŕëŕ˙ çŕńëóăŕ â ýňîě ďðčíŕäëĺćŕëŕ ńŕěîěó çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîěó
áîăîńëîâó ďĺðâîăî ďîęîëĺíč˙ čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëĺé ďðĺď. Čîŕííó
Äŕěŕńęčíó (†749). Âî âðĺě˙ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîé ńěóňű, îí îäíčě čç ďĺðâűő
– âěĺńňĺ ńî ńâ. ďŕňðčŕðőîě Ăĺðěŕíîě (715-730) – âűńňóďčë íŕ çŕůčňó
čęîíîďî÷čňŕíč˙, č ĺăî «Çŕůčňčňĺëüíîĺ ńëîâî ďðîňčâ îňâĺðăŕţůčő
ńâ˙ňűĺ čęîíű» ďî ďðŕâó ń÷čňŕĺňń˙ ďĺðâîé ďîďűňęîé äîăěŕňč÷ĺńęč
îáîńíîâŕňü ðŕńďðîńňðŕíčâřĺĺń˙ â Âčçŕíňčč čęîíîďî÷čňŕíčĺ. Âîçðŕćŕ˙
íŕ óďðĺę čęîíîáîðöĺâ, ÷ňî čęîíîďî÷čňŕíčĺ ńëčřęîě ďðčâĺðćĺíî
çĺěíîěó, ńëčřęîě ďðčâ˙çŕíî ę ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîěó č ńëčřęîě ďðčńňŕëüíî
âńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ â çðčěî-ňĺëĺńíűĺ ôîðěű č î÷ĺðňŕíč˙ ňâîðĺíč˙, Čîŕíí,
čńőîä˙ čç őðčńňîëîăčč, ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕĺň ďîëîćčňĺëüíóţ ńňîðîíó
ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîăî: «Â äðĺâíčĺ âðĺěĺíŕ Áîă, íĺ čěĺţůčé íč ňĺëŕ, íč ôîðěű,
âîîáůĺ íĺ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ëń˙ â îáðŕçŕő. Íî ňĺďĺðü, ęîăäŕ Áîă îáëŕ÷čëń˙ â
ďëîňü, ńňŕë çðčěűě č ďðĺáűâŕë ńðĺäč ëţäĺé, ˙ ěîăó ńîçäŕňü čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ
çðčěîăî Áîăŕ. ß, ňĺě ńŕěűě, ďîęëîí˙ţńü íĺ ěŕňĺðčč, ŕ Ňâîðöó ěŕňĺðčč,
ęîňîðűé ðŕäč ěĺí˙ ńŕě ńňŕë ěŕňĺðčĺé č âç˙ë íŕ ńĺá˙ ďðîćčâŕíčĺ â
ěŕňĺðčč, äŕáű ďîńðĺäńňâîě ěŕňĺðčč ńîâĺðřčëîńü äĺëî ěîĺăî
čńęóďëĺíč˙...».54
Ěŕňĺðč˙ äë˙ Čîŕííŕ Äŕěŕńęčíŕ íĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńŕěűě âíĺříčě,
íčçřčě óðîâíĺě óäŕëĺííîńňč îň Áîăŕ, ęŕę áű Ĺăî «ęðŕĺě», ęŕę ó÷čň
íĺîďëŕňîíčçě; îíŕ íĺ ĺńňü íĺ÷ňî íŕčáîëĺĺ îňäŕëĺííîĺ îň äóőŕ, ŕ ďîňîěó
áĺçáëŕăîäŕňíîĺ č áĺçíŕäĺćíîĺ äë˙ ńďŕńĺíč˙. Âîďëîůĺíčĺ Áîăŕ, ďðč
ęîňîðîě Áîă âîńďðčí˙ë ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîĺ Ňĺëî, âű˙âčëî «áîăîíîńíűé
ďîňĺíöčŕë» ěŕňĺðčč, čáî čěĺííî ěŕňĺðč˙ ďîńëóćčëŕ «ďðîâîäíčęîě»
Áîćĺńňâĺííîăî Ńŕěîîňęðîâĺíč˙ č íîńčňĺëĺě Áîćĺńňâĺííîé áëŕăîäŕňč.
53 Ďîäðîáíîĺ čçëîćĺíčĺ ýňîăî âîďðîńŕ â ńâĺňĺ íîâĺéřčő čńńëĺäîâŕíčé ńě. Í.

ŃŔŐŔÐÎÂ, Î ďðč÷číŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ..., Ŕëüôŕ č Îěĺăŕ 4 (38) (2001) 67-
81.
54 Čîŕíí Äŕěŕńęčí, Contra imaginum calumniatores oratio, I,16 (PTS 17,89). Öčň.
22 ďî: Ęð. ŘĹÍÁÎÐÍ, Áîă ďîńëŕë Ńűíŕ Ńâîĺăî. Őðčńňîëîăč˙, 215.
Ěŕňĺðč˙ áîëüřĺ íĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďðĺď˙ňńňâčĺě íŕ ďóňč ę Áîăó, íŕďðîňčâ,

áëŕăîäŕð˙ ďîäęëţ÷ĺííîńňč ę ňŕéíĺ Őðčńňŕ, ńŕěŕ ńňŕíîâčňń˙ ďîńðĺäíčęîě
čńęóďëĺíč˙.
Čęîíó ńâ. Čîŕíí Äŕěŕńęčí âîńďðčíčěŕë ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî ęŕę ńâ˙ňűíţ,
ďîńðĺäńňâîě ęîňîðîé ńîîáůŕĺňń˙ áëŕăîäŕňü.
Âíĺříčĺ ôîðěű ęóëüňŕ, íŕďîěčíŕţůčĺ ˙çű÷ĺńęîĺ čäîëîďîęëîí-
ńňâî č ďîňîěó âűçűâŕţůčĺ îńîáóţ ňðĺâîăó ó čęîíîáîðöĺâ, ńâ. Čîŕíí
ńóěĺë îăðŕäčňü č çŕůčňčňü ňĺě, ÷ňî ââĺë ńňðîăîĺ áîăîńëîâńęîĺ
ðŕçăðŕíč÷ĺíčĺ ěĺćäó ďî÷čňŕíčĺě čęîí (proskuvnhsi~) č ďîęëîíĺíčĺě
(latreiva) čçîáðŕćĺííîěó Ăîńďîäó. Latreiva ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺň ńëóćĺíčĺ55
ęîěó-ëčáî čëč ÷ĺěó-ëčáî. Ďðč ýňîě ÷ĺëîâĺę ďîðŕáîůŕĺňń˙ ďðĺäěĺňîě
ńëóćĺíč˙, ę ęîňîðîěó íŕďðŕâë˙ţňń˙ âńĺ ĺăî ćčçíĺííűĺ óńňðĺěëĺíč˙.
Ďðĺäěĺň ňîăäŕ, ďî âűðŕćĺíčţ čçâĺńňíîăî áîăîńëîâŕ Ď. ŇČËËČŐŔ, ďðĺ-
âðŕůŕĺňń˙ â ńðĺäîňî÷čĺ íŕčáîëüřĺé ýęçčńňĺíöčŕëüíîé çŕčíňĺðĺńîâŕí-
íîńňč – „focus of the ultimate existencial concern“.56 Ęîíĺ÷íî, latreiva ęŕę
äóőîâíîĺ ńëóćĺíčĺ äîëćíŕ îňíîńčňüń˙ ňîëüęî ę Áîăó. Proskuvnhsi~57
(äîńëîâíî – «ďîńűëŕňü ðóęîţ ďîöĺëóé ęîěó-ëčáî») ęŕę ďîęëîíĺíčĺ â
ńâîĺé äóőîâíîé ďðčðîäĺ ĺńňü ňîëüęî âîçäŕ˙íčĺ äîëćíîé ÷ĺńňč ÷ĺěó-ëčáî
čëč ęîěó-ëčáî, îäíŕęî áĺç ďîðŕáîůĺíč˙ ďîęëŕí˙ĺěîěó ďðĺäěĺňó ęŕę
Áîăó. ×ĺňęîĺ ðŕçëč÷ĺíčĺ58 ďðĺďîäîáíűé Čîŕíí ďðîâîäčň č ěĺćäó
ďîäîáčĺě-îáðŕçîě č čäîëîě: ĺńëč čäîë ńŕě ďî ńĺáĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ęŕę áű
«ęîíĺ÷íîé ňî÷ęîé», ďĺðâîďðč÷číîé â ðĺëčăčîçíűő îáð˙äŕő, íĺęčě
ńŕěîäîâëĺţůčě áűňčéíűě öĺíňðîě, čńęðčâë˙ţůčě íŕ ńĺá˙ âńĺ
ńňðĺěëĺíč˙ ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, ňî čęîíŕ ńŕěŕ ďî ńĺáĺ – ňîëüęî «ďðîâîäíčę» ę
čçîáðŕćĺííîěó íŕ íĺé Ďĺðâîîáðŕçó. Â čęîíĺ ďðîčńőîäčň ěîëčňâĺííŕ˙
âńňðĺ÷ŕ; âőîä˙ â äîě čëč â őðŕě, ăäĺ ĺńňü čęîíű, ÷ĺëîâĺę «ęŕę áű
îáěĺíčâŕĺňń˙ ń Áîăîě âçăë˙äîě», ęŕę őîðîřî ńęŕçŕë ôðŕíöóçńęčé
áîăîńëîâ Ďŕâĺë ĹÂÄÎĘČĚÎÂ. Čęîíŕ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íĺ îáúĺęňîě ěŕňĺðčŕëüíîé
ëîęŕëčçŕöčč ďðč÷ŕńňíîńňč, íî ďîńðĺäíčęîě â îńóůĺńňâëĺíčč âńňðĺ÷č...
Čęîíŕ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň îá ýíĺðăčč Áîăŕ, î Ĺăî ńâĺňĺ, î Ĺăî ďðčńóňńňâčč –
îáðŕçíîě, ńčěâîëč÷ĺńęîě, íî ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ, ńîâĺðřĺííî ðĺŕëüíîě
ďðčńóňńňâčč.
55 Cëîâŕðü Ŕ. Ä. Âĺéńěŕíŕ ďðčâîäčň, ęðîěĺ çíŕ÷ĺíč˙ ńëóćĺíčĺ, ńëóćáŕ, ňŕęćĺ č

ńëóćĺíčĺ ďî íĺîáőîäčěîńňč, ðŕáńňâî. Ńě.: Ŕ. Ä. ÂĹÉŃĚŔÍ, Ăðĺ÷ĺńęî-ðóńńęčé
ńëîâŕðü, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1899, 752.
56 Ńě. Í. ŃŔŐŔÐÎÂ, Î ďðč÷číŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ..., Ŕëüôŕ č Îěĺăŕ 2 (28)
(2001) 100.
57 Ďîęëîíĺíčĺ, îáîćŕíčĺ; proskunwC – ďŕäŕňü íčö ďĺðĺä ęĺě, ďîęëîí˙ňüń˙ ęîěó,
îáîćŕňü; ó ăðĺęîâ – ďîęëîíĺíčĺ áîăŕě; ó ďĺðńîâ č äðóăčő âîńňî÷íűő íŕðîäîâ
ăîâîðčňń˙ î ďîęëîíĺíčč öŕðţ.
58 Ęîíęðĺňíîé îôîðěëĺííîńňč ěčðŕ, ĺăî ěíîăîîáðŕçčţ, čďîńňŕńňíîńňč č
čęîííîńňč, ęîňîðîé ńňîëü äîðîćčň őðčńňčŕíńęîĺ ńîçíŕíčĺ ďîńňî˙ííî óăðîćŕĺň
őňîíč÷ĺńęŕ˙ íĺðŕçëč÷čěîńňü âńĺő âĺůĺé. Ňðóä ďî ðŕçëč÷ĺíčţ ńëîâ č ďîí˙ňčé,
óńňŕíîâëĺíčĺ «âîäîðŕçäĺëîâ ěűńëč» âńĺăäŕ áűë ďðčńóů őðčńňčŕíńęîěó
áîăîńëîâčţ č ďðîňčâîńňî˙ë ňîěó ńňčðŕíčţ ăðŕíĺé, ęîňîðîĺ â ęîíöĺ ęîíöîâ
ďðčâîäčň ę «ęîřěŕðó ňîňŕëüíîé íĺâí˙ňčöű, ýňîěó řĺäĺâðó ŕäŕ», ńě. Ń. Ń.
ŔÂĹÐČÍÖĹÂ, Ńëîâî Áîćčĺ č ńëîâî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ, in: Ńîôč˙-Ëîăîń. Ńëîâŕðü, Ęčĺâ
2001, 398. 23
Őðčńňčŕíńęîĺ áîăîńëîâčĺ čęîíű čäĺň âðŕçðĺç ń ó÷ĺíčĺě íĺîďëŕ-

ňîíčęîâ, óňâĺðćäŕâřčő, ÷ňî Áîćĺńňâĺííŕ˙ ýíĺðăč˙, ďðčńóůŕ˙ ňîëüęî
Áîćĺńňâó, íĺ ěîćĺň ďĺðĺäŕâŕňüń˙ ńóůĺńňâŕě, íŕőîä˙ůčěń˙ íŕ áîëĺĺ
íčçęîé čĺðŕðőčč áűňč˙, č ňĺě áîëĺĺ ěŕňĺðčč ęŕę íŕčáîëĺĺ îňńňî˙ůĺé â
ńâîĺě «ďŕäĺíčč» îň Áîăŕ. Čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâî č ńňŕëî ňŕęčě âîçâðŕňîě ę
äîőðčńňčŕíńęîěó ýëëčíčçěó.
«Â čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîě ńďîðĺ,- ďčřĺň Ăĺîðăčé ÔËÎÐÎÂŃĘČÉ,- ďî ęðŕéíĺé
ěĺðĺ, íŕ áîăîńëîâńęîě óðîâíĺ – äâŕ ýëëčíčçěŕ, ęŕę áűâŕëî č ðŕíüřĺ,
âńňóďŕţň äðóă ń äðóăîě â ćŕðęóţ ńőâŕňęó. Čäĺň áîðüáŕ ěĺćäó
ńčěâîëčçěîě č čńňîðčĺé. Čęîíîáîðöű ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň â áîðüáĺ ęðŕéíţţ,
íĺďðĺîáðŕćĺííóţ ýëëčíčńňč÷ĺńęóţ ďîçčöčţ ďëŕňîíč÷ĺńęîăî č
îðčăĺíčńňńęîăî ňîëęŕ... Çŕůčňíčęč čęîí, íŕďðîňčâ, ňâĺðäî ńňî˙ëč íŕ
ďîçčöč˙ő «čńňîðč÷ĺńęîăî őðčńňčŕíńňâŕ». Â čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîě ńďîðĺ
ðĺřŕëń˙ âîďðîń íĺ ňîëüęî îá čęîíŕő. Ýňî îáú˙ńí˙ĺň ňó îńňðîňó č
íĺďðčěčðčěîńňü, ń ęîňîðîé ďðîňĺęŕëŕ áîðüáŕ. Íŕ ęîíó ńňî˙ëŕ íĺ ňîëüęî
ńóäüáŕ őðčńňčŕíńęîăî čńęóńńňâŕ, íî č Ďðŕâîńëŕâčĺ ęŕę ňŕęîâîĺ. Ňŕę čëč
číŕ÷ĺ, ýňŕ áîðüáŕ ěîćĺň áűňü îńěűńëĺíŕ ňîëüęî â ďĺðńďĺęňčâĺ
ěíîăîâĺęîâîé Auseinandersetzung (ďîëĺěčęč) ěĺćäó őðčńňčŕíńňâîě č
ýëëčíčçěîě. Îáĺ ďŕðňčč ěűńëčëč «ďî-ăðĺ÷ĺńęč». Âîéíŕ řëŕ ěĺćäó
őðčńňčŕíńęčě ýëëčíčçěîě č ýëëčíčçčðîâŕííűě őðčńňčŕíńňâîě čëč,
âĺðíĺĺ áóäĺň ńęŕçŕňü, ěĺćäó Ďðŕâîńëŕâčĺě č ńčíęðĺňčçěîě».59
Ďîëĺěčçčðó˙ ń čęîíîáîðöŕěč, ďðĺď. Čîŕíí î÷ĺðňčë íîâűĺ
áîăîńëîâńęčĺ ęîíňóðű čęîíű ęŕę «ňŕéíîâîäčňĺëüíčöű áëŕăîäŕňč», ÷ňî
č ďîçâîëčëî ďðč÷čńëčňü ĺĺ ę äðóăčě ńâ˙ůĺííűě ňŕéíîäĺéńňâč˙ě
Öĺðęâč. «Ěŕňĺðčŕëüíűĺ ďðĺäěĺňű (aiJ u{lai), ńŕěč ďî ńĺáĺ íĺďîęëŕ-
í˙ĺěűĺ, äĺëŕţňń˙ ďî ěĺðĺ âĺðű ńîďðč÷ŕńňíčęŕěč áëŕăîäŕňč (mevtocoi
cavrito~)ª.60
Čęîíŕ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńâ˙ňűíĺé, ďîńðĺäńňâóţůĺé â ńîîáůĺíčč áëŕăîäŕňč –
ďîćŕëóé, ňŕę ěîćíî áűëî áű ńôîðěóëčðîâŕňü čňîă ďĺðâîăî ďĺðčîäŕ
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ; äðóăîé âŕćíĺéřčé ďðčçíŕę čęîíű – ńőîäńňâî
čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ń îðčăčíŕëîě – ðŕçðŕáŕňűâŕëń˙ óćĺ âî âňîðîé ďĺðčîä
áîðüáű çŕ ńâ˙ňűĺ čęîíű.
Âňîðîé ďĺðčîä čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ, íŕ÷ŕâřčéń˙ ÷ĺðĺç 26 ëĺň
ďîńëĺ VII Âńĺëĺíńęîăî Ńîáîðŕ, âîńńňŕíîâčâřĺăî čęîíîďî÷čňŕíčĺ, äëčëń˙
30 ëĺň č ďî÷ňč çĺðęŕëüíî ďîâňîðčë âńĺ ďĺðčďĺňčč ďĺðâîăî ýňŕďŕ ăîíĺíčé
íŕ čęîíű, âďëîňü äî ńîçűâŕ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ńîáîðŕ 815 ă., âî ěíîăîě
ďîâňîðčâřĺăî ŕðăóěĺíňű čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî ńîáîðŕ 754 ă. «Ďîâňîð˙ţňń˙
äŕćĺ ðîëč čěďĺðŕňîðîâ-íîâűő čęîíîáîðöĺâ (ňŕęćĺ â ńâ˙çč ń óńďĺříîé
«ďðîăðĺńńčâíîé» ăîńóäŕðńňâĺííîé äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňüţ) č ďðîňčâîńňî˙ůĺé čě
čěďĺðŕňðččöű-ðĺăĺíňřč ń ěŕëîëĺňíčě ńűíîě, äîńňčăřĺé ňîðćĺńňâŕ
59 G. FLOROVSKY, Origen, Eusebius, and the Iconoclastic Controversy, 95-96. Äë˙
ďîäňâĺðćäĺíč˙ ýňîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ Ôëîðîâńęčé îňńűëŕĺň ę číňĺðĺńíîé ðŕáîňĺ E.
von IV¡NKA, Hellenisches und Christliches im fr¸hbyzantinischen Geistesleben, Wien
1948, 105.
60 Čîŕííŕ Äŕěŕńęčíŕ «Ďĺðâîĺ çŕůčňčňĺëüíîĺ ńëîâî ďðîňčâ îňâĺðăŕţůčő
ńâ˙ňűĺ čęîíű» 1.36, 148. Öčň. ďî: Í. ŃŔŐŔÐÎÂ, Î ďðč÷číŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő
24 ńďîðîâ..., Ŕëüôŕ č Îěĺăŕ 3(29) (2001) 115.
ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙».61 Íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîě ńîáîðĺ 843 ă., ńîçâŕííîăî

čěďĺðŕňðčöĺé Ôĺîäîðîé áűëč îęîí÷ŕňĺëüíî âîńńňŕíîâëĺíű, ďî ńëîâó
ëĺňîďčńöŕ, «ńâ˙ňűĺ č ÷ĺńňíűĺ čęîíű äë˙ ďî÷čňŕíč˙ č ďîęëîíĺíč˙ â őðŕěĺ
Áîćčĺě». Čěďĺðŕňðčöŕ óńňðîčëŕ îňęðűňîĺ öĺðęîâíîĺ ňîðćĺńňâî,
ęîňîðîĺ ďŕëî íŕ ďĺðâîĺ âîńęðĺńĺíüĺ Âĺëčęîăî Ďîńňŕ. Â ňîň 843 ăîä ýňî
áűëî 11 ěŕðňŕ. Ń ňĺő ďîð č áűë óńňŕíîâëĺí ďðŕçäíčę ňîðćĺńňâŕ
Ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙, âîň óćĺ íŕ ďðîň˙ćĺíčč 12 âĺęîâ îňěĺ÷ŕĺěűé öĺðęîâüţ â
ęŕćäîĺ ďĺðâîĺ âîńęðĺńĺíüĺ Âĺëčęîăî Ďîńňŕ. Ýňî íĺ ńňîëüęî ďðŕçäíčę
Ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙ čęîíű, ęŕę îí áűë íŕçâŕí â ďĺðâűé ðŕç, ńęîëüęî ďðŕçäíčę
ńŕěîé čęîíű, ęŕę îáðŕçŕ Ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙.
Ń ňĺ÷ĺíčĺě âðĺěĺíč äĺíü ňîðćĺńňâŕ ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙ ďðčîáðĺë îáůčé
řčðîęčé őŕðŕęňĺð ňîðćĺńňâŕ öĺðęâč íŕä âńĺěč ĺðĺń˙ěč, îň ŕðčŕíńňâŕ äî
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ: íĺäŕðîě ăëŕâíîé ňĺěîé ęóðńŕ ëĺęöčé ďî čńňîðčč
ŕðčŕíńęîé ĺðĺńč, ęîňîðűé ďŕňðčŕðő Ôîňčé ÷čňŕë, âĺðî˙ňíî, â 861 ăîäó62
(ďîńëĺ ńěĺðňč ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Ěĺôîäč˙, ďðč ęîňîðîě č áűëî ďðîâîçăëŕřĺíî
«ňîðćĺńňâî ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙») ęŕę ðŕç č ńňŕëî ńðŕâíĺíčĺ ŕðčŕíńňâŕ ń
ńîáűňč˙ěč äĺâ˙ňîăî – «čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî» – âĺęŕ!63
Ďî÷ĺěó ďðŕâîńëŕâíűě ďîňðĺáîâŕëîńü ńňîëü ěíîăî âðĺěĺíč, ÷ňîáű
ńîçäŕňü ðŕçâčňîĺ áîăîńëîâčĺ îáðŕçŕ-čęîíű? Čçîůðĺííŕ˙ őðčńňî-
ëîăč÷ĺńęŕ˙ äčŕëĺęňčęŕ čęîíîáîðöĺâ, ďðĺäńňŕâëĺííŕ˙ čěč íŕ čęîíî-
áîð÷ĺńęîě ńîáîðĺ 754 ă. ńŕěčě čěďĺðŕňîðîě-čęîíîáîðöĺě Ęîíńňŕí-
ňčíîě V íĺ ďîäâĺðăëŕńü íčęŕęîěó îáńóćäĺíčţ íŕ VII Âńĺëĺíńęîě
Ńîáîðĺ; ňðóäű ďðîčăðŕâřčő čęîíîáîðöĺâ áűëč ďî÷ňč ďîëíîńňüţ
óíč÷ňîćĺíű čő ďîáĺäčâřčěč ďðîňčâíčęŕěč (ňŕę, î áîăîńëîâńęčő
äîâîäŕő čěďĺðŕňîðŕ ďðîňčâ čęîíîďčńŕíč˙ ěű óçíŕĺě ňîëüęî ďî
äîřĺäřĺěó äî íŕń ňðóäó ďŕňðčŕðőŕ Íčęčôîðŕ (750-829), îďðî-
âĺðăŕţůĺěó ýňó ŕðăóěĺíňŕöčţ),64 ŕ ńŕěč îíč ńňŕëč ěčřĺíüţ
čçíč÷ňîćčňĺëüíűő âűńęŕçűâŕíčé – Äŕěŕńęčí, ęŕę čçâĺńňíî, äŕë
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčě ĺďčńęîďŕě (ejpivskopoi) ďðîçâčůĺ «ěðŕęîáĺńűª
(ejpivskotoi),65 ňĺě áîëĺĺ óíč÷čćčňĺëüíîĺ, ÷ňî ĺěó äë˙ ýňîăî áűëî
äîńňŕňî÷íî çŕěĺíčňü âńĺăî ëčřü îäíó áóęâó...
Ďîðŕçčňĺëüíî č äðóăîĺ: íĺ ňîëüęî čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëč (÷ňî, âńĺ-ňŕęč,
ďîí˙ňíĺĺ) ďîńňŕðŕëčńü ďîăëóáćĺ çŕďð˙ňŕňü âńĺ «ěŕňĺðčŕëüíűĺ äîęŕ-
çŕňĺëüńňâŕ» čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîăî áîăîńëîâč˙, íî č ńŕěč ńîáîðíűĺ (754 ă.)
čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčĺ îňöű, âńĺ 338 ĺďčńęîďŕ čçěĺíčëč čěďĺðŕňîðńęčĺ ňĺęńňű
Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ č âďîëíĺ ďî-âčçŕíňčéńęč çŕěĺëč âńĺ ńëĺäű, ęîňîðűĺ ěîăëč
áű ďðčâĺńňč ę čńňčíĺ. Čńňčíŕ ćĺ çŕęëţ÷ŕëŕńü â ńëĺäóţůĺě: Ęîíńňŕíňčí
ńîâĺðřĺííî ďðŕâčëüíî óňâĺðćäŕë, ÷ňî ęŕćäŕ˙ čęîíŕ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň
provswpon (ëčöî) ňîăî, ÷üčě îáðŕçîě îíŕ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ č îďðĺäĺëčë čęîíó ęŕę
61 Ŕ. Â. ĘŔÐŇŔŘĹÂ, Âńĺëĺíńęčĺ ńîáîðű, Ěîńęâŕ 1994, 507.

62 Photios, Homilies, in: B. Laourdas (ed.), Fwtivou omilivai (= Hellenika. Supl. 12),
Thessaloniki 1959, ą XV, 142.19-143.16.
63 Ŕ. Ď. ĘŔĆÄŔÍ, Čńňîðč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ëčňĺðŕňóðű (650-850 ăă.), Ńŕíęň-
Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2002, 475.
64 Patr. Nicephorus, Antirrhetici adversus Constantinum Copronymum 1, PG 100, 232A.
65 M.-F. AUZ…PY, La vie dí…tienne le Diacre, Aldershot 1997, 126. 7; 127. 16; 142. 6. 25
îáðŕç «ëčęŕ-ëčöŕ».66 Ďðîáëĺěŕ áűëŕ, îäíŕęî, â ňîě – č ýňî íĺ ðŕńďîçíŕëč

čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëč «ďĺðâîăî ďîęîëĺíč˙» č ďî÷óâńňâîâŕëč čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčĺ
ńîáîðíűĺ îňöű, ďîýňîěó č čńďðŕâčëč čńőîäíűĺ ďîëîćĺíč˙ ŕðăóěĺíňŕöčč
Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ – ÷ňî ýňîň provswpon îí ďîíčěŕë íĺďðŕâčëüíî, ń÷čňŕ˙, ÷ňî
ęňî îďčńűâŕĺň ýňî ëčöî-ëčę, îďčńűâŕĺň ňŕęćĺ č Áîćĺńňâĺííîĺ ĺńňĺńňâî,
ŕ îíî íĺîďčńóĺěî.
Ëčřü âî âňîðîě ďĺðčîäĺ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ ďŕňðčŕðő Íčęčôîð
(806-829) č Ôĺîäîð Ńňóäčň (759-826), «âĺëčęčĺ áîăîńëîâű čęîíű» ńóěĺëč
ðŕńęîëäîâŕňü ýňî čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîĺ çŕęëčíŕíčĺ č ńîçäŕňü ďîäëčííîĺ
áîăîńëîâčĺ îáðŕçŕ.
Ńîăëŕńíî ďŕňðčŕðőó Íčęčôîðó, ĺńňü ęîðĺííîĺ ðŕçëč÷čĺ ěĺćäó
îďčńŕíčĺě (îăðŕíč÷ĺíčĺě, îďðĺäĺëĺíčĺě – perigrafhv) č čçîáðŕćĺíčĺě-
ćčâîďčńŕíčĺě (grafhv).67 Îďčńóĺěîńňü – îäíî čç ńóůíîńňíűő ńâîéńňâ
ńîňâîðĺííîăî ěčðŕ, íĺîáőîäčěűé ďðčçíŕę ëţáîăî ďðĺäěĺňŕ č ˙âëĺíč˙,
ďîëó÷čâřĺăî áűňčĺ,68 ăëŕâíŕ˙ ăŕðŕíňč˙ ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙ ňĺëŕ,69 áîëĺĺ
ňîăî – «ńŕěîîďðĺäĺëĺíčĺ, ńóůíîńňü ňĺëŕ».70 Îďčńŕíčĺ (perigrafhv) – ýňî
ńďîńîá îňăðŕíč÷ĺíč˙ âĺůč îň âńĺăî, ÷ňî ĺţ íĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙, ňî ĺńňü
ôŕęňč÷ĺńęč ńďîńîá ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙ âĺůč.71
«Îďčńóĺěîĺ îďčńűâŕĺňń˙ čëč ďðîńňðŕíńňâîě, čëč âðĺěĺíĺě, čëč
íŕ÷ŕëîě, čëč ďîçíŕíčĺě»;72 îďčńŕíčĺ, čëč îďčńóĺěîńňü, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě,
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ îäíîé čç ăëŕâíűő őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę áűňč˙. Áűňü îďčńŕííűě ďî
ěĺńňó, âðĺěĺíč, íŕ÷ŕëó čëč ďîíčěŕíčţ – «÷ňî ńőâŕ÷ĺíî ðŕńńóäęîě čëč
ðŕçóěîě»73 – çíŕ÷čň, ďî ńóňč, áűňü âęëţ÷ĺííűě â ăðŕíčöű ęîíĺ÷íîăî;
îďčńŕíčĺ, čëč îďčńóĺěîńňü, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, îäíŕ čç ăëŕâíűő
îíňîëîăč÷ĺńęčő őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę áűňč˙.74 Ěîćíî ńęŕçŕňü, ÷ňî âńĺ ňâŕðíîĺ
áűňčĺ îďčńŕíî, âęëţ÷ĺíî â ăðŕíčöű ęîíĺ÷íîăî.
Čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ ćĺ č čçîáðŕçčěîńňü, ćčâîďčńŕíčĺ č ðčńîâŕíčĺ
îňíîń˙ňń˙ âńĺöĺëî ę äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč őóäîćíčęŕ. Čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ěîăóň áűňü
ňîëüęî «ðóęîňâîðíűěč», ńîçäŕííűěč ńďĺöčŕëüíî ďî ďîäðŕćŕíčţ
íĺęîňîðîěó îáðŕçöó, čëč ŕðőĺňčďó. Čęîíŕ – čńęóńńňâĺííűé îáðŕç –
î÷ĺâčäíî ďðčíŕäëĺćčň ę ęŕňĺăîðčč čçîáðŕćĺíčé. Íčęčôîð îďðĺäĺë˙ĺň
66 Ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě. ôóíäŕěĺíňŕëüíóţ ðŕáîňó S. GERO, Byzantine Iconoclasm during

the Reign of Constantin V, with Particular Attention to the Orient Sources, Louvain 1977,
1-191.
67 Antirrh. II, PG 100, 356A-357A.
68 Antirrh. II, PG 100, 241A, 444B.
69 Antirrh. II, PG 100, 252B.
70 Antirrh. II, PG 100, 444B.
71 Íčęčôîð ðŕçëč÷ŕĺň ěĺćäó ńóůíîńňíűě ńîńňî˙íčĺě (lovgo~) č ńďîńîáîě áűňč˙
(trovpo~), ęîňîðîĺ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺíî óćĺ ó Ěŕęńčěŕ Čńďîâĺäíčęŕ.
72 Antirrh. II, PG 100, 356Ń.
73 Antirrh. II, PG 100, 356Â-357Ŕ.
74 Ďîäðîáíîĺ čçëîćĺíčĺ ňĺîðčč Íčęčôîðŕ: ńě. Â. Â. ÁŰ÷ĘÎÂ, Ěŕëŕ˙ čńňîðč˙
âčçŕíňčéńęîé ýńňĺňčęč, Ęčĺâ 1991, 190-207. Ńě. ňŕęćĺ: M.-J. MONDZAIN, Image,
icÙne, Èconomie. Les sources byzantines de líimaginaire contemporain, Paris 1996.
26 75 Antirrh. II, PG 100, 277Ŕ.
čęîíó ęŕę ďîäðŕćŕíčĺ ďĺðâîîáðŕçó, ĺăî îňďĺ÷ŕňîę; áëŕăîäŕð˙ ńőîäńňâó ń

ďĺðâîîáðŕçîě îíŕ âűðŕćŕĺň âĺńü âíĺříčé îáëčę ňîăî, ęîăî îňðŕćŕĺň, íî
îńňŕĺňń˙ ńóůíîńňíî îňëč÷íîé îň ńâîĺăî îðčăčíŕëŕ, ŕðőĺňčďŕ.75 Äðóăčěč
ńëîâŕěč, čęîíŕ ďðčíŕäëĺćčň ę ďðĺäěĺňŕě «ńîîňíîńčňĺëüíűě», ăëŕâíîé
÷ĺðňîé ęîňîðűő č áóäĺň ńîîňíĺńĺííîńňü ń äðóăčě ďðĺäěĺňîě, ŕ íĺ
ńŕěîäîâëĺţůĺĺ áűňčĺ. Čęîíŕ ĺńňü ňî, ÷ňî â ńâîĺě áűňčč îďðĺäĺë˙ĺňń˙
îňíîńčňĺëüíî äðóăîăî.76 Çŕňĺě â őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęó čęîíű ďŕňðčŕðő
Íčęčôîð ââîäčň ŕðčńňîňĺëĺâńęóţ ęŕňĺăîðčţ îňíîřĺíč˙ (scevsi~):
«Îáðŕç ďðčíŕäëĺćčň ę ęŕňĺăîðčč îňíîřĺíč˙ (pro ti)... Čáî îáðŕç – ýňî
âńĺăäŕ îáðŕç ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ... Čáî îáðŕç č ďĺðâîîáðŕç âńĺăäŕ ďðĺäďîëŕăŕţň
äðóă äðóăŕ.., č äŕćĺ ĺńëč âäðóă ďĺðâîîáðŕç čń÷ĺçíĺň, îňíîřĺíčĺ âńĺ ðŕâíî
îńňŕíĺňń˙..»,77 ďðč÷ĺě îňíîřĺíčĺ čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ ńîőðŕí˙ĺňń˙ č ňîăäŕ,
ęîăäŕ îäíŕ čç ńňîðîí (čëč äŕćĺ îáĺ) ďĺðĺńňŕíóň ðĺŕëüíî ńóůĺńňâîâŕňü:
«Ďîäîáíîĺ ěîćĺň, íŕďðčěĺð, ńëó÷čňń˙ ó îňöŕ č ńűíŕ. Ęîăäŕ ďĺðâűé
óäŕëčëń˙, îí âńĺ ćĺ îńňŕëń˙ çäĺńü áëŕăîäŕð˙ ńőîäńňâó, âîńďîěčíŕíčţ čëč
ôîðěĺ, ęîňîðîĺ ďîęŕçűâŕĺň ĺăî čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ. Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, îňíîřĺíčĺ
íĺ ńňðŕäŕĺň îň âðĺěĺíč».78
Ńĺé ňðóä ďî ðŕçëč÷ĺíčţ ńěűńëîâ č ÷ĺňęîěó óńňŕíîâëĺíčţ
âîäîðŕçäĺëîâ ěűńëč áűë ďðĺäďðčí˙ň ďŕňðčŕðőîě Íčęčôîðîě, ÷ňîáű
ďîęŕçŕňü íĺňî÷íîńňü ďîí˙ňč˙ «íĺîďčńóĺěîńňč» (ajperigrayiva), ęîňîðűĺ
«çðĺëűĺ» čęîíîáîðöű ďîäí˙ëč íŕ ůčň â áîðüáĺ ń ďðŕâîńëŕâíűěč.79 Äĺëî
â ňîě, ÷ňî ďîńëĺ Őŕëęčäîíńęîăî Ńîáîðŕ, íŕ ęîňîðîě áűëč čçëîćĺíű
îáůčĺ ďîëîćĺíč˙ ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé őðčńňîëîăčč (â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, čńďîâĺäŕíčĺ
íĺńëč˙ííîăî ĺäčíńňâŕ Áîćĺńňâĺííîăî č ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî ĺńňĺńňâ Őðčńňŕ),80
őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ďðîăðŕěěŕ čęîíîáîðöĺâ, âĺðíî č ďðĺäŕííî ńëĺäóţůŕ˙
ňĺçčńó Ĺâńĺâč˙ Ęĺńŕðčéńęîăî (264-340) î íĺâîçěîćíîńňč čçîáðŕćĺíč˙
76 Â. ÁŰ÷ĘÎÂ, Ěŕëŕ˙ čńňîðč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ýńňĺňčęč, 195.

77 Antirrh. II, PG 100, 277D-280A.
78 Ňŕě ćĺ.
79 «Ńčĺ ďîí˙ňčĺ, – ďčřĺň Íčęčôîð, – îíč, ńëîâíî íĺďðčńňóďíóţ ęðĺďîńňü
ńîîðóäčëč ďðîňčâ ďðŕâîńëŕâíűő», PG 100, 209B.
80 Äë˙ ďðŕâčëüíîăî ďîíčěŕíč˙ ýňîăî ďîëîćĺíč˙ ďðčâîäčě «ďîďðŕâęó» î. Íčęîëŕ˙
Îçîëčíŕ, ďðîô. Ďðŕâîńëŕâíîăî Ńâ˙ňî-Ńĺðăčĺâńęîăî Áîăîńëîâńęîăî Číńňčňóňŕ â
Ďŕðčćĺ: «Ęŕę âńĺě čçâĺńňíî, óńňŕěč Îňöîâ V Âńĺëĺíńęîăî Ńîáîðŕ ďðŕâîńëŕâíűé
Âîńňîę, íĺóäîâëĺňâîðĺííűé ńëčřęîě «ěĺőŕíč÷ĺńęîé» äâóńîńňŕâíîńňüţ
Áîăî÷ĺëîâĺęŕ â ňîěîńĺ Ďŕďű Ëüâŕ, óňâĺðäčë ðŕç č íŕâńĺăäŕ, ÷ňî ďðŕâčëüíîĺ
ďîíčěŕíčĺ öĺíňðŕëüíîăî őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęîăî äîăěŕňŕ, ďðîâîçăëŕřĺííîăî îðîńîě
Őŕëęčäîíńęîăî Ńîáîðŕ, âîçěîćíî ňîëüęî â ńâĺňĺ Ęčðčëëîâîé ńîňĺðčîëîăčč, ňî
ĺńňü â ńâĺňĺ ďðŕâîńëŕâíîăî ňĺîďŕńőčçěŕ. Âŕćíĺéřĺé ÷ĺðňîé îíîăî ˙âë˙ĺňń˙
ńňðîăîĺ ńîáëţäĺíčĺ ó÷ĺíč˙ î äâóő ďðčðîäŕő č – ęŕę ďîęŕçŕëŕ ěîíîôĺëčňńęŕ˙
ńěóňŕ – îá čő ńóůíîńňíűő ńâîéńňâŕő». «Çäĺńü âŕćíî ďîä÷ĺðęíóňü â äóőĺ
őŕëęčäîíńęîăî ňĺîďŕńőčçěŕ îňöîâ V Âńĺëĺíńęîăî Ńîáîðŕ, ÷ňî čěĺííî Áîă
čçâîëĺíčĺě âńĺé Ňðîčöű ńňŕë âčäčěűě âî ďëîňč, ňî÷íî ňŕęćĺ, ęŕę čěĺííî Áîă
ëč÷íî óěĺð âî ďëîňč âîëüíîţ ńěĺðňčţ íŕ ęðĺńňĺ. Ňî áűëŕ îńíîâíŕ˙
ńîňĺðčîëîăč÷ĺńęŕ˙ číňóčöč˙ ńâ˙ň. Ęčðčëëŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęîăî î ńďŕńčňĺëüíîé
ëč÷íîé ňîćäĺńňâĺííîńňč ďðĺäâĺ÷íîăî č áĺçíŕ÷ŕëüíîăî Ńëîâŕ ńî Ččńóńîě
Őðčńňîě, âîďëîůĺííűě Ëîăîńîě». Ńě. Í. ÎÇÎËČÍ, Îá îďčńóĺěîé íĺîďčńóĺěîńňč,
čëč î äâóő ďðčðîäíűő îáðŕçŕő â ĺäčíîé čďîńňŕńč Ńďŕńčňĺë˙, in: Ďðŕâîńëŕâíŕ˙
čęîíîëîăč˙ – îńíîâű č ďĺðńďĺęňčâű, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2005, 19-29. 27
Őðčńňŕ, ďîňîěó ÷ňî Ĺăî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ĺńňĺńňâî ďîëíîńňüţ ďðîńëŕâëĺíî č

îáîćĺíî, ńňŕëŕ íĺńîńňî˙ňĺëüíîé. «Ňĺďĺðü,- ęŕę ďčřĺň ŘĹÍÁÎÐÍ,- ńŕěî
ďîí˙ňčĺ «íĺîďčńóĺěîńňč» ęŕę íĺëüç˙ ëó÷řĺ ďðčăîäčëîńü â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ
áîĺâîăî ęëč÷ŕ ďðîňčâ čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëĺé».81 «Áîĺâîé ęëč÷» ďðîňčâíčęîâ
ďî÷čňŕíč˙ čęîí (č íĺ ńëó÷ŕéíî, ęîíĺ÷íî, ŕðěč˙ íĺčçěĺííî ďîääĺðćčâŕëŕ
čěĺííî čęîíîáîðöĺâ), îăëóřŕ˙ čő ńŕěčő, íĺ ďîçâîëčëŕ ðŕńëűřŕňü číűĺ
îáĺðňîíű...Čńňîðč˙ ďîâňîð˙ëŕńü: íĺćĺëŕíčĺ (čëč íĺńďîńîáíîńňü) ę
«ðŕçëč÷ĺíčţ äóőîâ», ńâîéńňâĺííîĺ âńĺě ĺðĺń˙ě, č íŕ ńĺé ðŕç ďðčâîäčëŕ ę
ńěĺřĺíčţ ďîí˙ňčé, ăðîç˙ůĺěó îáðóřčňü âńţ ŕðőčňĺęňîíčęó çíŕ÷ĺíčé,
ńěűńëîâ č ðŕçëč÷ĺíčé, âűðŕáîňŕííűő őðčńňčŕíńęîé ěűńëüţ íŕ
ďðîň˙ćĺíččč íĺńęîëüęčő âĺęîâ...
Čňŕę, Íčęčôîð ðŕçðĺřčë íĺäîðŕçóěĺíčĺ: ęŕðňčíŕ (grafhv), îáðŕç,
čęîíŕ őŕðŕęňĺðčçóţňń˙ ńâîčě îňíîřĺíčĺě ńőîäńňâŕ ń ďĺðâîîáðŕçîě,
îäíŕęî îňëč÷ŕţňń˙ îň čçîáðŕćĺííîăî íŕ íčő. Čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň
ńîáîé äðóăóţ ðĺŕëüíîńňü, îňäĺëĺííóţ îň čçîáðŕćŕĺěîăî. ×ňî ćĺ
ęŕńŕĺňń˙ «îďčńóĺěîńňč» (perigrafhv) – ňî ýňî ňŕęîĺ ęŕ÷ĺńňâî, ęîňîðîĺ
íĺîňúĺěëĺěî ďðčíŕäëĺćčň ňîěó, ęňî čě îáëŕäŕĺň. Äŕëĺĺ, Íčęčôîð
ďîęŕçŕë, ÷ňî ńěĺřĺíčĺ ďîí˙ňčé grafhv č perigrafhv ďîęîčňń˙ íŕ
ěčôč÷ĺńęîě ďîíčěŕíčč îáðŕçŕ: «ěčôč÷ĺńęîĺ ńîçíŕíčĺ» ňðĺáóĺň,÷ňîáű
îáðŕç íĺ ňîëüęî ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ë, ˙âë˙ë ďĺðâîîáðŕç âî âíĺříĺě îáëčęĺ, íî
÷ňîáű îí ňŕęćĺ ńîâďŕäŕë ń íčě («îďčńűâŕë» ĺăî) č âî âńĺő äðóăčő
îňíîřĺíč˙ő. Čęîíîáîðöű ń÷čňŕëč, ÷ňî íŕ čęîíĺ «äîëćíŕ áűňü
«ńőâŕ÷ĺíŕ» âń˙ ðĺŕëüíîńňü čçîáðŕćĺííîăî ëčöŕ».82 Č ĺůĺ îäíî ó˙çâčěîĺ
ěĺńňî â čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęîé ŕðăóěĺíňŕöčč íŕřĺë ďŕňðčŕðő Íčęčôîð: äë˙
čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ č čćĺ ń íčě ńŕěŕ «îďčńóĺěîńňü» č ńâ˙çŕííŕ˙ ń
íĺé ňĺëĺńíîńňü ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ďîńëĺäńňâč˙ěč ăðĺőîďŕäĺíč˙. Ďîýňîěó îíč, â
äóőĺ îðčăĺíčçěŕ, ęîňîðűé âîńďðčí˙ë č ðŕçâčë âðŕćäĺáíűé ę îáðŕçŕě
Ĺâńĺâčé Ęĺńŕðčéńęčé, íŕńňŕčâŕëč íŕ «ďîëíîé ďĺðĺěĺíĺ» ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî
ĺńňĺńňâŕ Őðčńňŕ ďîńëĺ Âîńęðĺńĺíč˙ č Âîçíĺńĺíč˙. Íčęčôîð ďîęŕçűâŕĺň,
÷ňî íĺóńňðŕíčěŕ˙ ńîáńňâĺííŕ˙ ðĺŕëüíîńňü ňĺëŕ ęîðĺíčňń˙ â îíňî-
ëîăč÷ĺńęîě ďðčíöčďĺ ňâŕðíîńňč; č «îďčńóĺěîńňü», č çðčěîĺ ĺńňĺńňâî, č
âîîáůĺ ňĺëĺńíîńňü őŕðŕęňĺðčçóţň ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ńóůĺńňâî čçíŕ÷ŕëüíî.
Ăîńďîäü, Ňâîðĺö ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî ĺńňĺńňâŕ, íî íĺ ňâîðĺö ĺăî ńěĺðňč, ńňŕë
÷ĺëîâĺęîě, ÷ňîáű čçáŕâčňü ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ îň ńěĺðňč, íî íĺ îň ĺăî ĺńňĺńňâŕ.83
«Íčęčôîð ďðîäîëćčë âĺëčęóţ ďŕňðčńňč÷ĺńęóţ ňðŕäčöčţ îňöîâ-
ęŕďďŕäîęčéöĺâ č ńâ. Ěŕęńčěŕ Čńďîâĺäíčęŕ: «ďëŕňîíčçčðóţůĺé» ňî÷ęĺ
çðĺíč˙ íŕ îáîćĺíčĺ ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ – «âîçâűřĺíčĺ» íčçřĺăî â âűńřĺĺ, ďðč÷ĺě
íčçřĺĺ ĺńňü ňîëüęî ňĺíü âűńřĺăî, – îí ďðîňčâîďîńňŕâčë «őðčńňčŕíńęčé
ŕðčńňîňĺëčçě», čëč, ňî÷íĺĺ, «őŕëęčäîíčçě», íŕřĺäřčé ńâîĺ âűðŕćĺíčĺ â
âĺðîčńďîâĺäíîé ôîðěóëčðîâęĺ Őŕëęčäîíńęîăî Ńîáîðŕ».84 Â ňŕéíĺ
Őðčńňŕ ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ĺńňĺńňâî îáíîâčëîńü, ŕ íĺ ďĺðĺěĺíčëîńü. Íĺ
ĺńňĺńňâî íóćäŕĺňń˙ â ďĺðĺěĺíĺ, íî ńďîńîá áűňč˙ ňðĺáóĺň îáíîâëĺíč˙.
82 Ňŕě ćĺ, 198.
83 Ňŕě ćĺ, 201.
28 84 Ňŕě ćĺ, 203.

Â ýňîě č ńîńňîčň č ŕíňčíîěč˙ íŕřĺăî ńďŕńĺíč˙, č ŕíňčíîěč˙ čęîíű: âî

Őðčńňĺ íŕřĺ ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ áűňčĺ äîëćíî áűňü îáîćĺíî, íĺ ďĺðĺńňŕâŕ˙
ďðč ýňîě áűňü «÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé ďëîňüţ č ęðîâüţ».
Ń âîöŕðĺíčĺě čęîíîáîðńňâóţůĺăî čěďĺðŕňîðŕ Ëüâŕ V Ŕðě˙íčíŕ
(813-820) ðŕçðŕçčëń˙ âňîðîé ďĺðčîä čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ, ďî ńâîčě ćĺńňî-
ęîńň˙ě ďðĺâçîřĺäřčé ăîíĺíčĺ Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ Ęîďðîíčěŕ.
«Ďðĺäâčä˙ ăîíĺíčĺ, ďŕňðčŕðő Íčęčôîð ńîáðŕë îęîëî ńĺá˙ ĺäčíî-
ěűřëĺííčęîâ-ĺďčńęîďîâ č îňńëóćčë ń íčěč âńĺíîůíîĺ áäĺíčĺ.
Čěďĺðŕňîð Ëĺâ ń÷ĺë ýňî çŕ äĺěîíńňðŕöčţ č ńäĺëŕë ð˙ä ďðčäčðîę ę
Íčęčôîðó. Íŕçíŕ÷čë ðĺâčçčţ č ďîňðĺáîâŕë îň ďŕňðčŕðőŕ îň÷ĺňŕ â
öĺðęîâíűő čěóůĺńňâŕő; ďðčí˙ë ð˙ä ćŕëîá íŕ íĺăî č âűçâŕë ĺăî íŕ ńóä
ęó÷ęč ĺďčńęîďîâ č ęëčðčęîâ. Íčęčôîð îň ˙âęč íŕ ýňîň íĺçŕęîííűé č
óíčçčňĺëüíűé ńóä (áĺç ďŕňðčŕðőîâ – ðčěńęîăî, ŕëĺęńŕíäðčéńęîăî č äð.)
îňęŕçŕëń˙. Ďîńëŕë čěďĺðŕňîðó ďčńüěĺííîĺ îňðĺ÷ĺíčĺ îň ďŕňðčŕðřĺńňâŕ
č â ďîëíî÷ü 20 ěŕðňŕ 815 ă., ďîěîëčâřčńü â Ńâ. Ńîôčč, ńŕě îňďðŕâčëń˙ â
ńńűëęó â ńâîé ěîíŕńňűðü».85
Áîăîńëîâčţ čęîíű ńóćäĺíî áűëî çŕâĺðřčňüń˙ â ňðóäŕő ńŕěîăî
çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîăî č îäíîâðĺěĺííî ďîńëĺäíĺăî čç âĺëčęčő čęîíîďî÷čňŕňĺëĺé,
čăóěĺíó áîëüřîăî Ńňóäčéńęîăî ěîíŕńňűð˙ â Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëĺ, Ôĺîäîðó
Ńňóäčňó (759-826). Ó ďðĺď. Ôĺîäîðŕ Ńňóäčňŕ ĺńňü ďîðŕçčňĺëüíîĺ
óňâĺðćäĺíčĺ, ÷ňî îáðŕç-čęîíŕ Őðčńňŕ ňîćäĺńňâĺííŕ ń Íčě čďîńňŕńíî
(kaq j uJpovstasin), íî ðŕçëč÷íŕ â ńâîĺě ńóůĺńňâĺ (kaq j oujsivan); â ňŕéíĺ
Áîăî÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî Ëčöŕ Őðčńňŕ č çŕęëţ÷ĺíî ďîäëčííîĺ ńðĺäîňî÷čĺ
áîăîńëîâč˙ čęîíű.
Čęîíŕ – ýňî âńĺăäŕ ďîðňðĺň îďðĺäĺëĺííîăî ëčöŕ, ŕ íĺ ĺńňĺńňâŕ.
Ďðč÷ĺě, íĺň íčęŕęîăî «âńĺîáůĺăî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî ĺńňĺńňâŕ», ęîňîðîĺ áű
ńóůĺńňâîâŕëî âíĺ ęîíęðĺňíűő číäčâčäîâ, ŕ âĺäü čěĺííî íŕ îáðŕňíîě
óňâĺðćäĺíčč – ÷ňî Őðčńňîń âîńďðčí˙ë íŕ ńĺá˙ âńĺîáůĺĺ ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ
ĺńňĺńňâî, ŕ íĺ áűňčĺ číäčâčäóŕëüíîăî ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ – č ďîęîčëčńü
«íĺîňðŕçčěűĺ» ŕðăóěĺíňű čęîíîáîðöĺâ, ÷ňî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ áűňčĺ Őðčńňŕ
č ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ «íĺîďčńóĺěűě».
Ęŕę č ďŕňðčŕðő Íčęčôîð, Ôĺîäîð îďčðŕĺňń˙ íŕ ŕðčńňîňĺëĺâńęčĺ
ęŕňĺăîðčč: ďîí˙ňčĺ âńĺîáůĺăî čěĺĺň ńâîĺ áűňčĺ ëčřü â ęîíęðĺňíűő
číäčâčäŕő. «Âńĺîáůĺĺ čěĺĺň ńîńňî˙íčĺ ňîëüęî â číäčâčäóŕëüíîě.
Íŕďðčěĺð, ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ áűňčĺ ńóůĺńňâóĺň ëčřü â Ďĺňðĺ, Ďŕâëĺ č
ďðî÷čő ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺë˙ő ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî ðîäŕ. Ĺńëč áű ýňč číäčâčäű íĺ
ńóůĺńňâîâŕëč, ňî íĺ áűëî áű č âńĺîáůĺăî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîăî ĺńňĺńňâŕ».86
×ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ĺńňĺńňâî Őðčńňŕ ńóůĺńňâóĺň ňîćĺ ňîëüęî ęŕę ęîíęðĺňíîĺ,
číäčâčäóŕëüíîĺ. Îň âńĺő äðóăčő ëţäĺé Őðčńňîń, ęŕę ÷ĺëîâĺę, îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙
ńâîčěč ëč÷íűěč (čďîńňŕńíűěč) ęŕ÷ĺńňâŕěč – ňŕęćĺ, ęŕę č ëţäč â ńâîĺé
íĺďîâňîðčěîńňč č «íĺńðŕâíĺííîńňč» îňëč÷ŕţňń˙ äðóă îň äðóăŕ ńâîčěč
ëč÷íîńňíűěč ÷ĺðňŕěč.
Čęîíŕ ˙âë˙ĺň ëčřü çðčěűé îáðŕç ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, ňî, ÷ňî ĺěó ńâîéńňâĺííî,
÷ňî îňëč÷ŕĺň čěĺííî ýňîăî ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ îň âńĺő äðóăčő. Îäíŕęî, čęîíŕ
85 Ŕ. Â. ĘŔÐŇŔŘĹÂ, Âńĺëĺíńęčĺ ńîáîðű, 514.
86 PG 99, 396D. Öčň. ďî: Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Die Christus-Ikone, 208. 29
îňðŕćŕĺň íĺ ęŕęîĺ-ňî ńčţěčíóňíîĺ ńîńňî˙íčĺ âíĺříĺăî âčäŕ îðčăčíŕëŕ,

íĺ ěăíîâĺííîĺ ńîńňî˙íčĺ ĺăî âíĺříîńňč, îňðŕćŕţůĺĺ ňîëüęî äóřĺâíűĺ
äâčćĺíč˙ «ëčöŕ» â äŕííűé ěîěĺíň, ŕ ęŕę áű ĺăî «îíňîëîăč÷ĺńęčé
ďîðňðĺň». Ôĺîäîð çäĺńü ăîâîðčň íĺ ńňîëüęî î íĺčçîáðŕçčěîńňč âńĺő ýňčő
ëĺňó÷čő äóřĺâíűő äâčćĺíčé, ńęîëüęî ďðĺäú˙âë˙ĺň ę ćčâîďčńč
ňðĺáîâŕíčĺ – íĺęčé «ęŕňĺăîðč÷ĺńęčé čěďĺðŕňčâ» – íĺ čçîáðŕćŕňü ńîâńĺě
ýňč äâčćĺíč˙ č ńîńňî˙íč˙, ęŕę ďðĺőîä˙ůčĺ.87 Čęîíŕ, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, –
ýňî íĺ íŕňóðŕëčńňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ęîďč˙ âíĺříĺăî âčäŕ ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, ŕ ęŕę áű
«ôîňîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčé ńíčěîę», «äŕăĺððîňčď äóřč» ĺăî ęîíęðĺňíîăî îíňî-
ëîăč÷ĺńęîăî îáëčęŕ, íĺ ďîäâĺðćĺííîăî íčęŕęčě ńëó÷ŕéíűě čçěĺíĺíč˙ě.
Ĺăî ëčę, ŕ íĺ ěĺí˙ţůĺĺń˙ ëčöî.
Čęîíŕ ˙âë˙ĺň ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ â ĺăî ďðĺîáðŕćĺííîě, îáîćĺííîě ńîńňî˙íčč,
â ĺăî ńâ˙ňîńňč.
×ňî ćĺ ęŕńŕĺňń˙ čęîíű Őðčńňŕ, ňî ďðĺď. Ôĺîäîð Ńňóäčň ďîä-
÷ĺðęčâŕĺň, ÷ňî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęŕ˙ «îďčńóĺěŕ˙» ďðčðîäŕ Őðčńňŕ íĺ ńóůĺńňâóĺň
âíĺ čďîńňŕńč Ńëîâŕ, č â ýňîé čďîńňŕńč Ńëîâŕ ńîçĺðöŕĺňń˙ č îďčńűâŕĺňń˙
číäčâčäóŕëüíî (wJ~ ejn a[tomw). Čďîńňŕńü Őðčńňŕ îďčńóĺěŕ íĺ ďî Áîćĺńňâó,
ęîňîðîĺ íčęňî íčęîăäŕ íĺ âčäĺë, íî ďî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâó, ęîňîðîĺ â Íĺé
âčäčěî.88 Ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ, ĺńëč îăðŕíč÷čňüń˙ ëčřü ńîńóůĺńňâîâŕíčĺě äâóő
ďðčðîäíűő îáðŕçîâ – âčäčěîăî č íĺâčäčěîăî – âî Őðčńňĺ, ňî, ęŕę
çŕěĺ÷ŕĺň ďðîô. Îçîëčí, «Öĺðęîâü íčęîăäŕ íĺ ďîřëŕ áű äŕëüřĺ
ŕíňč÷íîăî íŕňóðŕëčńňč÷ĺńęîăî ďîðňðĺňŕ, ŕ â íŕřĺ âðĺě˙ ëó÷řčěč
čęîíŕěč áűëč áű ôîňîăðŕôčč... Íĺ çð˙ ďîďŕâřčĺ íŕ Óíčţ âî Ôëî-
ðĺíöčţ âčçŕíňčéöű âĺëĺăëŕńíî óćŕńŕëčńü îňęðîâĺííîěó íĺńňîðčŕíńňâó
ëŕňčíńęîé «çîîăðŕôčč» č íŕîňðĺç îňęŕçűâŕëčńü čęîííî ďî÷čňŕňü ĺĺ».89
Ęŕęîâű ćĺ âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ äâóő ďðčðîäíűő îáðŕçîâ – âčäčěîăî č
íĺâčäčěîăî – âî Őðčńňĺ?
Îáðŕç Áîćčé â ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé ďðčðîäĺ ďîëíîńňüţ âîńńňŕíîâëĺí,
âďëîňü äî ńîâĺðřĺííîăî áîăîďîäîáč˙. Ýňî ěîćíî íŕéňč óćĺ â ó÷ĺíčč
ďðĺď. Ěŕęńčěŕ Čńďîâĺäíčęŕ, ęîňîðűé ďîęŕçŕë, ÷ňî îáðŕç îňëč÷ĺí îň
ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ ńďîńîáîě ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙ – trovpo~ uJparxew~ – íî čő ĺäčíńňâî,
č áîëĺĺ ňîăî, čő ëč÷íŕ˙ ňîćäĺńňâĺííîńňü îáĺńďĺ÷čâŕţňń˙ ďðîíčęíî-
âĺíčĺě ýíĺðăčé ďðîîáðŕçŕ â îáðŕç.
«...ďî ěĺðĺ ňîăî, ęŕę ýíĺðăčč ŕðőĺňčďŕ íŕďîëí˙ţň îáðŕç, ńďîńîá
áűňč˙ îáðŕçŕ – ďðĺîäîëĺâŕ˙ îńíîâíűĺ îďďîçčöčč, îňäĺë˙ţůčĺ îáðŕç îň
ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ – áëčçčňń˙ ę ńďîńîáó áűňč˙ ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ. Ýňî č ĺńňü
âîçâðŕůĺíčĺ îáðŕçŕ ę ďĺðâîîáðŕçó, ďðĺäěĺňŕ – ę ńâîĺěó ëîăîńó,
îáîćĺíčĺ ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ č ęîńěîńŕ... Âĺńü ýňîň ďðîöĺńń őðčńňîöĺíňðč÷ĺí,
ďîńęîëüęó âî Őðčńňĺ íŕ÷ŕňî č ďðĺîáðŕçîâŕíî ýňî âçŕčěîďðîíčęíîâĺíčĺ
îáðŕçŕ č ďĺðâîîáðŕçŕ. Ýňîň ďðîöĺńń äŕí ďĺðâč÷íî âî âçŕčěîďðîíčę-
íîâĺíčč (pericwvrhsi~) ýíĺðăčé ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîé č áîćĺńňâĺííîé ďðčðîä âî
Őðčńňĺ... ďîńęîëüęó â âîďëîňčâřĺěń˙ Őðčńňĺ äŕí č îáðŕç, č
87 Â. Â. ÁŰ÷ĘÎÂ, Ěŕëŕ˙ čńňîðč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ýńňĺňčęč, 189.

88 PG 99, C 400 CD, C 401 B.
30 89 Í. ÎÇÎËČÍ, Îá îďčńóĺěîé íĺîďčńóĺěîńňčÖ, 28.
ďĺðâîîáðŕç».90 Čěĺííî ďîňîěó Ăîńďîäü č ńęŕçŕë Ôčëčďďó: «Âčäĺâřčé

Ěĺí˙, âčäĺë Îňöŕ; ęŕę ćĺ ňű ăîâîðčřü: ďîęŕćč íŕě Îňöŕ?» (Čí.14, 9).
Č âîň äë˙ ňîăî, ÷ňîáű ďîęŕçŕňü, ÷ňî Ďĺðâîîáðŕç – Áîćĺńňâĺííîĺ
Ëčöî Âîďëîůĺííîăî Ńëîâŕ – č Ĺăî ðóęîňâîðíŕ˙ čęîíŕ îáëŕäŕţň
«çŕďĺ÷ŕňëĺííîé ĺäčíîčě˙ííîńňüţ č ôčçč÷ĺńęčě ńőîäńňâîě, čďîńňŕńíîé
ňîćäĺńňâĺííîńňüţ, ńî âńĺěč îňńţäŕ âűňĺęŕţůčěč áëŕăîäŕňíűěč
ďîńëĺäńňâč˙ěč»,91 Öĺðęîâü č âűðŕáîňŕëŕ «ęŕíîí», ňî ĺńňü ŕäĺęâŕňíűé,
ńďĺöčôč÷ĺńęčé čęîíîďčńíűé ˙çűę, ÷ňîáű ďðčîáůčňü ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ ę ňîěó
Îňęðîâĺíčţ, ęîňîðîĺ ˙âëĺíî ěčðó â őðčńňčŕíńňâĺ, ðŕńęðűňü â âčäčěűő
ôîðěŕő ńóůíîńňü âíĺńĺííîăî čě ďĺðĺâîðîňŕ.
Âűðŕćĺíčĺ ýňîăî ďĺðĺâîðîňŕ ňðĺáóĺň îńîáîăî ďîńňðîĺíč˙ îáðŕçîâ,
ńâîčő îńîáűő ńðĺäńňâ âűðŕćĺíč˙, ńâîĺăî «ńňčë˙». Ń ďîěîůüţ ð˙äŕ
ęŕíîíčçčðîâŕííűő ďðčĺěîâ â čęîíĺ ńîçäŕâŕëîńü îńîáîĺ őóäîćĺńňâĺííîĺ
ďðîńňðŕíńňâî, ðŕń÷čňŕííîĺ íŕ ŕęňčâíîĺ âîńďðč˙ňčĺ: ÷ĺëîâĺę, ďðĺáű-
âŕţůčé â őðŕěĺ, ďðč÷ŕńňĺí ę őðŕěîâîěó äĺéńňâó «ęŕę ńčíňĺçó čńęóńńňâ»,
ęŕę ďðĺęðŕńíî âűðŕçčëń˙ î. Ďŕâĺë Ôëîðĺíńęčé, ŕ íĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďŕńńčâíűě
îáúĺęňîě «âîçäĺéńňâč˙ čńęóńńňâŕ», âńĺăäŕ ňîëüęî ďðŕçäíűě č ëţáî-
ďűňńňâóţůčě çðčňĺëĺě. Îńîáűé ěčð îáðŕçîâ, îňîáðŕćŕţůčé ÷óâńňâĺí-
íî íĺâîńďðčíčěŕĺěűé äóőîâíűé ěčð ńâĺðőáűňč˙ – âíĺâðĺěĺííűé č
âíĺďðîńňðŕíńňâĺííűé – íŕńĺë˙ë őóäîćĺńňâĺííîĺ ďðîńňðŕíńňâî čęîíű, č
äë˙ ĺăî čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ íĺîáőîäčěî áűëî íŕéňč čěĺííî ňŕęčĺ ďðčĺěű,
ęîňîðűĺ ďîçâîëčëč áű ˙âčňü čěĺííî ĺăî «ďîňóńňîðîííîńňü» č
íĺçäĺříîńňü. Č ďðčĺěű, ń ďîěîůüţ ęîňîðűő âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ěŕńňĺðŕ
äîáčâŕëčńü ýňîăî áűëč äîńňŕňî÷íî ďðîńňű. Ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî, â îäíîé
öĺëîńňíîé ęîěďîçčöčč îíč îáúĺäčí˙ëč ðŕçíîďðîńňðŕíńňâĺííűĺ, ðŕçíî-
âðĺěĺííűĺ č îäíîâðĺěĺííűĺ ńîáűňč˙. Âíčěŕíčĺ őóäîćíčęŕ ńîńðĺäîňî-
÷čâŕĺňń˙ íŕ čçîáðŕćŕĺěîě ˙âëĺíčč, ęîňîðűě č îďðĺäĺë˙ĺňń˙
ďðîńňðŕíńňâî, ňî ĺńňü ńŕěî ďðîńňðŕíńňâî íĺ âűńňóďŕĺň ďðĺäěĺňîě
ńďĺöčŕëüíîăî čçîáðŕćĺíč˙, «ďîęŕçŕ», ęŕę â ðĺíĺńńŕíńíîé ĺâðîďĺéńęîé
ćčâîďčńč, ŕ ńęëŕäűâŕĺňń˙ ęŕę íĺ÷ňî âňîðč÷íîĺ íŕ îńíîâĺ ęîěďî-
çčöčîííîăî ĺäčíńňâŕ âńĺő čçîáðŕćĺííűő ďðĺäěĺňîâ. Ęŕćäűé ďðĺäěĺň
äë˙ čęîíîďčńöŕ áűë çíŕ÷čě, äîðîă ńŕě ďî ńĺáĺ, ęŕćäűé čěĺë ęŕę áű ńâîé
«öĺíňð áűňč˙» – ďîýňîěó îí č ńňðĺěčëń˙ čçîáðŕçčňü ĺăî ń čń÷ĺð-
ďűâŕţůĺé ďîëíîňîé, ÷ŕńňî ńîâěĺůŕ˙ â îäíîě čçîáðŕćĺíčč ĺăî âčäű ń
ðŕçëč÷íűő ńňîðîí. Ďîëó÷ŕëčńü ďðč÷óäëčâűĺ ðŕçâĺðňęč ďðĺäěĺňîâ,
čçîáðŕćĺííűő ęŕę áű â «îáðŕňíîé ďĺðńďĺęňčâĺ». Â îäíîé ęîěďîçčöčč
ńîďðčńóňńňâîâŕëč čçîáðŕćĺíč˙, óâčäĺííűĺ ń ðŕçíűő ňî÷ĺę çðĺíč˙,
ńőâŕ÷ĺííűő ęŕę áű â ďð˙ěîé, ďŕðŕëëĺëüíîé č îáðŕňíîé «ďĺðńďĺęňčâŕő».
Â čęîíîďčńč ĺńňü ĺůĺ îäčí ďðčíöčď: ĺńëč ÷ňî-ňî čçîáðŕćŕĺňń˙ íŕ
ôîíĺ, äîďóńňčě ęŕęîăî-ňî çäŕíč˙, ýňî, ęŕę ďðŕâčëî îçíŕ÷ŕĺň, ÷ňî âńĺ
čçîáðŕćĺííîĺ ďðîčńőîäčň âíóňðč íĺăî;92 â čęîíîăðŕôčč äĺéńňâčĺ
90 Â. Ě. ĆČÂÎÂ, «Ěčńňŕăîăč˙» Ěŕęńčěŕ Čńďîâĺäíčęŕ č ðŕçâčňčĺ âčçŕíňčéńęîé

ňĺîðčč îáðŕçŕ, in: Őóäîćĺńňâĺííűé ˙çűę ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙, Ěîńęâŕ 1982, 120.
91 Í. ÎÇÎËČÍ, Îá îďčńóĺěîé íĺîďčńóĺěîńňčÖ, 29.
92 Î. Ăĺîðăčé Ęî÷ĺňęîâ, ňîëęó˙ 3-üţ ăëŕâó ęíčăč Áűňč˙, ńâ˙çűâŕĺň ń ýňčě
ďðčíöčďîě č «ďðčíöčď čńęóřĺíč˙»: íŕě ęŕćĺňń˙, ÷ňî čńęóřŕţň íŕń čçâíĺ, íŕ 31
ďðŕęňč÷ĺńęč íčęîăäŕ íĺ čçîáðŕćŕĺňń˙ ďðîčńőîä˙ůčě â číňĺðüĺðĺ, ÷ňî

îď˙ňü-ňŕęč ńâ˙çŕíî ń îńňðűě îůóůĺíčĺě čęîíîďčńöĺě âíĺâðĺěĺííîńňč č
âíĺďðîńňðŕíńňâĺííîńňč čçîáðŕćŕĺěîăî ˙âëĺíč˙.
Ę ńďĺöčôč÷ĺńęčě îńîáĺííîńň˙ě čęîíîďčńíîăî ˙çűęŕ îňíîń˙ňń˙
ňŕęćĺ äĺôîðěŕöčč čçîáðŕćŕĺěűő ôčăóð č ďðĺäěĺňîâ. Ďðčí˙ňî ðŕç-
ëč÷ŕňü äâŕ âčäŕ äĺôîðěŕöčé: ęîððĺęňčðóţůčĺ č ýęńďðĺńńčâíűĺ.
Ęîððĺęňčðóţůčĺ äĺôîðěŕöčč ďðčěĺí˙ëčńü ňîëüęî â ńčńňĺěĺ őðŕěîâűő
ěîçŕčę č ðîńďčńĺé äë˙ ňîăî, ÷ňîáű «čńďðŕâčňü» îďňč÷ĺńęčĺ čńęŕćĺíč˙
îńíîâíűő ðŕçěĺðîâ ôčăóð, ńâ˙çŕííűő ń ðŕçëč÷íűěč ðŕńńňî˙íč˙ěč č
«óăëŕěč çðĺíč˙», ďîä ęîňîðűěč ÷ĺëîâĺęó, íŕőîä˙ůĺěóń˙ â őðŕěĺ,
ďðčőîäčëîńü ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňü îňäĺëüíűĺ ęîěďîçčöčč ðîńďčńč (â ęóďîëŕő,
íčřŕő, íŕ óðîâíĺ ăëŕç, íŕ ďëîńęčő č ęðčâűő ďîâĺðőíîńň˙ő čňä.). Ýňč ňŕę
íŕçűâŕĺěűĺ «čëëţçčč âîńďðč˙ňč˙», îďčńűâŕĺěűĺ â íŕ÷ŕëüíîě ęóðńĺ
ôčçčęč č čńęŕćŕţůčĺ ďðĺäěĺňű č ðĺŕëüíűĺ âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ ěĺćäó
íčěč, ęŕę ðŕç č ęîððĺęňčðîâŕëčńü ďðčĺěŕěč, ðŕçðŕáîňŕííűěč â
čęîíîăðŕôčč. Äë˙ âîńńňŕíîâëĺíč˙ ðĺŕëüíűő ńîîňíîřĺíčé âĺðőíčĺ
ôčăóðű čçîáðŕćŕëčńü â áîëüřĺě ěŕńřňŕáĺ, ÷ĺě íčćíčĺ (îáű÷íî ňî, ÷ňî
ðŕńďîëîćĺíî âűřĺ čëč äŕëüřĺ, ęŕćĺňń˙ íŕě ěĺíüřčě; íî ýňî čěĺííî
ňîëüęî ęŕćĺňń˙ – ďîäëčííűĺ ðŕçěĺðű č âĺëč÷číŕ ôčăóðű îńňŕţňń˙ âńĺ
âðĺě˙ íĺčçěĺííűěč, ęŕę áű ðŕâíűěč ńŕěčě ńĺáĺ). Äŕëĺĺ, íŕďðčěĺð,
ôčăóðű, ďîěĺůĺííűĺ â öĺíňðĺ ŕďńčäű, čçîáðŕćŕëčńü áîëĺĺ óçęčěč, ÷ĺě
ôčăóðű ďî áîęŕě, ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺěűĺ ďîä áîëĺĺ îńňðűě óăëîě çðĺíč˙93.
Čěĺííî ýňî ďîńňî˙íńňâî, íĺçŕâčńčěîńňü ńâîéńňâ ďðĺäěĺňŕ îň óńëîâčé ĺăî
âîńďðč˙ňč˙ č őîňĺëč ďîęŕçŕňü ěŕńňĺðŕ čęîíîďčńč; čěďðĺńńčîíčçě č
ýęńďðĺńńčîíčçě, íŕďðîňčâ č âîďðĺęč, ďĺðĺäŕţň âńĺăî ëčřü ńóáúĺęňčâíűĺ
ðĺŕęöčč ńĺň÷ŕňîé îáîëî÷ęč ăëŕçŕ čëč íĺðâíîé ńčńňĺěű őóäîćíčęŕ – â
ýňîé ćčâîďčńč âńĺ çŕâčńčň îň ěĺí˙ţůčőń˙ îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâ, âńĺ ńëó÷ŕéíî,
âńĺ îńíîâŕíî íŕ ýěîöč˙ő...
Ę äĺôîðěŕöč˙ě âňîðîăî ňčďŕ, ýęńďðĺńńčâíűě, íŕďðŕâëĺííűě íŕ
ńîçäŕíčĺ îďðĺäĺëĺííîé őóäîćĺńňâĺííîé âűðŕçčňĺëüíîńňč, îňíîń˙ňń˙
óäëčíĺííîńňü ôčăóð, řčðîęî ðŕńęðűňűĺ ăëŕçŕ, «ďĺðĺęðó÷čâŕíčĺ»
÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęčő ôčăóð íŕ 90-180 ăðŕäóńîâ, čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ ďðĺäěĺňîâ č ôčăóð
áĺç ęŕęčő-ëčáî âŕćíűő ýëĺěĺíňîâ. Âĺńüěŕ âűðŕçčňĺëüíŕ â ýňîě ńěűńëĺ
ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůŕ˙ Ôĺîôŕíó Ăðĺęó ôðĺńęŕ ń čçîáðŕćĺíčĺě ďðĺď. Ěŕęŕðč˙
Ĺăčďĺňńęîăî čç öĺðęâč Ńďŕńŕ Ďðĺîáðŕćĺíč˙ â Íîâăîðîäĺ (1378). Íŕ íĺé
ńâ˙ňîé ďðĺäńňŕâëĺí ďî÷ňč ďîëíîńňüţ ëčřĺííűě ôčçč÷ĺńęčő őŕðŕę-
ňĺðčńňčę çĺěíîăî ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ: íŕ íĺě íĺň îäĺćäű, ó íĺăî íĺň ăëŕç, ĺńňü
ňîëüęî ðóęč, ďîäí˙ňűĺ â ěîëčňâĺííîě ćĺńňĺ.
Ďî ńâîĺěó ńîäĺðćŕíčţ ęŕćäŕ˙ čęîíŕ ŕíňðîďîëîăč÷íŕ; äŕćĺ ŕíăĺëű
íŕ čęîíŕő čçîáðŕćŕţňń˙ ÷ĺëîâĺęîďîäîáíűěč. Îáîćĺííűé ÷ĺëîâĺę
˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ńěűńëîâűě ńðĺäîňî÷čĺě čęîíű, ŕ «áűňîâűĺ äĺňŕëč», ëŕířŕôň,
ńŕěîě äĺëĺ, čńęóřĺíčĺ ďðîčçðŕńňŕĺň čçíóňðč, őîň˙ čçîáðŕçčňĺëüíűĺ ńðĺäńňâŕ
áčáëĺéńęîăî ˙çűęŕ ăîâîð˙ň ęŕę áű îá îáðŕňíîě, ęŕę č čęîíîďčńíűé ˙çűę.
Ďðčďčńűâŕíčĺ âíĺříčě ńčëŕě «čńęóńčňĺëüíîăî âëč˙íč˙» îçíŕ÷ŕëî áű îňęŕç îň
äŕðŕ ńâîáîäű č ńâ˙çŕííîé ń íčě äóőîâíîé îňâĺňńňâĺííîńňč. Ńâ˙ů. Ă. ĘÎ÷ĹŇĘÎÂ, Â
íŕ÷ŕëĺ áűëî Ńëîâî, Ěîńęâŕ 2007, 125.
32 93 Â. Â. ÁŰ÷ĘÎÂ, Ěŕëŕ˙ čńňîðč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ýńňĺňčęč, 238-280.
ðŕńňĺíč˙, ćčâîňíűĺ ńëóćŕň ňîëüęî ôîíîě, ďðč÷ĺě, ńŕěŕ ďðčðîäŕ

ďčřĺňń˙ ňîćĺ â ĺĺ ďðĺîáðŕćĺííîě, čńęóďëĺííîě ńîńňî˙íčč.
«...÷ĺðňű îńëŕ čëč ëîřŕäč íŕ čęîíĺ ňŕęćĺ óňîí÷ĺíű č îáëŕăî-
ðîćĺíű, ęŕę ÷ĺðňű ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, č ăëŕçŕ ó ýňčő ćčâîňíűő íŕ čęîíŕő
÷ĺëîâĺ÷üč, ŕ íĺ îńëčíűĺ čëč ëîřŕäčíűĺ. Ěű âčäčě íŕ čęîíŕő çĺěëţ č
íĺáî, äĺðĺâü˙ č ňðŕâó, ńîëíöĺ č ëóíó, ďňčö č ðűá, ćčâîňíűő č
ďðĺńěűęŕţůčőń˙, íî âńĺ ýňî ďîä÷číĺíî ĺäčíîěó çŕěűńëó č ńîńňŕâë˙ĺň
ĺäčíűé őðŕě, â ęîňîðîě öŕðńňâóĺň Áîă».94 Âń˙ ęîěďîçčöč˙ čęîíű
ńňŕíîâčňń˙ ďðĺîáðŕćĺííűě ęîńěîńîě.95
Ěű ăîâîðčëč óćĺ î ňîě, ÷ňî čęîíŕ – íĺ ďîðňðĺň, ďîýňîěó čęîíîďčńĺö
íĺ ňůčňń˙ ňî÷íî ďĺðĺäŕňü âíĺříčé îáëčę č îňäĺëüíűĺ ÷ĺðňű ńâ˙ňîăî. Ďî
ěűńëč ďðĺď. Ôĺîäîðŕ Ńňóäčňŕ, âńĺ íŕńňî˙ůĺĺ ěíîăîáðŕçčĺ ěčðŕ
ďĺðĺäŕĺňń˙ â îáðŕçĺ-čęîíĺ íĺ â ńâîĺě çĺěíîě ńďîńîáĺ ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙
(čęîíŕ íĺ «óäâŕčâŕĺň» ðĺŕëüíîńňü), íî â ďîäëčííîé ńěűńëîâîé
(ýéäĺňč÷ĺńęîé ) ńóůíîńňč, â ęŕ÷ĺńňâĺ Áîćüĺăî çŕěűńëŕ, ňî ĺńňü čęîíŕ
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé ńâîĺăî ðîäŕ «ńîçĺðöŕňĺëüíóţ, óěîďîńňčăŕĺěóţ
äŕííîńňü», čëč ëčę.. Íŕ čęîíĺ ěčð č ÷ĺëîâĺę îňîáðŕćŕĺňń˙ č âčäčňń˙ ęŕę
áű ăëŕçŕěč ńŕěîăî Áîăŕ. Ďîýňîěó ćĺ íŕ čęîíó íĺ «ńěîňð˙ň», ĺé –
ďðĺäńňî˙ň â ěîëčňâĺ č ńîáðŕííîńňč äóőŕ.
Ďëîňü ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ íŕ čęîíŕő čçîáðŕćŕĺňń˙ ńîâĺðřĺííî číŕ÷ĺ, ÷ĺě íŕ
ćčâîďčńíűő ďîëîňíŕő. Îäóőîňâîðĺííîĺ, čńňîí÷ĺííîĺ, ęŕęîĺ-ňî äŕćĺ
ńňðó˙ůĺĺń˙ čç˙ůĺńňâî, ëĺăęîńňü, íĺîáðĺěĺíĺííîńňü ńîáńňâĺííîé
ňĺëĺńíîńňüţ – ďðĺîáðŕçčâřŕ˙ń˙ áëŕăîäŕð˙ ŕńęĺňč÷ĺńęîěó ďîäâčăó ńâ˙-
ňîăî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęŕ˙ ďëîňü – ðŕçčňĺëüíî îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙ îň ďëîňč, ďîęŕçŕííîé â
ðĺŕëčńňč÷ĺńęîé ćčâîďčńč Ðĺíĺńńŕíńŕ, îńîáĺííî íŕ ďîëîňíŕő Ðóáĺíńŕ, íŕ
ęîňîðűő čçîáðŕćĺíî ăðóçíîĺ, ňó÷íîĺ, äĺáĺëîĺ ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ňĺëî, âî
âńĺě ńâîĺě – ďî ńëîâó âëŕäűęč Čëŕðčîíŕ (ŔËÔĹĹÂŔ) – «îáíŕćĺííîě
áĺçîáðŕçčč».
Čęîíŕ ńňŕňč÷íŕ, ŕ íĺ äčíŕěč÷íŕ; îíŕ ˙âë˙ĺň íĺ äâčćĺíčĺ ę öĺëč, ŕ
ńŕěó ýňó äîńňčăíóňóţ öĺëü. Âîďðĺęč îáű÷íîěó âîńďðč˙ňčţ, čçěĺíĺíč˙ č
äâčćĺíčĺ íŕ čęîíĺ âűðŕćŕţňń˙ ęŕę ðŕç ÷ĺðĺç ňĺ ďðĺäěĺňű, ęîňîðűĺ ěű
ďðčâűęëč âčäĺňü íĺďîäâčćíűěč : äĺðĺâü˙, ăîðęč, çäŕíč˙... Íŕ čęîíĺ
÷ĺëîâĺę ďðĺäńňŕĺň óćĺ ďðĺďîáĺäčâřčě ńâîč ńňðŕńňč, ńň˙ćŕâřčé
ďîäëčííóţ âíóňðĺííţţ ńâîáîäó č ðŕäîńňü, ŕ ďðîéäĺííűé ďóňü îńňŕĺňń˙
ńîęðűňűě, ęŕę áű ňŕéíîé ěĺćäó íčě č Áîăîě.
×óćä čęîíĺ č âń˙ęčé íŕňóðŕëčçě, ďńčőîëîăčçě, ýěîöčîíŕëüíîńňü,
íŕäðűâ.
«Čěĺííî ďîýňîěó íŕ âčçŕíňčéńęîé č ðóńńęîé čęîíĺ ðŕńď˙ňč˙, â
îňëč÷čĺ îň ĺĺ çŕďŕäíîăî ŕíŕëîăŕ, Őðčńňîń čçîáðŕćŕĺňń˙ óěĺðřčě, ŕ íĺ
ńňðŕćäóůčě. Ďîńëĺäíčě ńëîâîě Őðčńňŕ íŕ ęðĺńňĺ áűëî: «Ńâĺðřčëîńü»
(Čí. 19, 30). Čęîíŕ ďîęŕçűâŕĺň ňî, ÷ňî ďðîčçîřëî ďîńëĺ ýňîăî, ŕ íĺ ňî,
94 Čëŕðčîí (ŔËÔĹĹÂ), Ďî îáðŕçó č ďîäîáčţ. Áîăîńëîâčĺ čęîíű â Ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé
Öĺðęâč, URL: <http://bishop.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/1_3_7_23> (12. 03.
2009).
95 Â čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíűő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő ďðčðîäŕ ńŕěŕ ďî ńĺáĺ ěîćĺň ńňŕňü «îńíîâíűě
ńţćĺňîě», ăëŕâíűě îáðŕçîě â ěîçŕčęŕő č ôðĺńęŕő, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő ńîňâîðĺíčţ
ěčðŕ, íŕďðčěĺð, íŕ ěîçŕčęŕő ńîáîðŕ ńâ. Ěŕðęŕ â Âĺíĺöčč (XIII â.) 33
÷ňî ýňîěó ďðĺäřĺńňâîâŕëî, íĺ ďðîöĺńń, ŕ čňîă: îíŕ ˙âë˙ĺň ńâĺðřčâřĺĺń˙.

Áîëü, ńňðŕäŕíč˙, ŕăîíč˙, – ňî, ÷ňî ňŕę ďðčâëĺęŕëî â îáðŕçĺ Őðčńňŕ
ńňðŕćäóůĺăî çŕďŕäíűő ćčâîďčńöĺâ ýďîőč Ðĺíĺńńŕíńŕ, ñ âńĺ ýňî â čęîíĺ
îńňŕĺňń˙ çŕ ęŕäðîě. Íŕ ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé čęîíĺ ðŕńď˙ňč˙ ďðĺäńňŕâëĺí
ěĺðňâűé Őðčńňîń, íî Îí íĺ ěĺíĺĺ ďðĺęðŕńĺí, ÷ĺě íŕ čęîíŕő, čçî-
áðŕćŕţůčő Ĺăî ćčâűě».96
Čęîíŕ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íĺîňúĺěëĺěîé ÷ŕńňüţ ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęîăî ďðîńňðŕíńňâŕ
– őðŕěŕ, âíĺ ęîíňĺęńňŕ őðŕěŕ îíŕ íĺěűńëčěŕ č â ęŕęîé-ňî ńňĺďĺíč óňðŕ-
÷čâŕĺň ńâîé ńěűńë. Äðĺâíčĺ ěŕńňĺðŕ-čçîăðŕôű čńőîäčëč čç îńîáĺííîńňĺé
őðŕěîâîăî äĺéńňâŕ (ĺńňĺńňâĺííîĺ îńâĺůĺíčĺ č ńâĺň îň äĺń˙ňęîâ ăîð˙ůčő
ńâĺ÷ĺé ďĺðĺä čęîíŕěč, ðŕńďîëîćĺíčĺ čęîí č ěîçŕčę čňä), âëč˙ţůčő íŕ
âîńďðč˙ňčĺ ńâ˙ůĺííűő čçîáðŕćĺíčé.
«Čęîíŕ â ěóçĺĺ – ýňî íîíńĺíń, çäĺńü îíŕ íĺ ćčâĺň, ŕ ňîëüęî ńóůĺńň-
âóĺň, ęŕę çŕńóřĺííűé öâĺňîę â ăĺðáŕðčč čëč ęŕę áŕáî÷ęŕ íŕ áóëŕâęĺ â
ęîðîáęĺ ęîëëĺęöčîíĺðŕ».97
Ěčð čęîíű îáðŕůĺí ę ÷ĺëîâĺęó: čęîíŕ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ěĺńňîě
ěîëčňâĺííîé âńňðĺ÷č «ëčöîě ę ëčöó», â íĺé ñ ňŕéíŕ ëč÷íîăî ďðčńóňńňâč˙,
č ëčęč ďčřóňń˙ ďîýňîěó ňîëüęî ŕíôŕń. Ďðîôčëüíîĺ čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ íĺ
ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺň îáůĺíč˙: â ďîëóďîâîðîňĺ ńęâîçčň ăð˙äóůĺĺ ðŕńńňŕâŕíčĺ č
óćĺ íŕńňŕâřĺĺ ðŕçěčíîâĺíčĺ, «îňâîðŕ÷čâŕíčĺ», «íĺ-âńňðĺ÷ŕ». Îáůĺíčĺ,
ę ęîňîðîěó ěű ďðčçâŕíű98 ďðĺäďîëŕăŕĺň âńěŕňðčâŕíčĺ, âńëóřčâŕíčĺ,
âíčęŕíčĺ; âń˙ęîĺ âíĺříĺĺ äâčćĺíčĺ âîçáóćäĺíč˙ č áĺńďîęîéńňâŕ,
âűðŕćŕĺěîĺ «ďîëíűěč äóřĺâíîăî äðŕěŕňčçěŕ» ďîçŕěč č ćĺńňŕěč,
âń˙ęîĺ «ďĺðĺáčâŕíčĺ» äðóă äðóăŕ çŕňčőŕţň ďĺðĺä âíóňðĺííĺé óěčðî-
ňâîðĺííîńňüţ č ńîńðĺäîňî÷ĺííîńňüţ ˙âëĺííîăî ëčęŕ. Äë˙ čęîíîăðŕôčč
ňŕęîĺ «çŕńňűâřĺĺ äâčćĺíčĺ» č âíĺří˙˙ íĺďîäâčćíîńňü âĺńüěŕ
őŕðŕęňĺðíű: âĺńü äčíŕěčçě îáðŕůĺí âíóňðü, ńęîíöĺíňðčðîâŕí čěĺííî â
ëčęŕő, îńîáĺííî â ăëŕçŕő. Íŕďðîňčâ, â ďðîôčëü č â äâčćĺíčč čçîáðŕ-
ćŕţňń˙ ëčöŕ, ęîňîðűě íĺ âîçäŕĺňń˙ ďîęëîíĺíčĺ (íŕďðčěĺð, âîëőâű íŕ
čęîíĺ Ðîćäĺńňâŕ Őðčńňîâŕ), ćčâîňíűĺ (ęîíü, íŕ ęîňîðîě ńčäčň ńâ.
Ăĺîðăčé Ďîáĺäîíîńĺö, čçîáðŕćĺí âńĺăäŕ â ďðîôčëü, ňŕę ćĺ, ęŕę č çěčé,
ęîňîðîăî ńâ˙ňîé ďîðŕćŕĺň), ŕ ňŕęćĺ äĺěîíű č ăðĺříčęč, çŕďĺ÷ŕňëĺ-
âŕĺěűĺ â ďîçĺ áĺăńňâŕ, âîçáóćäĺíč˙.
Ń ýňîé îáðŕůĺííîńňüţ čęîíű ę ÷ĺëîâĺęó ńâ˙çŕíî č ďðčěĺíĺíčĺ
îáðŕňíîé ďĺðńďĺęňčâű. Čńőîäíŕ˙ ňî÷ęŕ čçîáðŕćĺíč˙ íŕőîäčňń˙ íĺ ńçŕäč,
ŕ ďĺðĺä íčě, ëčíčč čěĺţň ęŕę áű îáðŕňíîĺ íŕďðŕâëĺíčĺ. Çŕěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíî
ďčřĺň îá ýňîě Ďŕâĺë ĹÂÄÎĘČĚÎÂ: «Ňŕę ďðî˙âë˙ĺňń˙ â čęîíîďčńč
ĺâŕíăĺëüńęŕ˙ metavnoia, čçěĺíĺíčĺ âíóňðĺííĺăî ńîńňî˙íč˙. Âîçäĺéńňâčĺ
ňŕęîăî ďðčĺěŕ ďîðŕçčňĺëüíî; îňďðŕâíŕ˙ ňî÷ęŕ čńőîäčň îň çðčňĺë˙, ëčíčč
ęŕę áű ńőîä˙ňń˙ â íĺě, ńîçäŕâŕ˙ ňŕęîĺ âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčĺ, ÷ňî čçîáðŕćĺííűĺ íŕ
96 Čëŕðčîí (ŔËÔĹĹÂ), Ďî îáðŕçó č ďîäîáčţ. Áîăîńëîâčĺ čęîíű â Ďðŕâîńëŕâíîé

Öĺðęâč.
97 Č. ßÇŰĘÎÂŔ, Áîăîńëîâčĺ čęîíű, Ěîńęâŕ 1999, 33.
98 Ôóíäŕěĺíňŕëüíűě ďðîáëĺěŕě îíňîëîăčč îáůĺíč˙ ďîńâ˙ůĺíŕ ęíčăŕ
âűäŕţůĺăîń˙ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîăî ěűńëčňĺë˙, ěčňðîďîëčňŕ Ďĺðăŕěńęîăî Čîŕííŕ
34 Çčçčóëŕńŕ. Ńě. J. D. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, New York 1993.
čęîíĺ ëčöŕ čäóň ĺěó íŕâńňðĺ÷ó.. Äâîéńňâĺííîĺ ďëîňńęîĺ âčäĺíčĺ

ďðîńňðŕíńňâŕ ďŕäřĺăî ěčðŕ «ďî óäŕë˙ţůĺéń˙», ăäĺ âńĺ čń÷ĺçŕĺň âäŕëč,
çŕěĺí˙ĺňń˙ ńîçĺðöŕíčĺě ńĺðäĺ÷íűěč î÷ŕěč čńęóďëĺííîăî ďðîńňðŕíńňâŕ,
ęîňîðîĺ ðŕńňâîð˙ĺňń˙ â áĺńęîíĺ÷íîńňč, č ăäĺ âńĺ îáðĺňŕĺňń˙ âíîâü.
Âěĺńňî óőîä˙ůĺé ňî÷ęč, çŕěűęŕţůĺé âńĺ, ñ ňî÷ęŕ ďðčáëčćĺíč˙
ðŕńřčð˙ĺň, ðŕńęðűâŕĺň. Čçîáðŕćŕĺěűĺ ëčöŕ ęŕę áű äâčćóňń˙ ńëĺâŕ
íŕďðŕâî, ę Âîńňîęó, ďî ĺńňĺńňâĺííîěó íŕďðŕâëĺíčţ ďčřóůĺé ðóęč».99
Íŕ čęîíĺ íčęîăäŕ íĺ čçîáðŕćŕĺňń˙ čńňî÷íčę ńâĺňŕ, ňŕę ęŕę ńâĺň – ĺĺ
ńţćĺň; čęîíŕ ęŕę áű ńîňęŕíŕ čç ńâĺňŕ: íĺäŕðîě, â ńďĺöčŕëüíîé
ňĺðěčíîëîăčč çîëîňîé ôîí čęîíű íŕçűâŕĺňń˙ «ńâĺňîě», ŕ ěĺňîä ðŕáîňű
– ďîńňĺďĺííűě «âűńâĺňëĺíčĺě». Čęîíîďčńĺö ďîęðűâŕĺň ëčę ńíŕ÷ŕëŕ
ňĺěíűě ôîíîě, çŕňĺě íŕęëŕäűâŕĺň ńëîé áîëĺĺ ńâĺňëîé ęðŕńęč,
ďîëó÷ŕĺěîé ďðč äîáŕâëĺíčč ę ďðĺäűäóůĺěó ńîńňŕâó ćĺëňîé îőðű,
ďðč÷ĺě ňŕęîĺ íŕëîćĺíčĺ âńĺ áîëĺĺ ńâĺňëűő ňîíîâ ďîâňîð˙ĺňń˙ íĺńęîëüęî
ðŕç, č ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě ëčę ęŕę áű âűńâĺ÷čâŕĺňń˙, îçŕð˙ĺňń˙, ńňŕíîâčňń˙
âčäčěűě â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ óńčëĺíč˙ â ÷ĺëîâĺęĺ ńâĺňŕ. Îáîćĺííűé ÷ĺëîâĺę
čçëó÷ŕĺň ńâĺň: ńîçĺðöŕ˙ Ôŕâîðńęčé ńâĺň, îí ńŕě ďðčîáůŕĺňń˙ ę íĺěó č
ďðîíčçűâŕĺňń˙ čě, ńňŕíîâ˙ńü ńâĺňîíîńíűě. Ďðĺîáðŕçčâřĺăîń˙ íŕ ăîðĺ
Ôŕâîð Ăîńďîäŕ ŕďîńňîëű âčäĺëč â Ĺăî îńëĺďčňĺëüíîě ńâĺňĺ, â ńč˙íčč
Ńâîĺé áîćĺńňâĺííîé ńëŕâű, č ďî čęîíîďčńíîé ňðŕäčöčč, ďĺðâűě
ńţćĺňîě, çŕ ęîňîðűé áĺðĺňń˙ ęŕćäűé čç čęîíîďčńöĺâ, ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ čěĺííî
čęîíŕ Ďðĺîáðŕćĺíč˙ Ăîńďîäí˙.
Öâĺňŕ čęîíű ňîćĺ ńč˙ţůčĺ, áëčńňŕţůčĺ, ëčęóţůčĺ; ďîëóňîíŕ č
ňĺíč íĺ čńďîëüçóţňń˙ íčęîăäŕ. Äðĺâí˙˙ ëĺňîďčńü ďîâĺńňâóĺň, ÷ňî ďîńëĺ
ńěĺðňč ďðĺďîäîáíűé Ŕíäðĺé Ðóáëĺâ ˙âčëń˙ Äŕíččëó, ńâîĺěó äðóăó č
ńîňðóäíčęó, ńč˙˙ âńĺěč öâĺňŕěč ńâîčő čęîí, č ďðčăëŕńčë ĺăî ðŕäîńňíî
ńëĺäîâŕňü çŕ íčě â «íĺńęîí÷ŕĺěîĺ áëŕćĺíńňâî», ďðĺäâęóřĺíčĺ ęîňîðîăî
âűðŕćĺíî â «Ňðîčöĺ».100
Čęîíŕ ęŕę ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęčé îáðŕç íĺçŕâčńčěŕ îň ńðĺäńňâ ĺĺ
čńďîëíĺíč˙: îáðŕç ěîćĺň áűňü íŕďčńŕí, âűðĺçŕí čç äĺðĺâŕ čëč ęŕěí˙,
ðŕńďčńŕí ęŕę ôðĺńęŕ čëč âűëîćĺí ěîçŕčęîé. Č âńĺ-ňŕęč, ěĺňîä,
îáëŕäŕţůčé íŕčáîëüřčě áîăŕňńňâîě âűðŕćĺíč˙ č îňâĺ÷ŕţůčé
íŕčëó÷řčě îáðŕçîě çíŕ÷ĺíčţ č íŕçíŕ÷ĺíčţ čęîíű ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ęëŕńńč-
÷ĺńęŕ˙ «ćčâîďčńü» ˙č÷íîé ňĺěďĺðîé.101 Ýňîň ěĺňîä, íŕń÷čňűâŕţůčé
ěíîăîńîňëĺňíţţ ňðŕäčöčţ č áĺðóůčé íŕ÷ŕëî â îňäŕëĺííîé äðĺâíîńňč,
ňůŕňĺëüíî ńîőðŕí˙ëń˙ ęŕę ćčâŕ˙ ňðŕäčöč˙ čęîíîăðŕôčč č ďĺðĺäŕâŕëń˙ čç
ďîęîëĺíč˙ â ďîęîëĺíčĺ. Íîâűĺ ěŕňĺðčŕëű, ĺńňĺńňâĺííî âűíîńčěűĺ
ďîňîęîě âðĺěĺíč, ňůŕňĺëüíî čçó÷ŕëčńü č ďðčńďîńŕáëčâŕëčńü ę
čęîíîďčńŕíčţ. Â čňîăĺ, ěĺňîäű č ňĺőíčęŕ čęîíîăðŕôčč, âűâĺðĺííűĺ íŕ
ďðîň˙ćĺíčč âĺęîâ, îôîðěčëčńü â ňðŕäčöčîííóţ ńčńňĺěó č ďðčěĺí˙ţňń˙
ńîâðĺěĺííűěč čęîíîďčńöŕěč ďðŕęňč÷ĺńęč áĺç čçěĺíĺíčé.
Ďðîöĺńń ďîäăîňîâęč čęîíű îáëŕäŕĺň ńëîćíűě őŕðŕęňĺðîě č ńîńňîčň
99 P. EVDOKIMOV, Líart de líicÙne: Theologie de la beautÈ, 237.

100 Îňâĺňű ďðĺďîäîáíîăî Čîńčôŕ Âîëîęîëŕěńęîăî, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1847.
101 L. OUSPENSKY, The Technique of Iconography, in: L. Ouspensky ñ V. Lossky, The
Meaning of Icons, New York 1989, 53. 35
čç ð˙äŕ îďĺðŕöčé, ňðĺáóţůčő áîëüřîăî óěĺíč˙ č îďűňŕ. Íŕčáîëĺĺ

ňðŕäčöčîííűě č ďîäőîä˙ůčě ěŕňĺðčŕëîě ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ äĺðĺâ˙ííŕ˙ äîńęŕ,
ďðŕâčëüíűé âűáîð ęîňîðîé ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň îăðîěíóţ âŕćíîńňü ęŕę äë˙
íŕďčńŕíč˙ čęîíű, ňŕę č äë˙ ĺĺ ńîőðŕíĺíč˙. Ńŕěűĺ óäîáíűĺ äîńęč – čç
íĺńěîëčńňűő âčäîâ äĺðĺâüĺâ: ýňî ěîćĺň áűňü îëüőŕ, ęčďŕðčń, áĺðĺçŕ.
Äîńęŕ äîëćíŕ áűňü ŕáńîëţňíî ńóőŕ˙, áĺç óňîëůĺíčé; ďîâĺðőíîńňü äîńęč
ńëĺăęŕ âűäŕëáëčâŕĺňń˙, âűńňóďŕţůčĺ ęðŕ˙ îáðŕçóţň ĺńňĺńňâĺííîĺ
îáðŕěëĺíčĺ. Ýňŕ ĺńňĺńňâĺííŕ˙ ðŕěŕ ďðĺď˙ňńňâóĺň âîçíčęíîâĺíčţ âďĺ-
÷ŕňëĺíčţ čëëţçčč, ÷ĺěó, íŕîáîðîň, ńďîńîáńňâóĺň čńęóńńňâĺííŕ˙ «ðŕěŕ
ęŕðňčíű»; ę ňîěó ćĺ, îńňŕâë˙ĺěűĺ «íĺîôîðěëĺííűĺ» ďîë˙ čěĺţň č
ďðŕęňč÷ĺńęîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ – óńčëčâŕţň óńňîé÷čâîńňü äîńęč (ěĺíüřĺ ðŕń-
ňðĺńęčâŕĺňń˙ č ęîðîáčňń˙) č ďîçâîë˙ţň ðóęŕě őóäîćíčęŕ îňäűőŕňü,
ńâîáîäíî îďčðŕňüń˙ î äîńęó, íĺ ęŕńŕ˙ńü ðčńóíęŕ âî âðĺě˙ ðŕáîňű. Çŕňĺě
íŕ äîńęó íŕęëŕäűâŕĺňń˙ ńëîé ęëĺ˙, íŕ íĺăî – ńâîáîäíî ďĺðĺďëĺňĺííűĺ
ëüí˙íűĺ ďîëîńęč, ďîęðűâŕĺěűĺ ëĺâęŕńîě, äë˙ ęîňîðîăî čńďîëüçóĺňń˙
ŕëĺáŕńňð čëč âűńîęîăî ęŕ÷ĺńňâŕ ěĺë102 (îň 3 äî 8 ńëîĺâ, ďðč÷ĺě ęŕćäűé
ńëîé äîëćĺí áűňü ęŕę ěîćíî ňîíüřĺ, ÷ňîáű ëó÷řĺ ďðčëĺăŕňü äðóă ę
äðóăó). Őóäîćíčę ďčřĺň íŕňóðŕëüíűěč ęðŕńęŕěč, çŕěĺřĺííűěč íŕ
˙č÷íîě ćĺëňęĺ, ęîňîðűé îňäĺë˙ĺň îň áĺëęŕ «âðó÷íóţ», ňî ĺńňü,
ďĺðĺęëŕäűâŕ˙ čç îäíîé ðóęč â äðóăóţ; ćĺëňîę ńěĺřčâŕĺňń˙ ń âîäîé č
äîáŕâë˙ĺňń˙ íĺěíîăî óęńóńŕ (çčěîé ěĺíüřĺ, ëĺňîě – áîëüřĺ). Â Čňŕëčč
âěĺńňî óęńóńŕ äîáŕâë˙ţň ńîę číćčðíîăî äĺðĺâŕ, â Ăĺðěŕíčč – ďčâî, ŕ â
Ðîńńčč – ęâŕń: č íĺ íŕäî čńęŕňü ăäĺ-ňî «íŕ ńňîðîíĺ äŕëĺęîé» ňî, ÷ĺăî íĺň;
âńĺ íĺîáőîäčěîĺ, ęŕę č âńĺ č ńîęðîâčůŕ íŕäî óěĺňü íŕőîäčňü ďîäëĺ ńĺá˙,
ďðčíčěŕ˙ ňî, ÷ňî ĺńňü, ęŕę äŕð...
Öâĺňŕ â čęîíîăðŕôčč «äîáűâŕţňń˙» ňîëüęî čç ďðčðîäű (ěčíĺ-
ðŕëüíűĺ ďčăěĺíňű č íŕňóðŕëüíűĺ îðăŕíč÷ĺńęčĺ öâĺňŕ). Âńĺ, ÷ňî ˙âë˙ĺňń˙
ďðîäóęňîě ďðîěűřëĺííîăî ďðîčçâîäńňâŕ, ń÷čňŕĺňń˙ íĺäîńňŕňî÷íî
÷čńňűě äë˙ áîćĺńňâĺííîăî čńęóńńňâŕ.
Âńĺ îńíîâíűĺ ěŕňĺðčŕëű, ďðčěĺí˙ĺěűĺ â čęîíîăðŕôčč, îňáčðŕţňń˙
ń áîëüřčě âíčěŕíčĺě; «ęŕčíîâŕ» íĺðŕçáîð÷čâîńňü, íĺáðĺćíîńňü,
îńňŕíîâęŕ íŕ ňîě, ÷ňî ďĺðâűě ďîäâĺðíóëîńü ďîä ðóęó íĺäîďóńňčěî č
ðŕńöĺíčâŕĺňń˙ čęîíîďčńöŕěč ęŕę ăðĺő íĺðŕçëč÷ĺíč˙, âńĺńěĺřĺíč˙. Ýňč
ěŕňĺðčŕëű â ńâîĺé ďîëíîňĺ, ďðĺäńňŕâë˙˙ âčäčěűé ěčð, ęŕę áű
ďðčíčěŕţň ó÷ŕńňčĺ â ńîçäŕíčč čęîíű.
«... îíî âęëţ÷ŕĺň ďðĺäńňŕâčňĺëĺé ðŕńňčňĺëüíîăî, ćčâîňíîăî ěčðŕ č
ěčðŕ ěčíĺðŕëîâ. Ńŕěűĺ ăëŕâíűĺ čç ýňčő ěŕňĺðčŕëîâ (âîäŕ, ěĺë,
102 Ëĺîíčä Óńďĺíńęčé ďðčâîäčň ńŕěîé ďðîńňîé ðĺöĺďň ëĺâęŕńŕ, ďðčěĺí˙ĺěűé â

ńîâðĺěĺííîé čęîíîăðŕôčč: «12 ăðŕěě ćĺëŕňčíŕ ðŕçâĺńňč â 200 ăðŕěěŕő ăîð˙÷ĺé
âîäű (â äðĺâíîńňč čńďîëüçîâŕëč ðűáčé ęëĺé). Ýňîň ăîð˙÷čé ðŕńňâîð
čńďîëüçóĺňń˙ ďðč ďĺðâîě ďîęðűňčč äîńęč č ďðč íŕęëĺčâŕíčč ěŕðëč. Ňŕ ćĺ
ďðîďîðöč˙ čńďîëüçóĺňń˙ äë˙ ăðóíňîâęč. Ďðč ďĺðâîě íŕíĺńĺíčč čńďîëüçóĺňń˙
áîëĺĺ ńčëüíűé ðŕńňâîð, ŕ čěĺííî: ňðč ńëĺăęŕ íŕďîëíĺííűĺ ńňîëîâűĺ ëîćęč ěĺëŕ
ěĺäëĺííî äîáŕâë˙ţňń˙ â ðŕńňâîð čç ęëĺ˙ č âîäű; âńĺ îňńňŕčâŕĺňń˙, ňůŕňĺëüíî
ďĺðĺěĺřčâŕĺňń˙ č íŕíîńčňń˙ íŕ äîńęó ń ďîěîůüţ ęčńňč. Äë˙ ďîęðűňč˙
ńëĺäóţůčő ńëîĺâ áĺðĺňń˙ ňîň ćĺ ðŕńňâîð, íî ń äîáŕâęîé ď˙ňč ńňîëîâűő ëîćĺę
ěĺëŕ. Âńĺ ýňî íŕíîńčňń˙ íĺîáőîäčěîĺ ÷čńëî ðŕç, č ęŕćäűé ðŕç ðŕńňâîð
36 íŕăðĺâŕĺňń˙..» Ńě. L. OUSPENSKY, The Technique of Iconography, 53.
ďčăěĺíňű, ˙éöî...) áĺðóňń˙ â ńâîĺé íŕňóðŕëüíîé ôîðěĺ, ňîëüęî

î÷čůĺííűěč č ďðčóăîňîâëĺííűěč ðóęŕěč ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ č čěĺííî ňŕęčěč
ďðĺäďîäíĺńĺííűěč Áîăó íŕ ńëóćĺíčĺ. Â ýňîě ńěűńëĺ, ńëîâŕ ďðîðîęŕ
Äŕâčäŕ, ďðîčçíĺńĺííűĺ čě, ęîăäŕ îí áëŕăîńëŕâë˙ë ěŕňĺðčŕëű äë˙
ďîńňðîéęč őðŕěŕ, «Âńĺ Ňâîĺ, č ÷ňî Ňâîĺ, ěű äŕĺě Ňĺáĺ» (1ęí. Ďŕð. 29. 14)
ń ĺůĺ áîëüřčě ďðŕâîě ěű ěîćĺě îňíĺńňč ę čęîíĺ, ăäĺ ěŕňĺðč˙ ńëóćčň
čçîáðŕćĺíčţ îáðŕçŕ Áîăŕ. Íî ýňč ćĺ ńëîâŕ îáðĺňŕţň ńâîĺ âűńřĺĺ
çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ â Ëčňóðăčč âî âðĺě˙ ďðčíîřĺíč˙ Ńâ˙ňűő Äŕðîâ, ďðĺńóůĺńň-
âë˙ĺěűő â Ňĺëî č Ęðîâü Őðčńňŕ: «Ňâî˙ îň Ňâîčő Ňĺáĺ ďðčíîń˙ůĺ, îň âńĺő
č çŕ âń˙». Ďðĺďîäíĺńĺíčĺ ÷ĺëîâĺęîě čęîíű Áîăó â ďîäŕðîę â ńâîţ
î÷ĺðĺäü ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕĺň ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ čęîíű».103
Ďðîäîëćčňĺëüíŕ˙ áîðüáŕ – íŕ ďðîň˙ćĺíčč âîńüěîăî č äĺâ˙ňîăî
ńňîëĺňčé – çŕ ěĺńňî čęîí â Öĺðęâč íŕ ńŕěîě äĺëĺ âðŕůŕëŕńü âîęðóă
âîďðîńŕ î âîçěîćíîńňč ðĺŕëüíîăî ďðčńóňńňâč˙ čńňčíű Âîďëîůĺíč˙,
ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůĺé čńňîðčč č ňâîðĺíčţ, â ôîðěĺ čęîíű. Äë˙ ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő
Îňöîâ, ęðîěĺ ňĺő, ęňî îňíîńčëń˙ ę řęîëĺ Îðčăĺíŕ, eijkwvn âńĺăäŕ îçíŕ÷ŕë
÷ňî-ňî ðĺŕëüíîĺ, ďîäëčííîĺ, čńňčííîĺ. Áîëĺĺ ňîăî, ďŕňðčńňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ěűńëü
â ëčöĺ çŕůčňíčęîâ čęîí, ńóěĺëŕ îňńňî˙ňü čěĺííî «ňîň ôŕęň, ÷ňî
âîďëîůĺíčĺ ńäĺëŕëî íĺ ňîëüęî âîçěîćíűě, íî č íĺěčíóĺěűě ďîíčěŕíčĺ
čńňčíű ęŕę čęîíű».104 Ňŕęîĺ âčäĺíčĺ čńňčíű, ˙âë˙ţůĺĺ ĺĺ íĺ ęŕę
ďðîäóęň äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč ðŕçóěŕ, íĺ ęŕę « ð˙ä ęîíöĺďöčé» č «÷ĺðĺäó îďðĺ-
äĺëĺíčé», ŕ ęŕę «ďîńĺůĺíčĺ» č «ďðĺáűâŕíčĺ» (ńð. Čî.1:14) ýńőŕňî-
ëîăč÷ĺńęîé ðĺŕëüíîńňč, ęîňîðŕ˙ âőîäčň â čńňîðčţ č ðŕńęðűâŕĺň ĺĺ â
ńîáűňčč îáůĺíč˙, ęîðĺíčňń˙ â ďĺðâč÷íîě ŕďîęŕëčďňč÷ĺńęîě áîăîńëî-
âčč, ňŕę, ęŕę îíî čçíŕ÷ŕëüíî ðŕçâčâŕëîńü â ńčðî-ďŕëĺńňčíńęîé ňðŕäčöčč,
ďðîíčęŕţůĺé â ĺâőŕðčńňč÷ĺńęčĺ ëčňóðăčč Âîńňîęŕ105... Îáðŕç, eijkwvn ñ
áëŕăîäŕð˙ ńâîĺěó «ŕďîęŕëčďňč÷ĺńęîěó ęîðíţ» – îńóůĺńňâë˙ĺňń˙ â
ăð˙äóůĺě (â îňëč÷čč îň ďëŕňîíč÷ĺńęîăî ńďîńîáŕ ěűřëĺíč˙, ń ńîăëŕńčč ń
ęîňîðűě îáðŕç ńóůĺńňâóĺň ňîëüęî â ďðîřëîě, ŕ čńňčíŕ ńňŕíîâčňń˙
ďðĺäěĺňîě âîńďîěčíŕíč˙, ajnavmnhsi~). Č ĺńëč äë˙ Îðčăĺíŕ č ńâ.
Ŕâăóńňčíŕ ńîâĺðřĺíńňâî ńâîéńňâĺííî ďĺðâč÷íîěó ( ňî ĺńňü, «ďðîřëîěó»)
ńîńňî˙íčţ âĺůĺé, ňî ăðĺ÷ĺńęŕ˙ ďŕňðčńňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ňðŕäčöč˙ ăîâîðčň îá
îáðŕçĺ ęŕę î «ęîíĺ÷íîé čńňčíĺ áűňč˙, ęîňîðŕ˙ ďĺðĺäŕĺňń˙ â ńîáűňčč
îáůĺíč˙...».106
Îáðŕç Áîćčé, ďî ęîňîðîěó áűë ńîňâîðĺí ÷ĺëîâĺę č ńîńňŕâë˙ĺň ĺăî
ëč÷íîńňíóţ íĺďîâňîðčěîńňü, ĺäčíńňâĺííîńňü, íĺńâîäčěóţ č íĺîďðĺ-
äĺë˙ĺěóţ íčęŕęîé âíĺříĺé íĺîáőîäčěîńňüţ č íĺ ďîäëĺćŕůóţ íčęŕęîé
ďðčíóäčňĺëüíîé «ńňŕíäŕðňčçŕöčč č óíčôčęŕöčč» – ďðčíöčďó, ďî
ęîňîðîěó ńðŕâíčâŕţňń˙, čçěĺð˙ţňń˙, âçŕčěîçŕěĺí˙ţňń˙ č óíč÷ňîćŕţňń˙
číäčâčäű. Ëč÷íîńňü ćĺ óíčęŕëüíŕ, ŕ ďîňîěó – íĺńðŕâíĺííŕ: îíŕ ðŕń-
ęðűâŕĺňń˙ č ďîçíŕĺňń˙ ňîëüęî â ëč÷íűő îňíîřĺíč˙ő č îáůĺíčč; äðóăčěč
103 Ňŕě ćĺ, 55.

104 J. D. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 100.
105 Ňŕě ćĺ, 101.
106 Ňŕě ćĺ. 37
ńëîâŕěč, ńďîńîáîě ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙ ëč÷íîńňč ĺńňü ńâîáîäŕ č íĺďîâňî-

ðčěîńňü.
Čńňčíŕ ëč÷íîńňíîé ńâ˙çč ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ ń Áîăîě (ďîçčňčâíîăî čëč
íĺăŕňčâíîăî, čáî ÷ĺëîâĺę âîëĺí ńęŕçŕňü Áîăó «íĺň») č îňëč÷ŕĺň ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ,
őŕðŕęňĺðčçóĺň ĺăî ěîäóń áűňč˙.
«×ĺëîâĺę – ýęçčńňĺíöčŕëüíűé ôŕęň âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíčé č îáůĺíč˙.
×ĺëîâĺę ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ëč÷íîńňüţ, provswpon, č ýňî îçíŕ÷ŕĺň, ęŕę ýňčěîëî-
ăč÷ĺńęč, ňŕę č íŕ ďðŕęňčęĺ, ÷ňî ÷ĺëîâĺę čěĺĺň ëčöî (w[y), îáðŕůĺííîĺ ę
(prov~) ęîěó-ňî čëč ÷ĺěó-ňî, ÷ňî îí ďðĺäńňîčň (âî âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ő čëč
ńâ˙çč) ďĺðĺä ęĺě-ňî čëč ÷ĺě-ňî. Â ęŕćäîé ńâîĺé ëč÷íîńňíîé čďîńňŕńč
ňâŕðíŕ˙ ďðčðîäŕ ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ ńňîčň «ëčöîě ę ëčöó» ń Áîăîě: îíŕ ńóůĺńňâóĺň
âî âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ő č ńâ˙çč ń Áîăîě».107
Ďîíčěŕíčĺ ëč÷íîńňč, čďîńňŕńč ęŕę ńâîáîäű ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę ńîá-
ńňâĺííîé ďðčðîäĺ, ŕ ńâîáîäű ëč÷íîńňč ęŕę ŕáńîëţňíîăî č íĺîăðŕíč-
÷ĺííîăî ďðŕâŕ íŕ ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčĺ108 ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíűě ďîðîć-
äĺíčĺě ďŕňðčńňč÷ĺńęîé ěűńëč. Áîëüřčíńňâî ŕâňîðîâ ęâŕëčôčöčðóţň
ăðĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ěűřëĺíčĺ ęŕę «íĺďĺðńîíŕëčńňč÷íîĺ»:109 â ďëŕňîíčçěĺ
ëč÷íîńňü ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ îíňîëîăč÷ĺńęč íĺâîçěîćíűě ďîí˙ňčĺě, ďîńęîëüęó
äóřŕ, ćčâóůŕ˙ âĺ÷íî č ăŕðŕíňčðóţůŕ˙ íĺďðĺðűâíîńňü ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙
÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, íĺ ńâ˙çŕíŕ ðŕç č íŕâńĺăäŕ ń ęîíęðĺňíűě ÷ĺëîâĺęîě, ŕ ěîćĺň,
ńîĺäčí˙˙ńü ń äðóăčě ňĺëîě, ńîçäŕâŕňü íîâóţ číäčâčäóŕëüíîńňü. Ŕðčń-
ňîňĺëĺâńęŕ˙ ôčëîńîôč˙, íŕńňŕčâŕ˙ íŕ ęîíęðĺňíîě č číäčâčäóŕëüíîě,
íŕîáîðîň, íŕńňîëüęî «çŕęðĺďčëa» č ńâ˙çŕëa ýňó číäčâčäóŕëüíîńňü ń ĺĺ ćĺ
ďńčőîńîěŕňč÷ĺńęîé öĺëîńňíîńňüţ, ÷ňî ðŕçðóřčëî ęŕę ðŕç ďîńňî˙íńňâî č
«âĺ÷íóţ ćčçíü» ëč÷íîńňč: ńěĺðňü îęîí÷ŕňĺëüíî óíč÷ňîćŕĺň ęîíęðĺňíóţ
«číäčâčäóŕëüíîńňü».110 Ń äðóăîé ńňîðîíű, ďðîíčçŕííîńňü äðĺâíĺăðĺ÷ĺń-
ęîé ěűńëč ďðčíöčďîě íĺîáőîäčěîăî ĺäčíńňâŕ áűňč˙, îńóůĺńňâë˙ĺĺěîăî
â ęîíĺ÷íîě čňîăĺ íĺńěîňð˙, âîďðĺęč č çŕ ń÷ĺň ĺăî âčäčěîé ěíîćĺńň-
107 Ch. YANNARAS, The Freedom of Morality, New York 1991, 14-15.
108 Ěčňð. Çčçčóëŕń â íŕěč óćĺ öčňčðóĺěîé ðŕáîňĺ, ńńűëŕĺňń˙ íŕ čçâĺńňíűĺ ńëîâŕ
Ęčðčëîâŕ čç Áĺńîâ Äîńňîĺâńęîăî («Ęŕćäűé ÷ĺëîâĺę, ęîňîðűé őî÷ĺň äîńňč÷ü
ďîëíîé ńâîáîäű äîëćĺí îńěĺëčňń˙ ďîëîćčňü ďðĺäĺë ńâîĺé ćčçíč... Ýňî
ďîńëĺäíčé ďðĺäĺë ńâîáîäű; ýňî âńĺ; č íč÷ĺăî íĺň âíĺ ýňîăî...») ęŕę íŕ «ôîðěóëó»,
âűðŕćŕţůóţ íŕčáîëĺĺ ňðŕăč÷íóţ ńňîðîíó ďîčńęîâ ëč÷íîńňč: âűőîä çŕ ďðĺäĺëű
«íĺîáőîäčěîńňč» ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙, âîçěîćíîńňü óňâĺðćäĺíč˙ ńâîĺăî ńóůĺńňâî-
âŕíč˙ íĺ ęŕę ďðčçíŕíč˙ î÷ĺâčäíîăî ôŕęňŕ, ęŕę «ðĺŕëüíîńňč», ŕ ęŕę ðĺçóëüňŕňŕ
ńîáńňâĺííîăî ńâîáîäíîăî čçâîëĺíč˙, ńîáńňâĺííîăî ńîăëŕńč˙ č ńŕěîóňâĺðćäĺíč˙.
Čěĺííî ýňîăî, č íčęŕę íĺ ěĺíüřĺăî, ćĺëŕĺň ÷ĺëîâĺę â ńâîĺě áűňčč ęŕę ëč÷íîńňč.
Ýňî ćĺ îńîáĺííî îňðŕćŕĺňń˙ č â ďîäëčííîě čńęóńńňâĺ, ęîňîðîĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íč ÷ĺě
číűě, ęŕę ńňðĺěëĺíčĺě ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ óňâĺðäčňü ńâîĺ ďðčńóňńňâčĺ ęŕę ńâîáîäíîĺ îň
«íĺîáőîäčěîńňč» ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčĺ; ýňčě ćĺ îáú˙ńí˙ĺňń˙ ňĺíäĺíöč˙ â ńîâðĺěĺííîě
čńęóńńňâĺ, čńňîðč÷ĺńęč ńâ˙çŕííŕ˙ ń ďðîâîçăëŕřĺíčĺě ńâîáîäű č ðîëč ëč÷íîńňč,
ę čăíîðčðîâŕíčţ č äŕćĺ ďðĺíĺáðĺăŕíčţ âďëîňü äî ðŕçðóřĺíč˙ ôîðěű č
ďðčðîäű âĺůĺé (čő ďðčðîäíűő čëč ńëîâĺńíűő ôîðě). Ęŕę âîńęëčęíóë
Ěčęĺëŕíäćĺëî: «Ęîăäŕ ćĺ ˙ óćĺ čçáŕâëţńü îň ýňîăî ěðŕěîðŕ č âîçüěóńü,
íŕęîíĺö, çŕ ðŕáîňó?». Ń. 43.
109 Ńě., íŕďðčěĺð, Ŕ. Ô. ËÎŃĹÂ, Î÷ĺðęč ŕíňč÷íîăî ńčěâîëčçěŕ č ěčôîëîăčč,
Ěîńęâŕ 1993, 644-645.
38 110 J. D. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 28.
âĺííîńňč č ěíîăîëčęîńňč, ďðčâîäčň ăðĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ěűřëĺíčĺ ę ńîçäŕíčţ

ďîí˙ňč˙ ęîńěîńŕ ęŕę ăŕðěîíč÷íîé ńîîňíĺńĺííîńňč âńĺăî ńóůĺńňâóţůĺăî
ěĺćäó ńîáîé. Îäíŕęî, â ýňîě ďðĺęðŕńíîě č ńîðŕçěĺðíîě ěčðĺ, áűňčĺ č
öĺííîńňü ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ – ęŕę č ęŕćäîé ęîíęðĺňíîé, «îňäĺëüíîé» âĺůč –
ńâîäčňń˙ â ęîíĺ÷íîě čňîăĺ, ę íĺîáőîäčěîé, ďî÷ňč ďðčíóäčňĺëüíîé ńâ˙çč č
ńðîäńňâĺííîńňč, č ńðŕůĺííîńňč ń ýňčě «ĺäčíűě» áűňčĺě. Âńĺ, ÷ňî
óăðîćŕĺň ęîńěč÷ĺńęîé ăŕðěîíčč č íĺ ďîääŕĺňń˙ ðŕçóěíîěó ďîíčěŕíčţ –
îňâĺðăŕĺňń˙ č îńóćäŕĺňń˙..
Čěĺííî óäĺë ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ â ýňîě öŕðńňâĺ ăŕðěîíčč č ðŕçóěŕ č ˙âë˙ĺňń˙
ňĺěîé äðĺâíĺăðĺ÷ĺńęîé ňðŕăĺäčč, ÷ĺðĺç ęîňîðóţ ďîí˙ňčĺ «ëč÷íîńňü»
(provswpon) č âőîäčň â óďîňðĺáëĺíčĺ, ŕ ňĺŕňð ńňŕíîâčňń˙ ňĺě ěĺńňîě, ăäĺ
÷ĺëîâĺę ďűňŕĺňń˙ ńňŕňü «ëč÷íîńňüţ», âîńńňŕâŕ˙ ďðîňčâ ýňîăî
«ăŕðěîíč÷íîăî ĺäčíńňâŕ», «ęîňîðîĺ ďîäŕâë˙ĺň ĺĺ ęŕę ðŕöčîíŕëüíŕ˙ č
ěîðŕëüíŕ˙ íĺîáőîäčěîńňü».111 Provswpon, ëčöî, âńęîðĺ îňîćäĺńňâčëîńü ń
proswpeson, ěŕńęîé, ęîňîðîé ďîëüçîâŕëčńü â ňĺŕňðĺ. Ňðŕăč÷íîńňü
âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíčé ěŕńęč č ëč÷íîńňč äâî˙ęŕ: íŕäĺâŕ˙ ěŕńęó č âńňóďŕ˙ â
áîðüáó ńî ńâîĺé ńóäüáîé č ń áîăŕěč, áóíňó˙ ďðîňčâ âńĺăî ýňîăî íŕâ˙-
çŕííîăî č íĺðóřčěîăî «ăŕðěîíč÷ĺńęîăî ĺäčíńňâŕ», ŕęňĺð (č çðčňĺëü)
îůóůŕë âęóń ńâîáîäű, îáðĺňŕë îďðĺäĺëĺííóţ čäĺíňč÷íîńňü, «čďîńňŕńü»,
ďîäëčííîĺ ëč÷íîńňíîĺ čçěĺðĺíčĺ... Íî ďî íĺďðĺëîćíűě çŕęîíŕě
ŕíňč÷íîé ňðŕăĺäčč, ńóäüáŕ íĺóěîëčěî íŕńňčăŕĺň «áĺăëĺöŕ», ńðűâŕĺň
ěŕńęó, ŕ áîăč ęŕðŕţň ĺăî çŕ äĺðçęîńňü – čáî «íĺ ěčð ńóůĺńňâóĺň ðŕäč
÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, ŕ ÷ĺëîâĺę ðŕäč ěčðŕ».112
Â äðĺâíĺăðĺ÷ĺńęîě ěčðĺ, ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, áűňü «ëč÷íîńňüţ»
îçíŕ÷ŕëî, ÷ňî ÷ĺëîâĺę ďðîńňî ÷ňî-ňî äîáŕâë˙ĺň ę ńâîĺěó áűňčţ, ęŕę áű
«ěĺí˙ĺň ěŕńęč»; äîëćíî áűëî ďðîéňč íĺńęîëüęî ńňîëĺňčé, ďðĺćäĺ, ÷ĺě
ăðĺ÷ĺńęŕ˙ ěűńëü ńóěĺëŕ äîńňč÷ü îňîćäĺńňâëĺíč˙ «čďîńňŕńč», ęŕę
ðĺŕëüíîăî, ęîíęðĺňíîăî áűňč˙ č «ëč÷íîńňč». Äë˙ ňîăî, ÷ňîáű ýňî ńňŕëî
âîçěîćíűě, íĺîáőîäčěű áűëč äâĺ ďðĺäďîńűëęč: âî-ďĺðâűő, äîëćíî
áűëî ďðîčçîéňč ðŕäčęŕëüíîĺ čçěĺíĺíčĺ â ńôĺðĺ ęîńěîëîăčč, ęîňîðŕ˙
îńâîáîäčëŕ áű ěčð č ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ îň ďîðŕáîůĺíč˙ îíňîëîăč÷ĺńęîé íĺîá-
őîäčěîńňč. Ýňî ńňŕëî âîçěîćíűě áëŕăîäŕð˙ őðčńňčŕíńňâó, ďðîíčęíóňîěó
áčáëĺéńęčě ěčðîâîççðĺíčĺě, ęîňîðîĺ ěîćíî áűëî áű «ďîëĺěč÷ĺńęč»
ńôîðěóëčðîâŕňü ńëĺäóţůčě îáðŕçîě: «íĺ ÷ĺëîâĺę ńóůĺńňâóĺň ðŕäč ěčðŕ,
ŕ ěčð – ðŕäč ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ». Ŕ âî-âňîðűő, íóćíî áűëî ďîńěîňðĺňü íŕ
÷ĺëîâĺęŕ â ĺăî îíňîëîăč÷ĺńęîé ďĺðńďĺęňčâĺ – ÷ňî č ńóěĺëč îńóůĺńňâčňü
ăðĺ÷ĺńęčĺ Îňöű – ňî ĺńňü, «îáúĺäčíčňü ëč÷íîńňü ń áűňčĺě ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, ń
íĺďðĺðűâíîńňüţ č ďðîň˙ćĺííîńňüţ ĺăî ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙, ń ĺăî ďîäëčííîé
č ŕáńîëţňíîé čäĺíňč÷íîńňüţ».113
Äë˙ âčçŕíňčéńęčő čęîíîďčńöĺâ «ĺäčíńňâĺííîé ðĺŕëüíîńňüţ,
íĺďîäâëŕńňíîé ňëĺíčţ č ńěĺðňč, ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ëč÷íîńňü, äčíŕěč÷ĺńęîĺ
ďðĺîäîëĺíčĺ číäčâčäóŕëüíîńňč, ÷ňî îáóńëîâëčâŕĺň ňðŕíńôîðěŕöčţ â
ńďîńîáĺ ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙. Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ðĺ÷ü čäĺň óćĺ íĺ î âîńőîćäĺíčč
111 Ňŕě ćĺ, 32.
112 Ďëŕňîí, Çŕęîíű, Ő, 903 ń-d.
113 J. D. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 36. 39
îň ęîíęðĺňíîăî ďðĺäěĺňŕ äî ŕáńňðŕęňíîé óíčâĺðńŕëüíîńňč čäĺč, ęîňîðŕ˙

˙âë˙ĺňń˙ «ěĺňŕôčçč÷ĺńęîé äŕííîńňüţ», äîńňóďíîé ëčřü číňĺëëĺęňóŕëü-
íîěó ńîçĺðöŕíčţ. Ðĺ÷ü ńðŕçó čäĺň î ďîňĺíöčŕëüíîé ńďîńîáíîńňč,
ńîęðűňîé â ęîíęðĺňíîé ðĺŕëüíîńňč, â číäčâčäóŕëüíîé ďëîňč ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ č
ěčðŕ áűňü ó÷ŕńňíčęîě â čńňčííîé ćčçíč ëč÷íîńňíîé íĺďîâňîðčěîńňč, â
ńâîáîäĺ îň ďðčðîäíîăî äĺňĺðěčíčçěŕ. Â čęîíĺ ěŕńňĺð âűðŕćŕĺň
ëč÷íîńňíűé ńďîńîá ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙, ęîňîðűě ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ëţáîâü, îáůĺíčĺ č
âçŕčěîîňíîřĺíč˙ – ňîň ĺäčíńňâĺííűé ńďîńîá, ęîňîðűé äĺëŕĺň ýęçčń-
ňĺíöčŕëüíóţ íĺďîâňîðčěîńňü č ńâîáîäó ôŕęňîě ćčçíč č ĺĺ čďî-
ńňŕńüţ».114
Â íŕ÷ŕëĺ ďðîřëîăî âĺęŕ ðóńńęčĺ áîăîńëîâű č ôčëîńîôű
ďðîňčâîďîńňŕâčëč âîčíńňâóţůĺěó ŕňĺčçěó ˙âëĺííűé â čęîíĺ ďðĺ-
îáðŕćĺííűé ěčð č ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńňâî; íîâűé âűçîâ, ďðčřĺäřčé íŕ ńěĺíó
óěĺðřĺěó ŕňĺčçěó â ęîíöĺ XX ńňîëĺňč˙ – ýňî, ďî ńëîâó ŔÂĹÐČÍÖĹÂŔ
«íĺâĺðčĺ â ńëîâî ęŕę ňŕęîâîĺ, âðŕćäŕ ę Ëîăîńó»115. Â ýňîě ðŕçðóřĺíčč
ńëîâŕ ŔÂĹÐČÍÖĹÂ îńîçíŕĺň ðŕçëŕăŕţůóţ âîëţ íĺáűňč˙. Â íŕřĺě ěčðĺ
«ďîńňěîäĺðíčçěŕ» ńëčřęîě ěíîăî íĺďðîçðŕ÷íîé íĺâí˙ňčöű, ðŕńďëűâ÷ŕ-
ňîăî, âçŕčěîçŕěĺíčěîăî, č ěŕńňĺð ďðîňčâîďîńňŕâë˙ĺň ýňîěó ÷ĺęŕííóţ
ôîðěóëó Ëîăîńŕ: «Ëîăîń – ýňî ńðŕçó č îáúĺęňčâíîĺ äŕííîĺ ńîäĺðćŕíčĺ, â
ęîňîðîě óě äîëćĺí «îňäŕâŕňü îň÷ĺň» č ńŕěŕ ýňŕ «îň÷čňűâŕţůŕ˙ń˙»
äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňü óěŕ, č, íŕęîíĺö, ńęâîçíŕ˙ ńěűńëîâŕ˙ óďîð˙äî÷ĺííîńňü
áűňč˙ č ńîçíŕíč˙. Ýňî ďðîňčâîďîëîćíîńňü âńĺěó áĺçîň÷ĺňíîěó č
áĺńńëîâĺńíîěó, áĺçîňâĺňíîěó č áĺçîňâĺňńňâĺííîěó, áĺńńěűńëĺííîěó č
áĺńôîðěĺííîěó â ěčðĺ č ÷ĺëîâĺęĺ».116
Čáî čęîííîńňü č ëîăîńíîńňü, îáðŕçíîńňü č ńëîâĺńíîńňü – äâŕ
čńęîííűő ďĺðâîîďðĺäĺëĺíč˙ áűňč˙.
114 Ch. YANNARAS, The Freedom of Morality, 229.

115 Ń. Ń. ŔÂĹÐČÍÖĹÂ, Ńîôč˙-Ëîăîń. Ńëîâŕðü, 389.
40 116 Ňŕě ćĺ, 117.
Who, if anyone, was a reiks
in fourth-century Gothia ?
Stanislav DOLEéAL (»eskÈ BudÏjovice)
I. During the period of tetrarchy and the Constantinian dynasty, rela-

tions between the Roman Empire and the Gothic tribes that inhabited
the areas north of the Danube River and Black Sea were remarkably
peaceful and stable. After a series of Roman victories in the latter half of
the 3rd century, the Goths began to show more respect towards the
Empire. On the other hand, the Roman authorities ceded Dacia, now
deemed untenable, to them in 271, forming a new line of defence direct-
ly on the Danube. A new era began, characterised by a peaceful coexis-
tence, albeit in mutual mistrust, lasting roughly one hundred years.
Nonetheless, clashes continued to occur, if rarely. It was also an age when
Roman writers paid more attention to what was happening beyond the
Danube. When carelessly observed, the now Gothic Dacia may have
appeared to be a place where various barbarian tribes sought to acquire
their respective shares of booty, fighting each other for the land and
wealth. Obviously, the Empire tried to interfere in these affairs to its
advantage, whenever possible.1 Roman observers could also have noticed
the creation of a Gothic realm in present-day Romania and Moldavia.
This territory was called Gothia by the Romans and apparently Gutthiuda
by the Goths.2 To make things more complicated, some sources speak of
certain Tervingi as inhabitants of this area.3 The Danube now formed a
1 Pan. Lat. 11(3).17.1; Pan. Lat. 8(5).5.1-2; Lactantius, De morte persecutorum

38.6-7; Eutrop. 9.25; Aur. Vict. 39.43; SHA Aurel. 30.4; Fast. cons. s. a. 295; Oros. hist.
7.25.12; Zos. 1.71.1.; Jord. Get. 97-115; Amm. Marc. 31.5.17. Important literature
about this period: P. HEATHER, Goths and Romans, 332-489, Oxford 1991; id., The
Goths, Oxford 1996; P. HEATHER ñ J. F. MATTHEWS, The Goths in the Fourth Century,
Liverpool 1991; E. A. THOMPSON, The Visigoths in the Time of Ulfila, Oxford 1966;
H. WOLFRAM, Die Goten, M¸nchen 2001 (4th ed.), in English: H. WOLFRAM, History
of the Goths, University of California Press 1988; J. ULRICH, Barbarische
Gesellschaftsstruktur und rˆmische Aussenpolitik zu Beginn der Vˆlkerwanderung. Ein
Versuch zu den Westgoten 365-377, Bonn 1995.
2 Oros. hist. 1.2; SHA Maxim. 1.5; Jord. Get. 74. See THOMPSON, The Visigoths, 4; cf.
HEATHER, Goths and Romans, 86. For the term Gutthiuda on coins cf. WOLFRAM,
History of the Goths, 22. These parts became known as Gepidia in 5th and 6th cen-
turies (Jord. Get. 73: Daciam dico antiquam, quam nunc Gepidarum populi possidere nos-
cuntur; ibid. 74: Öhaec Gothia, quam Daciam appellavere maiores, quae nunc, ut dix-
imus, Gepidia dicitur). As for the term Gutthiuda, it actually means Ñthe Gothic
peopleì or perhaps Ñland inhabited by the Gothic peopleì (thiuda = people, cf.
GotthjÛd as ÑGothic landì in the Elder Edda).
3 I will not go into any details about ethnic composition of Gutthiuda or differ-
entiation of Gothic tribes at that time, nor shall I deal with their respective names. 41
Stanislav Doleûal
natural border between the Gothia and the Empire. Its lower course was
therefore aptly named ripa Gothica, whereas the middle part was called
ripa Sarmatica.4 East of this Gothia, on a territory roughly encompassing
present-day Ukraine, another Gothic dominion of so-called Greutungi was
formed. However, it was remote and of no interest to the Empire, with
which it did not even share a common border. We are poorly informed
about it and I do not intent to deal with it in this article, aside from some
observations meant for comparison.5
If more closely observed, the transdanubian Gothia could have
appeared to Roman observers as home to various nations, ruled by a
Gothic elite. Such is the picture we get from random and inconsistent
reports of some Roman writers. But the actual social and political struc-
ture of Gothia at the end of the 3rd and first half of the 4th century is far
from clear. Some modern authors, for example, are convinced about the
existence of a central leadership among the Tervingi, others preferring
the picture of a politically decentralized society (see below). All of them,
however, have to decide on the meaning of some appellations supplied by
our sources and pertaining to the Gothic political elite, most intriguingly
iudex. There are many such appellations discussed in scholarly works, and
not only the Latin and Greek ones, supplied by our sources; still other
terms are reckoned with, supplied by a source, which is contemporary, but
by no means historiographical: the Gothic translation of the bible, made
by Ulfila, the bishop of the so-called ìlesser Gothsî (Gothi minores).6 As the
title of this article implies, I shall focus primarily on one of these terms,
namely, reiks.7
As directly follows from the account of Ammianus Marcellinus, our
single most reliable Roman historian of that era, the Greutungi were at that
time ruled by a dynasty of kings (reges), who exercised an undisputed
power over many neighbouring peoples.8 It would seem that the situation
Suffice to say here that in most scholarly literature, as cited above, Tervingi are
simply taken as the Gothic tribe inhabiting the transdanubian Gothia during the
4th century.
4 Anon. Val. 35 (ripam Gothicam), Claud. Epithal. Pallad. 88 (Sarmaticis ripis).
5 The Tervingi and the Greutungi are here understood as two different Gothic
tribes, inhabiting the described areas in the first half of the 4th century. For dis-
cussion of the names see D. CLAUDE, Geschichte der Westgoten, Stuttgart 1970, 7; R.
WENSKUS, Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der fr¸hmittelalterlichen Gentes,
Kˆln 1961, 322; J. POKORNY, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wˆrterbuch, Bern 1959,
86-87 and 215; W. KRAUSE, Handbuch des Gotischen, M¸nchen 1968, 11; M.
SCH÷NFELD, Wˆrterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Vˆlkernamen, Heidelberg
1911, 39 and 113; there is also an useful overview in: H. WOLFRAM, Die Goten,
M¸nchen 1990 (3rd ed.), 35, or WOLFRAM, History of the Goths, 22-25.
6 Jord. Get. 51.
7 Herwig Wolfram frequently used this term in his works, as if it was actually
used by our sources; for example, see WOLFRAM, Die Goten, 102: ìIn den einzelnen
Unterabteilungen, kunja, herrschten H‰uptlinge, reiks.î
42 8 Amm. Marc. 31.3.1-3.
of the Tervingi could have been similar. Our sources frequently speak of a
leader of this tribe, dubbing him either rex or basileuv~, or a[rcwn or oth-
erwise, the most unconventional name of them all being iudex. This is how
Ammianus described Athanaric, the leader of a part of the Tervingi in the
sixties and seventies of the 4th century.8 The Milanese bishop Ambrose
even dubbed Athanaric iudex regum.10 Moreover, in his Epistula de fide, vita
et obitu Wulfilae, Auxentius used the description iudex Gothorum for an
anonymous Gothic leader responsible for persecutions of Christians in
347-348 in Gothia. There can be little doubt that Athanaric is referred to
here. It is also noteworthy that Zosimus saw Athanaric as Ñthe leader of the
entire Scythian royal familyì (panto;~ tou` basileivou tw`n Skuqw`n a[rconta
gevnou~).11 However, it does not follow from all this evidence that the
Tervingi had only one leader at a time; for example, we hear of a rival of
Athanaric, Fritigern by name. To infer simply, solely on the basis of testi-
mony of selected sources, that the Tervingi always had a king who exer-
cised a total control over them is risky. In the case of Athanaric, well-
informed Themistius dubbed Athanaric simply ìrulerî (dunavsth~),12
Eunapius named him basileuv~, various Latin writers used the term rex.13
Also, Eunapius reports that in 376 the Tervingi were transferred onto the
Roman territory piecemeal ñ parts of their tribe (fulaiv)14 went one by
one. It can be argued, therefore, that those parts of the one tribe were
ruled autonomously, by their minor tribal leaders, much like the West
Germanic tribes, e. g. the Alamanni, about the same time.15 Truly, some
Roman historians do speak about local leaders of the Goths, the most
common description being reges ñ but explicitly reges ruling alongside each
other, not successively.16 This exemplifies, by the way, the problem of
appellations of the Gothic rulers, because the term rex is used rather care-
lessly by our sources. We hear of a Gothic chieftain, by name Alica, who,
with his warriors, helped Licinius in 324 in the battle against Constantine
9 Amm. Marc. 27.5.6 (Athanaric in 369 was iudex potentissimus); 27.5.9
(Athanaric as iudex gentis negotiating peace in that year) and 31.3.4 (Athanaric is
even in 376 still described as Thervingorum iudex).
10 Ambrose, De spiritu sancto, prol. 17.
11 Zos. 4.34.3.
12 Them. or. 11.146B: oJ gou`n Skuvqh~ h] Gevth~ ejkei`no~ dunavsth~; or. 15.190D: oJ
Gevth~ dunavsth~.
13 Eunap. frg. 37, Oros. hist. 7.32, Jord. Get. 142, Hydat. 39.3, Cassiod. chron. 39. Cf.
WOLFRAM, Die Goten, 103, who inexplicably concluded: ìAthanarich war vielmehr
ein kindins.î
14 Eunap. frg. 55
15 The West Germanic tribes, but also the Sarmatians, seemed to be split into
parts in the 4th century, which were ruled by local Ñkingsì; Ammianus describes
them as reges, reguli, regales or subreguli (Amm. Marc. 17.12.11, 17.12.21, 18.2.3 and
elsewhere). It is perhaps noteworthy here that Ammianus mentions tribal iudices
of the Quadi (17.12.21) as well as their superordinate king (rex) and also other
grades in the hierarchy of the tribe (regales, subreguli, optimates). Cf. also Amm.
Marc. 31.2.25, where iudices of the Alani are briefly mentioned.
16 Amm. Marc. 26.10.3 and elsewhere. 43
Stanislav Doleûal
at Chrysopolis.17 He is called regalis by our source, and yet seems to have

exercised a great deal of power and autonomy. The hagiographic work
Passio sancti Sabae written in 372 aptly names petty Gothic chieftains either
basilivskoi (4.5) or megista`ne~ (3.1) presenting them as independent
chiefs on various parts of Gothic territory. From its point of view, there
seems to have been a decentralized model of the power structure of the
Tervingian society.18
As for the scholarly views on the subject, there has been quite a range
of opinions expressed thus far. All of them, however, have one thing in
common: they try to define the enigmatic term iudex, which appears, as
we saw, recurrently in our sources. E. A. THOMPSON did not believe that
iudex ever had an unlimited power over the whole tribe: ìBut the iudex
seems to have had as little personal authority as Germanic chiefs had had in the
days of Tacitus.î19 Elsewhere he specified his view thus: ìIt was usually war-
fare that brought his office into being.î20 He then adhered to the concept of
a temporary confederation of the Gothic tribal chieftains. Basically the
same argument can be found in the works of Herwig WOLFRAM.21
According to his pupil, Andreas SCHWARCZ, the Tervingi were even ìa
kingless societyî.22 It can be argued that the Tervingi tended to pick a
leader in the time of a crisis, whereas normally they were ruled by local
rulers. Much was made in scholarly literature of a description of the
Tervingi in the year 364 by Ammianus Marcellinus (the tribe was then
conspirans in unum).23
Peter HEATHER took the contrary view, concluding that there was a
permanent monarchy among the Tervingi.24 HEATHER even sought to
construe dynastic relations in Gothia. According one source, in 332 cer-
tain Ariaric was king of Tervingi and supplied his son as hostage to the
Romans.25 This unnamed son was, for HEATHER, probably the father of
Athanaric. No other evidence exists to support this claim, except for a
mention of Themistius who speaks of Athanaric¥s arrival to Con-
17 Anon. Val. 27.

18 For the translated text of the Passio, see P. HEATHER ñ J. F. MATTHEWS, The
Goths, 109-117.
19 E. A. THOMPSON, The Passio S. Sabae and Early Visigothic Society, Historia 4
(1955) 331.
20 E. A. THOMPSON, The Visigoths, 46.
21 H. WOLFRAM, Athanaric the Visigoth. Monarchy or judgeship. A study in compara-
tive history, Journal of Medieval History 1 (1975) 259-278; further WOLFRAM, History
of the Goths, 62ff.
22 See his discussion with P. Heather in: P. Heather (ed.), The Visigoths from the
Migration Period to the Seventh Century, The Boydell Press 1999, 359.
23 Amm. Marc. 26.6.11. See, e. g., WOLFRAM, Die Goten, 102.
24 P. HEATHER, Goths and Romans, 99-103, 154 and passim; however, in his later
work (The Goths, 57-60, 63-77), Heather is rather evasive on the subject and seems
to be less convinced.
44 25 Anon. Val. 31.
stantinople in 381 and his capitulation before the Emperor Theodosius.26

Athanaric came to the city, ìwhere once mighty Constantine honoured his
father by his statue (eijkovni), which still stands behind the house of
Senate.î27 This unnamed Athanaric¥s father lived for some time in
Constantinople and then probably returned to Gothia. Obviously, this
mention does not even mean that Athanaric¥s father was a ruler of the
Tervingi. It is also of note that despite being honoured by a statue,
Athanaric¥s father apparently never ceased to hate Romans and even
indoctrinated his son in doing so; we are told that Athanaric had to swear
that he would never enter the Roman territory.28 This sufficiently illus-
trates problems with reconstructing an image of political structure of the
Tervingi.29
But even if we dismiss the hypothesis of dynastic relations in
Gothia, we are still left with the task of explaining away some terms rel-
evant to the actual political structure of the Tervingi ñ primarily the
term iudex. Further, we should examine how these terms are reflected
in the Gothic bible (provided they were already used in the Greek orig-
inal or Latin translation, obviously). Ulfila in his translation indeed
provides some terminology related to various offices and power struc-
tures mentioned in the bible. And as Ulfila lived precisely in the peri-
od of the Gothic history discussed here, he could have used Gothic
terms that were common in his day among the Goths. In short, Ulfila¥s
work should mirror the power structures of the Gothic society in the
fourth century. After comparison with terms used for the Gothic soci-
ety by our extant Greek and Latin sources, a somewhat clearer picture
should emerge.
II.30 1. Starting on the top, we find an obvious expression for a Roman

Emperor ñ kaisar. This is what the authors of gospels used (kassar,
Caesar).31 It may be noteworthy that Tiberius is described as kaisar, where-
as his rule translates as þiudinassus; however, this is simply because the
original has hJgemoniva Tiberivou Kaivsaro~.32
26 There are many other sources for this famous episode: Amm. Marc. 27.5.10,
Fasti cons. s.a. 381; Hydat. 39.3; Prosp. Chron. 41.4; Marcell. Com. s.a. 381; Cassiod.
chron. 39; Jord. Get. 142-5; Oros. hist. 7.34.
27 Them. or. 15.190-1.
28 Amm. Marc. 27.5.9 (adserebat Athanaricus sub timenda exsecratione iuris iurandi se
esse obstrictum, mandatisque prohibitum patris ne solum calcaret aliquando Romanorum).
29 Andreas Schwarcz was convinced, moreover, that Ariaric¥s son was certain
Aoric, who is briefly mentioned by Jordanes (Getica 112) and construed the
dynastic line thus: Ariaric ñ Aoric ñ Athanaric (See A. SCHWARCZ, Reichsangehˆrige
Personen gotischer Herkunft, Wien 1984, s. v. Aorich).
30 The version of the Gothic bible used for the analysis: W. STREITBERG, Die goti-
sche Bibel, Heidelberg 2000 (7th ed.).
31 Jn 19.12, Lk 2.1, 3.1 and elsewhere.
32 Lk 3.1. 45
Stanislav Doleûal
2. Ulfila always translates the term basileuv~ as thiudans.33 Also, in the

First Epistle to Timothy (6.15), the phrase thiudans thiudanondane is used,
literally meaning ìthe one who rules over the rulingî (second word being
plural genitive of present participle of the verb thiudanon). Obviously, the
Greek original has oJ basileu;~ tw`n basileuovntwn and in Latin Vulgate,
there is rex regum. The Gothic word thiudans itself stems from the thiuda
ìpeopleî (cf. thiudangardi or thiudinassus ìkingdomî).34 According to D.
H. GREEN, thiudans is ìsomeone who leads his people in the ethnic senseî,
although he admitted that the term could also describe the Roman
Emperor.35 Green also pointed out that the common Germanic appella-
tion thiudans became later obsolete, being no longer relevant to the polit-
ical position of a ruler in polyethnic structures of Germanic tribes of 4th
and 5th centuries; in other Germanic languages, therefore, it was replaced
by other words (like kuning in Old Saxon).36 We can agree with Herwig
Wolfram that the term thiudans represents either the Roman Emperor or
a hellenistic king mentioned in gospels, or Christ as the king of the Jews.37
3. Next, we are presented with a serious riddle. The term reiks (in
plural also reiks, the pronunciation being rîx) that Ulfila often used may
resemble the Latin rê x; however, its meaning is much broader. It always
stands for the a[rcwn (and princeps) of the gospels.
This Greek word can be freely used for any ruler, commander or
chief; it may stand for a king, magistrate, official or any other state or trib-
al authority.38 The a[rcwn in the gospels actually means either a leader or,
in the negative sense, a tyrant.39 Nevertheless, STREITBERG translates this
word ìHerrscher, Obrigkeitî.40 We can safely assume that the word may
denote a tribal leader or at any rate a ruler.41 What we do not know is
whether the word enjoyed any widespread usage in the fourth-century
Gothia.42
33 For example, in Jn 19.3, there is Cai`re, oJ basileu;~ tw`n jIoudaivwn translated as

hails þiudans Iudaie. See also Jn 6.15, Mt 5.35, 11.8, 25.40 and 27.11.
34 Cf. B. VYKYPÃL, Studie k ölechtick˝m titul˘m v germ·nsk˝ch, slovansk˝ch a baltsk˝ch
jazycÌch, Brno 2004, 23, who seems to doubt this evident relation.
35 D. H. GREEN, Linguistic Evidence For the Early Migration of the Goths, in: Heather
(ed.), The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh Century, 358-359.
36 Ibidem, 76.
37 H. WOLFRAM, Das Reich und die Germanen, Berlin 1991, 43.
38 H. G. LIDDEL ñ R. SCOTT, A Greek ñ English Lexicon, Oxford 1996, 254.
39 E.g., ijdou; a[rcwn ei|~ ejlqw;n in Mt 9.18 translates as reiks ains qimands; a con-
temporary noble is meant here; similarly Lk 18.18. About the somewhat negatively
meant examples, see Jn 14.30, 16.11 and elsewhere; reiks represents here ìthe
ruler of this worldî who is to be judged.
40 W. STREITBERG, l.c., 2nd vol. (Gotisch-Griechisch-Deutsches Wˆrterbuch). The
same goes for the related word reiki ìReich, Herrschaft, Obrigkeitî and the verb
reikinon ìherrschen ¸berî.
41 H. WOLFRAM, Das Reich, 43: ìF¸r die Kˆnige dieser Erde und die Herrscher
der Vˆlker verwendet das Bibelgotische das Wort reiks.î
42 The etymology of the word reiks is also problematic; see the outline in
46 VYKYPÃL, Studie, 42-47.
4. Another term in Ulfila¥s terminology is kindins: it always translates

hJgemwvn, which is ìStatthalterî according to STREITBERG (often meaning
Pontius Pilate). The Latin form is praeses. However, hJgemwvn can be either
a guide, or leader, commander, chief or even sovereign. It is mentioned
several times (Mt 27.14, Mt 27.15, Lk 20.20), but most interestingly in Mt
27.11, where it constitutes an opposite to thiudans (iþ Iesus stoþ faura kin-
dina, jah frah ina sa kindins qiþands: þu is þiudans Iudaie?).43
5. The term dunavsth~ is once found in Luke (1.52): kaqei`len dunavs-
ta~ ajpo; qrovnwn ñ Ulfila translates it by the adjective mahteigans (nom. sg.
mahteigs ñ according to STREITBERG ìm‰chtigî). Also, in the First Epistle to
Timothy (6.15): ijdivoi~ deivxei oJ makavrio~ kai; movno~ dunavsth~ (mahteigs), oJ
basileu;~ tw`n basileuovntwn kai; kuvrio~ tw`n kurieuovntwn.44 In both
instances, there is potentes / potens in Vulgate.
6. According to STREITBERG, maists means ìder grˆflteî. It appears
only in Mk 6.21, where it translates megista`ne~. It could, therefore, be
equated with ìlordî or ìnobleî, but we lack further corroboration of this.
Vulgata translates princeps for this word. The term megista`ne~ occurs twice
in the Revelation of St. John (6.15, 18.23), but this part is missing from
the Gothic bible. The word princeps in Vulgate is also used here.
7. The term basilivsko~ (princelet, chieftain) has no occurence
in the NT.
All mentioned terms may be arranged in perhaps such a way:
Greek NT and Gothic bible possible counterparts in our sources,

Latin Vulgate referring to the Gothic authorities in
Gothia
kaivsar, Caesar kaisar (none)
basileuv~, rex thiudans (none)
a[rcwn, princeps reiks rex, regalis, regulus, subregulus, a[rcwn,
basileuv~ (all suggesting a ruler or per-
haps an overlord)
hJgemwvn, praeses kindins
dunavsth~, mahteigs basilivsko~ (?), optimas, megistavvn,
potens dunavsth~ (suggesting a noble or local
ruler)
megistavvn, maists
princeps
43 VYKYPÃL, Studie, 39-40, plausibly claims that by the time of Ulfila, the word
kindins (or at any rate its root) may have changed its original Proto-Germanic
meaning Ñhead of a kinì to somewhat broader Ñleader of a tribe.ì
44 Still others instances of the Greek term are in the Acts of the Apostles and the
Epistle of James, but these are not extant in the Gothic bible. 47
Stanislav Doleûal
Conclusions
While it is fairly certain that kaisar of Ulfila is simply a Roman

Emperor (imperator), much was made in scholarly literature of Ulfila¥s thi-
udans. In the Gothic bible it translates to the Greek basileuv~ and clearly
means either Emperor or king (see above). I believe it would be mislead-
ing, however, to attribute this term to any ruler in Gothia or even create
a concept of a permanently ruling, dynastic-based kingship ñ thiudinassus.
Such a construction would be nothing but a myth.45
As for the other appellations, the instances in the Gothic bible are too
scarce to allow us to differentiate between many of them: megista`ne~,
dunavstei~, basilivskoi, regales, reguli, subreguli, optimates ñ in most cases we
simply cannot be sure about any real semantic differences between them.
Even the term reiks suffers from such ambiguity, let alone that we cannot
be sure to what extent it might have been influenced in its use by the
Latin term rex. For all we know, reiks could signify a tribal leader or a war-
lord; but we do not know how many reiks (if any) there were in Gothia at
any given time, nor how mighty they actually were.
Basically the same doubts apply to the Latin iudex. What does it actu-
ally stand for in our sources? Be it iudex regum, gentis or Gothorum, the term,
common in the Later Roman Empire, may well be an example of an inter-
pretatio Romana. It would be mere guesswork to try to establish how Ulfila
would have translated the term iudex back to Gothic. One could argue
that Ulfila would probably have used the term reiks indifferently for
Athanaric or any other Gothic ruler of his age. No source suggests that the
iudex was anything basically different from a reiks (or rex). As we saw, iudex
cannot be put anywhere within the layout above, nor can it be plausibly
equated with thiudans. Perhaps it represents nothing more than an
attempts of our sources to coin a new appellation for the mighty rulers of
the transdanubian Gothia.
45 VYKYPÃL, Studie, 34, takes for granted that ìthe Gothic thiudans sometimes
stood for a sovereignî (that is, in Gothic realms in Western Europe), but fails to
48 supply any evidence for this assertion.
Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch
(471-488)
Rafa≥ KOSI—SKI (Bia≥ystok)
The figure of Peter the Fuller is not very widely known. Despite his
three times as bishop of Antioch in the years decisive for the outcome of
the Chalcedonian controversy, there are no writings preserved that could
be unquestionably attributed to him,1 whereas the contemporary sources
devote relatively scant attention to his person. Peter was a man, however,
who had initiated one of the serious conflicts of the era of Chalcedonian
disputes ñ the conflict over the Trishagion hymn. It seems to be needful,
therefore, to analyze the events of his life on the basis of the extant
sources. The body of these sources can be divided, in general, into two sig-
nificant traditions: one of them descends from Theodore Lector, while
the other from the tradition of the Roman see.
Theodore Lector and the related tradition

The work of Theodore Lector was written during the time he had
been at Euchaita, where he accompanied Macedonius, the patriarch of
Constantinople deposed in 511. His History encompassed the whole of the
history of the Church and was composed of three parts, of which the last
one is his own proper work continued until the death of Anastasius in 518.
It has only been preserved in parts that have survived to our time, as
excerpts from Epitome, from the beginning of the 7th century. Theodore
was a fervent Chalcedonian and his dogmatic views make him glorify in
his work the defenders of the Council of Chalcedon, while very critically
portraying the adversaries, including Peter the Fuller.2 Later authors had
readily drawn on Theodoreís work, including, first of all, Theophanes the
Confessor, Victor of Tunnuna, and the anonymous author of the
Synodicon Vetus.
1 Although M. VAN ESBROECK, The Memra on the Parrot by Isaac of Antioch, Journal of
Theological Studies 47 (1996) 469 believes that some anti-Chalcedonian
Armenian texts contain quotes from Peterís letters, there is no direct evidence
available to support this claim.
2 Cf. G. Ch. HANSEN, Einleitung, in: Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte,
herausgegeben von G. Ch. Hansen, Berlin 1971, IX-XXXIX; P. NAUTIN, ThÈodore
Lecteur et sa ´RÈunion de diffÈrentes histoireª de lí…glise, Revue des …tudes Byzantines
52 (1994) 213-243; M. WHITBY, The Church Historians and Chalcedon, in: Greek and
Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A. D., ed.
G. Marasco, Leiden ñ Boston 2003, 467-472; Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople (451-491). De l’histoire à la géo-ecclésiologie, Roma 2006, 549-552
and 622-648. Edition: Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte, herausgegeben von
G. Ch. Hansen, Berlin 1971. 49
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Victor of Tunnuna was one of the six African bishops summoned to

Constantinople by the emperor Justinian. As a steadfast Chalcedonian, he
refused, in 543, to denounce the so-called Three Chapters, and was placed
by the emperor first at a monastery in Egypt, and later in Constantinople.
Very few facts about him are known from the period after Justinianís
death. During his stay in Constantinople, he had written a Latin chroni-
cle from the Creation to AD 566, of which only the last part, from the year
444 on, has survived. Victor presents a very concise account of the events
connected with Peter the Fuller, and as he had drawn primarily on
Theodore Lectorís work, he also shared his negative assessment of the
Antiochene bishop.3
Theophanes (died 817/818) was the founder and a monk at the
Megas Agros monastery on Mt. Sigriane. His work is a chronicle spanning
the period from AD 285 to 813. Attempting to verify the sources which
may have been used by Theophanes is a complicated issue. In all cer-
tainty, however, the fundamental source for the period of Zenoís reign
had been the history by Theodore Lector, whose Epitome was, to an extent,
recreated from Theophanesí work. The chronicler follows therefore
Theodoreís criticism in his own evaluation of Peter the Fuller.4
The Synodicon Vetus is an anonymous concise account of the church
synods encompassing the period from the apostolic times to AD 886, fin-
ished at the final deposition of the Constantinopolitan patriarch Photius.
The source had been written probably shortly afterwards, at the turn of
the 9th and 10th centuries. The author had drawn on various sources, and
in the section referring to the second half of the 5th century, he used the
information primarily from Theodore Lectorís work, and, in a lesser
degree, from the chronicle of Theophanes. He probably also had access
to the apocryphal letters to Peter the Fuller, concerning his addition to
the Trishagion hymn.5
In the tradition of Theodore Lector as well, there are also fragments
from the Ecclesiastical History by John Diacrinomenos, which has not sur-
vived in full, and written at the request of his uncle Sylvianus, bishop of
the Himyarites between the years 512 and 518. Theodore had consider-
3 Cf. A. PLACANICA, Da Cartagine a Bisanzio: per la biografia di Vittore Tunnunense,

Vetera Christianorum 26 (1989) 327-336 and idem, Introduzione, in: Vittore da
Tunnuna, Chronica. Chiesa e impero nellíet· di Giustiniano, a cura di A.
Placanica, Firenze 1997, XI-XXXI. Edition and Italian translation: Vittore da
Tunnuna, Chronica. Chiesa e impero nell’età di Giustiniano, a cura di A. Placanica,
Firenze 1997.
4 Cf. C. MANGO ñ R. SCOTT, Introduction, in: The Chronicle of Theophanes
Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813, Translated with
Introduction and Commentary by C. Mango and R. Scott with the assistance of G.
Greatrex, Oxford 1997, LII-C. Edition: Theophanis Chronographia, recensuit C. de
Boor, vol. I, Lipsiae 1883.
5 Cf. J. DUFFY ñ J. PARKER, Introduction, in: The Synodicon Vetus, Text, Translation,
and Notes by J. Duffy and J. Parker, Washington 1979, XIII-XV. Edition and
English translation: The Synodicon Vetus, Text, Translation, and Notes by J. Duffy
50 and J. Parker, Washington 1979.
ably drawn on Johnís work in describing the events from the period of the
emperor Zenoís reign. The author had been writing his chronicle as a
supporter of Dioscorus and Eutyches, ill-disposed towards Nestorianism
and Chalcedonism.6
The Roman tradition

An alternative portrayal of Peter the Fullerís career is presented in the
work known as Gesta de nomine Acacii, which is a summary of how the
Christological dispute had developed in the Eastern part of the Empire,
with the purpose of explaining the question of the deposition of Acacius by
the Roman synod in the year 485. This source, reflecting the Roman point
of view, has been preserved as Pope Gelasiusí document, although, in all
probability, it had been written as early as towards the end of the pontificate
of Pope Felix III. In Gesta, there are several elements different from
Theodoreís account; above all, the source omits altogether the role of the
emperor Zeno during the times of the first and third episcopates of Peter
in Antioch.7 Certain items of information concerning Peter can also be
found in the acts of the Rome synod of October 485 and the papal corre-
spondence, particularly in Pope Gelasiusí letter to the bishops of Dardania.8
In the mid-6th century a chronicle was written by Liberatus, a Latin
Chalcedonian. He was an arch-deacon of Carthage, who had accompa-
nied his bishop Reparatus at Constantinople during the debates connect-
ed with the dispute over the Three Chapters, and then at the place of his
exile at Euchaita, where most probably the work of Liberatus had been
written. His goal was to inform the clergy of the West about the develop-
ment of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies in the East; in doing so, the
author expresses the Roman viewpoint, and is therefore negatively biased
towards Peter the Fuller, repeating with some minor modifications the
information contained in the Gesta de nomine Acacii.9
6 Cf. P. JANISZEWSKI, Jan Diakrinomenos i jego Historia koúcielna, in: ChrzeúcijaÒstwo

u schy≥ku staroøytnoúci. Studia ürÛd≥oznawcze, eds. T. Derda ñ E. Wipszycka,
Warszawa 1997, 63-78. The extant fragments published in: Theodoros Anagnostes,
Kirchengeschichte, herausgegeben von G. Ch. Hansen, Berlin 1971, 152-157.
7 Cf. O. G‹NTHER, Zu den ëGesta de nomine Acaciií, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 3
(1894) 146-149 (dates the work to circa 486); E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische
Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische Klasse, n. s. 10.4, M¸nchen
1934, 265-266 (dates the work to 488); P. NAUTIN, L’ ecclésiologie romaine à l’époque
du schisme d’Acace, in: …cole Pratique des Hautes …tudes, Ve section, annuaire
1966-1967, 74 (1966) 139 (dates the work to the beginning of 490). Edition:
Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab. a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII
datae, Avellana quae dicitur collectio, recensuit commentario critico instruxit indices
adiecit O. G¸nther, pars. I, Prolegomena. Epistulae I-CIV, Vindobonae 1895 (=
CA), no. 99, 440-453.
8 The acts of the Rome synod in: CA 70, 155-161. The letter of Pope Gelasius to the
bishops of Dardania: CA 95, 369-398.
9 Cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Praefatio, in: Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (= ACO),
tomus alter, Concilium Universale Chalcedonense, volumen quintum, Collectio 51
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Other sources
Apart from the above-mentioned two main traditions referring to
Peter, there are also surviving mentions about him in many other sources.
The most important of these is in the Laudatio sancti Barnabae, by
Alexander, a 6th-century monk living in the Cypriot monastery situated
near the church where the tomb of the apostle Barnabas had been locat-
ed, to the north-west of Salamis. He had written his work between the
years 530 and 566, at the order of the curator of that shrine, and read it
out in the presence of the metropolitan of Cyprus. The last part of the
source deals with the issue of the controversy over Cyprusí independence
from the Antiochene patriarchate. As a staunch follower of the islandís
autocephalia, Alexander presents the figure of Peter the Fuller in a very
negative light, as he was believed to act for the re-subordination of Cyprus
under Antioch. The information concerning the finding of Barnabasí
relics during the dispute with Peter, which had been included in the work,
appears to have been used by Victor of Tunnuna.10
John Malalas is the Antioch-born author of the Chronicle in 18 books,
presenting the history since the Creation of the world. We cannot without
any doubt determine what the authorís religious views were, as in the
books devoted to the second half of the 5th century he seems to express
some anti-Chalcedonian influence, whereas towards the end of the work
(possibly written by a different author) he espouses explicitly
Chalcedonian views. Most likely, the part of the Chronicle describing the
events to AD 526 or 527, had been created while the author was still at
Antioch, whereas the part encompassing the reign of Justinian ñ in
Constantinople. Johnís Antiochene perspective makes it possible for him
to present the information on the events in the city during Zenoís reign,
which are not known from other sources.11
Evagrius Scholasticus, also born in Syria, was the Chalcedonian
author of the Ecclesiastical History in 6 books, reaching AD 594. For the
sangermanensis, edidit E. Schwartz, Berolini ñ Lipsiae 1936, XVI-XVIII; M.
WHITBY, The Church Historians, 472-477. Published in: ACO II, 5, 98-141.
10 Cf. P. VAN DEUN, PrÈliminaires, in: Hagiographica Cypria. Sancti Barnabae
Laudatio auctore Alexandro Monacho et Sanctorum Bartholomaei et Barnabae
Vita e Menologio imperiali deprompta, editae curante P. Van Deun, Vita Sancti
Auxibii, edita curante J. Noret, Turnhout ñ Leuven 1993, 15-21; B. KOLLMANN,
Joseph Barnabas. His Life and Legacy, trans. by M. Henry, Collegeville 2004, 58-59
and B. KOLLMANN, Einleitung, in: Alexander Monachus, Laudatio Barnabae.
Lobrede auf Barnabas, eingeleitet von B. Kollmann, ¸bersetzt von B. Kollmann
und W. Deuse, Turnhout 2007, 56-60. Edition: Hagiographica Cypria. Sancti
Barnabae Laudatio auctore Alexandro Monacho et Sanctorum Bartholomaei et Barnabae
Vita e Menologio imperiali deprompta, editae curante P. Van Deun, Vita Sancti Auxibii,
edita curante J. Noret, Turnhout ñ Leuven 1993.
11 Cf. Studies in John Malalas, ed. by E. Jeffreys with B. Croke and R. Scott, Sydney
1990 and Recherches sur la chronique de Jean Malalas, t. I, ÈditÈ par J. Beaucamp, avec
la collaboration de S. Agusta-Boularot, A.-M. Bernardi, B. Cabouret, E. Caire,
Paris 2004. Edition: Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, recensuit I. Thurn, Berlin 2000
(Greek text); V. ISTRIN, Chronika Joanna Malaly w slavyanskom perevode, Pietrograd
52 1914 (Slavic translation of the books 15-18).
events from the reign of the emperor Zeno Evagrius had considerably
drawn on the chronicle by Zacharias Rhetor. Although he had resorted to
the archives of the patriarchate of Antioch, the author devoted surpris-
ingly little space to Peter the Fuller and his activity in Syria.12
Peter is also mentioned by several sources of anti-Chalcedonian ori-
gin. One of the most significant is the History by Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor,
the only source citing the synodal letter written on the occasion of Peterís
re-election to the Antiochene see in 485. The History was written in the
490s, however, the source has survived only in the Syrian translation of 569
by an anonymous author, the so-called Pseudo-Zacharias. Zacharias was
closely associated with the later Antiochene patriarch Severus, and he had
written his history from the anti-Chalcedonian point of view, portraying
Peter in a favourable light and presenting a critical view of the
Chalcedonian bishops of Antioch.13
Some information referring to Peter can also be found in the chron-
icle by John of Nikiou, in Cyril of Scythopolisí Vita Sabae, in treatises and
epistles of the foremost opponents of Chalcedon active at the turn of the
5th century, with Philoxenus of Maboug and Severus of Antioch, and also
in the Plerophoria by John Rufus.14 Moreover, there is a collection of ten
12 Cf. P. ALLEN, Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian, Louvain 1981, 1-20; M.
WHITBY, Introduction, in: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, trans-
lated with an introduction by M. Whitby, Liverpool 2000, XIII-LX; M. WHITBY, The
Church Historians, 480-492. Edition: The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the scho-
lia, edited with introduction, critical notes, and indices by J. Bidez and L.
Parmentier, London 1898.
13 Cf. P. ALLEN, Zachariah Scholasticus and the Historia Ecclesiastica of Evagrius
Scholasticus, Journal of Theological Studies 31 (1980) 471-488; M. WHITBY, The
Church Historians, 459-466; Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 544-549.
The text published in: Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori vulgo adscripta, inter-
pretatus est E. W. Brooks, tomus I et II, Lovanii 1924 (CSCO, scriptores Syri, series
tertia, tomus V et VI).
14 The edition and French translation of the Chronicle by John of Nikiou:
Chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou, texte éthiopien, ed. par H. Zotenberg, Paris
1883, English translation: The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, trans. by R. H.
Charles, London ñ Oxford 1916. Vita Sabae published in: E. SCHWARTZ, Kyrillos von
Skythopolis, Leipzig 1939, 85-200. Philoxenus, The letter to the monks of TellíAdda pub-
lished in: I. GUIDI, La lettera di Filosseno ai monaci di TellíAdd‚, Roma 1884, 449-501.
Severus of Antioch, The letter to Ammonios published in: The Sixth Book of Selected
Letters of Severus Patriarch of Antioch, vol. II, edited and translation by E. W. Brooks,
Oxford 1903, 253-257; Severus of Antiochís Homily 125 on the Trishagion pub-
lished in: Les ‚Homiliae cathedrales’ de Sévère d’Antioche. Traduction syriaque de
Jacques d’Édesse. Homélies CXX à CXXV, éditées et traduites par M. Brière, Paris
1960 (Patrologia Orientalis (= PO) 29); The Plerophoria by John Rufus published
in: Jean Rufus, PlÈrophories. TÈmoignages et rÈvÈlations contre le Concile de ChalcÈdoine,
version syriaque et traduction franÁaise ÈditÈes par F. Nau, Paris 1911 (PO 8).
Other sources: A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts = A Nestorian Collection of
Christological Texts. Cambridge University Library Ms. Oriental 1319, Edited and
Translated by L. Abramowski and A. E. Goodman, volume II, Introduction,
Translation, Indexes, Cambridge 1972; Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan = Kitab Al-ëUnvan.
Histoire universelle Ècrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj, ÈditÈe et traduite en
franÁais par A. Vasiliev, (seconde partie (II)), Paris 1912, 139-175 (PO 8);
Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum = Georgius Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum, 53
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
letters addressed to Peter the Fuller by Pope Felix, archbishop of

Constantinople Acacius and other bishops, pertaining to the question of
the Trishagion. This correspondence is, however, not authentic; it was cre-
ated by pro-Chalcedonian monks from the monastery of the Sleepless
Monks, near Constantinople.15
The supposed authorship of Pseudo-Dionysius’ letters

In a series of articles written in the 1960s and 1970s Rudolf RIEDINGER
expressed his support for the view held by the Dominican monk Michel
LEQUIEN at the beginning of the 18th century, who claimed that the author
of the Pseudo-Dionysiusí letters was Peter the Fuller.16 RIEDINGER had
ab I. Bekkero suppletus et emendatus, tomus prior, Bonnae 1838; Chronicon ad

annum Domini 846 pertinens = Chronica minora, interpretatus est I. Guidi, E. W.
Brooks, J.-B. Chabot, Parisiis ñ Lipsiae 1903 (CSCO, Scriptores Syri, series tertia,
t. IV), 121-169; Chronicon Iacobi Edesseni = Chronica minora, interpretatus est I.
Guidi, E. W. Brooks, J.-B. Chabot, Parisiis ñ Lipsiae 1903 (CSCO, Scriptores Syri,
series tertia, t. IV), 197-241; Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum = Incerti auctoris
Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum, interpretatus est J.-B. Chabot, tomus I,
Lovanii 1949 (CSCO, Scriptores Syri, series tertia, t. I); Codex Iustinianus = Corpus
Iuris Civilis, editio stereotypa octava, volumen secundum, Codex Iustinianus, recog-
novit P. Krueger, Berolini 1906; Damascius, Vita Isidori = Photius, Bibliothèque, texte
Ètabli et traduit par R. Henry, tome VI, îCodicesî 242-245, Paris 1971, 8-56;
Facundus of Hermiane, Pro defensione trium capitulorum = Facundi episcopi ecclesiae
Hermianensis opera omnia, edidit J.-M. ClÈment et R. Vander Plaetse, Turnholti
1974; John of Damascus, Expositio Fidei = Die Schriften des Johannes von Damascus,
Band II, Expositio Fidei, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1973, (= Patristische Texte und
Studien 12); John of Antioch = Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia chronica,
introduzione, edizione critica e traduzione a cura di U. Roberto, Berlin 2005
(= Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Band
154); Joshua Stylites = The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, translated with notes
and introduction by F. R. Trombley and J. W. Watt, Liverpool 2000; Michael the
Syrian = Chronique de Michel le Syrien: Patriarche Jacobite díAntioche (1166-1198), Èdi-
tee pour le premiÈre fois et traduite en franÁais par J.-B. Chabot, tome II (livre
VIII-XI), Paris 1901; Nikephorus Kallistus = Nicefor Kallistos Xanthopoulos, Ecclesiastica
Historia, in: Patrologia Graeca, tome 147; Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus =
Corpus Dionysiacum, vol. 1, De Divinibus Nominibus, ed. B. R. Suchla, Berlin ñ New
York 1990 (= Patristische Texte und Studien 33); Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica
hierarchia = Corpus Dionysiacum, vol. 2, De Coelesti Hierarchia, De Ecclesiastica
Hierarchia, De Mystica Theologia, Epistulae, ed. G. Heil ñ A. M. Ritter, Berlin ñ New
York 1991, 63-132 (= Patristische Texte und Studien 36); Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. =
Corpus Dionysiacum, vol. 2, De Coelesti Hierarchia, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, De
Mystica Theologia, Epistulae, ed. G. Heil ñ A. M. Ritter, Berlin ñ New York 1991, 155-
210 (= Patristische Texte und Studien 36).
15 Cf. the introduction by Eduard Schwartz in: ACO III, pp. XI-XIII; E. SCHWARTZ,
Publizistische Sammlungen, 287-300 and A. GRILLMEIER with T. HAINTHALER, Christ in
Christian Tradition, vol. II, part II, The Church of Constantinople in the Fifth
Century, translated by P. Allen, J. Cawte, London 1995, 253. Edition: ACO III, 6-
25 and 217-231. The objective of the Sleepless Monks was to create a body of fic-
titious documents that were meant to aid them in their struggle against the addi-
tion to the Trishagion, by Peter the Fuller.
16 Cf. a number of articles by Utto (= Rudolf) Riedinger: cf. U. RIEDINGER, Pseudo-
Dyonisios Areopagites, Pseudo-Kaisarios und die Akoimeten, Byzantinische Zeitschrift
54 52 (1959) 276-296; idem, Petros der Walker von Antiochia als Verfasser der pseudo-
drawn attention, first of all, to the similarities of the liturgical innovations,

which are attributed to Peter, to the relevant passages in the letters of
Pseudo-Dionysius. As a matter of fact, public consecration of myron, epi-
clesis over the baptismal water, and recitation of the Creed during the
Eucharist, are mentioned in the Church Hierarchy.17 In turn, the invoca-
tion to the Virgin Mary Theotokos is described by Pseudo-Dionysius in the
work On the Names of God.18 Furthermore, one can find in Pseudo-
Dionysiusí letters an accolade of the apostle Peter,19 which, in RIEDINGERís
opinion, was meant to strengthen his claims to the Antiochene see, whilst
his justification of the disputes with the Greeks20 was to serve as a reply to
the accusations levelled by the neo-Platonists of Athens, about a certain
bishop named Peter as a corrupt and shameless man.21 The author also
connects the phenomenon of the solar eclipse from Pseudo-Dionysiusí
correspondence22 with the eclipse that had reportedly occurred on 14
January 484, which is linked to the death of Proclus. From De malorum sub-
sistentia by Proclus, Pseudo-Dionysius had also borrowed his conception of
evil,23 which was an argument for RIEDINGER to support the thesis that
prior to his joining the monastery Peter the Fuller had been one of
Proclusí disciples. According to RIEDINGER, Peter had written the works in
question under the name of Dionysius Areopagite at the time of his exile,
first at the monastery of the Sleepless Monks, then at Euchaita. The whole
thesis described above, as attractive as it may be, cannot be directly veri-
fied in the light of the sources available, and has been questioned by the
scholars as improbable.24
dionysischen Schriften, Salzburger Jahrbuch f¸r Philosophie 5/6 (1961-1962) 135-

156; idem, Der Verfasser der pseudo-dionysischen Schriften, Zeitschrift f¸r
Kirchengeschichte 54 (1964) 146-152 and idem, Akoimeten, in: Theologische
Realenzyklop‰die, vol. II, Berlin ñ New York 1978, 149-151.
17 Pseudo-Dionysius, De ecclesiastica hierarchia 4, 2 (consecration of myron); ibidem,
De ecclesiastica hierarchia 2,7 (epiclesis over the baptismal water); ibidem, De ecclesi-
astica hierarchia 3,2 and 3,3,7 (recitation of the symbol of faith at the Eucharist).
18 Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus 3,2. On the liturgical innovations attrib-
uted to Peter, see below.
19 Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. 10 to John on the island of Patmos.
20 Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. 7 to Policarpus.
21 Damascius, Vita Isidori 170, 39.
22 Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. 7 to Policarpus.
23 Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus 4,19-35.
24 Cf. J.-M. HORNUS, Les recherches dionysiennes de 1955 a 1960, Revue díhistoire et
de philosophie religieuses 41 (1961) 56-64; L. PERRONE, Pietro il Fullone, in:
Dizionario patristico e di antichita cristiana 2 (1983) col. 2794-2795; A. SOLIGNAC,
Pierre le Foulon, in: Dictionnaire de SpiritualitÈ 12, 2 (1986) col. 1588-1590; P.
ROREM ñ J. C. LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus. Annotating
the Areopagite, Oxford 1998, 9-10 and K.-H. UTHEMANN, Petros der Walker, in:
Lexikon f¸r Theologie und Kirche 8 (1999) col. 143. 55
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Peter the Fuller’s background and early years

We do not have much information on the life of Peter the Fuller
before his coming to Antioch at the turn of the 460s and 470s.25 We do
not know where he had come from, when he was born, or who his parents
were. The later account in the Chronicon ad annum Domini 846 pertinens
attempts to explain the origin of his cognomen by mentioning that his
parents had been fullers by profession.26 However, the Laudatio in ho-
nour of St Barnabas and a collection of Nestorian Christological texts link
the cognomen with the profession performed by Peter himself.27
According to the information contained in the Gesta de nomine Acacii
and in the work of Liberatus, Peter had been in charge of one of the
monasteries at Constantinople, which he however had to leave due to
some more precisely unidentified ìcrimesî (crimina) and then went to
Antioch.28 Alexander the Monk in the Laudatio in honour of the apostle
Barnabas and the anonymous author of the Synodicon Vetus state this infor-
mation more precisely, mentioning that Peter the Fuller was a monk at
the monastery of the Sleepless Monks.29 On the other hand, Theodore
Lector mentions that he had been a presbyter at the church of the martyr
Bassa at Chalcedon, from where he had come to Antioch with Zeno.30
John Malalas also associates him with the church at Chalcedon, but
according to his account, Peter was not a presbyter but a paramonarios of
St Euphemiaís church there.31 Agapius, in his chronicle, mentions that
Peter was the head of the monastery at Chalcedon.32
Both the Roman tradition and Theodore Lectorís account draw, as a
matter of fact, on the Constantinopolitan sources, and their items of
25 Cf. L. PERRONE, Pietro il Fullone, col. 2794.

26 Cf. Chronicon ad annum Domini 846 pertinens, 165.
27 Cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 108 and A Nestorian Collection of Christological Texts, 19.
28 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450 and Liberatus 17, 122.
29 Laudatio S. Barnabae, 108; likewise, Synodicon Vetus 98. On the monastery of the
Akoimetoi, see J. PARGOIRE, Un mot sur les acémètes, Échos d’Orient 2 (1898-1899)
304-308, 365-372; idem, Rufinianes, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 8 (1899) 429-477;
V. GRUMEL, Acémètes, in: Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, vol. I, Paris 1937, col. 169-
175; R. RIEDINGER, Akoimeten, 148-153.
30 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390 and Theophanes AM 5956. On the church of St
Bassa, see J. PARGOIRE, Sainte-Bassa de Chalcédoine, Échos d’Orient 6 (1903) 315-
317 and R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin, première partie:
Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecuménique, vol. II, Les églises et les
monastères des grands centres byzantins (Bithynie, Hellespont, Latros, Galèsios,
Trébizonde, Athènes, Thessalonique), Paris 1975, 33-34.
31 John Malalas XV, 1. On the church of St Euphemia, see R. JANIN, La gÈographie
ecclÈsiastique de líEmpire byzantin, 31-33. Eduard Schwartz links both of these items
of information, saying in general that Peter was a presbyter and paramonarios of
the church at Chalcedon, and at the same time archimandrite of a certain
monastery, cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 182.
32 Cf. Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 420. Cf. also A Nestorian Collection of Christological
Texts, 19, where there is general information that Peter had been the head of
56 some monastery.
information supplement each other, aside from the information on the

Sleepless Monks. The Roman tradition, in its description of Peter, is
based directly on Acaciusí letter from Constantinople, written in 477, to
pope Simplicius,33 and therefore a few years only after Peterís first tumul-
tuous attempt at acceding to the Antiochene see. The account as stated
by the Roman tradition should therefore be more credible than
Theodoreís or Alexander the Monkís versions. The modern scholars,
however, link the above-mentioned accounts of Theodore and the
Roman tradition with the information from the Laudatio, assuming that
after Peter had been removed from the monastery of the Sleepless Monks
for the views he had held, he became a presbyter at the church of the
martyr Bassa at Chalcedon.34 If, however, Peter had been in charge of
one of the Constantinopolitan monasteries, it could not have been the
monastery of the Sleepless Monks, as the head of the monastery at that
time was Marcellus the Akoimetos.35 Besides, it is difficult to reconcile
the account of the Laudatio, which mentions the monastery of the
Sleepless Monks located, at that time, at Irenaion, north of Chalcedon,
with the Roman tradition directly mentioning a monastery in
Constantinople. Probably, Alexander the Monk had combined the infor-
mation about Peterís stay at the Sleepless Onesí monastery between the
years 471 and 475, and his earlier life.36 As it is confirmed that in 536
there had existed a monastery at the church of St Bassa at Chalcedon, it
is possible that it had already functioned several decades earlier and that
Peter had been the man in charge of it, for which however there is no
direct evidence, except for a vague mention in Agapius. One way or the
other, at the end of the 460s Peter the Fuller had committed some
unidentified crimes, in the result of which he was expelled from the
monastery. The Gesta do not specify whether they concerned some dog-
matic issues, or if Peter was formally condemned, albeit it may be
33 Cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 162 (document 19). Acaciusí letter

has survived only as a summary in Gesta. Pope Simpliciusí reply of 9 October 477
in: E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 121-122. At the time of writing his let-
ter Acacius had not yet known about the death of Timothy Ailuros on 31 July 477,
hence it had probably taken place in the first half of that year, cf. V. GRUMEL, Les
regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, Les actes des patriarches, fasc. I,
Les regestes de 381 à 715, Paris 1932, 66 (no. 151).
34 Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, in: Dictionnaire de thÈologie catholique 12 (1935)
col. 1933; H. BACHT, Die Rolle des orientalischen Mˆnchtums in den kirchenpolitischen
Auseinandersetzungen um Chalkedon (431-519), in: Das Konzil von Chalkedon.
Geschichte und Gegenwart, herausgegeben von A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht, Band II,
Entscheidung um Chalkedon, W¸rzburg 1953, 260; Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 169-170.
35 On Marcellus Akoimetos, see R. KOSI—SKI, AGIWSUNH KAI EXOUSIA.
KonstantynopolitaÒscy úwiÍci mÍøowie i w≥adza w V wieku po Chr., Warszawa 2006, 203-
207.
36 Cf. A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Band
2.3, Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451-600, Freiburg 2004, 302, who
have noticed the paradox of Peterís relations with the Sleepless Monks, staunch
supporters of the Council of Chalcedon. 57
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
assumed that the author would not have failed to mention the fact of
such a condemnation.37
A different view of Peterís background has been proposed by Rudolf
RIEDINGER, who, as already mentioned above, had identified the author of
the Pseudo-Dionysiusí writings with Peter and put forward the hypothesis
that prior to his conversion to Christianity he had been a member of
Proclusí philosophical group in Athens, whose adherents had been fol-
lowing certain ascetic practices. Around the year 465, Peter had met the
Sleepless Monks, had been baptized and entered their monastery to
become a monk and later on a deacon. The cognomen ìfullerî that he
had received, should be, in RIEDINGERís opinion, interpreted symbolically.
It was apparently to refer to Peterís task of teaching catechumens with
which he had been entrusted. This hypothesis of Peter the Fullerís early
years, as well as the entire hypothesis proposed by RIEDINGER, have been
repudiated by historiography.38
The first episcopate

Towards the end of the 460s Peter had arrived at Antioch. The
detailed account of that event was presented by Theodore Lector, who
mentioned that after Zenoís appointment as magister militum per Orientem,
Peter joined his retinue and proceeded with him to Antioch.39 The
Roman tradition only mentions Peterís escape to Antioch after he had
committed a crime, and does not link this fact chronologically in any way
to Zenoís appointment as commander-in-chief in the East.40
In accordance with Theodoreís chronology, Peterís coming to
Antioch may have taken place no sooner than at the end of 469, when
Zeno had headed east,41 whereas the subsequent turbulent events, which
were connected with Peter the Fullerís stay in the city, could not have hap-
37 Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1933; H. BACHT, Die Rolle des orientalischen
Mˆnchtums, 260; L. PERRONE, Pietro il Fullone, col. 2794; A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 297-298 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 170. Incidentally, we know the name of one of Peterís disciples and
fellow monks from his monastery years. It was Peter the Isaurian, bishop of
Titiopolis, who had been sent by Peter the Fuller, after his return to the bishopís
throne in 485, to John Rufus to persuade him to return to Antioch, cf. John Rufus,
Plerophoriae 22, 47-48. Unfortunately, the author, describing Peter the Isaurian as
a synkellos (suvgkello~) of Peter the Fuller, does not say precisely whether it con-
cerned the period before 469, or during the time following the first deposition of
the Antiochene bishop, which he had spent at the monastery of the Sleepless
Monks at Irenaion.
38 Cf. notes 16 and 24 above.
39 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390; Theophanes AM 5956; likewise, Synodicon Vetus
98.
40 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 95, 450: Antiochiam fugisse; Liberatus 17, 122:
Antiochiam refugisse.
41 Cf. R. KOSI—SKI, Poczπtek kariery Tarasikodissy-Zenona, in: Byzantina Europaea.
KsiÍga jubileuszowa ofiarowana profesorowi Waldemarowi Ceranowi, eds. M.
58 Kokoszko ñ M. J. Leszka, £Ûdü 2007, 300.
pened later than early spring 471, when the emperor Leo issued the law
forbidding the Antiochene monks to engage in theological matters. It
was, most probably, the emperorís response to the turmoil that Peter had
caused in the church there.42
After his coming to the city on the Orontes Peter won over the support
of a group of people considered by Theodore Lector and Theophanes as
followers of Apollinarius.43 That label was probably to indicate the local
Eutychians, and therefore anti-Chalcedonians.44 Monks must have enjoyed
some considerable influence among the members of that group, which is
implied by the content of the imperial law. Was Peter, therefore, an active
anti-Chalcedonian at that time? Even though Lorenzo PERRONE calls him
the first Monophysite patriarch of Antioch,45 Aloys GRILLMEIER is right to
notice that for the period of his first episcopate we do not find any men-
tions suggesting Peterís hostile attitude towards the Council of Chalcedon.
We only know of Peterís anathema against those who do not believe in
ìcrucified Godî, which indicates his hostility towards Nestorianism.46
Theodore Lector and Alexander the Monk, on the other hand, draw atten-
tion to his associations with Apollinarianism,47 while the later leaders of
the anti-Chalcedonian movement, in particular Severus of Antioch will
treat Peter with great distrust.48
The turmoil incited by Peterís followers had led to the bishop
Martyriusí departure from Antioch,49 and his coming to Constantinople
42 See Codex Iustinianus, I, 3, 29. Eduard Schwartz concluded that the beginning
of the pontificate of Peterís successor, Julian, could not have taken place later
than in 470, cf. E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 182, note 3. The idea that
there is a connection between the Antiochene events inspired by Peter the Fuller
and the instituted law has also been expressed by P. T. R. GRAY, The Defense of
Chalcedon in the East (451-553), Leiden 1979, 23.
43 Theodore Lector, Epitome 390, and Theophanes AM 5956. Likewise, Synodicon Vetus 98.
44 Also E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 182. Cf. R. DEVREESSE, Le Patriarcat
d’Antioche depuis la paix de l’Église jusqu’à la conquête arabe, Paris 1945, 65; G.
DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest, Princeton
ñ New Jersey 1961, 485 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 298.
G. Fritz and William Frend accept the literal meaning of Theodoreís words,
believing that Peter received support from the adherents of Apollinariusí views,
who were still numerous at Antioch, cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934 and W.
H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the
Church in the Fifth and Sixth Century, Oxford 1972, 167.
45 Lorenzo Perrone describes him as ìprimo patriarca monofisita di Antiochiaî,
cf. L. PERRONE, Pietro il Fullone, col. 2794, and Cornelia Horn ìthe first anti-chal-
cedonian patriarch of Antiochî, cf. C. B. HORN, Asceticism and Christological
Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine. The Career of Peter the Iberian, Oxford 2006, 42.
46 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390 and Theophanes AM 5956.
47 Cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 110, with the information that by including the addi-
tion to the Trishagion, Peter had tried to gain favour with the followers of
Apollinarius.
48 Cf. A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 301-302.
49 On Martyrios, see S. J. VOICU, Martiri di Antiochia, in: Dizionario patristico e di
antichita cristiana 2 (1983) col. 2154. 59
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
in the hopes of finding some support there. Seizing the opportunity,

Peter replaced Martyrius and was consecrated as bishop of Antioch50.
Alexander the Monk writes that at first Peter had attempted to defame
Martyrius before the emperor and others, accusing him of
Nestorianism.51 The information in the Laudatio is confirmed by the anti-
Chalcedonian tradition;52 John Rufus in his Plerophoriae states in explicit
terms that Martyrius had been banished for ìflagrant heresyî.53
Therefore, the turmoil caused by Peter had probably led to Martyriusí
escape from the city, and his turning to Constantinople not only to seek
support there but also to justify and clear himself of the allegations of
being a supporter of Nestorianism.54
In Constantinople, Martyrius had been cleared of the accusations and
gained strong support of the patriarch Gennadius, and thanks to him the
emperor Leo I had ordered that Martyrius should be restored to the see
of Antioch and Peter the Fuller deposed and sent into exile at the Oasis
in Upper Egypt.55 In order to quell the opposition against Martyrius, the
emperor had also issued, on 1 June 471, the law addressed at Zeno, which
prohibited the monks from leaving their monasteries and staying at
Antioch, getting involved in theological issues and inciting any distur-
bances.56
These events raise the question of Zenoís role in the ousting of
Martyrius. Theodore Lector, ill-disposed towards the future emperor,
writes that he had been Peterís protector, aided him in removing
Martyrius and taking over the see of Antioch. John Diacrinomenos states
that Zeno had gone as far as to pressure the bishops assembled for the
synod at Seleucia so that they elect and consecrate Peter as bishop.57 That
50 Theodore Lector, Epitome, 392; Theophanes, AM 5956; Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 420,
writes that Peter had deceived the Antiochenes with the false information that his
election is in accord with the emperor Leoís will. On the other hand, Alexander
the Monk stresses that the inhabitants of Antioch themselves, at least the local
Apollinarians, had asked for Peterís appointment, cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 109.
51 Laudatio S. Barnabae, 109.
52 Pseudo-Zacharias, IV, 11; John Rufus, Plerophoriae, 89, 145, 147. Cf. A. GRILLMEIER
ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 294.
53 John Rufus, Plerophoriae, 89, 144: hÈrÈsie Èvidente. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch
in Syria, 486 believes that Martyrius had left Antioch at his own will and gone to
Constantinople alarmed at the increasing opposition inspired by Peter.
54 Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934.
55 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii, 25, CA 99, 450; Liberatus 17, 122; Theodore Lector,
Epitome 392, Theophanes AM 5956 and Synodicon Vetus 98. Cf. also Laudatio S.
Barnabae, 109.
56 Codex Iustinianus, 1, I, 3, 29. Cf. also an analysis in: A. S. SCARCELLA, La legis-
lazione di Leone I, Milano 1997, 276-282.
57 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390; Theophanes AM 5956; John Diacrinomenos, Epitome
540. The scholars generally give credence to Theodoreís tradition and assume
that Zeno had been Peterís patron, actively supporting him in his attempts to take
over the Antiochene see, cf. for instance E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen,
60 182; G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934; R. DEVREESSE, Le Patriarcat díAntioche, 65;
synod had convened probably with the purpose of passing a judgement

over Martyriusí alleged pro-Nestorian sympathies. These accounts point
out to Zenoís active role in the events. However, the Roman tradition,
both the Gesta de nomine Acacii and Liberatus, does not inform, at all, of
any Zenoís involvement in favour of Peter the Fuller. This lack of infor-
mation on the part of the Roman tradition can be yet explained by the
fact that in the accounts referring to the years 470-471, it draws on the let-
ter of patriarch Acacius to Simplicius of 477. Certainly, Acacius did not
have any reasons for underscoring the role of the ruling emperor in ele-
vating to the Antiochene see a man regarded as a heretic.
Nevertheless, a different scenario of what had really happened
seems more likely. After he had arrived at Antioch, Zeno encountered
the turmoil and the accusations levelled at Martyrius of his alleged
preaching of Nestorian heresy.58 In order to resolve the tense situation,
he had taken steps to call a synod to be held at Seleucia, where Martyrius
was condemned and his successor, Peter the Fuller, consecrated. Zeno,
in conformity with the synodís decision, had made it possible for him to
take over duties at Antioch, especially as, in all probability, Peter had
garnered a great deal of support among the inhabitants of the city.59
Those events had probably taken place at the end of 470 or the begin-
ning of 471, as Martyriusí intervention in Constantinople may be dated
to early spring 471. At the capital, Martyrius had appealed to Gennadius,
patriarch of Constantinople, who cleared him, possibly at the endemousa
synod,60 of the accusation of heresy. The bishop had gained the ground
for returning to the throne at Antioch,61 while Gennadius had more-
over obtained a legal sanction directed at Zeno on June 1, 471 and
G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 486; W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the

Monophysite Movement, 167; A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 298;
K.-H. UTHEMANN, Petros der Walker, col. 143; Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 169-171; P. NORTON, Episcopal Elections 250-600. Hierarchy and
Popular Will in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2007, 93.
58 Laudatio S. Barnabae, 109 mentions that Peter informed Zeno of the threat of
escalating unrest if Martyrius were not to be deposed. Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 171, note 376 believes that summoning the synod at Seleucia by
Zeno proves that Peter had the will to act in strict adherence to the canons.
59 Cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 109.
60 The Gesta and Liberatus remind of the fact that Peter the Fuller had been ban-
ished from Antioch on the grounds of the sentence issued by the bishops. It may
indicate an endemousa synod or a synod of bishops of the East. Cf. Gesta de nomine
Acacii 25, CA 99, 450 and Liberatus 17, 122. The verdict concerning Peter is also
mentioned by Alexander the Monk; he states that the basis for passing the verdict
was Peterís position against the Orthodox faith, and first of all his introduction of
the Theopaschite addition to the Trishagion, cf. Laudatio S. Barnabae, 110. The
author of the Laudatio, however, seems to blend into one the events from the two
episcopates of Peter, and therefore the verdict in question may in fact refer to the
situation from the year 476. Cf. A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus,
299.
61 G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 487 is of the opinion that the imperial
verdict had been supported with the decision of the Antiochene synod. 61
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
aimed against Martyriusí opponents and Peter the Fuller himself, who
was to be banished to the Oasis in Egypt. It was probably Zeno who had
to enforce both decisions of Leo I.62
Little is known about Peterís activity during the first period of his
tenure at Antioch. Theodore Lector, followed by Theophanes, say that it
was then that he had introduced a Theopaschite ñ in their opinion ñ addi-
tion to the Trishagion. Peter the Fuller had added to the known version of
the hymn: ìHoly God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortalî, the words ìwho was
crucified for usî.63 The author of the Synodicon Vetus, representing the
same tradition, writes that Peter had introduced the addition formally at
the Antiochene synod.64
The deposition of Peter, which amounted in fact to as much as the
restoration of Martyrius, had led to a new wave of turmoil at Antioch,
which forced the bishop, accused of pro-Nestorian sympathies, into res-
ignation. We do not know practically anything about his successor,
Julian. He must have been a man much less controversial than his pre-
decessors, as we do not hear of any disturbances in the aftermath of his
election.65
As we have already mentioned, Peter was allegedly banished to the
Great Oasis in Egypt, the traditional place of exile for bishops.66 However,
the Synodicon Vetus says that Peter the Fuller had managed to escape and
find a refuge at the monastery of the Sleepless Monks near Con-
stantinople.67 On the other hand, the Gesta, followed by Liberatus, state
that Peter had fled from the exile and appeared at the capital, where he
subsequently had pledged that he would not ever cause any disturbance.68
62 Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 171, note 376 believes that Peter
became bishop only after Martyrius had finally resigned in the middle of 471, yet
he offers no convincing arguments to support it. The law of 1 June of that year
issued by the emperor Leo, can be no doubt linked with Peterís final banishment,
which must have taken place in late spring, and not as suggested by Ph. BLAUDEAU,
Alexandrie et Constantinople, 171, note 377, only several months later. On the other
hand, G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 486-487 believes that Peter had
been bishop of Antioch twice in that period: first, when he took over the see dur-
ing Martyriusí absence, and then again after his resignation. There is no evidence
to support this hypothesis, either.
63 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 390, and Theophanes AM 5956. On the hymn and
Peterís addition thereto, see below.
64 Cf. Synodicon Vetus 98. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 485 doubts
whether Peter had really summoned a synod in order to accept the new version
of the Trishagion.
65 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 392 and Theophanes AM 5956. Cf. G. DOWNEY, A
History of Antioch in Syria, 487 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus,
299.
66 Cf. I. MILEWSKI, Depozycje i zsy≥ki biskupÛw w Cesarstwie Wschodniorzymskich (lata
325-451), GdaÒsk 2008, 357-366.
67 Cf. Synodicon Vetus 98. Theodore Lector, Epitome 392 and Theophanes AM 5956
mention generally that Peter had evaded the exile thanks to his flight, even
though Theophanes AM 5967 also says that until Basiliscusí usurpation, he had
62 stayed hidden at the monastery of the Sleepless Monks.
Most probably, therefore, the sentence of exile at the Oasis had been
repealed by the emperor on the condition that Peter would withdraw
from public activity and lead a reclusive life at the monastery.69 Perhaps
the change had been the result of the influence exerted by Zeno, who had
reportedly returned to Constantinople in the second half of 471. I believe
it would be erroneous, however, to overestimate the relations between
those two figures, especially as after his accession to the throne, Zeno did
not restore Peter as bishop.
The second episcopate

The turning point of Peter the Fullerís career came with the usurpation
of Basiliscus at the beginning of 475.70 With his exile punishment revoked,
Timothy Ailuros, patriarch of Alexandria, decided to strengthen the position
of the anti-Chalcedonians in the Empire, after he had arrived at
Constantinople. Therefore, he had brought about the restorations to the
episcopal sees at Ephesus and Antioch of, respectively, Paul and Peter the
Fuller, who were accused of heresy and deposed in the reign of Leo I.71 Peter
had accepted the anti-Chalcedonian Encyclical of Basiliscus and, taking
advantage of the bishop Julianís death, acceded to the see of Antioch, not
without, as it seems, causing some turmoil in the city as a consequence.72
Those developments had probably taken place in the same period as
Timothyís summoning of the synod at Ephesus, in the summer of 475.73
68 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450: Constantinopolim redisse; Liberatus 17,
122: fugiens redisse Constantinopolim. These sources do not mention the monastery
of the Sleepless Monks.
70 On Basiliscus, see first of all M. SALAMON, Basiliscus cum Romanis suis, in: Studia
Moesiaca, eds. L. Mrozewicz – K. Ilski, PoznaÒ 1994, 179-196, and also G. M.
BERSANETTI, Basilisco e l’Imperatore Leone I, Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia
Romana di Archeologia 20 (1943-1944) 331-346; E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-
Empire, vol. I, De l’État romain à l’État byzantin (284-476), Paris – Bruxelles –
Amsterdam 1959, 361-364; M. REDIES, Die Usurpation des Basiliskos (475-476) im
Kontext der Aufsteigenden monophysitischen Kirche, Antiquite Tardive 5 (1997) 211-
221; J. PROSTKO-PROSTY—SKI, Basiliskos: Ein in Rom anerkannter Usurpator, Zeitschrift
f¸r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133 (2000) 259-265.
71 Pseudo-Zacharias V, 2 and V, 5; Theodore Lector, Epitome 402-405; Theophanes AM
5967; Evagrius III, 5; Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 477.3 (the author does not mention
Peterís first episcopate at all); John Malalas XV, 1 and XV, 5 (he states incorrectly
that Zeno himself had put him up for the Antiochene see); Liberatus 17, 122.
72 Theodore Lector, Epitome 410; Pseudo-Zacharias V, 3; Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 421.
Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 184. The Encyclical was issued on 6 April 475, cf. Ph. BLAUDEAU,
Alexandrie et Constantinople, 173. The text in: E. SCHWARTZ, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431,
eine antichalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit Kaiser Zenos, Abhandlungen der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und his-
torische Klasse. XXXII, 6, M¸nich 1927, 49-51 (document no. 73, long review);
Evagrius III, 4 (short review); Pseudo-Zacharias V, 2 (short review); Nikephorus
Kallistus XVI, 3 (the text follows Evagriusí version).
73 Cf. Pseudo-Zacharias V, 3-5; Evagrius III, 5-6; Nikephorus Kallistus XVI, 5, col. 128;
Liberatus IX, 5. M. REDIES, Die Usurpation des Basiliskos, 214 dates that synod to 63
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
We do not know if Peter had undertaken any decisive steps against

Chalcedonians after returning to the see of Antioch.74 Although
Theodore mentions serious disturbances involving bloodshed, he states
that the reason was Peterís addition to the Trishagion, not the questions
connected with the Council of Chalcedon.75 Peter consecrated John
Codonatus as bishop of Apamea, but the latter was not accepted by the
inhabitants of that city.76 We are not quite certain of Johnís Christological
beliefs.77 Another person of whom we know that had been consecrated by
Peter, as priest, was John Rufus, known for his ardent and staunch hostil-
ity towards the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon.78
In August of 476 Zeno returned to the imperial throne, whereas
Basiliscus and his family died at the place of exile some time later.79 The
emperor, supported by the patriarch of Constantinople Acacius, had
quite promptly cancelled the usurperís personal decisions, removing from
office, among others, Peter the Fuller and ordering to send him to Pityus
on the Black Sea.80 Finally, the place of his exile was the shrine of St
Theodore Tiron at Euchaita.81 The reason for his banishment was, above
October 475 at the latest, while Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 180
back to September. Cf. also S. LENAIN DE TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir à l’his-
toire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, tome XVI, Paris 1712, 299-300, Ch. J.
HEFELE – H. LECLERCQ, Histoire des Conciles, Paris 1908, vol. II, 912-913, W. H. C.
FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 171-172.
74 Cf. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 488, who is of the opinion that Peter
had actively opposed the Chalcedonians.
75 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 410. Likewise Theophanes AM 5967.
76 Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450; Liberatus 17, 122-123. Theodore Lector
and Theophanes place Johnís consecration during Peterís first episcopate, cf.
Theodore Lector, Epitome 392 and Theophanes AM 5956. Cf. also A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 299-300.
77 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450, with the information that in 476 it was
John who had banished Peter from Antioch ([Iohannes] Petrum episcopatus sui pel-
lit auctorem et inuadit eius ecclesiam). Cf. Liberatus 17, 123. G. DOWNEY, A History of
Antioch in Syria, 489 believes however that John was a Monophysite.
78 Cf. John Rufus, Plerophoriae 22, 47. See also B. BITTON-ASHKELONY ñ A. KOFSKY,
Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity, Leiden ñ Boston 2004, 91 and C. B. HORN,
Asceticism and Christological Controversy, 42. On John Rufus and the works attrib-
uted to his authorship more in: J.-E. STEPPA, John Rufus and the World Vision of Anti-
Chalcedonian Culture, Piscataway 2002, 57-80.
79 On the subject of various accounts concerning the circumstances of the death
of Basiliscus and his family, see K. TWARDOWSKA, Cesarzowe bizantyjskie 2 po≥. V w.
Kobiety a w≥adza, KrakÛw 2006, 176-182.
80 On Pityus as a place of exile, see E. DIEHL, Pityus, in: Paulys Realencyclop‰die
der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Band 20/2, Stuttgart 1950, cols. 1883-1884
and I. MILEWSKI, Depozycje i zsy≥ki biskupÛw, 364, note 538.
81 Cf. Pseudo-Zacharias V, 5; Theodore Lector, Epitome 415; Theophanes AM 5969;
Evagrius III, 8; John Malalas XV, 6 only writes that the emperor Zeno had sent
Peter into exile at Euchaita, not mentioning any other possible place of exile.
Likewise, Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 421 and John of Nikiou 88, 43. Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre
le Foulon, col. 1934; A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 300 and Ph.
64 BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 190. According to Michel van Esbroeck, in
all, the close political relations with Basiliscus,82 but the legal basis for the
deposition was the verdict passed by the Antiochene and Constanti-
nopolitan synods, which had again recognized Peter as a heretic.83 The
Synodicon Vetus mentions that also at Cyrus, towards the end of Basiliscusí
reign, the local bishop John had summoned a synod that issued an anath-
ema against Peter the Fuller.84
After a three-month long episcopate of John Codonatus,85 Stephen,
who was a Chalcedonian, became the new bishop of Antioch, while
Acacius, who wanted to have a safeguard against Peterís possible appeal to
Rome, wrote in 477 a letter to Pope Simplicius, in which he described
Peter the Fullerís heretical activity and asked the pope to never give his
consent to justify him.86 The letter to Simplicius is an indication, there-
fore, of the fact that Peter had still, despite his exile, continued to pose a
certain threat. The proof may be also the developments in connection
with the Antiochene bishop Stephen, who was, like Martyrius before,
accused of Nestorianism by the followers of Peter the Fuller, according to
Theophanes. Although Stephen was later cleared of the charges by the
Theodore Lectorís passage the information refers not to the monastery of

Theodore at Euchaita, but to Peterís finding of a refuge at the tomb of Theodore
of Euchaita at Amasea, cf. M. VAN ESBROECK, The Memra on the Parrot, 468. The
scholar is, however, mistaken ñ Peter did not seek refuge at Amasea proper, but
at Theodore Tironís shrine at Euchaita, located west of Amasea, cf. Ch. WALTER,
The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition, Aldershot 2003, 44-66, especially
56-58. Concerning the location of Euchaita, see H. GR…GOIRE, GÈographie byzantine,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 19 (1913) 59-61 and C. FOSS, Euchaita, in: The Oxford
Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. P. Kazhdan, New York ñ Oxford 1991, 737.
82 The political reasons for Peter the Fullerís deposition are stressed by: John
Malalas XV, 5; Theodore Lector, Epitome 415; Theophanes AM 5969; John of Nikiou 88,
43; Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum, 171.
83 Cf. Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450-451; Theophanes AM 5969; Synodicon
Vetus 101 and Laudatio S. Barnabae, 110-111. Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et
Constantinople, 190 is of the opinion, however, that the deposition and exile of
Peter had been based only on the imperial legal sanction.
84 Cf. Synodicon Vetus 100. The exile had taken place at the turn of 476. Chronicon
ad annum Domini 846 pertinens, 166 mentions that Peterís second episcopate was
two years long.
85 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 415 and Theophanes AM 5969. G. DOWNEY, A History
of Antioch in Syria, 489 believes that the ground for deposing John from the
Antiochene see was his theological views. Cf. also A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER,
Jesus der Christus, 300 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 190-191. In
483 John Codonatus, supported by Acacius, became bishop of Tyre (Gesta de
nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 451; Liberatus 17, 123). According to Philippe Blaudeau,
he was to be a kind of informer for the Constantinopolitan bishop with regard to
the situation in the East, cf. Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 210.
Differently, G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 490, stated that Acacius had
relocated John to Tyre so that Calandion could take his place at Antioch. This the-
sis, however, assumes that John Codonatus had returned to the Antiochene see
after the murder of Stephen in 479, which is not mentioned in the sources at all.
86 Gesta de nomine Acacii 25, CA 99, 450-451. Cf. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the
Monophysite Movement, 181. In his letter, Acacius had also referred to the issue of
John Codonatus. 65
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
synod at Laodicaea, summoned by the emperor, the events that happened

later on, including the murder of Stephen by a hostile populace in March
479, are the evidence that Peter had still retained his influence at
Antioch.87
Third episcopate
The second deposition of Peter the Fuller had seemed to finally seal
his fate. Over a period of several years following the overthrow of
Basiliscusí usurpation, Zeno and Acacius had pursued a definitely
Chalcedonian course in politics, aiming to restore the status ante 475 in
the Church. However, a sudden shift in the political situation had caused
yet another turn in Peterís fate. At the beginning of 480s a growing hiatus
between the emperor and Illus had become even more visible, with the
latter becoming in fact the second most important figure of the state.88
Preparing for a confrontation with the Isaurian nobleman, Zeno had
been trying to gain a broad base of support among the population, includ-
ing Egypt. However, that province had mostly sympathized with the adver-
saries of the Council of Chalcedon, in opposition to the Chalcedonian
patriarch Timothy Salophakiolos and supporting the clandestine patri-
arch Peter Mongos ñ who was an opponent of the Council. In 482, taking
advantage of the opportunity afforded by Timothyís death, the emperor
Zeno had decided to make a compromise with the anti-Chalcedonians.
He agreed to recognize Peter Mongos as legitimate patriarch on the con-
dition that he would accept the Alexandrian Chalcedonians into the com-
munity, thus ending the split within the Egyptian Church, and sign a com-
promise document determining the fundamental conditions for estab-
lishing the communion between Alexandria and Constantinople, as con-
tained in the imperial edict known as the Henoticon.89 As soon as Peter
87 Cf. Theophanes AM 5970 (considered to be an excerpt from Theodore Lectorís

Epitome 418) and AM 5973 (considered to be an excerpt from Theodore Lectorís
Epitome 421); Synodicon Vetus 102; John of Nikiou 88, 44; Michael the Syrian IX, 6, 149.
Cf. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 489-490; A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 300 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople,
195.
88 On Illus, see H. ELTON, Illus and the imperial aristocracy under Zeno, Byzantion 70
(2000) 393-407; M. J. LESZKA, Illus Izauryjczyk wobec uzurpacji Bazyliskosa, in: Acta
Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia historica 80 (2005) 45-53. On the events before
Illusí rebellion, see E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. II, De la disparition de
l’Empire d’Occident à la mort de Justinien (476-565), Paris ñ Bruxelles ñ Amsterdam
1949, 15-20.
89 The text: Greek ñ E. SCHWARTZ, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, 52-54 (document no.
75); Evagrius III, 14; Nikephorus Kallistus XVI, 12 (reliant on Evagrius); A. VAN
ROEY, Le Monacensis Graecus 331 et la tradition manuscrite de líHenotique de líempereur
ZÈnon, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 31 (2000-2005) 105-108; Syriac transla-
tion ñ Pseudo-Zacharias V, 8; Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum, 230-234; Latin transla-
tion ñ Liberatus 17, 113-117; Facundus of Hermiane, Pro defensione trium capitulorum
12, 4; E. SCHWARTZ, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, 54-56. This document was composed,
most probably, by Acacius, cf. Pseudo-Zacharias V, 7; Evagrius III, 13; John of Nikiou
66 88, 62; Theophanes AM 5976. Acaciusí authorship is generally accepted, cf.
Mongos had agreed to accept the conditions presented, Acacius estab-

lished the communion with him.90
The patriarch of Antioch Calandion, however, had opposed to recog-
nizing Peter Mongos. Moreover, after Illusí rebellion had broken out, he
openly supported it, erasing the name of Zeno from the diptychs, which
was tantamount to open declaration of disobedience to the emperor.91 It
is not surprising that after the swift defeat of Illus, Calandion was deposed
and sent to exile at the Great Oasis in Egypt at the end of 484 or the begin-
ning of 485.92 However, before that had happened, his uncompromising
stance towards the anti-Chalcedonians had led to the formation within the
patriarchate of a strong opposition headed by a staunch enemy of
Chalcedon, Philoxenus of Maboug. When Philoxenus had been banished
by Calandion, he went on to organize further opposition against the bish-
op among the Mesopotamian monks and accused him of heresy before
the emperor in Constantinople.93
In such an inflamed environment the emperor had to seek a more
moderate figure, inclined to accept a compromise on the basis of the
Henoticon of 482 and thus pacify the province. Despite the rebelsí defeat,
the political situation had not been entirely clear, as Illus and his closest
supporters had retreated to Papirion, one of the Isaurian strongholds,
where they put up resistance until 488.94
Zeno had decided to give his support to Peter the Fuller.95 Most prob-
ably, one of the crucial reasons was the support from the local population
E. SCHWARTZ, Publizistische Sammlungen, 197; W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the
Monophysite Movement, 177; M. B. LESZKA, MiÍdzy ortodoksjπ a monofizytyzmem. Obsada
tronÛw patriarszych Konstantynopola, Aleksandrii, Antiochii i Jerozolimy w polityce cesarza
Zenona, Vox Patrum 18 (1998) 448; H. Ch. BRENNECKE, Chalkedonense und
Henotikon. Bemerkungen zur Prozefl der ˆstlichen Rezeption der christologischen Formel von
Chalkedon, in: Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualit‰t. Studien zur Rezeption der
christologischen Formel von Chalkedon, herausgegeben von Johannes van Oort,
J. Roldanus, Leuvain 1997, 42; P. ALLEN, Evagrius Scholasticus, 131.
90 Pseudo-Zacharias V, 7. 11-12; Theodore Lector, Epitome 422-424; Evagrius III 16;
Theophanes AM 5976; Liberatus 17, 112. Cf. H. Ch. BRENNECKE, Chalkedonense und
Henotikon, 42.
91 A Letter of Pope Gelasius to the Bishops of Dardania, CA 95, 392. Cf. G. DOWNEY, A
History of Antioch in Syria, 496 and E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. II, 33.
92 Pseudo-Zacharias V, 9; Theodore Lector, Epitome 443; Theophanes AM 5982; Evagrius
III 16; Liberatus 17, 125-126. Cf. also W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite
Movement, 181. On various proposals of dating Calandionís deposition, see M. B.
LESZKA, MiÍdzy ortodoksjπ a monofizytyzmem, 450.
93 Pseudo-Zacharias VII, 10; Theodore Lector, Epitome 444; Theophanes AM 5982. Cf. A.
DE HALLEUX, Philoxène de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie, Louvain 1963, 31-
39 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 301.
94 Cf. Joshua Stylites 17, 15-16; John of Antioch, fr. 306, 520-526. Cf. also E. W.
BROOKS, The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians, The English Historical Review 8
(1893) 227-228 and E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. II, 30-31.
95 Cf. Theophanes AM 5982 (considered to be an excerpt from Theodore Lectorís
Epitome 443); Evagrius III, 16; John Malalas XV, 6; Synodicon Vetus 105; Laudatio S.
Barnabae, 112; Cyril of Scythopolis, Vita Sabae 32; John of Nikiou 88, 63; Chronicon
Iacobi Edesseni, 235. Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 421 writes that Zeno had consulted 67
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
that he had received, mentioned by Pseudo-Zacharias and confirmed by

the existence of the opposition, associated with him, against the cityís
Chalcedonian bishops.96 His return to the Antiochene see and the accla-
mation by the synod of the East had taken place in 485.97 His actions aim-
ing to establish a relative equilibrium in the Antiochene Church, based
upon the Henoticon compromise, had encountered rather negative
responses from both groups. On the one hand, he had pacified
Philoxenusí actions by elevating him to the bishop of Hierapolis/Ma-
boug;98 on the other, he deposed many bishops, most likely Illusí sup-
porters, though the Chalcedonian sources tend to emphasize their affini-
ty with Chalcedon. They were: Nestor of Tarsus, Kyros of Hierapolis, John
of Kyrestai, Romanus of Chalcedon, Eusebius of Samosata, Julian of
Mopsuestia, Paul of Constantina, Manos of Hemeria, and Andrew of
Theodosioupolis.99
It is very difficult, therefore, to determine the actual position of Peter
the Fuller with regard to the Council of Chalcedon. It is beyond doubt
that upon signing the Encyclical of Basiliscus and acceding, for the third
time, to the see, Peter had issued an anathema against the Council of
Chalcedon,100 yet for radical anti-Chalcedonians his stance, especially
towards the end of his life, raised some considerable doubts.101 Perhaps,
the reason for this distrust was Peterís acceptance of the Henoticon, which
was considered to be a crypto-Chalcedonian document by the radical
ìall the bishopsî about his decision. Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 220
says that Peter was Zenoís candidate, whereas Acacius wished that John
Codonatus would be appointed.
96 Cf. Pseudo-Zacharias V, 9-10. Cf. also A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der
Christus, 303. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 175 says that
Zenoís approval of Peter the Fuller had been necessary in order to restore har-
mony in the Antiochene Church, and it resulted from Peterís popularity among
the inhabitants of the city.
97 For the question of dating, see Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 220.
98 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 444; Theophanes AM 5982; Synodicon Vetus 105. On
Philoxenus, see especially A. DE HALLEUX, Philoxène de Mabbog. Hierapolis was a
strongly Chalcedonian metropolitan see, cf. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the
Monophysite Movement, 188-189.
99 Theophanes AM 5982 (supplemented with the Latin version). Cf. W. H. C.
FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 188; P. T. R. GRAY, The Defense of
Chalcedon, 33 and Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 220, who are con-
vinced that the reasons for the above-mentioned bishopsí depositions were reli-
gious rather than political. Differently, G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 496
writes that we do not know anything about any instances of Chalcedonians being
persecuted by Peter.
100 Cf. Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 485, who writes that Peter had rejected Chalcedon,
while s.a. 487 describes Peter as: chalcedonensis synodi inimicus, Laudatio S.
Barnabae, 110, in turn, mentions that he had openly condemned the Council of
Chalcedon.
101 See John Rufus, Plerophoriae 22, 49 and A Letter of Severus of Antioch to Ammonios,
254-256, in which the author reproached Peter for his communion with
68 Chalcedonians. Cf. also A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 301-302.
opponents of the Council.102 We should bear in mind that Peter Mongos

had to face similar allegations from radical anti-Chalcedonians. The syn-
odal letter of 485, the only extant document authored by Peter,103 evades
any Christological formulations, concentrating on proving the conformi-
ty of the Henoticon with Church orthodoxy, emphasizing above all its anti-
Nestorian character by recognizing Cyrilís anathemas as well as the con-
formity of the document with the Creed of the Council of Nicaea, as con-
firmed by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Ephesus (431).104
And even though the tradition connected with Theodore Lector states
that during the synod Peter had explicitly excommunicated the Council
of Chalcedon, the afore-mentioned synodal letter does not include such a
condemnation.105 It appears, therefore, that he was a staunch adversary
of Nestorianism and a moderate opponent of the Council of Chalcedon,
who could be satisfied with the compromise represented by the Henoticon
without the necessity of explicitly excommunicating the assembly of the
bishops in 451.106
After his return in 485 to the Antiochene see Peter was to remove
from the text of the Trishagion hymn the expression ìO Christ the Kingî,
added by Calandion to the hymn in order to avoid the Theopaschite over-
tone of Peterís earlier addition, causing once again a wave of tumult.107 It
seems therefore that the primary characteristic of Peter the Fullerís reli-
gious policy was that particular innovation. Does it mean, however, that he
advocated Theopaschite or Apollinarian views? The Trishagion doxology
was regarded as either a hymn addressed to Christ or the Trinity.108 At
102 Cf. R. KOSI—SKI, Kilka uwag o Henotikonie i domniemanym zwrocie w polityce religi-
jnej cesarza Zenona, (forthcoming); likewise, E. SCHWARTZ, Johannes Rufus, ein mono-
physitischer Schrifsteller, Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 16 Abhandlung, Heidelberg
1912, 16-17.
103 Cf. K.-H. UTHEMANN, Petros der Walker, col. 143. However, Aloys Grillmeier is of
the opinion that the synodal letter was not written by Peter and it reflects not so
much his own views as those of the assembled bishops, cf. A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 296.
104 Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1934. The content of the synodal letter of the
assembly that approved Peterís third election in: Pseudo-Zacharias V, 10.
105 Cf. Theodore Lector, Epitome 443; Theophanes AM 5982; Synodicon Vetus 105;
Pseudo-Zacharias V, 10. Cf. also Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 231,
note 755.
106 Cf. A. DE HALLEUX, Philoxène de Mabbog, 34 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T.
HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 302. P. T. R. GRAY, The Defense of Chalcedon, 23,
expresses the view that the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon were unac-
ceptable for Peter as they seemed to him the triumph of Nestorianism. Ph.
BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 231 considers him to be moderate in mat-
ters of doctrine, while M. VAN ESBROECK, The Memra on the Parrot, 469 regards Peter
as an opportunist.
107 Cf. Theophanes AM 5982; John Diacrinomenos, Epitome 545. On the introduction
of Calandionís addition, Theodore Lector, Epitome 427.
108 The Trishagion dates back to the tenure of Proclus, bishop of Constantinople
in the years 434-447, and is related to the earthquake of 446 at the capital. During 69
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Antioch, the Christological interpretation of the hymn prevailed. To the

words ìHoly God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on usî Peter
had added, after the word ìImmortalî, the words ìwho was crucified for
usî. He had done so in all probability precisely to reinforce the
Christological interpretation of the hymn by stressing that the Logos had
truly incarnated and suffered.109
However, those who believed that the Trishagion is addressed to the
entire Holy Trinity were shocked at the innovation added by Peter, which
unequivocally suggested that the impassible God had suffered.110 In
order to avoid such a heretical interpretation, Calandion added the words
ìO Christ the Kingî to the doxology, so that it would be obvious that the
expression ìwho was crucified for usî referred only to the second Person
of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, Peterís removal of Calandionís addition
had been considered as an open introduction of the Theopaschite inter-
pretation of the hymn by Peter the Fuller.111 However, not all of the
adherents of the Christological interpretation had accepted Calandionís
correction. For instance, in his letter to the monks of Teleda, Philoxenus
of Maboug had regarded Calandionís addition as a Nestorian intrusion
going so far as to introduce the fourth Person of God.112 A similar accu-
sation is expressed by Isaac of Antioch in his poem on a parrot reciting
the Trishagion in Peterís version.113 We cannot therefore explicitly deter-
mine if it was Peter the Fullerís intention to show his support for the
Theopaschite interpretation of the doxology.114
one of the services celebrated in public, the words of the hymn were to be
revealed to a little boy. On the Trishagion, see especially V. S. JANERAS, Les byzan-
tines et le trishagion christologique, in: Miscellanea liturgica in onore de Cardinale
Giacomo Lercaro, vol. II, Rome 1957, 469-499; S. BROCK, The thrice-holy hymn in the
liturgy, Sobornost. Eastern Christian Review 7 (1985) 24-34; K. GINTER, SpÛr o
Trisagion, in: Res Historica 14, Graecorum et Romanorum memoria II, ed. L.
Morawiecki, Lublin 2002, 221-231 and A. LOUTH, Trishagion, in: Theologische
Realenzyklop‰die, Band 34, Berlin 2002, 121-124.
109 Cf. A. LOUTH, Denys the Areopagite, London 2002, 9-10; B. VARGHESE, West Syrian
Liturgical Theology, London 2004, 69; P. ALLEN ñ C. T. R. HAYWARD, Severus of
Antioch, London 2004, 9.
111 Cf. K. GINTER, SpÛr o Trisagion, 228, though the author is mistaken in his
assumption that the original version of the elaborated hymn was identical with
Calandionís version.
112 Philoxenus, A Letter to the Monks of Teleda, p. 496. See also A. DE HALLEUX,
Philoxène de Mabbog, 194-195. Paradoxically, Peter was accused of introducing the
fourth Person to the Trinity by John of Damascus in his Expositio Fidei, cf. John of
Damascus, Expositio Fidei 54, 1.
113 The text in: G. S. BICKELL, S. Isaaci Antiocheni Doctoris Syrarum Opera omnia, pars
I, Gieflen 1873, 84-89. The allegation of introducing an idol, the fourth Person,
into the Trinity by Calandionís addition, especially in the verses 207-210. Cf. also
A. I. BARSOUM, The Scattered Pearls. A History of Syriac Literature and Sciences, trans.
by M. Moosa, Piscataway 2003, 246-247.
114 Cf. W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 168, who notes that
the hymn with Peterís addition had become a touchstone of the Monophysite
70 orthodoxy.
The issue of the Trishagion had been indeed the core of the conflicts
at Antioch, in which Peter the Fuller got involved. The significance of the
question can be seen in the light of the afore-mentioned Syrian poem by
Isaac of Antioch, describing a man who had taught his parrot to recite the
Trishagion in Peterís version, to test the resistance of those who were
against the formula. The poem was written probably towards the end of
Calandionís episcopate.115 It mentions bloody riots that erupted in con-
nection with the controversy over Calandionís addition, attacking the lat-
ter, and Diphysites in general, while sympathizing with Peter, without
mentioning his name anywhere in the poem.
The third episcopate of Peter the Fuller is also connected with other
liturgical innovations attributed to him. Theodore Lector writes that he
had introduced the recitation of the Nicene Creed at each Eucharist,
which made it, and not the Chalcedonian definitions, the standard of
orthodoxy.116 The change may be linked to the Henoticon, whose formula
of compromise had been based exactly on that Creed, which would sug-
gest that it had taken place during Peterís third episcopate.117 The
reforms that Peter was to introduce into the liturgy also included, accord-
ing to Theodore, consecrating the oil in front of the audience of believ-
ers, reciting an epiclesis over the baptismal water at the eve of the
Epiphany as well as saying an invocation to Theotokos in each prayer.118
In his Laudatio in honour of St Barnabas, Alexander the Monk writes
that Peter wished to re-establish the authority of the Antiochene see over
the Church of Cyprus.119 The author says that in order to strengthen this
claim the archbishop had raised, first of all, the argument of the apostle-
ship of the Church of Antioch and pointed out the fact that Christianity in
Cyprus had originated from the city on the Orontes. Cypriot bishop
115 Cf. M. VAN ESBROECK, The Memra on the Parrot, 469.

116 Cf. A. LOUTH, Denys the Areopagite, 9.
117 Although Bernard Capelle recognized that the introduction of the Nicene
Creed into the liturgy can be convincingly linked only with the patriarch of
Constantinople Timothy, who had introduced it into the Eucharist around the
year 515, it pertains, however, to the liturgy of the Church of Constantinople, not
of Antioch. Cf. B. CAPELLE, L’ Introduction du symbole à la messe, in: MÈlanges
Joseph de Ghellinck, vol. II, Gemboux 1951, 1003-1007. We do not know whether
Timothy had followed the example of Peterís reform, as suggested by Henryk
Paprocki, cf. W. HRYNIEWICZ ñ K. KARSKI ñ H. PAPROCKI, Credo. Symbol naszej wiary,
KrakÛw 2009, 27 and R. TAFT, The Great Entrance. A History of the Transfer of Gifts
and other Pre-anaphoral Rites, Roma 1978, 396-405. According to L. PERRONE, Pietro
il Fullone, col. 2794 the liturgical modifications had been introduced by Peter the
Fuller during his second episcopate.
118 Theodore Lector, Epitome 428; John Diacrinomenos, Epitome 547; Nikephorus Kallistus
XV, 28. Cf. G. FRITZ, Pierre le Foulon, col. 1935 and G. WAGNER, PoúwiÍcenie myronu,
Wiadomoúci Polskiego Autokefalicznego Koúcio≥a Prawos≥awnego 19 (1989) 35-
36.
119 Laudatio S. Barnabae, 112-118; Theodore Lector, Epitome 436; Cedrenus,
Compendium Historiarum, 618-619 and Nikephorus Kallistus XIV, 37. Peterís action
towards the Church of Cyprus is dated to his third episcopate, cf. G. HILL, A
History of Cyprus, vol. I, To the Conquest by Richard Lion Heart, Cambridge 1940, 276. 71
Rafa≥ KosiÒski
Anthemiosí discovery of the grave of the Apostle Barnabas near Salamis,

proving that the Church of Cyprus had its own apostolic roots, was to weak-
en Peterís argumentation and finally contribute to the emperor Zenoís dis-
missal of Peter the Fullerís claim.120 This account had become deeply
entrenched in the Cypriot tradition, which accepted that the Church of
Cyprus owed its autocephalia to the emperor Zenoís intervention.121
John Malalas, in his chronicle, mentions that towards the end of
Zenoís reign, that is during the episcopate of Peter the Fuller or his suc-
cessor, some violent riots broke out at Antioch leading to acts of aggres-
sion against the Jews living in the city: many of them were killed, the syn-
agogue of Asabinus was burned down, bodies of the dead were desecrat-
ed (unearthed and burned) by the mob.122 No account, however, states
that the bishop may have been involved in those events, whereas Ernest
Steinís thesis that the Jews, along with the Blue faction and pagans, had
supported Illusí rebellion may prove that the incidents in question were
still connected with the year 484.123
In spite of the support from the population of Antioch, Peter had not
been accepted by all the Churches. Although Peter Mongos and Martyrius
of Jerusalem established the communion with him, the patriarch of
Constantinople Acacius had not been inclined to do so.124 The news of
Calandionís deposition and taking over of the Antiochene see by Peter
the Fuller, as well as calls from Chalcedonians in the province Syria II, had
led Rome into a stark response. At the Rome synod in October 485 Pope
Felix III had effected yet another excommunication of Peter the Fuller.125
120 On the discovery of the Apostle Barnabaís grave, see also Victor of Tunnuna,
s.a. 488.1.
121 See in particular G. HILL, A History of Cyprus, 276-279 and A. N. MITSIDES, Tov
aujtokevfalon th`~ E j kklhsiva~ th`~ Kuvprou, in: XVe Congrès international d’études
byzantines. Rapports et co-rapports, V, 2, Chypre dans le monde byzantine,
Athènes 1976, 3-18, especially 4-5. Cf. also G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in
Syria, 496-497 and A. GRILLMEIER ñ T. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus, 301.
122 Cf. John Malalas XV, 15. It appears that those incidents were related to the con-
flicts between the circus factions. However, the Slavic translation of Malalas mentions
that the figure behind the anti-Jewish tumults was a certain monk who had locked
himself in one of the towers of the cityís south wall, from where he encouraged the
populace to attack the Jews, whose synagogue was nearby, see Chronika Joanna Malaly
w slavyanskom perevode, 11. Cf. also G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria, 497-499.
123 Cf. E. STEIN, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. II, 32.
124 Pseudo-Zacharias V, 10. Cf. also Ph. BLAUDEAU, Alexandrie et Constantinople, 220-
222 ñ in the French scholarís opinion, Acacius had refused to recognize Peter,
which is indicated by the absence of any mention in the papal sources from the
490s about the communion between Peter the Fuller and Acacius, signs of
improving relations between the latter and the Chalcedonian monks of
Constantinople and attributing to him the authorship of one of the apocryphal
letters to Peter concerning the Trishagion. One should remember, however, that
in 485 the synod at Rome had assigned the initiative in elevating Peter to Acacius,
cf. Letter of the Rome Synod of 5 October 485, CA 70, 157.
125 Cf. Letter of the Roman Synod of 5 October 485, CA 70, 155-161; Cyril of Scythopolis,
Vita Sabae 32; Synodicon Vetus 106-107. Cf. also W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the
72 Monophysite Movement, 181-182 and 186.
Despite this situation, Peter was to continue at the see of Antioch until his
death in, probably, 488.126
Summary
In the 460s, Peter the Fuller was the head of one of the
Constantinopolitan monasteries, perhaps the monastery at the Church of
St Bassa at Chalcedon. Expelled from that monastery, he went to Antioch,
where he acceded three times to the office of bishop, however perform-
ing the episcopal duties for a period of no more than five years altogeth-
er. His first episcopate began probably at the end of 470 or the beginning
of 471, and lasted until the spring of 471; the second one from the sum-
mer of 475 until the summer/autumn of 476; and the third one from the
beginning of 485 until his death. In his public activity, he was known as an
ardent adversary of Nestorianism and a liturgical reformer. His lasting
legacy became his innovative addition to the Trishagion doxology, which
had soon turned into a watchword for the opponents of the Council of
Chalcedon. Peter the Fuller himself, however, does not seem to be an
explicit adversary of Chalcedon, being more of a moderate opponent
ready to accept the compromise as provided by the Henoticon. The second
and third episcopates of Peter were impacted by political issues, even
though his generally assumed close relations with Zeno of Isauria appear
to have been deliberately overstated by Theodore Lector, who was dis-
tinctly ill-disposed towards Zeno.
126 Victor of Tunnuna, s.a. 488.3. Theophanes dates Peterís death to the year 5983
since the Creation, which corresponds to AD 490-491. Cf. also Chronicon ad annum
Domini 846 pertinens, 166 and Agapius, Kitab al-Unvan, 421 saying that the period
of his last episcopate was to be 5 years long, which indicates the year 489/490. Cf.
also Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum, 171. Cf. G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria,
507-508, note 19 and W. H. C. FREND, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 190. 73
The Byzantine-Antic treaty (545/46 A. D.)
and the defense of Scythia Minor
The approach of the Antes by Justinian I in the mid-sixth century

A. D. (545/46) was part of a wider frame of alliances of the Byzantine Em-
pire in this era, aiming at to protecting its northern frontier.1 Byzantium,
already involved in wars against the Ostrogoths to the West and the
Persians to the East, tried to impose peace on the Balkan peninsula in a
diplomatic way.
Through the integration of the Antes into its service, the Byzantine
Empire intended to halt their attacks and, in addition, to form a barrier
at the Lower Danube against the Slavs as well as the nomadic tribes, who
devastated the Balkan provinces. The first attack by the Antes against
Byzantium is dated in 5182 but their activity became more intense after
530, when their attacks coincided with those of other peoples living north
of the Lower Danube. During the first two decades of the reign of
Justinian (527-565), a great number of invasions took place by the Antes,
the Slavs and the ìHunsî. Before the Byzantine-Antic treaty, the sources
mention Antic raids between 533 and 545 (Thrace),3 Slavic attack in
529/30 and 5454 and raids by nomadic tribes in 530 and 535 (Lower
1 See, F. E. WOZNIAK, Byzantine Diplomacy and the Lombard-Gepidic wars, Balkan

Studies 20 (1979) 139-158; S. PATOURA-SPANOU, Une remise en question de la politique
de Justinien envers les peoples du Danube, in: eadem, The Danubian Limes and its
World during the Migration Period (4th-7th c.), ed. G. Kardaras (= NHRF/IBR
Research Series 6), Athens 2008, 157-166.
2 Procopius, De Bellis, ed. J. Haury (= Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia), vol.
I-II, Leipzig 1962-1963, VII. 40. 5, 476. Eng. Translation by H. B. Dewing (=
Procopius of Caesarea, vol. I-V, History of the Wars, LCL, London 1961-1962),
Vol. V, 39: ìDuring the reign of Justinian, the uncle of Germanus, the Antae, who
dwell close to the Sclaveni, had crossed the Ister River with a great army and
invaded the Roman domain.î M. COMS≤ A, Einige Betrachtungen ¸ber die Ereignisse im
6.-7. Jh. an der unteren Donau, Slavia antiqua 21 (1974) 61; J. IRMSCHER, Die Slawen
und das Justinianische Reich, in: Rapports du IIIe Congrès International
d’Archéologie Slave, Bratislava 7-14 Septembre 1975, ed. B. Chropovsk˝, vol. I-
II (Bratislava 1979-1980), vol. II, 158 (in 525); V. VELKOV, Der Donaulimes in
Bulgarien und das Vordringen der Slawen, in: Die Vˆlker S¸dosteuropas im. 6. bis 8.
Jahrhundert, Symposion Tutzing 1985, ed. B. H‰nsel (= S¸dosteuropa Jahrbuch
17, 1987), 157; F. CURTA, The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower
Danube Region, c. 500-700, Cambridge 2001, 75.
3 Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 14, 11, 357 (Dewing, Wars, vol. IV, 265); ». BONEV, Les
Antes et Byzance, …tudes Balkaniques 19/3 (1983) 113; CURTA, Slavs, 79.
4 Marcellinus Comes, Chronica, ed. Th. Mommsen (= MGH AA 11, Chonica mino-
ra II), Berlin 1894, a. 530, 103; Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 13, 24-25, 353 (Dewing,
Wars, vol. IV, 261-263); COMS≤ A Betrachtungen, 62; IRMSCHER, Justinianische Reich,
74 161-162; VELKOV, Donaulimes, 160; CURTA, Slavs, 82-83.
Moesia and Thrace),5 in 538 (Scythia Minor, Lower Moesia and Thrace)6
and in 539 (Illyricum).7 According to Procopius, almost every year during
the reign of Justinian, the Balkan provinces suffered the invasions of the
Slavs, the Antes and the ìHunsî and he regards the areas which accepted
their invasions as ìscythian wildernessî.8 Furthermore, the raids of the
Bulgars, Antes and Slavs are stressed by Jordanes.9
Before the beginning of the wars to the West against the Vandals in
533, Justinian attempted to halt the attacks of the Antes (but also those of
the Slavs), based on the military abilities of Mundo and Chilbudios, who
was assigned general of Thrace in 530/31. For three years, Chilbudios
managed to repulse the Slavic raids south of the Danube. He also attacked
the Slavs north of the river, where he lost his life in 533.10 Procopius men-
tions that after the death of Chilbudios, the Danube was no obstacle for
the invaders11 and also that the Slavs defeated the Antes in a battle, most
5 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, a. 530, 103: ìHis autem deinde consulibus idem
dux audaciae suae secundus in Thraciam quoque advolans praedantes eam
Bulgares felicior pugnans cecidit, quingentis eorum in proelio trucidatis.î
Ibidem, a. 535, 104: ìÔzitta patricius in Mysia cum hoste Bulgarum congrediens
ad Iatrum superior invenitur.î BONEV, Antes, 112; VELKOV, Donaulimes, 159.
6 Ioannis Malalae, Chronographia, ed. I. Thurn (= CFHB 35), Berlin 2000, 18, 21,
366; ÂONEV, Antes, 111; VELKOV, Donaulimes, 159.
7 Procopius, De Bellis, II. 4. 4-6, 163 (Dewing, Wars, Vol. I, 287-289); VELKOV,
Donaulimes, 159 (in 540); CURTA, Slavs, 78-79.
8 Procopius, Historia Arcana, ed. J. Haury (= Procopii Caesariensis Opera
Omnia), vol. III, Leipzig 1963, 18. 20-21, 114-115. Engl. transl. H. B. Dewing (=
Procopius of Caesarea, vol. VI, Anecdota, LCL, London 1960), 217-219. ìAnd
Illyricum and Thrace in its entirety, comprising the whole expanse of country from
the Ionian Gulf to the outskirts of Byzantium, including Greece and the Thracian
Chersonese, was overrun practically every year by Huns, Sclaveni and Antae, from
the time when Justinian took over the Roman Empire, and they wrought frightful
havoc among the inhabitants of that region. For in each invasion more than twen-
ty myriads of Romans, I think, were destroyed or enslaved there, so that a veritable
ìScythian wildernessî came to exist everywhere in this land.î See also, Procopius, De
Bellis, VII. 14, 2, 353-354 (Dewing, Wars, Vol. IV, 263); COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 65;
IRMSCHER, Justinianische Reich, 158; VELKOV, Donaulimes, 158.
9 Iordanes, Romana, ed. Th. Mommsen (= MGH AA V/1), Berlin 1882, 388, 52:
ìHi sunt casus Romanae rei publicae preter instantia cottidiana Bulgarum,
Antium et Sclavinorum. que si quis scire cupit, annales consulumque seriem revol-
vat sine fastidio repperietque dignam nostri temporis rem publicam tragydiae. sci-
etque unde orta, quomodo aucta, qualiterve sibi cunctas terras subdiderit et quo-
modo iterum eas ab ignaris rectoribus amiserit. quod et nos pro captu ingenii bre-
viter tetigimus, quatenus diligens lector latius ista legendo cognoscat.î CURTA,
Slavs, 79.
10 Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 14, 1-5, 353-354 (Dewing, Wars, Vol. IV, 263-265); H.
DITTEN, Slawen im byzantinischen Heer von Justinian I. bis Justinian II., in: Studien
zum 7. Jahrhundert in Byzanz. Probleme der Herausbildung des Feudalismus, ed.
H. Kˆpstein ñ F. Winkelmann, Berlin 1976, 78-79; COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 62;
IRMSCHER, Justinianische Reich, 158; BONEV, Antes, 109-110, 112; VELKOV, Donaulimes,
158-159; CURTA, Slavs, 76. See also above, n. 4. On the Slavic origin of Chilbudios,
see CURTA, Slavs, 76, n. 7.
11 Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 14, 6, 354 (Dewing, Wars, vol. IV, 265): ìThereafter the
river became free for the barbarians to cross at all times just as they wished, and
the possessions of the Romans were rendered easily accessible.î 75
Georgios Kardaras
likely between 533 and 540.12 Justinian attributed to himself the title
Anticus for the first time in 533, due to the results of Chilbudiosí cam-
paigns. During his reign, the title Anticus occurs between 533-542 and 552-
565, and later on to his successors.13 According to G. R÷SCH, the tri-
umphal titles of Justinian are distinguished into two groups: the first
group includes titles of his predecessors (Alamannicus, Gothicus,
Germanicus, Francicus) and the second titles owed to the military suc-
cesses during his reign (Anticus, Alanicus, Vandalicus, Africanus). The
adoption of the ìGermanicî titles, dated to the fourth c. A. D., is attrib-
uted to the political plan of Justinian to the West, namely the Reconquista
in Italy and Western Europe.14 The use of the title Anticus by Justinian, as
well as by his successors (see below), could also be considered as part of a
political plan, in this case with a defensive orientation at the Lower
Danube and particularly in Scythia Minor.
The involvement of Byzantium in the wars against the Vandals and
the Ostrogoths did not allow the permanence of sufficient military forces
in the Balkans. As is noticed above, the approach of the Antes by Justinian
and his alliance with them, dated in 545/46, was part of a wider network
of alliances, which reflects the new conception of his era. Procopius, after
a thorough reference to the case of phoney-Chilbudios,15 comments on
the Byzantine embassy to the Antes: ìBut while this affair was progressing in
the manner described, meantime the Emperor Justinian had sent some envoys to
these very barbarians, through whom he expressed the desire that they should all set-
tle in an ancient city, Turris by name, situated to the north of the river Ister. This
city had been built by the Roman emperor Trajan in earlier times, but for a long
time now it had remained unoccupied, after it that the Emperor Justinian agreed
to give them, asserting that it had belonged to the Romans originally; and he fur-
ther agreed to give them all the assistance within his power while they were estab-
lishing themselves, and to pay them great sums of money, on condition that they
should remain at peace with him thereafter and constantly block the way against
12 Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 14, 7, 354 (Dewing, Wars, vol. IV, 265): ìBut latter on
the Antae and Sclaveni became hostile to one another and engaged in a battle, in
which it is so fell out that the Antae were defeated by their opponents.î IRMSCHER,
Justinianische Reich, 161; BONEV, Antes, 110, 113; CURTA, Slavs, 78.
13 See Novellae, ed. R. Schoell ñ G. Kroll (= CIC III), Zurich 1972, XLIII, 269:
ìIn nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi dei omnipotentis Imp. Caesar Flavius
Iustinianus Alamannicus Gothicus Francicus Germanicus Anticus Alanicus
Vandalicus Africanus pius felix inclitus victor ac triumphator semper Augustus
Longino praefecto urbi.î Ibidem, CL, 725. IRMSCHER, Justinianische Reich, 161;
BONEV, Antes, 109; VELKOV, Donaulimes, 159; S. G. R÷SCH, AÏíïìá Âáóéëåßáò.
Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaizertitel in sp‰tantiker und fr¸hbyzantinischer
Zeit (= Byzantina Vindobonensia 10), Vienna 1978, 56, 101, 167-168; A. IVANOV,
Anty v titulature vizantiiskikh imperatorov, in: Svod drevneishikh pisímennykh
izvestii o slavianakh, ed. L. A. Gindin et al., vol. I, Moscow 1991, 260-264; L.-M.
G‹NTHER, Gallicus sive Anticus. Zu einem Triumphaltitel Justinians I, Tyche 7
(1992) 89-91; CURTA, Slavs, 77, n. 13.
14 R÷SCH, AÏíïìá Âáóéëåßáò, 102.
15 Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 14. 8-21, 31, 354-359 (Dewing, Wars, vol. IV, 265-269,
76 273); BONEV, Antes, 111; CURTA, Slavs, 79-81, 83.
the Huns, when these wished to overrun the Roman domainî. The fact that the
following embassy of phoney-Chilbudios to Constantinople ended in his
imprisonment by Narses had no impact on the above-mentioned
Byzantine-Antic treaty, since the Antes remained in alliance with
Byzantium until the early seventh century. The latter settled as federates
to the ancient city of Turris, north of the Danube, and their main task was
the defense of the empire from the attacks of the nomadic tribes.16
The note of Procopius about the nomadic tribes is of great impor-
tance because it does not only concern the invasions of Cutrigurs but is
also related to a wider geo-politic plan of Byzantium at three interdepen-
dent peripheries, namely the Black Sea, Caucasus and the Danube.
Justinian approached the peoples of these areas in order to block the
ìcorridor of the steppeî to the tribes migrating from Central Asia to
Europe.17 Even before the treaty was concluded, according to Procopius,
the Antes were already living close to the Lower Danube.18 From the writ-
ten sources (Procopius and Jordanes) as well as the archaeological data
we could conclude that the Antic expansion in the sixth century covered
the area between the eastern Carpathians and the river Donetz (or Don).
The Slavs were living to the west of the Antes and south of the latter, to
the steppes north of the Sea of Azov, the Utigurs.19
16 Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 14. 32-36, 359-360 (Dewing, Wars, Vol. IV, 273-275);
COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 63; DITTEN, Byzantinischen Heer, 82; idem, Zur Bedeutung der
Einwanderung der Slawen, in: Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur
Herausbildung des Feudalismus, ed. F. Winkelmann et al., (= BBA 48, 1978), 93;
IRMSCHER, Justinianische Reich, 161; BONEV, Antes, 110-111; CURTA, Slavs, 80-82, 331-
332. On the question of foederati see, H. WOLFRAM, Zur Ansiedlung reichsangehˆriger
Fˆderaten. Erkl‰rungsversuche und Forschungsziele, Mitteilungen des Instituts f¸r
÷sterreichische Geschichtsforschung 91 (1983) 5-35, esp. 27-35; E. CHRYSOS, Legal
Concepts and Patterns for the Barbariansí Settlement on Roman Soil, in: Das Reich und
die Barbaren, ed. E. Chrysos ñ A. Schwarcz, Wien ñ Kˆln 1989, 7-23.
17 O. MAZAL, Justinian I. und seine Zeit, Kˆln ñ Weimar ñ Wien 2001, 244-251.
18 Procopius, De Bellis, V. 27, 2, 130 and VII. 14, 29-30, 358 (Dewing, Wars, Vol.
III, 253): ìBut twenty days after the city and harbour of Portus were captured,
Martinus and Valerian arrived, bringing with them sixteen hundred horsemen,
the most of whom were Huns and Sclaveni and Antae, who are settled above the
Ister River not far from its banks.î Ibidem, vol. IV, 273: ìIn fact, the Sclaveni and
Antae actually had a single name in the remote past; for they were both called
Spori in olden times, because, I suppose, living apart one man from another, they
inhabit their country in a sporadic fashion. And in consequence of this very fact
they hold a great amount of land; for they alone inhabit the greatest part of the
northern bank of the Ister.î CURTA, Slavs, 39.
19 Jordanes, Getica, ed. Th. Mommsen (= MGH AA V/1), Berlin 1882, V 35, 63:
ìSclaveni a civitate Novietunense et laco qui appellatur Mursiano usque ad
Danastrum et in boream Viscla tenus commorantur: hi paludes silvasque pro civi-
tatibus habent. Antes vero, qui sunt eorum fortissimi, qua Ponticum mare cur-
vatur, a Danastro extenduntur usque ad Danaprum, quae flumina multis man-
sionibus ab invicem absunt.î Procopius, De Bellis, VIII. 4, 7-9, 501 (Dewing, Wars,
Vol. V, 85); A. AVENARIUS, Die Awaren in Europa, Amsterdam ñ Bratislava 1974, 51;
DITTEN, Einwanderung, 93, n. 2; COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 68; A. MIL»EV, Die materielle
und geistige Kultur der Slawen in Bulgarien (6.-9.Jh.), in: Rapports, Vol. II, 277;
BONEV, Antes, 113; F. CURTA, Hiding behind a Piece of Tapestry: Jordanes and the Slavic
Venethi, Jahrb¸cher f¸r Geschichte Osteuropas 47 (1999) 321-340; idem, Slavs, 39. 77
Georgios Kardaras
The specific location of the Turris fortress has been a matter of debate
amongst the scholars, who suggested varied locations, such as Tyras (today
Belgorod/Dniestrovskij to the estuary of Dniestr), Turnu-Ma¢gurele (to the
estuary of Olt/Alutus), Cartal (close to Isaccea) and Barbo∫i (close to
Gala˛i).20 The latter is the most plausible, as it combines all the parameters
of the sourcesí testimony and the conditions of the Antic settlement: the
information of Procopius that the Antes (as well as the ìHunsî and the
Slavs) were living close to the Danube,21 the status of federates which is
connected with settlement on former Roman soil22 and the passage of the
nomadsí raids, who were entering through Moldavia and eastern Wallachia
and were reaching the area of Dorostolon.23 A further argument for the
identification of Turris with Barbo∫i could be derived from archaeology,
namely the identification of the Penkovka ceramic with the material cul-
ture of the Antes, also situated in northwestern Scythia Minor (Dinogetia,
Beroe etc.).24 Many scholars attribute the so-called Penkovka culture,
dated from the fifth to the seventh century, to the Antes. This culture is
located mostly between the middle Dniestr and upper Donietz and is char-
acterized by undecorated ceramic, urns and sunken dwellings.25
Taking into account the findings attributed to the Antes, part of their
settlement is also considered to be the area of Nova Cerna close to Silistra
(Dorostolon).26 This assumption however, is ambiguous, because these
findings are most likely linked with auxiliary troops or mercenaries who
were transferred to the area of Dorostolon. Archaeological findings, linked
to the first Slavic groups that settled in Dobrutza and dated to the sixth and
seventh century, are also discovered in certain late Roman/early Byzantine
fortresses or cities, such as Dinogetia (Garvan), Beroe (Piatra-Frec„¢˛ei),
Histria and Callatis. The most important findings, those of Beroe, are
attributed either to mercenaries who defended the Byzantine frontier or to
Slavic groups that settled there before the collapse of the Byzantine limes.27
20 A. A. BOLS≤ ANOV-GHIMBU, La localisation de la fortresse Turris, Revue des Ètudes
sud-est europÈennes 7/4 (1969) 686-690; A. MADGEARU, The Placement of the Fortress
Turris (Procopius, Bell. Goth. VIII. 14. 32-33), Balkan Studies 33/2 (1992) 203-208.
See also, COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 67; PATOURA-SPANOU, Remise, 162.
21 See above, n. 18; COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 67.
22 See above, n. 16.
23 MADGEARU, Placement, 205; BONEV, Antes, 111, 113.
24 See COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 69, 76, who attributes also to the Antes the
Penkovka ceramic founded in Moldavia and Muntenia. BONEV, Antes, 111; MIL»EV,
Kultur, 277.
25 S. BRATHER, Ethnische Interpretationen in der Fr¸hgeschichtliche Arch‰ologie.
Geschichte, Grundlagen und Alternativen, Berlin 2004, 186-187. On the identification
of the so-called Penkovka culture with the Antes see also, COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 78;
BONEV, Antes, 113. On the other hand, Avenarius (Europa, 52-55), relates to the
Antes the »ernachov culture.
26 See COMS≤ A Betrachtungen, 78; BONEV, Antes, 114.
27 P. DIACONU, Autour de la pÈnÈtration des Slaves au sud de Danube, in: Rapports,
vol. I, 165-166; S. DOLINESCU-FERCHE, Les rapports des Slaves et des autochtones au Bas-
78 Danube (VIe siècle de n. è.) à la lumière de l’archéologie et des sources écrites, ibidem, 175.
The settlement of the Antes in modern day southern Moldavia had a

more specific geo-political dimension, apart from the control of the
nomadic invasions. As ». BONEV suggests, their task was to defend of a
bridgehead to the north bank of the Lower Danube (a bulwark against the
Cutrigurs), or provide of auxiliary troops to the Byzantine limitanei.28 In
reality, the Byzantine Empire entrusted to them the defense of Scythia
Minor from any invasion at the northern part of the Scythian limes, which
could be defined as a ìsector of responsibilityî for the Antes. The latter had
to defend Byzantine fortresses as well as the network of Scythia Minor,
which connected the fortresses of the limes and the coastal cities of the
province, as part of the ancient road from Singidunum (Belgrade) to
Constantinople, along the Danube and the Black Sea.29 The area of Turris
was a strategic point on this network. From the Itineraria Antonini 30 and the
Tabula Peutingeriana31 we derive information on the coastal road that led to
Constantinople and had as main stations the cities Tomis (Constanza),
Stratonis, Odessos (Varna), Mesembria and Anchialos.32 Of importance
was also the road which led from Noviodunum to Marcianopolis through
the Scythia Minor (Ulmetum, Tropaeum Traiani and Zaldapa).33
As a consequence of the treaty of 545/46 (namely an obligation of the
federates), the Antes reinforced the Byzantine troops in Italy against the
Ostrogoths. Procopius refers to a contingent of 300 Antes who in 546/47
were involved in the military operations in Loucania. This is the only ref-
erence to a purely Antic contingent in the Byzantine army. These soldiers
were characterized as worthy fighters and their task was to defend an
important passage.34 Moreover, according to Agathias, officers of Antic
28 BONEV, Antes, 111-113.
29 See G. KARDARAS, The ìDanube roadî in Late Antiquity (4th-6th C. A. D.), in: S.
Patoura-Spanou, Danubian Limes, 267-284.
30 Itineraria Antonini Augusti et Burdigalense, ed. O. Kuntz (= Itineraria Romana
I), Leipzig 1929, 32: Axiupoli, Capidava, Carso, Cio, Biroe, Trosmis, Scytica,
Arrubio, Diniguttia, Novioduno, Herculea, Aegiso, Salsovio.
31 Itineraria Romana. Rˆmische Reisewege an der Hand der Tabula
Peutingeriana, ed. K. Miller, Stuttgart 1916 (nr. 42, Singiduno-Constantinopolis),
col. 499-510: Axiopolis, Calidava, Carsio, Bereo, Troesmis, Arubio, Noviodum,
Salsovia, Ad Stoma. On the stations at both sources, see V. BEäEVLIEV, Bemerkungen
¸ber die antike Heerestrassen im Osteil der Balkanhalbinsel, Klio 51 (1969) 494; G.
äCRIVANI∆, Roman Roads and Settlements in the Balkans, in: A Historical Geography
of the Balkans, ed. F. W. Carter, London ñ New York ñ San Fransisco 1977, 126,
144 (n. 38); M. MIRCOVI∆, Die Strassen am obermoesischen limes und das Heer in der
Prinzipatszeit, Belgrad 2003, 8.
32 Itineraria Antonini, 33; Tabula Peutingeriana (nr. 42), col. 510-516; BEäEVLIEV,
Heerstrassen, 488-492; äCRIVANI∆, Roman Roads, 128-129; P. SCHREINER, St‰dte und
Wegenetz in Moesien, Dakien und Thrakien nach dem Zeugnis des Theophylaktos
Simokates, in: idem, Studia Byzantino-Bulgarica, ed. V. Gjuzelev (= Miscellanea
Bulgarica 2), Wien 1986, 66.
33 BEäEVLIEV, Heerstrassen, 493; idem, Protobulgarische Periode, 27-28.
34 Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 22, 3, 394 (Dewing, Wars, vol. IV, 343-345): ìAnd three
hundred Antae also were helping them to keep quard for these barbarians excel
all others in their ability to fight on rough ground.î DITTEN, Byzantinischen Heer,
81; BONEV, Antes, 111-112; CURTA, Slavs, 81. 79
Georgios Kardaras
origin, such as Dabragezas and Leontios, had leading positions during the
Byzantine-Persian war of 555-556 in Lazica.35 In contrast, the Antes who
were sent to Italy in 537 with Huns and Slavs (a contingent of 1600 caval-
rymen) in order to help Belisarius in Rome, should be considered as mer-
cenaries.36
The approach of the Antes resulted in provisional peace north of
Scythia Minor, while the other part of the Lower Danubian limes was rav-
aged by Slavic invasions. These attacks were directed towards Illyricum
and Dalmatia in 547-548 and towards the area of Thrace in 549-550. The
attack of the Slavs and the Cutrigurs in the autumn of 551 also affected
the west part of the Balkans.37 To eliminate the activity of the Cutrigurs,
Justinian incited the Utigurs against them in 552, during the Cutriguric
attack in the Balkan provinces.38 On the other hand, the fortifications of
Justinian should be considered as a main reason for the interruption of
the Slavic attacks between 552 and 576/77.39
In the winter of 558/59, the Scythian limes suffered the attack of
Zaberganís Cutrigurs, who then moved against continental Greece, the
Thracian Cheronese and Constantinople. According to John Malalas,
Slavic contingents joined the attack against Thrace.40 In the province of
Scythia Minor, the invaders plundered the cities of Dinogetia,
Noviodunum, Sacidava, Histria and most likely Tropaeum Traiani.41
Plausibly, the Antes could not defend the Byzantine frontier, as, accord-
ing to Menander Protector, they were already involved in conflicts with
35 Agathias, Historiarum, ed. R. Keydell (= Agathiae Myrinaei Historiarum libri

quinque, CFHB, Series Berolinensis II), Berlin 1967, III, 6. 9, 91; III, 7. 2, 91; III,
21. 6, 111; IV, 18. 1-3, 145. Engl. translation by J. D. Frendo (= Agathias, The
Histories, CFHB, II A), Berlin ñ New York 1975, 74, 91, 119-120; DITTEN,
Byzantinischen Heer, 79-80; BONEV, Antes, 111-112; CURTA, Slavs, 45, 81 (n. 28).
36 Procopius, De Bellis, V. 27, 1-2, 130 (Dewing, Wars, vol. III, 253); DITTEN,
Byzantinische Heer, 81; VELKOV, Donaulimes, 159-160; CURTA, Slavs, 78.
37 Procopius, De Bellis, VII. 29, 1-3, 423; VII. 38, 467-471; VII. 40, 1-8, 475-477; VII.
40, 30-45, 481-483; VIII. 25, 1-5, 623-624 (Dewing, Wars, vol. IV, 398-401; vol. V, 20-
27, 36-41, 46-53, 317); COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 62-63; IRMSCHER, Justinianische Reich,
162-163; BONEV, Antes, 113; VELKOV, Donaulimes, 160-161; M. VASI∆, Le limes proto-
byzantin dans la province de Mésie Prèmiere, Starinar 45-46 (1994-1995) 43; CURTA,
Slavs, 84-87.
38 Procopius, De Bellis, VIII. 18, 18-25, 582-584 (Dewing, Wars, vol. V, 248-243);
COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 63; BONEV, Antes, 113-114.
39 CURTA, Slavs, 89.
40 Agathias, Historiarum, V, 11. 6-7, 177 (FRENDO, Agathias, 146-147); Ioannis
Malalae, Chronographia, 18, 129, 421. See also Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de
Boor, Leipzig 1883, 233. Engl. translation by C. Mango ñ R. Scott (= The
Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-
813), Oxford 1997, 341: ìIn the same year the Huns and Slavs ñ a great mass of
them ñ rose up against Thrace, made war there, and killed or captured many peo-
ple.î COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 65; IRMSCHER, Justinianische Reich, 163; BONEV, Antes,
113-114; CURTA, Slavs, 45, 89; MAZAL, Justinian I, 192-193.
41 C. SCORPAN, Limes Scythiae. Topographical and stratigraphical research on the late
Roman fortifications on the Lower Danube (= BAR International Series 88), Oxford
1980, 134; IRMSCHER, Justinianische Reich, 163; BONEV, Antes, 114; VELKOV,
80 Donaulimes, 161; CURTA, Slavs, 45, 82.
the Avars. ìWhen the leaders of the Antae had failed miserably and had been
thwarted in their hopes, the Avars ravaged and plundered their land. Since they
were hard pressed by the enemy incursions, the Antae sent an embassy to them,
appointing as ambassador Mezamer the son of Idariz and brother of Kelagast,
and they asked him to ransom some of their own tribe who had been taken cap-
tive. The envoy Mezamer was a loudmouthed braggart and when he came to the
Avars he spoke arrogantly than was proper for an envoy, said to the Khagan
ìThis man is the most powerful of all amongst the Antae and is able to resist any
of his enemies whomsoever. Kill him, and then you will be able to overrun the
enemyís land without fear.î Persuaded by this the Avars killed Mezamer, setting
at nought the immunity of ambassadors and taking no account of the law.
Thereafter they ravaged the land of the Antae even more than before, carrying off
prisoners and plunder without respiteî.42 The Avar attack against the Antes
caused significant changes in the area north of the Black Sea and
Scythia Minor. Apart from the Antes, the Avars, having the support of
the Byzantine Empire, subjugated the Savirs, the Zaloi and the
Utigurs.43 The fate of the Cutrigurs during the Avar campaign is
unknown.44
The sources rarely comment on the Antes after their provisional sub-
jugation to the Avars and until the next Avar attack against them in 602
(the last mention of Antes in the written sources). After their conflicts
with the Cutrigurs and the Avars, the power of the Antes was in decline.
However, the Byzantine emperors maintained the title Anticus until the
reign of Heraclius (612), which could be interpreted as continuity of the
Byzantine supremacy over the Antes (namely the foedus of 545/46) and
not simple imitation of one of Justinianís titles, as F. CURTA suggests.45
Interest in the history of the Antes after 558 should be focused mainly on
the events in the area of Scythia Minor, and into the frame of the conflicts
between Byzantium and the Avars.
In 562, the Avars moved to the southwest, arrived north of Scythia
Minor and attacked the Byzantine Empire.46 Furthermore, some archae-
ologists consider that both the destruction of Sacidava in Scythia Minor
and the numismatic treasure discovered in Topalu (dated to 562/63), are
42 Menander, History, ed. R. C. Blockley (= The History of Menander the

Guardsman), Liverpool 1985, fr. 5. 3, 51; BONEV, Antes, 114; CURTA, Slavs, 47.
43 Menander, History, fr. 5. 2-3, 50; AVENARIUS, Europa, 46-51; IRMSCHER,
Justinianische Reich, 163; BONEV, Antes, 115; W. POHL, Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in
Mitteleuropa 567-822 n. Chr., Munich 1988, 39-40.
44 On the subjugation of the Cutrigurs by the Avars see, G. KARDARAS, The Episode
of Bousas (586/7) and the Use of Siege Engines by the Avars, Byzantinoslavica 63 (2005)
61, n. 38.
45 CURTA, Slavs, 77, n. 13.
46 Theophanes, Chronographia, 236-237 (Mango ñ Scott, Theophanes, 347): ìIn
April Anastasioupolis in Thrace was also captured by the same Hunsî); COMS≤ A,
Betrachtungen, 65 (Cutriguric invasion); POHL, Awaren, 62; A. MADGEARU, The
Province of Skythia and the Avaro-Slavic Invasions (576-626), Balkan Studies 37/1
(1996) 36 (Bulgarian invasion). 81
Georgios Kardaras
testimony for the Avar attack.47 Moreover, the Antes could not also
defend Scythia Minor from the attacks of Wallachiaís Slavs. According to
A. MADGEARU, these attacks, between 576 and 586, caused destructions in
Halmyris (577/78), Axiopolis (treasure consisting of Tiberiusí coins),
Capidava (discontinuance of coins between 578 and 587/88), Troesmis
(577/78), Beroe (575/76) and Tropaeum Traiani (587/88).48 In the
sources there is no mention of the Antes even with regard to the common
military operation of the Byzantines and the Avars in 578 against the Slavs
of Daurentius, who were possibly living in Wallachia and southern
Moldavia,49 an area where Turris is located. However, the emperor Justin
II (565-578), bore the title Anticus in a Novella, issued in 570.50 More than
ten years later, there is mention of the Antes in the Chronicle of Michael
Syrus, who states that ìThe Byzantines called the Antes to attack against
the Slavs, who were living west of the river Danubeî. The Antes defeated
the Slavs, an indication that their power was once again considerable and
Byzantium could rely on their help. The Antic attack is dated by ». BONEV
in 582/83, namely after the Slavic raids between 578-582 and before the
end of 583, which he considers as the year that the Avar march to
Anchialos.51 Nevertheless, a more plausible date for the Avar march (after
the fall of Singidunum, Viminacium and Augustae) is 584.52 The Avars
47 SCORPAN, Limes Skythiae, 126, 134; A. POULTER, The End of the Scythia Minor: the
Archaeological Evidence, in: Byzantium and the classical Tradition, ed. M. Mullett ñ
R. Scott, Birmingham 1981, 199; V. IVANIäEVI∆, Les trÈsors balkaniques, tÈmoins des
invasions et de leurs routes, in: Les trÈsors monetaires byzantins des Balkans et
díAsie Mineure (491-713), ed. C. Morisson ñ V. PopoviÊ ñ V. IvaniöeviÊ (= RÈalitÈs
Byzantines 13), Paris 2006, 79 (in 570/71).
48 MADGEARU, Downfall, 317-319. See also, SCORPAN, Limes Scythiae, 127-128;
POULTER, Scythia Minor, 200.
49 Menander, History, fr. 21, 192-194; POHL, Awaren, 65-69; MADGEARU, Downfall,
316-317; idem, Skythia, 37-38; CURTA, Slavs, 91-92; G. KARDARAS, The Byzantine-Avar
cooperation against the Slavs (578), in: Aevum Medium. ZbornÌk na poËestí Jozefa
Hoööa, ed. J. Z·bojnÌk, Bratislava 2006, 31-33.
50 Novellae Constitutiones Imperatorum post Justinianum, ed. C. E. Z. Lingenthal,
Leipzig 1857, 13, nov. VI (Imp. Justini, de filiis adscriptitiorum et liberarum, a.
570): ìImp. Caesar Flavius Justinus, fidelis in Christo, mansuetus, maximus bene-
factor, Alamannicus, Gotthicus, Francicus, Germanicus, Anticus, Vandalicus,
Africanus, pius, felix, inclytus, victor ac triumphator, semper Augustus,
Theodoro.î See also, Evagrius, Church History, ed. M.-A. Aris et al. (= Evagrius
Scholasticus Historia Ecclesiastica), vol. 1-2, Turnhout 2007, V. 4, 556 (a. 571).
R÷SCH, AÏíïìá Âáóéëåßáò, 168.
51 Michael Syrus, Chronicle, ed. J.-B. Chabot, Paris 1901, X 21, 362: “Alors, les
Romains prirent à gages le peuple des Antes qui se jetèrent sur les pays des
Esclavons dont ils s’emparèrent et qu’ils pillèrent. Ils en enlevèrent les richesses
et ils l’incendièrent. Leur pays était à l’ouest du fleuve appelé Danube.” BONEV,
Antes, 115-116; DITTEN, Byzantinischen Heer, 82-83, n. 46 (in 586); idem,
Einwanderung, 93 n. 3; CURTA, Slavs, 81, 97 (in 584).
52 On the Avar attack of 584, see Theophylactos Simokattes, Historiae, ed. C. De
Boor, Leipzig 1887, I. 3. 13-4. 4, 46-47. Engl. translation by Michael and Mary
Whitby (= The History of Theophylact Simokatta, Oxford 1986), 24-25; AVENARIUS,
82 Europa, 96; POHL, Awaren, 76-78, 84-85; MADGEARU, Downfall, 318; idem, Scythia, 43.
left the area of Anchialos and retreated to Sirmium when the Turks
attacked them in the autumn of 584.53
The assumption that the Antic attack caused the Slavic raids of 583-
584 and also the campaign of Ardagastus as far as Adrianople,54 does
not seem plausible, because the Antes could not exert sufficient pres-
sure on the Slavs and their military success had a limited impact. On
the other hand, the emperor Maurice obviously tried to exploit his
alliance with the Antes against the Slavs. It is no likely coincidence that
the title Anticus is used in 582 by Tiberius55 as well as in 585 by Maurice,
in his letter to Hildebert of Austrasia.56 In 585 the Avars, following the
road along the Danube, ravaged the territory of the northeastern
Balkans and occupied, among other fortresses, Tropaeum Traiani and
Zaldapa in Scythia Minor.57 The sources provide no information on the
Antes during the Byzantine operations north of the Lower Danube,
either in 593 against the Slavs of Ardagast and Musokios,58 or against
Piragast in 594.59
The last mention of the Antes in the written sources coincides with
the events at the Lower Danube before the overthrow of the emperor
Maurice. In the autumn of 602, Maurice sent the general Guduis north of
the Danube, in order to attack against the Slavs. Meanwhile, the Avars,
under the command of Apsich, attacked the Antes who were allies of
53 John of Ephesus, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Brooks (= CSCO, Scriptores Syri 55),
Louvain 1936, XLV-XLIX, 260; POHL, Awaren, 79-80; MADGEARU, Downfall, 318.
54 Simokattes, Historiae, I, 7, 52-53 (Whitby, Simokatta, 28-29); COMS≤ A,
Betrachtungen, 75; MADGEARU, Downfall, 318 (586); CURTA, Slavs, 95-96.
55 Novellae Constitutiones, 30, nov. XIII (Imp. Tiberii, de filiis adscriptitiorum
et liberarum, a. 582). ìIn nomine domini Jesu Christi Imperator Caesar
Flavius Tiberius Constantinus, in Christo mansuetus maximus benefactor et
Flavius Nob. Tiberius Mauritius felicissimus Caesar Alamannicus Gothicus
Francicus Germanicus Anticus Alanicus Vandalicus Africanus pius felix
inclytus victor ac triumphator semper Aug. Theodoro.î R ÷SCH , A Ï íïìá
Âáóéëåßáò, 169.
56 Epistolae Merovingici et Carolini Aevi, ed. E. D¸mmler (= MGH, Epistolarum
III), vol. I, Berlin 1892, nr. 42, 148 (585 aut 590): ìIn Nomine Domini Dei nostri
Iesu Christi. Imperatore Caesar Flavius Mauricius Tiberius, fidelis in Christo,
mansuetus, maximus, beneficus, pacificus, Alamannicus, Gothicus, Anticus,
Alanicus, Wandalicus, Erullicus, Gypedicus, Africus, pius, felix, incleti, victor ac
triumphator, semper Augustus, Childebertho, viro glorioso, regi Francorum.î
R÷SCH, AÏíïìá Âáóéëåßáò, 169.
57 Simokattes, Historiae, I. 8, 53-54 (Whitby, Simokatta, 29-31); AVENARIUS,
Europa, 96; VELKOV, Donaulimes, 161 (in 583); POHL, Awaren, 84-85; MADGEARU,
Scythia, 43.
58 Simokattes, Historiae, VI. 6-10, 232-239 (Whitby, Simokatta, 167-173);
Theophanes, Chronographia, 270-271 (Mango ñ Scott, Theophanes, 394-395); COMS≤ A,
Betrachtungen, 73; AVENARIUS, Europa, 104-105; POHL, Awaren, 136-138; MADGEARU,
Downfall, 322 (594); CURTA, Slavs, 100-102.
59 Simokattes, Historiae, VII. 4-5, 252-254 (Whitby, Simokatta, 184-186); Theophanes,
Chronography, 275-276 (Mango ñ Scott, Theophanes, 400); COMS≤ A, Betrachtungen, 74
(597); AVENARIUS, Europa, 106; POHL, Awaren, 143; MADGEARU, Scythia, 49 (595);
CURTA, Slavs, 104-105. 83
Georgios Kardaras
Byzantium.60 It is generally accepted that Apsich subordinated the Antes,

although Simokattes provides no information with regard to the outcome
of the campaign. Considering the parameters of the Avar attack, the
assumption that Byzantium had no interest in the Antes at that time,61
could be rejected. It seems that the intention of the Avar attack was to pro-
tect the Slavs and in particular, to prevent any threat to the Avar wings.62
A simultaneous Byzantine-Antic attack against the Slavs would have as a
possible consequence the defeat of the latter, and furthermore the con-
centration of the entire Byzantine army in the war against the Avars.
Moreover, ». BONEV assumes, that in 602 the Antes exhibited a ìsuddenî
shift of interest towards Byzantium, as a consequence of the Antic territo-
ry being ravaged by three nomadic tribes (Tarniah, Kotzagir and
Zabender), who fled from the Turkic chaganate and joined the Avars.63 It
could be argued that the above mentioned assumption does not take into
account the testimony of Simokattes and Theophanes that the Antes
remained a permanent ally of Byzantium,64 and also, that the march of
these 10.000 nomads is dated to the late sixth century.65
Did the Avar attack of 602 result in the end of the Antic hegemony?
An important issue which should be taken into account is that the emper-
or Heraclius used the title Anticus in a Novella of 612.66 In November of
602, the order given by Maurice to attack the Slavs north of the Danube
caused the revolt of the army and the rise of Phocas to the Byzantine
throne.67 The overthrow of Maurice is considered by some scholars as the
turning point for the downfall of the Danubian limes. However, the ìtra-
ditionalî view for the downfall in 602 has been reconsidered over recent
decades, and the opinion now held is that the downfall was gradual.68 The
60 Simokattes, Historiae, VIII. 5, 13, 293. (Whitby, Simokatta, 217): ìBut the
Chagan, when he had learned of the Roman incursions, dispatched Apsich with
soldiers to destroy the nation of the Antes, which was in fact allied to the
Romansî. Theophanes, Chronographia, 284 (Mango ñ Scott, Theophanes, 410):
ìHaving learned this, the Chagan sent out Apsech with a host to destroy the tribe
of the Antai for their support of the Romans.î AVENARIUS, Europa, 109; BONEV,
Antes, 116; POHL, Awaren, 160-161; CURTA, Slavs, 81, 105.
61 MIL»EV, Kultur, 279-280.
62 BONEV, Antes, 117.
63 BONEV, Antes, 117.
64 See above, n. 60.
65 On the flight of the tree tribes and its date see, AVENARIUS, Europa, 124, 152
(in 598); K. CZEGL…DY, From East to West: The Age of Nomadic Migrations in Eurasia,
Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 3 (1983) 108 (in 584); POHL, Awaren, 80 (in 584).
66 Novellae Constitutiones, 33-34, nov. XXII (Imp. Heraclii, de numero clericorum
magnae ecclesiae, a. 612); R÷SCH, AÏíïìá Âáóéëåßáò, 170.
67 Simokattes, Historiae, VIII. 6, 293-294 (Whitby, Simokatta, 218-219); Theophanes,
Chronographia, 286 (Mango ñ Scott, Theophanes, 411); Avenarius, Europa, 109;
POHL, Awaren, 161; MADGEARU, Scythia, 51-52; CURTA, Slavs, 105-106.
68 MADGEARU, Downfall, 315-316, 322-324, who assumes that the downfall of the
Danubian limes had four phases: 576-586, 593-598, 602-604 and 614-626. CURTA,
84 Slavs, 106, 189, 338.
Scythian limes collapsed in c. 614/15, with the exception of the coastal

cities of Scythia Minor, which fell some decades later.69
The information given by Simokattes on the Avar attack against the
Antes in 602, as noted above, is the generally accepted testimony for the
dissolution of the Antic hegemony. However, this view could be disputed
by the fact that the title Anticus to the Byzantine emperors until 612 pos-
sibly declared the supremacy over the Antes who continued to have a role
in the defense of the Scythia Minor. The discontinuance of the title dur-
ing the early years of Heracliusí reign is most likely related to the down-
fall of the Scythian limes (the last part of the entire limes at the Lower
Danube) and the dissolution of the Antic hegemony at that time. In any
case, the downfall of the Scythian limes brought the end of Justinianís
strategic plan regarding the protection of the northeastern part of the
Danube frontier, a plan that led the emperor to conclude the alliance
with the Antes in 545/46.
69 SCORPAN, Limes Scythiae, 129-131; POULTER, Scythia Minor, 199-200, 202-204;

MADGEARU, Downfall, 322, 324; IVANIäEVI∆, TrÈsors balkaniques, 83; CURTA, Slavs, 155;
M. ZAHARIADE, Scythia Minor. A History of a Later Roman Province (284-681),
Amsterdam 2006, 93-95, 231-234. 85
Testament des Kaisers Maurikios
Ján BAKYTA (Praha)
Fast am Schluss seiner um 630 geschriebenen Geschichte, anl‰sslich

der Schilderung vom Tod des Kaisers Maurikios (582-602), berichtet
Theophylaktos Simokattes:1„ïš ðáñÞóïìåí äc êár ôN ðåñr ôyò ëåãïìÝíçò
ášôï™ äéáèÞêçò ôásò jóôïñßáéò óõíôÜîáóèáé. êáôN ãNñ ôxí híáñîéí ôyò
âáóéëåßáò FÇñáêëåßïõ ôï™ ášôïêñÜôïñïò ÷Üñôçò óöñáãsóéí díåéëçìÝíïò
å›ñÝèç Ìáõñéêßïõ ôï™ ášôïêñÜôïñïò, dí ¹ dôýã÷áíåí −í äéáèÝìåíïò Rðåñ
ƒí ášô² ìåëåôÞìáôá ìåôN ôxí Pðïâßùóéí ðñïåëèåsí. íüóv ãNñ ÷áëåð†
ðåñéðåðôùê¦ò ¿ Ìáõñßêéïò ô² ðåíôåêáéäåêÜôv díéáõô² ôyò ášôïêñáôïñéêyò
dîïõóßáò dí ãñÜììáóé äéåôýðïõ ô’ êñÜôïò. ô’í ìcí Èåïäüóéïí ô’í ðñåó-
âýôåñïí ðásäá ôyò Êùíóôáíôéíïõðüëåùò êýñéïí êáôáóôÞóáò ôNò e±áò
öñïíôßäáò ášô² ðåñéôßèçóéí· ô’í äc ÔéâÝñéïí ôyò ðñåóâýôéäïò FÑþìçò
âáóéëÝá äéÝèåôï ôÞí ôå EÉôáëßáí êár ôNò ðåñr ô’ Ôõññçíéê’í ðÝëáãïò
íÞóïõò ôïýôv PðÝäïôï· ôN äE Tëëá ôyò FÑùìáßùí ðïëéôåßáò ôïsò eôÝñïéò
ðáéór êáôåôåìá÷ßóáôï, êçäåìüíá ôyò Pþñïõ ô§í ðáßäùí ½ëéêßáò Äïìåôéáí’í
ðñïóôçóÜìåíïò, •ò ðñ’ò ãÝíïò ô² Ìáõñéêßv óõíÞðôåôï. ï£ôïò ôyò
dðéöáíï™ò ô§í Ìåëéôçí§í dêêëçóßáò ôxí Pñ÷éåñáôéêxí ôéìxí dðåöÝñåôï...ì2
Da die Historiker diesen Bericht bisweilen nicht allzu viel beachteten,3
andererseits in seiner Bedeutung vˆllig widerspr¸chlig beurteilten, ist
eine eingehendere Studie ¸ber ihn wohl hinreichend gerechtfertigt.
1. Echtheitsfrage
Die Glaubw¸rdigkeit von Theophylaktos als unserer einzigen Quelle
zu diesem Testament wurde nie ernst in Zweifel gezogen. Doch zur
Vorsicht mahnt uns allein die Tatsache, dass der Geschichtsschreiber in
Fortf¸hrung der klassischen Tradition historische Persˆnlichkeiten prob-
lematische Reden vortragen4 und Briefe absenden5 l‰sst und bei den
1 Zu ihm vgl. neuerdings W. TREADGOLD, The Early Byzantine Historians,
Basingstoke ñ New York 2007, 329-340.
2 Theophylaktos VIII, 11, 7-11; ich benutze die Ausgabe Theophylacti Simocattae
Historiae, hrsg. von C. de Boor, Leipzig 1887. Das Testament verzeichnen F.
D÷LGERs Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostrˆmischen Reiches von 565-1453, 1. Teil,
M¸nchen ñ Berlin 1924, 15, unter Nr. 123.
3 Neuerdings schweigt dar¸ber der sonst sehr ausf¸hrlich schreibende W.
TREADGOLD, A History of Byzantine State and Society, Stanford 1997; ob wohl¸berlegt,
bleibt mir unklar.
4 Einige Autoren sind geneigt, die letzte Rede Justins II. (Theophylaktos III, 11, 8-
13) f¸r authentisch zu halten, vgl. M. MEIER, Prokop, Agathias, die Pest und das
ÇEndeí der antiken Historiographie, Historische Zeitschrift 278 (2004) 307 (mit
Berufung auf M. Whitby).
86 5 Aufler zwei sehr eigent¸mlichen in Theophylaktos VI, 5, 13-15 und VIII, 6, 6
Briefen nachdr¸cklich betont, dass er vˆllig getreu die Urkunden zitiert.6

Nach der g‰ngigen Auffassung hat er diese Passagen seinen Quellen ent-
nommen. Dann w¸rde er jedoch zumindest ein zu leichtgl‰ubiger
Geschichtsschreiber sein.
Von vornherein bleibt aber fraglich, ob das Testament von Maurikios
nicht nur eine Erfindung des Theophylaktos ist. Dass er in diesem Fall
nicht wˆrtlich zitiert, kann das Gegenteil nicht beweisen; seine Leser, ja
er selbst konnte glauben, dass die genannten Briefe wirklich ein Chosroes
geschrieben hatte, beim Verm‰chtnis eines byzantinischen Kaisers h‰tte
Theophylaktos schwerlicher den Lesern weisgemacht, dass es echt ist,
w¸rde er noch ein ÑZitatì wagen.
In diesem Zusammenhang verdient unsere Aufmerksamkeit, dass
Theophylaktos „ðåñr ôyò ëåãïìÝíçò ášôï™ äéáèyêçò“ spricht. Dies kann
man auf zweierlei Weise verstehen: Entweder ist das Partizip ½ ëåãïìÝíç
gleichbedeutend mit dem Satz ðåñr ‚ò ëÝãïõóé / ëÝãåôáé im Sinne Ñ¸ber
den sie sprechen / man sprichtì oder es ist einfach als Ñder sogenannteì
zu ¸bersetzen. Beide Mˆglichkeiten lassen sich mit Parallelen im Text von
Theophylaktos belegen.7
Des Ausdrucks ëåãüìåíïò, Ñder sogennanteì, haben sich die griechi-
schen Geschichtschreiber seit Herodotos bedient, um den Lesern spezi-
fische, diesen wahrscheinlich unbekannte Bezeichnung oder Eigenname
vorzustellen. Hat also Theophylaktos eine derartige Absicht beim Ñsoge-
nannten Testamentì des Maurikios gehabt, so zeigt er eine seinen Lesern
¸berlegene Kenntnis und rechnet zugleich damit, dass sie ñ uns die
Moderne nicht ausgenommen ñ keine Mˆglichkeit haben, ihn zu ¸ber-
pr¸fen, da sie auf diese Information erst in seiner Darstellung stoflen.
Falls aber Theophylaktos sagen wollte, dass man vom Testament auch
auflerhalb seines Diskurses hˆrt oder dass sogar er seine Information nur
aus m¸ndlicher ‹berlieferung schˆpft, w‰re er vom Verdacht zu befreien,
dass er das Verm‰chtnis aus der Luft gegriffen habe. Auch dies jedoch
nur mit dem Vorbehalt, dass er diese Berufung darauf, was irgendwo
erz‰hlt werde, absichtlicht zur Untermauerung der eigenen Erfindung
angef¸hrt haben mag. Wenn wir einr‰umen, dass sich Theophylaktos
wahrheitsgem‰fl auf Gehˆrtes beruft, so w‰re ausgeschlossen, dass er das
Testament persˆnlich gelesen hat und nicht sehr wahrscheinlich, dass er
seinen Inhalt gut kannte.8
Mit dieser Festellung nehmen die Schwierigkeiten keineswegs ein
Ende. Es ist auff‰lig, dass das Testament kurz nach dem Regierungsantritt
zitierten Briefen werden die ¸brigen den Persern zugeschrieben (IV, 7, 7-11; IV,
8, 5-8; IV, 11; V, 7, 1-2; V, 13, 4-6; V, 14, 2-11).
6 Siehe z.B. Theophylaktos V, 13, 3: „ïšê Pìåßøù ãNñ ôyò ëÝîåùò ô’ Pñ÷Ýôõðïí.ì
7 Zur ersten Mˆglichkeit vgl. „”óá ëÝãåôáé ×ïóñüçí ... ðñïáíáãïñå™óáéì
(Theophylaktos V, 15, 3) und andere Belege (die Ausgabe de Boors nennt sie auf
S. 403), f¸r die zweite kann „“ ðáñN ôïsò Ï¡ííïéò ×áãÜíïò ïœôù ëåãüìåíïòì
(Thephylaktos I, 3, 8) sprechen.
8 Gegen Th. OLAJOS, Les sources de ThÈophylacte Simocatta historien, Budapest 1988,
146. 87
Ján Bakyta
von Kaiser Herakleios (610-641) gefunden worden sein soll.9 Sicher w‰re
dies daraus erkl‰rbar, dass es w‰hrend der Regierung des Kaisers Phokas
(602-610), der ja den Thron dank eines Umsturzes und der Hinrichtung
von Maurikios bestieg, nicht ratsam war, sich mit dem Fund eines An-
denkens an den zweifellos offiziell ge‰chteten ehemaligen Herrscher zu
melden. Bereits diese ‹berlegung f¸hrt aber zum Schluss, dass das
Dokument eigentlich nicht gefunden werden musste, zumindest nicht
erst nach Herakleiosí Macht¸bernahme, sondern den Anh‰nger des
Gest¸rzten seit jeher bekannt war. Es ist auch kaum denkbar, dass das
Testament jahrelang vergessen von allen ‹berlebenden die Revolution
des Phokas etwa in einem Schrank lag, den Phokas zuf‰lligerweise nicht
benutzte, bis er schliefllich von Herakleios geˆffnet wurde. Wenn aber die
Urkunde in Wirklichkeit nicht zu jener Zeit oder ¸berhaupt nicht neu
entdeckt worden ist, wie es Theophylaktos und eventuell seine Quelle
behauptete, wie kann man sonst sicher sein, dass alles andere, sein Inhalt
und sein Verfasser uns wahrheitsgem‰fl ¸berliefert sind? Ja, es dr‰ngt sich
die Frage auf, ob der zeitliche Zusammenhang der angeblichen
Wiederentdeckung des Testaments und der Thronbesteigung Herakleiosí
nicht noch anders zu deuten ist.
Obwohl man in dem, was uns vom Inhalt des Dokumentes ¸berliefert
wird, keine deutlichen Spuren hiervon findet, ist nicht auszuschlieflen,
dass das Testament von Maurikios die Legitimit‰t des neuen Kaisers noch
auf eine andere Grundlage stellen sollte, als es die des Befreiers von
Phokasí ÑTyrannenherrschaftì war. Zu diesem Zweck konnte eine Ver-
ˆffentlichung des Testaments gefˆrdert oder aber das Testament selbst
fabriziert werden. Die kaiserliche Kanzlei hatte zweifellos gute Mittel, um
Maurikiosí Siegel zu f‰lschen und gen¸gend Autorit‰t, um etwaige unlieb-
same Fragen und Zweifel zu unterdr¸cken. Ob in diesem Fall Theo-
phylaktos zwanzig Jahre sp‰ter bewusst und raffiniert die Geschichte
gef‰lscht hat oder ob er nur der offizielen Version der Entdeckungs-
geschichte geglaubt hat, mag dahingestellt bleiben.
Fassen wir vorl‰ufig zusammen: da die Unechtheit des Testaments
unsicher bleiben muss, seine Echtheit jedoch ebenfalls nicht zu beweisen
ist, d.h. die Tatsache, dass es von Maurikios stammt und weder von der
Leuten um Kaiser Herakleios verfasst noch von Theophylaktos oder wem
auch sonst erfunden worden ist, mˆchte ich nicht bef¸rworten, dass die
vermeintliche Urkunde weiterhin als F‰lschung ebenso entschieden ver-
worfen wird, wie sie bislang sorglos akzeptiert wurde. Als recht
wahrscheinlich kann gelten, dass das Testament nicht zu Beginn von
Herakleiosí Regierungszeit wiedergefunden ist: zum genannten
Zeitpunkt, wenn nicht sp‰ter z.B. von Theophylaktos erfunden, wurde es
9 Das ist die ¸bliche Auffasung von „êáôN ãNñ ôxí híáñîéí ôyò âáóéëåßáò
FÇñáêëåßïõ.“ Es ist nur fraglich, ob es wirklich kurz nach dem Regierungsantritt
war. Photios faste diese Stelle folgend zusammen: Ñêár ðåñr ôyò dðr FÇñáêëåßïõ
ôï™ âáóéëÝùò å›ñåèåßóçò äéáèÞêçò Ìáõñéêßïõ ôï™ ášôïêñÜôïñïòì (Photii Bibliotheca,
tomus prior, hrsg. von I. Bekker, Berlin 1824, 33; abgedruckt auch in de Boors
88 Edition der Geschichte von Theophylaktos, S. 18).
entweder gef‰lscht oder nur verˆffentlicht. Das deutet darauf hin, dass
diese Urkunde, sei sie nun echt oder gef‰lscht, grofle Bedeutung im poli-
tischen Leben des Reiches hatte. Damit meine ich nicht nur, was getan
wurde oder getan werden sollte, sondern auch das, wie man das
Dokument aufgenommen hat oder aufgenommen konnte, kurz gesagt:
die ˆffentliche Meinung.
2. Inhalt und Hintergrund

Setzten wir nun voraus, dass das Testament wirklich von Kaiser
Maurikios in seinem f¸nfzehnten Regierungsjahr verfasst wurde. Wie ist
dann sein Inhalt zu beurteilen? Ich deutete bereits an, dass das Dokument
bzw. Theophylaktosí Bericht dar¸ber nicht sehr oft beurteilt wurde.
Wenn ja, so sind gegens‰tzliche Meinungen ge‰uflert worden.
Ziemlich neutral konstatierte BURY, der Kaiser habe das Reich unter
seine Sˆhne aufteilen wollen. Dieses Vorhaben habe eine R¸ckkehr Ñto a
fourth-century practiceì, genauer zur ÑConstantinian policyì bedeutet.10
KULAKOVSKIJ sah das Testament und die Reichsteilung als Werk eines
Mannes, der Ñîńňŕëń˙ íŕ ňðîíĺ ďðîâčíöčŕëîě ń óçęčě ęðóăîçîðîě
áĺðĺćëčâîăî č ďĺęóůĺăîń˙ î ńâîčő äĺň˙ő îňöŕ.ì Die Aristokratie und das
Volk von Konstantinopel seien aber, sich an die Taten des groflen
Justinian erinnernd, mit diesem Kaiser keineswegs zufrieden gewesen11
(daraus soll KULAKOVSKIJs Ansicht nach offenbar folgen, dass sie auch mit
dem Inhalt des Testaments nicht zufrieden gewesen w‰ren, h‰tten sie ihn
zu Maurikiosí Lebzeit und bald nach seinem Tod gekannt).
Was Maurikiosí Persˆnlichkeit und Motivation betrifft, so trifft nach
HARTMANN und OSTROGORSKY das Gegenteil zu, wobei der letztgenannte
KULAKOVSKIJs Ansicht als Ñabwegigì ausdr¸cklich verwarf12 und, da sein
Handbuch der byzantinischen politischen Geschichte lange Zeit das beste
war und vielleicht immer noch bleibt, die einflussreichste Bewertung von
Maurikiosí Testament formulierte.
HARTMANN stellte Maurikios als komprimisslosen Herrscher dar, Ñwo
es sich um die Einheit und Unversehrtheit des Reiches handelte.ì In diesem
Zusammenhang erw‰hnt er das Testament und zum Gebiet von Tiberios
bemerkt: Ñsicherlich dachte der Kaiser nicht an das von K‰mpfen zerrissene
Italien seiner Zeit, sondern an die Grenzen des Italiens, die Justinian und Narses
festgesetzt hatten.ì Das Reich habe Ñnach alter Weise getheiltì werden sollen.13
OSTROGORSKY sieht Maurikios ebenfalls als entschiedenen Verteidiger
des einheitlichen und unversehrten Reiches; dies beweise sein Testament.
10 J. B. BURY, A History of the Later Roman Empire from Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to
800 A.D.), Vol. II, London 1889, 94.
11 Ju. A. KULAKOVSKIJ, Čńňîðč˙ Âčçŕíňčč, ň. 2, 518-602 ăîäű, 3. Aufl., Sankt
Petersburg 2003, 380-381 (=1. Auflage, Kijev 1912, 487-488).
12 G. OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, 2. Aufl., M¸nchen 1952,
67, Fuflnote 2.
13 L. M. HARTMANN, Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter, II. Band, 1. H‰lfte, Rˆmer und
Langobarden bis zur Theilung Italiens, Leipzig 1900, 116-117. 89
Ján Bakyta
ÑRom sollte als zweite Reichshauptstadt wieder zur Kaiserstadt werden. Die Idee des
Universalreiches wurde nicht aufgegeben, lebendig blieb auch die alte Idee der
Mehrherrschaft und der Teilung des einen Imperium Romanum.ì14
Es gilt zun‰chst, zwei Fragen zu erˆrtern: was wurde den einzelnen
Sˆhnen zugedacht und wie wurden ihre Verh‰ltnisse untereinander
geregelt.
Was die erste Frage betrifft, m¸ssen wir leider konstantieren, dass sie
nur schwer, wenn ¸berhaupt zu beantworten ist. Aus Theophylaktosí
Geschichte kennen wir genauer nur den Anteil des zweit‰ltesten Sohnes
(Italien sowie offensichtlich Sizilien, Sardinien und Korsika), von seinem
‰lteren Bruder wird berichtet, dass ihm Ñdie Sorge um den Ostenì (ôNò e±áò
öñïíôßäáò) zugesprochen wurde, von den Gebieten der anderen Sˆhne
fehlen selbst derart vage Angaben. BURY setzte voraus, dass der dritte und
der vierte Sohn Afrika und Illyricum erhielten.15 Dies mutet wahrschein-
lich an, aber BURY hat sich die Aufgabe vereinfacht, wenn er damit rech-
net, dass Maurikios damals nur vier Sˆhne hatte. Unter vier Personen
kann man das damalige byzantinische Gebiet ziemlich bequem und
sozusagen gleichm‰flig aufteilen, unter mehr als vier ist dies bereits
schwieriger. Und doch ist es durchaus mˆglich, dass Maurikios zwischen
dem dritten16 und f¸nfzehnten Regierungsjahr Vater bereits aller sechs
Sˆhne (und bzw. auch aller drei Tˆchter) wurde.
Dringender ist die Frage des Verh‰ltnisses zwischen den Sˆhnen. Die
diocletianische Tetrarchie und ihre Nachwirkungen tief ins vierte
Jahrhundert (noch Julianusí Mitregentschaft in den Jahren 355-361)
bauten bekanntlich auf einer zweistufigen Herrscherw¸rde auf (augustus
und caesar). Von einer derartigen Ausgestaltung scheinen die zitierten
Historiker f¸r Maurikiosí Nachfolgeordnung nicht auszugehen, obwohl
sie alle bis auf KULAKOVSKIJ einig in der Meinung sind, dass Maurikios zu
einer alten Praxis zur¸ckkehrte.
Es steht zumindest fest, dass in Theophylaktosí Paraphrase des
Testaments nichts darauf deutet, dass sich die Br¸der als Herrscher
formell ungleich gegen¸berstehen sollten. Den Titel ášôïêñÜôùñ, der
einzig dazu geeignet gewesen w‰re, einen ¸bergeordneten Kaiser zu bezei-
chnen, da er im Maurikiosí Zeitalter die griechische ‹bersetzung des
offiziellen Hauptkaisertitels imperator (im Gegensatz zu êáßóáñ = caesar)
war und zur Zeit, als Theophylaktos ¸ber das Testament schrieb, wieder
oder eher immer noch in dieser Bedeutung unoffiziell im Gebrauch
war,17 hat Theophylaktos in diesem Zusammenhang nicht benutzt. Die
verwendeten Termini, êýñéïò f¸r den ‰ltesten und âáóéëåýò f¸r den j¸n-
14 G. OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte..., 66-67 (2. Aufl.); in der 3. Aufl. (M¸nchen 1963)
vgl. 68.
15 J. B. BURY, A History..., II, 94 (auch Fuflnote 2).
16 Der ‰lteste Sohn ist im dritten Regierungsjahr seines Vaters geboren:
Theophanes ad a. 6077 (Theophanis Chronographia, volumen I, hrsg. von C. de Boor,
Leipzig 1883, 254).
17 Vgl. dazu F. D÷LGER, Bespr. von E. Stein, Postconsulat et ášôïêñáôïñßá,
90 Byzantinische Zeitschrift 36 (1936) 128-131.
geren Sohn, waren unter Maurikios unoffiziell18 und verraten also, dass
entweder jemand das Testament erst nach dem Jahre 629 frei erfunden
hat, wenn âáóéëåýò als offizielle Bezeichnung des Kaisers (nicht notwendig
des Hauptkaisers) belegt ist,19 oder, was wahrscheinlicher ist, dass
Theophylaktos seine Worte auch bei dieser Gelegenheit sehr frei gew‰hlt
hat, so dass seine gute Vertrautheit mit der vermeintlichen Urkunde aber-
mals nicht gerade wahrscheinlich erscheint.
D÷LGER hat in Theophylaktosí ðñåóâ™ôéò FÑþìç Ñeine deterioristische
Bedeutung enthaltende Bezeichnungì gesehen.20 Wenn also die Paraphrase
des Testaments den zweit‰ltesten Sohn als k¸nftigen „ôxí ðñåóâýôéäïò
FÑþìçò âáóéëÝáì bezeichnet, so w‰re darin nicht der Ausdruck einer unter-
geordneten Stellung dieses Sohnes gegen¸ber seinem ‰lteren Br¸der zu
erblicken, der von Konstantinopel aus regieren sollte, sondern hˆchstens
Theophylaktosí Verachtung gegen¸ber Rom. Obwohl es f¸r die Frage
nach dem Verh‰ltnis der Sˆhne untereinander belanglos ist, sei noch
bemerkt, dass ½ ðñåóâ™ôéò FÑþìç wahrscheinlich nichts anderes als einer
der Versuche Theophylaktosí ist, seinen Text mit k¸hnen k¸nstlichen
Metaphern und Personifikationen auszuschm¸cken. Daf¸r spricht, dass
er mit der Verwendung des Substantivs ðñåóâ™ôéò statt des Adjektivs
ðñåóâõôÝñá in Verbindung mit Rom, soweit ich sehe, allein bleibt, sowie
dass ihn die Gegen¸berstellung Roms und Konstantinopels offenbar
faszinierte. Er nennt n‰mlich die bestehende Reichshauptstadt bei dieser
Gelegenheit Êùíóôáíôéíïõðüëéò oder ñ gerade hier besser geschrieben ñ
Êùíóôáíôßíïõ ðüëéò, ÑKonstantins Stadtì (wohlgemerkt nicht Neues Rom,
was auf D÷LGERs deterioristische Bedeutung von Ñdie Greisin Romì hin-
deuten w¸rde), obwohl er in seiner Geschichte regelm‰ssig von Byzantion
oder seltener von Ñder Kaiserstadtì spricht.21 Aus dieser Konzentrierung
des Theophylaktos auf das fast wiederhergestellte Nebeneinander
Konstantinopels und Roms als Kaisersitze wird vielleicht auch klar, warum
er es unterlassen hat, uns eine n‰here Auskunft ¸ber die Gebiete der
anderen Erben des Maurikios zu geben, bzw. warum er selbst diese
Information vergafl.
Wir kˆnnen also behaupten, dass Maurikiosí einzelne Sˆhne ñ wenig-
stens im Lichte des Berichts von Theophylaktos ñ vˆllig gleichberechtigte
18 E. K. CHRYSOS, The Title âáóéëåýò in Early Byzantine International Relations,

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32 (1978) 35, 70f. und 72-75 scheint zu meinen, dass der
Titel âáóéëåýò bereits seit 590 offiziell war. Dies ist unsicher. Jedenfalls aber bleibt
unbestreitbar, dass damals wie immer der Bezeichnung êýñéïò kaum ein offizieles
Status zukam und wenn doch, dann h‰tte Theophylaktos mit seiner (letzten
Endes literarischen) Verteilung der Titel zwischen Maurikiosí ‰ltesten Sˆhnen
ausgerechnet den ‰lteren dem zweiten gegen¸ber eher herabw¸rdigt.
19 G. OSTROGORSKY, Geschichte..., 3. Aufl., 89, Fuflnote 2.
20 F. D÷LGER, Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner, in: derselbe, Byzanz und die
europ‰ische Staatenwelt. Ausgew‰hlte Vortr‰ge und Aufs‰tze, Ettal 1953, 96,
Fuflnote 44.
21 Es gibt noch drei Ausnahmen: ô’ Êùíóôáíôßíïõ Tóôõ I, 10, 1; ô’ Êùíóôáíôßíåéïí
Tóôõ II, 18, 26; ôyò ðüëåùò Êùíóôáíôßíïõ ôï™ ášôïêñÜôïñïò VIII, 9, 9. 91
Ján Bakyta
Herrscher werden sollten. Zugunsten dieser Auffassung scheint mir auch

der Satz „ôN äE Tëëá ôyò FÑùìáßùí ðïëéôåßáò ôïsò eôÝñïéò ðáéór êáôåôå-
ìá÷ßóáôïì mit dem Verb êáôáôåìá÷ßæåóèáé Ñzerschneiden, (den Boden)
aufteilenì zu sprechen, doch ist es recht unsicher, wie wir gesehen haben,
aus Theophylaktosí Wortwahl Schl¸sse zu ziehen.
Wenn wir in der Geschichte des rˆmischen Reiches Parallelen zu
dieser Aufteilung des Staates unter die Nachkommen eines Kaisers
suchen, so bietet sich zun‰chst der Fall der Sˆhne von Theodosios I. an,
dann die Situation nach dem Tode Konstantins I. Diese Teilungen hatten
ganz unterschiedliche Ergebnisse: einmal blieb das Reich nach einigen
Jahren wieder in den H‰nden nur eines Herrschers, im zweiten Fall bilde-
ten sich zwei Kaiserlinien und folglich zwei Machtzentren heraus, obwohl
rechtlich immer nur ein Staat bestand. Dabei muss man sich noch vor
Augen f¸hren, dass die Beziehungen zwischen den Sˆhnen Konstantins
gespannt waren und im Fall von Konstantin II. und Constans I. zuletzt in
einem Krieg gipfelten und dass der West- und Ostkaiserhof ein jeweils
ziemlich egoistische Politik betrieben (besonders gerade in den Jahren
unmittelbar nach der Reichsteilung). Welche dieser beiden Teilungen
hat sich also Maurikios zum Vorbild genommen?22
Nicht nur wegen dieser betr¸blichen Folgen der fr¸heren Teilungen
h‰tte Maurikios in seinem Testament eine schwere Aufgabe gehabt (letz-
ten Endes hat wenigstens die anderweitig zustandegekommene Mitherr-
schaft in Valentinians Familie funktioniert), sondern auch deshalb, weil
ihm kaum eine dieser Teilungen hinreichende rechtliche Unterlage
liefern konnte, wenn er ein einheitliches, unversehrtes und universelles
Reich h‰tte hinterlassen wollen: nur schwer kˆnnen wir uns vorstellen,
wie die Beziehungen zwischen Maurikiosí Sˆhnen, besonders falls sie zur
Zeit des Niederschrift des Testaments sechs waren, und wie ihre
Nachfolge, sollte einer von ihnen sterben, geregelt werden kˆnnten. Es ist
sehr wahrscheinlich, dass Maurikios nichts anderes tun konnte, als diese
und ‰hnliche Fragen ungelˆst zu belassen.
Wir wissen nat¸rlich nicht einmal, ob der Kaiser sich dessen bewusst
war, dass sein Schritt zum faktischen Zerfall des Staates, d.h. nicht nur zur
Kompetenzaufteilung f¸hren kann, auch wenn seine Sˆhne korrekt
zusammenarbeiten w¸rden. Immerhin ist es aber wahrscheinlich. Das
alles soll nicht etwa heiflen, dass Maurikios der Idee des einheitlichen
Staates entsagt und dies sogar im Testament ausdr¸cklich signalisiert hat,
sondern soll besagen, dass die rechtlich-ideologische Sicht, aus der man
die Urkunde bisher beurteilt hat, nicht ihr bestes Verst‰ndnis ermˆglicht.
Es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass es Maurikios nicht daran lag, dass etwa
Rom wieder zur Kaiserstadt werde oder die Idee der Mehrherrschaft
lebendig bleibe, sondern er war einfach darum bem¸ht, dass all seine
Sˆhne die Kaiserw¸rde bekleiden, wie dies schon KULAKOVSKIJ gesehen
22 J. BURY, A History..., II, 94 ‰uflert sich f¸r die chronologisch erste, hielt es
jedoch f¸r notwendig, die Bemerkung hinzuf¸gen, Ñthe fatal results ... in the case of
92 the sons of Constantine did not deter him.ì
hat. Er war ja der erste (ost)rˆmische Herrscher seit Arkadios (gest. 408),
der wenigstens einen Sohn hatte,23 der die Macht erben konnte ñ und er
hatte gleich sechs Sˆhne.
Einer vielleicht nicht ganz unbegr¸ndeten Behauptung des
Menandros Protektor zufolge war Maurikios „jóôïñßáò {äéóôá dðáÀùí.ì 24
Die Herrschaftsteilung nach dem Tode von Kaiser Theodosios I. (gest.
395), der als letzter Vorg‰nger Maurikiosí mehr als einen Sohn hatte,
konnte also f¸r den Kaiser nicht nur eine Inspiration darstellen, sondern
ihm auch eine Mˆglichkeit bieten, das Verfahren zu legitimieren, obwohl
dabei ñ und das ist zu unterstreichen ñ die Wirksamkeit des Vorbilds
sowohl durch die oben erw‰hnte Dauerhaftigkeit der theodosianischen
Teilung als auch durch die zeitliche Ferne zweifellos beeintr‰chtigt war.
Wie aber im Folgenden gezeigt wird, hat Maurikios vielleicht noch ander-
swo Inspiration gefunden, in der Geschichte und Gegenwart des
merowingischen Frankenreiches.
3. Möglicher fränkischer Einfluss auf Maurikios’ Konzeption

Wie wir aus dem Geschichtswerk des Gregor von Tours wissen,
bestanden zwischen Maurikios und dem fr‰nkischen Kˆnig (in Austrien)
Childebert II. mindestens bis zum Jahre 590 rege Beziehungen.25 Eine
Nachricht ¸ber die fr‰nkische Gesandtschaft in Konstantinopel ist uns
durch Theophylaktos und Theophanes ¸berliefert;26 sie w‰re in das Jahr
592 zu datieren,27 aber Theophylaktos nennt den Herrscher (äõíÜóôçò)
der Franken Èåïäþñé÷ïò, was nur auf Childeberts Sohn Theuderich II.
(595/6-613) bezogen werden kann. Es ist offenbar, dass Theophylaktos
Theuderichs Name hier irrt¸mlich verwendet hat, und wahrscheinlich,
dass er Angaben ¸ber zwei verschiedene Gesandtschaften kombiniert hat.
Was wir ¸ber den Inhalt der Verhandlungen lesen, deutet auf einen
Versuch von Theuderich (oder vielleicht seiner Vormunde) hin, ein
23 Vgl. Johannes von Ephesos, Kirchengeschichte V, 14 (ich benutzte die englische
‹bersetzung von R. P. Smith, The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John Bishop
of Ephesus, Oxford 1860, 351-352). In gewissem Sinne ist nur Leon I. (457-474)
eine Ausnahme: er hatte die Mˆglichkeit, den Thron wenigstens seinem
unm¸ndigen Enkel zu ¸bergeben.
24 Menandros, Fr. 1 (= Suda s.v. ÌÝíáíäñïò Ðñïôßêôùñ); ich benutze die Ausgabe
in Historici Graeci minores, vol. II., hrsg. von L. Dindorf, Leipzig 1871.
25 Gregorius Turonensis, Historiae VI, 42; VIII, 18; IX, 25; X, 2-4 (Gregorii episcopi
Turonensis libri Historiarum X, hrsg. von B. Krusch und W. Levison [= Monumenta
Germaniae historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, tomi I pars I] Hannover
1937-1951).
26 Theophylaktos VI, 3, 6ff..: „ôñßôç äc ½ìÝñá, êár ïj ôyò Êåëôéêyò EÉâçñßáò ðñÝóâåéò
dò ô’ âáóßëåéïí ðáñáãßãíïíôáé Tóôõ· (ÖñÜããïé äc Tñá ï£ôïé ô† íåùôÝñu ãëþôôw
êáôïíïìÜæïíôáé) áj äc ðñïóçãïñßáé ôïsò ðñÝóâåóé Âüóïò êár ÂÝôôïò. ôïýôïõò ¿
ôï™ hèíïõò äõíÜóôçò (—íïìá äc Èåïäþñé÷ïò ášô²) dò âáóéëÝá dîÝðåìðåí zîßïõ ôå
óõíèÞêáéò öïñïëïãßáò ô² FÑùìáúê² óõììá÷yóáé...“; Theophanes ad a. 6083: „ìáèþí,
”ôé ðñÝóâåéò åkò ô’ ÂõæÜíôéïí Ðåñó§í ôå êár ÖñÜããùí ðáñåãÝíïíôï, ›ðÝóôñåøåí
åkò ôN âáóßëåéá“.
27 Vgl. z.B. Th. OLAJOS, Les sources..., 171. 93
Ján Bakyta
neues B¸ndnis mit dem Reich zu schlieflen, zu dem sich der fr‰nkische
Kˆnig bzw. seine Vormunde am wahrscheinlichsten zu Beginn seiner
Regierungszeit entschlossen.28
Aufler diesen unmittelbaren Kontakten mit zwei frankischen Kˆnigen
kann der an der Geschichte Gefallen findende Kaiser ¸ber die Franken
nicht wenige und nicht unwesentliche Dinge auch in den Werken zweier
byzantinischer Historiker gefunden haben. Zwar ist der schlechter
informierte29 Prokopios den ÑGermanenì, wie er sie nennt, keineswegs
zugeneigt und vers‰umt keine Gelegenheit, sie zu verleumden,30 aber der
Exkurs ¸ber die Franken bei Agathias ist von Bewunderung durchgedrun-
gen: „ðïëéôåßu ©ò ôN ðïëëN ÷ñ§íôáé FÑùìáúê† êár íüìïéò ôïsò ášôïsò êár
ôN Tëëá ¿ìïßùò Pìöß ôå ôN óõìâüëáéá êár ãÜìïõò êár ôxí ôï™ èåßïõ
èåñáðåßáí íïìßæïõóéí. ×ñéóôéáíïr ãNñ Rðáíôåò ôõã÷Üíïõóéí —íôåò êár ô†
“ñèïôÜôw ÷ñþìåíïé äüîw· h÷ïõóé äc êár Tñ÷ïíôáò dí ôásò ðüëåóé êár jåñåsò
êár ôNò eïñôNò ¿ìïßùò ½ìsí dðéôåëï™óé êár ©ò dí âáñâÜñv ãÝíåé hìïéãå
äïêï™óé óöüäñá åqíáé êüóìéïß ôå êár Póôåéüôáôïé êár ïšäÝí ôé h÷åéí ô’
äéáëëÜôôïí ~ ìüíïí ô’ âáñâáñéê’í ôyò óôïëyò êár ô’ ôyò öùíyò käéÜæïí.“31
Bei diesem Lob bleibt er nicht stehen. Er besitz sehr ausf¸hrliche und
detaillierte Kenntnis der dynastischen Geschichte der Merowinger ein-
schliefllich der Teilungen ihres Kˆnigreiches32 und w¸rdigt sie wie folgt:
„Tãáìáé ãNñ ášôï˜ò dò ôN ìÜëéóôá hãùãå ... êár ôyò dò PëëÞëïõò äéêáéïóýíçò
ôå êár ¿ìïíïßáò. ðïëëÜêéò ãNñ }äç êár ðñüôåñïí, êár ìcí äx êár dí ô² êáôE
dìc ÷ñüív, ôõ÷’í ìcí dò ôñåsò, ôõ÷’í äc êár dò ðëåßïõò ½ãåìüíáò ôyò Pñ÷yò
ášôïsò ìåìåñéóìÝíçò, ïšðþðïôå ðüëåìïí }ñáíôï êáôE PëëÞëùí...“33
Es ist in diesem Zusammenhang nicht wichtig, dass Agathias, was die
Intensit‰t und Gestalt der K‰mpfe zwischen den Kˆnigen um die
Teilreiche und das Erbe betrifft, die Dinge zu optimistisch sah. F¸r uns ist
entscheidend, dass Maurikios, falls er sich mit dem Werk des Agathias ver-
traut gemacht hat, die divisio regni als eine gute, bei den nahezu wie die
Rˆmer (Byzantiner) lebenden Franken sehr wohl funktionierende Idee
angesehen haben muss.
Und denselben Eindruck kann er auch von den Ereignissen im
Frankenreich seiner Zeit gewonnen haben: Kˆnig Theuderich II. hatte ja
mit seinem Bruder das austrasisch-burgundische Erbe des Vaters friedlich
geteilt.34 Es ist nur unsicher, ob der Kaiser davon benachrichtet worden
28 Vgl. dazu bereits L. M. HARTMANN, Geschichte..., II., 1., 114 und 122.
29 Vgl. Prokopios, Bella V, 12 sowie die Namen der fr‰nkischen Herrscher V, 13, 27 (Pro-
copii Caesariensis opera omnia, vol. II, hrsg. von J. Haury und G. Wirth, Leipzig 1963).
30 Prokopios, Bella VI, 25, 2; VI, 25, 9f.; VI, 28, 18-22; VII, 33, 5f.; VIII, 34, 18 usw.
31 Agathias II, 2 (Agathiae Myrinaei Historiorum libri quinque, hrsg. von. R. Keydell,
CFHB II, Berlin 1967). Ich benutze die Ausgabe in Historici Graeci minores, vol. II.,
hrsg. von L. Dindorf, Leipzig 1871.
32 Agathias I, 3-4 und II, 14.
33 Agathias I, 2.
34 Fredegar IV, 16 (Fredegarii et aliorum Chronica. Vitae sanctorum, hrsg. von B.
Krusch [= Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum,
94 tomus II.] Hannover 1888).
war (etwa durch Theuderichs Gesandten, die Theophylaktos erw‰hnt),

ehe er das Testament aufsetzte (596/7).
Man darf nicht ¸bersehen, dass Agathias st‰ndig von den Franken als
Ganzem spricht und seine Leser nichts von der Entwicklung der relativ selb-
st‰ndigen Kˆnigt¸mer Austrien, Burgund und Neustrien (wobei allerdings
die jeweiligen Eliten eine bedeutende Rolle gespielt haben) ahnen l‰sst
und so einem byzantinischen Kaiser, der sein Reich teilen und dennoch
einheitlich erhalten mˆchte, ein umso verlockenderes Vorbild bietet.
4. Beabsichtigte Reichsteilung und Einstellung der Bewohner

Wenn wir zum Problem der Bewertung von Maurikiosí Testaments
zur¸ckkehren, kˆnnen wir nach dem Gesagten die Hypothese for-
mulieren, dass der Kaiser seinen Staat auf gleichberechtigte Teilreiche
teilte, wahrscheinlich sich dessen bewusst war, dass er damit eine gute
Grundlage f¸r neue Staatsbildungen schafft, jedoch hoffte, dass dank der
dynastischen Solidarit‰t diese Teilherrschaften sich nie allzu sehr ent-
fremden und mit der Zeit gegebenfalls wiedervereinigen werden. So
musste nicht direkt gegen einer eventuell vorhandenen Ideologie Ñdes
einen Imperium Romanumì (OSTROGORSKY) gehandelt werden, sie wurde
nur vernachl‰ssigt und spielte keine Rolle; Maurikios verletzte seine
Herrscherspflichten nicht, handelte jedoch vor allem als Vater und
durchaus pragmatisch.
Staatsm‰nnische ‹berlegungen traten bei der Teilung vielleicht in
einem anderen Sinne nicht ganz beiseite: es ist wahrscheinlich, dass bei der
Teilung des Reiches in mehr als drei Teile eine der Residenzen Karthago
oder Alexandrien wurde. Dann dr‰ngt sich die Frage auf, wie sich
Maurikios das Verh‰ltnis zwischen dem Kaiser in Rom und dem Exarchen
von Ravenna sowie zwischen dem Herrscher in Karthago und dem dortigen
Exarchen vorgestellt haben mag. Die Exarchen als Bevollm‰chtigte des
Kaisers (im Jahre 596/7 ¸brigens vermutlich immer noch als etwas
Provisorisches empfunden) w‰ren danach zweifellos ¸berfl¸ssig gewesen
und ihre ƒmter w‰ren abgeschafft worden.35 Mehrere Kaiser h‰tten das
Reich mˆglicherweise besser verwalten und gegen alle Feinde ñ Perser,
Langobarden, Slawen, Awaren, Mauren, Westgoten ñ verteidigen kˆnnen.
Es fehlt noch eine W¸rdigung der Bedeutung des Testaments f¸r die
Beziehungen zwischen dem Reichszentrum (Konstantinopel) und der
Periferie sowie f¸r die Mˆglichkeiten, etwas ¸ber die ˆffentliche Meinung
im Reich zu erfahren. Maurikios soll ein hartn‰ckiger Herrscher gewesen
sein;36 die Geschichte seines j‰hen Ende spricht daf¸r. Es ist aber
35 Genauer gesagt, sie h‰tten vielleicht den Titel des Exarchs abgelegt und w‰ren
wieder nur magistri militum geworden, die sie im Grunde genommen immer noch
waren (vgl. z. B. A. H. M. JONES, The Later Roman Empire 284-602, Volume I, Oxford
1964, 312-313), jetzt nat¸rlich wohlgemerkt nicht per Italiam bzw. per Africam, son-
dern vermutlich angemessener praesentales.
36 Siehe Theophylaktos V, 16 und VIII, 6-7 sowie beispielsweise W. TREADGOLD, A
History..., 227. 95
Ján Bakyta
unwahrscheinlich, dass er die Reichsteilung geplannt h‰tte, wenn sie vˆl-

lig im Widerspruch zur Gesinnung der Kr‰fte gewesen w‰re, die ¸ber die
Besetzung des Kaiserthrones ¸blicherweise mitbestimmt haben, also der
durch den Senat von Konstantinopel repr‰sentierten Aristokratie, ins-
besondere der hohen W¸rdentr‰ger der Zentralregierung und des Hofes.
Maurikios konnte ja seinen Willen zu Lebzeiten durchsetzen, es
musste ihm jedoch klar sein, dass nach seinem Tode die j¸ngeren Sˆhne
zugunsten des ƒltesten vˆllig ¸bergangen werden kˆnnen, falls eine
starke Partei unter den Hˆflingen und Senatoren nur einen Kaiser, den
von Konstantinopel, und ein nur aus dem Konstantinopel verwaltetes
Reich haben will. Mindestens seit der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts haben der
Senat und die mit ihm sich vielleicht grˆfltenteils deckende Gruppe der
hˆchsten Beamten die Armee aus ihrer entscheidenden Rolle bei der
Kaiserwahl in Konstantinopel fast vˆllig verdr‰ngt37 und wenn es den
Anschein hat, dass gerade zu Maurikiosí Lebzeiten die Kaiser (Justin II.,
Tiberios II.) ihre Nachfolger (Tiberios II., Maurikios) jeweils ziemlich
eigenwillig bestimmt hatten, so beruht das offensichtlich nicht darauf,
dass der Senat und die Hˆflinge ihren diesbez¸glichen Einfluss etwa einge-
b¸flt h‰tten, sondern darauf, dass eine Mehrzahl der konstantinopoli-
tanischen Aristokratie den Designierten schliefllich zu akzeptieren bereit
war.38 Maurikios hat nat¸rlich diese Zeit seit etwa 560 erlebt und
wahrscheinlich wenn nicht das traditionelle Recht auf der Kaiserk¸r, so
wenigstens den informellen Einfluss der Eliten der Hauptstadt auf die
wirkliche Macht¸bernahme eines Kaisers richtig zu sch‰tzen gewusst. So
durfte er sich dessen bewusst sein, was wir heute vermuten kˆnnen: dass
f¸r die konstantinopolitanische Aristokratie nach seinem Tode kaum eine
dringliche Notwendigkeit bestehen wird, sein Testament doch zu akzep-
tieren, mehrere Kaiser zu akklamieren und das Reich aufzuteilen, falls sie
einem solchen Plan abgeneigt war; dass sie aber andererseits keinen Grund
hat, das Testament nicht zu billigen, es sei denn, sie h‰tte damals wirklich
an etwaiger Ideologie der Unteilbarkeit des Reiches gehaftet, und dass
manche ihre Mitglieder vielmehr die Gelegenheit begr¸flen werden, ihre
Karriere in den neu entstandenen freien Verwaltungs‰mter und
Hofr‰ngen an den multiplizierten Kaiserhofen zu machen und sich damit
verbundene Prestige, Einfluss und Einkommen zwar in einem der begren-
zten (Teil-)Reiche, jedoch f¸r l‰ngere Dauer zu sichern.39
37 Wie H.-G. BECK, Senat und Volk von Konstantinopel. Probleme der byzantinischen
Verfassungsgeschichte, M¸nchen 1966, besonders S. 4-15 eindrucksvoll dargelegt hat.
38 F. Winkelmann (in: F. WINKELMANN ñ H. K÷PSTEIN ñ H. DITTEN ñ I. ROCHOW,
Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Herausbildung des Feudalismus, Berlin
1978, 166-169) hebt die K‰mpfe verschiedener Cliquen um die potentiellen
Thronfolger in dieser Zeit hervor und meint, dass Ñdie Auseinandersetzungen inner-
halb des Hofes und zwischen verschiedenen Gruppen der Oberschicht seit Justinians I. let-
zten Regierungsjahren solcher Artì gewesen seien, Ñdafl dem Kaiser die Rolle des
Z¸ngleins an der Waage zufiel und zuerkannt wurdeì.
39 Es ist kaum mˆglich, die ƒmter- und W¸rdensucht der Eliten von Konstan-
96 tinopel gerade f¸r Ende des 6. und Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts zu belegen. Siehe
Es w‰re sinnvoll zu erw‰gen, ob Maurikiosí Aufteilung des Reiches

unter mehrere Regenten nicht auch der Stimmung in jenen Reichsteilen
entgegenkommen sollte, in denen sich deutliche Tendenzen zur
Regionalisierung40 manifestierten (beispielsweise ƒgypten) oder in statu
nascendi waren (Italien).
Auch wenn das Testament nur gef‰lscht oder erfunden worden w‰re
(beispielsweise von Theophylaktos), ist es unwahrscheinlich, obwohl
nicht ausgeschlossen, dass der F‰lscher Maurikios in Misskredit bringen
wollte. Jedenfalls hat das Theophylaktos offenbar so nicht verstanden, da
er es nicht f¸r nˆtig hielt, einige Worte zur Verteidigung und
Rechtfertigung des Testaments von Maurikios zu verlieren, sondern
leicht, aber dennoch seine Begeisterung ¸ber das Nebeneinanderstellen
von Konstantinopel und Rom zeigt. Dabei kann Theophylaktos als
Repr‰sentant sowohl der Aristokratie von Konstantinopel41 als auch ñ
seiner Ursprung aus ƒgypten wegen42 ñ der provinzionalen Eliten zu gel-
ten. Es liegt jedoch nahe, dass er sich nach mehreren Jahren in der
Hauptstadt, als er um 630 an seinem Geschichtswerk arbeitete, wie ein in
Konstantinopel lebender Rom‰er verstand und sein ‰gyptischer
Geburtsort in ihm hˆchstens Spuren distanzierten Verst‰ndnisses f¸r
regionalistische Tendenzen in den Provinzen des Reiches hinterliefl.
Man kann also folgern, dass Theophylaktos, f¸r die gebildete Elite der
konstantinopolitanischen Gesellschaft schreibend, auf eine ‰hnliche
Stimmung seiner Leserschaft rechnete, wenn er gegen Maurikiosí
Reichsteilungplan nicht protestierte und offenbar daran keinen Anstofl
nahm. Obwohl seine Voraussetzung f¸r jeden einzelnen Leser nicht zu-
treffen durfte, hatte er im allgemeinen vielleicht nicht ganz Unrecht.
Es ist nat¸rlich so gut wie unmˆglich, etwas sicheres ¸ber die Stellung
zu sagen, die das gemeine Volk von Konstantinopel zu Maurikiosí Ver-
f¸gung ¸ber Reichsteilung genommen h‰tte, falls es Gelegenheit dazu
gehabt h‰tte. Man kann allerdings nicht ausschlieflen, dass die Stimmen
recht zahlreich oder sogar in Mehrheit gewesen w‰ren, die der Idee der
Reichsteilung abgeneigt gewesen w‰ren. Es ist jedoch dreierlei zu beachten.
jedoch im allgemeinen A. H. M. JONES, The Later Roman Empire ..., I, 381-401, II,
543-545 (f¸r 4.-6. Jahrhundert), H.-G. BECK, Theorie und Praxis im Aufbau der byzan-
tinischen Zentralverwaltung, M¸nchen 1974, 26-28 (f¸r die Zeit etwa seit dem 7.
Jahrhundert) und vgl. F. WINKELMANN ñ H. K÷PSTEIN ñ H. DITTEN ñ I. ROCHOW,
Byzanz im 7. Jahrhundert, 182-183.
40 Siehe dazu z.B. A. GUILLOU, Régionalisme et administration dans l’Empire byzantin
du VIe au VIIIe siècle, in: La géographie administrative et politique d’Alexandre
à Mahomet. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 14-16 juin 1979 (= Université des
sciences humaines de Strasbourg. Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le
Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques, 6) 1981, 293-305.
41 Er hat etwa seit dem Beginn des 7. Jahrhunderts in Konstantinopel gelebt und
mit der Unterst¸tzung des Patriarchen eine erfolgreiche Karriere gemacht,
indem er vermutlich nicht nur Píôéãñáöåýò und hðáñ÷ïò (wahrscheinlich ôyò
ðüëåùò) geworden ist. Vgl. W. TREADGOLD, The Early Byzantine Historians, 331-332
und 334.
42 Theophylaktos VII, 16, 10. 97
Ján Bakyta
Erstens durfte sich das konstantinopolitanische Volk zwischen dem Nika-

Aufstand und Maurikiosí Sturz den Kaisern und der Aristokratie
erscheinen als eine zwar nicht vˆllig zu ¸bersehende Kraft, jedoch als keine
solche, die imstande oder auch nur bereit w‰re, Herrscher ein- und
abzusetzen.43 Zweitens ist zweifelhaft, ob ¸berhaupt f¸r den Kaiser und
die einflussreichen W¸rdentr‰ger und Beamte im allgemeinen mˆglich
war, ¸ber solche negative Volkseinstellung zur Reichsteilung fr¸hzeitig
hinreichende Kenntnis zu erwerben; denn es ist kaum vorstellbar, wie
man sich dar¸ber erkundigen konnte, ohne dass die Absicht des Kaisers
sofort allgemein bekannt geworden w‰re (was nicht der Fall war, wie aus
der von Theophylaktos verzeichneten Testamententdeckungsgeschichte
hervorgeht). Drittens brauchte sich Maurikios ñ aus der Ñkonstitu-
tionellenì Sicht ñ um Meinung des Volkes ¸ber Reichsteilung schon
deshalb nicht zu k¸mmern, da sein ‰ltester Sohn Theodosios seit 590
Kaiserw¸rde bekleidete44 und nichts darauf andeutet, dass er als
Mitkaiser und selbstverst‰ndiger Nachfolger von dem konstantinopoli-
tanischen Volk nicht akzeptiert worden w‰re.45 Dass aber zugleich ein
anderer Kaiser Thron beispielsweise in Rom besteigen wird, war nicht
Sache der Konstantinopler, sondern vielmehr des Senats von Rom, der
Bewohner dieser Stadt und der k¸nftigen Hˆflinge, Beamte und wohlge-
merkt vielleicht der Armee des zust‰ndigen Kaisers (was aber nicht
notwendig impliziert, dass diese alle auch gefragt worden waren).
Es kann aber meiner Meinung nach auch das ziemlich wahrscheinlich
gemacht werden, dass die gemeinen Bewohner von Konstantinopel unter
Umst‰nden wirklich die Aufteilung des Reiches nicht zu verhindern
bem¸ht gewesen w‰ren. Das hiesige Volk hatte vielleicht den entscheiden-
den Anteil an Maurikiosí Sturz und der Thronbesteigung des Pr‰tendentes
der Armee Phokas. Wir erfahren, dass sich die Masse gegen den Kaiser erst
wandte, nachdem dieser Germanos, dem Schwiegervater seines ‰ltesten
Sohnes, nach dem Leben getrachtet hatte.46 Manches bleibt unklar, vor
allem die eigentlichen Gr¸nde des Aufruhres, trifft aber diese
43 Die Volksmasse beteiligte sich in diesem Zeitalter nur auf einer Entscheidung
¸ber die Tr‰gerin der Augusta-W¸rde und konnte f¸r sich hˆchstens noch Anlass
zu den Heidenprozessen unter Tiberios II. buchen (siehe F. WINKELMANN, Zur
politischen Rolle der Bevˆlkerung Konstantinopels von der nachjustinianischen Zeit bis
zum Beginn des Bilderstreites, in: H. Kˆpstein ñ F. Winkelmann (Hrsg.), Studien zum
7. Jahrhundert im Byzanz. Probleme der Herausbildung des Feudalismus, Berlin
1976, 102 und 105, mit Verweis auf Quellen). Das Volk nahm an der Einsetzung
von Maurikios teil (im Falle von Tiberios II. ist es unsicher, vgl. F. WINKELMANN,
op. cit., 102), wurde dabei aber nur von den dðéóçìüôåñïé ôï™ äÞìïõ vertreten, die
¸brigens Rolle der Statisten spielten (siehe Theophylaktos I, 1, 2 und vgl. F.
WINKELMANN, op. cit., 102 und 108).
44 Theophanes ad a. 6082 (267 de Boor); Chronicon paschale. Vol. 1., hrsg. von L.
Dindorf [= Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae] Bonn 1832, 691. Die letztge-
nannte Quelle f¸hrt hier den Titel âáóéëåýò an, Theophanes erw‰hnt keinen; wir
kˆnnen vermuten, dass Theodosios damals offiziell augustus wurde.
45 Vgl. Johannes von Ephesos, Kirchengeschichte V, 14 und dazu J. B. BURY, A History...,
II, 83 (die Bevˆlkerung begr¸flte das Geburt des Thronnachfolgers).
98 46 Theophylaktos VIII, 8, 1-9, 6.
Theophylaktosí Schilderung zu, scheint mir soviel ziemlich offenbar zu

sein, dass das konstantinopolitanische Volk bei dieser Angelegenheit
erstens noch keine tief verwurzelte Loyalit‰t der legitimen Dynastie
gegen¸ber und zweitens das Fehlen einer dauerhafteren politischen
Konzeption erwies. Dass diese politisch unverl‰ssliche Volksmenge an Idee
des unteilbaren Reiches grunds‰tzlich und nicht nur momentan festge-
halten h‰tte, ja h‰tte festhalten kˆnnen, scheint mir f¸r das Ende des
6. Jahrhunderts recht unsicher.47 Dar¸ber hinaus kann ich mir mindestens
eine Tatsache vorstellen, die h‰tte sehr rasch eventuelle Abneigung gegen
Teilung des Reiches zu ¸berwinden vermocht, ihre Auswirkung an
Verwendung und gegebenfalls Hˆhe der vom Volk zu entrichtenden
Steuern: diese h‰tten f¸r die Bed¸rfnisse jenes Teilreiches benutzt werden
konnen, in dem sie eingenommen werden, so dass Konstantinopler h‰tten
beispielsweise nicht mehr die Verteidigung Italiens finanzieren m¸ssen.48
Eine solche Perspektive musste sich ¸brigens auch gerade sehr spar-
samem49 Kaiser Maurikios durchaus ansprechend erscheinen.
Es gibt also Andeutungen, dass zur Zeit, als Theophylaktos schrieb
(etwa 630), als das hier besprochene Testament verˆffentlicht (oder
gef‰lscht) wurde (610?) und als es von Maurikios niedergeschrieben
wurde (597), die ˆffentliche Meinung der Aristokratie und vielleicht des
Volkes in Konstantinopel nichts gegen eine Lockerung der Bande zu den
Regionen gehabt h‰tte, von denen manche teuer gegen Angreifer vertei-
digt werden mussten und manche unorthodox und dem Zentrum
gegen¸ber eher feindselig gestimmt waren.
Schluss
Nach dem oben gesagten kˆnnten wir schlieflen, obwohl manches
ebenso unsicher bleiben muss wie nicht definitiv zu widerlegen ist, dass
man am Ende des 6. und Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts im Byzanz
47 Vgl. was H.-G. BECK, Res Publica Romana. Vom Staatsdenken der Byzantiner,
M¸nchen 1970, 11f. meint: die Kaiser haben mit Ñeiner politisch sehr wachen,
groflst‰dtischen Bevˆlkerungì zu schaffen, Ñdie sich zwar gern im Glanze des Kaisertums
sonnte, solange die T‰ge gem‰chlich verliefen, sich aber in Krisenf‰llen sehr nachdr¸cklich
gegen die historische Inkarnation der Idee, also gegen den Kaiser stellte.ì ñ Versuch einer
Einordnung der soeben rekonstruierten Einstellung der Eliten und des Volkes
von Konstantinopel zur Aufteilung des Reiches in eine breitere historische
Perspektive (es geht u.a. um die Problematik der Westexpeditionen der Kaiser
Herakleios und Konstas II.) kann hier nicht unternommen werden; dem Thema
wird vom Verfasser vorbereitete Dissertation gewidmet.
48 Es sei hier auf mehr als hundert Jahre alte ‹berlegungen L. M. HARTMANNs,
Geschichte Italiens..., II.1, 86f. aufmerksam gemacht: Ñdie Soldaten waren mit der
kriegerischen Politik ... ebenso wenig einverstanden, wie ein grosser Theil der Bevˆlkerung,
die viel Steuern zahlen musste und doch vor den Feinden keineswegs sicher war. Was k¸m-
merte auch die Bewohner von Thrakien der persische Feldzug, wenn avarische Horden ihre
Felder verw¸steten, was sogar die Bewohner der Stadt Rom irgend welche Erfolge des
Exarchen in Istrien, wenn sie den ersehnten Frieden noch weiter hinausschoben?ì
49 So z. B. L. M. HARTMANN, Geschichte Italiens..., II.1, 86 und 117 oder W. TREAD-
GOLD, A History..., 236. 99
Ján Bakyta
keineswegs an einer Staatsideologie festhielt und Gefallen fand: sein

Herrscher hat sich vermutlich von einer aus dem Frankenreich stam-
menden politischen Konzeption ñ abgesehen von ihren mˆglichen ein-
heimischen Wurzeln ñ inspirieren lassen und nicht nur die Aristokratie
der Provinzen, sondern auch die Eliten der Hauptstadt (ob dies ebenfalls
f¸r das Volk zutrifft, ist schwer auszumachen) w‰ren unter Umst‰nden
bereit gewesen, eine Aufteilung des Reiches und Beschr‰nkung des
Gebiets des zust‰ndigen Kaisers anzunehmen, wahrscheinlich sich davon
einige sozialen und ˆkonomischen Vorteile versprechend, also ihren eige-
nen Weg zum Regionalismus anzutreten.
100
The (Purported) Teacher of John
of Damascus and Kosmas Melodos*
Nikos KALOGERAS (Open University of Cyprus)
The Works of John of Damascus as well as a large number of extant

manuscripts that preserve his biography betray the importance of his per-
sonality on the generations to follow and reflect the significance of his
thought on Christian theology.1 Apart from the core of historical elements
that John’s biographers used in the construction of his curriculum, fic-
tional narratives circulated by way of oral tradition and resulted in the
development of his legend.2
Biographical data on John of Damascus derive from – among other
texts – a number of individual biographies of himself and of his ostensible
foster-brother Kosmas Melodos as well as of a joint vita of these two.3
Summarizing all of the recorded information, controversial in several
parts, one can conclude that John was born in Damascus to a prosperous
and influential Arab-Christian family.4 His father, Sergios (Sargu-n)
Mansur, was in charge of the financial administration of the Caliphate
under Abd-al Malik.5 John himself attained an office higher than his
father’s in the bureaucracy of the Caliphate from which he later resigned
and subsequently became a monk at the monastery of Mar Sabas (St.
Sabas) in the vicinity of Jerusalem.6
* I wish to thank Prof. A. Kaldellis who read this article at an early stage and
made helpful suggestions.
1 On a succinct review of John’s curriculum with a discussion of his birth and
death dates, see A. KAZHDAN, A History of Byzantine Literature (650-850) in coll.
with L. SHERRY and C. ANGELIDI, Athens 1999, 75-77. On his theological works,
ibid., 77-94 and now A. LOUTH, St John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in
Byzantine Theology, Oxford 2002.
2 KAZHDAN, Literature, 75: “Hundreds of manuscripts containing his works have
survived, yet we know very little about his life.”
3 For possible dates of John’s birth, see KAZHDAN, Literature, 75-76. Concerning
the year of his death, ODB, 1063-1064 gives 753/4 as a more probable date.
4 On the family line of the Mansurs, see M.-F. AUZÉPY, De la Palestine à Constan-
tinople (VIIIe-IXe siècles): Étienne le Sabaïte et Jean Damascène, Traveaux et Mémoires
12 (1994) 183-218, esp. 194-204. On the family’s social status, see D. SAHAS, John
of Damascus on Islam. The “Heresy of the Ishmaelites”, Leiden 1972, 17-31.
5 Life of John of Damascus, PG 94, col. 437D: „Äéïéêçôxò ãNñ ô§í äçìïóßùí
ðñáãìÜôùí ô§í PíN ôxí ÷þñáí ðOóáí.” The positions that the Mansurs had
attained in the financial administration have been transferred from one gener-
ation to the next; See SAHAS, John of Damascus on Islam, 26.
6 On the famous Laura of St. Sabas, see J. PATRICH, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian
Monasticism. A Comparative Study in Eastern Monasticism, Fourth to Seventh Centuries 101
Nikos Kalogeras
Kosmas’ curriculum is equally preserved in a number of vitae.

According to the most accepted among them, he was born in Damascus or
Jerusalem ca. 674/6 and died in 752/4 or 751/2.7 A group of biographies
present him as a foster brother of John of Damascus who, together with
John, received his education from a common teacher. Kosmas ultimately
followed an ecclesiastical career. He was ordained bishop of Maiouma in
ca. 734/5, became member of the monastic community of St. Sabas in
Jerusalem at the same period as John, and supported John in his Icono-
clastic polemic.8
John of Damascus launched a high-flown polemic against the
Iconoclasts Leo III and Constantine V. His erudition, certified by the cor-
pus of his writings, was a matter on which his biographers needed to fur-
ther elaborate and explain the circumstances under which John and
Kosmas reached such a high level of Greek education.9 Therefore, the
strong presence of a learned individual, who served as their teacher, is
associated with the effort of a Christians to conceptualize and explain the
erudition of the two men. Their biographers explored on the figure of the
teacher in order to provide their audience with a possible resolution of the
“mystery” of the highbrow Greek education of John and Kosmas. He
taught them the subjects of dãêýêëéïò ðáéäåßá and introduced them in
“Greek knowledge”. The association of the teacher with Johnís erudition,
enforced by oral tradition, attributed to him legendary characteristics and
resulted in the creation of much discrepancy about his curriculum.
The narratives about the teacher involve a number of complex issues:
how does literary construction affect the historicity of a text? To what
extent do individual biographers project in their work incidents from their
own time and lives into their work, even if it refers to a much earlier peri-
(= Dumbarton Oaks Studies 32), Washington, D.C. 1995. AUZÉPY, Étienne le

Sabaïte et Jean Damascène, 183, n. 3 and 191 questioned whether John was indeed
a member of the monastic community of St. Sabas.
7 DETORAKES, ÊïóìOò ¿ Ìåëùäüò, Âßïò êár hñãï, Thessalonike 1979, argues for
751/2 as the year of Kosmas’ death and dates his accession to the episcopal
throne of Maiouma in 735. For a reconsideration of a number of Detorakes’
views on the life and works of Kosmas, see A. KAZHDAN – St. GERO, Kosmas of
Jerusalem: A More Critical Approach to His Biography, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 82
(1989) 122-132, repr. in A. KAZHDAN, Authors and Texts in Byzantium, Aldershot
1993, X. Also, idem, Literature, 107-111.
8 According to Detorakes, Kosmas was a native of Damascus and a foster broth-
er of John with whom he shared a learned teacher. M. JUGIE, La Vie de saint Jean
Damascène, Écho dÓrient 23 (1924) 141 questions the issue of adoption and
argues that John and Kosmas were spiritual brothers in the monastery of St.
Sabas. KAZHDAN, Literature, 107 and 110, is skeptical as to what extent the mea-
ger sources about Kosmas allow for precise conclusions on his curriculum and
deduces that Kosmas was born in Jerusalem and was a contemporary of John,
though not his foster-brother.
9 For an exhaustive bibliography on the primary and secondary literature that
refers to John of Damascus and for the editions of his corpus of writings, see V.
CONTICELLO, Jean Damascène, in: Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques III,
102 directed by R. Goulet, Paris 2000, 989-1012.
od? The obscurity and confusion that this individual has created is striking
and indicates that alongside the legend of John of Damascus, his teacher,
who personifies John’s wisdom, attained his own legend. It is noteworthy
that John never mentioned this man or any kind of information about him
in his works.10 On the other hand, he acknowledges himself as a disciple
of John V of Jerusalem (706-735), although this may signify a spiritual
rather than literal tutoring.11
The present paper tries to cast light on the identity and the back-
ground of the enigmatic teacher as well as on his presence in the biogra-
phies of John and Kosmas through an examination of the several diverse
versions that concern his curriculum. The introduction of this individual
in the biographies of John and Kosmas sheds light, I believe, on the use of
literary elements in the service of historical and biographical narrative and
yields much information about the presentation of education as a literary
construction and as a formal hagiographical chapter when there is confu-
sion of data or an obscure picture of the real facts. This essay tries to
explain the reason why there are a number of different accounts about the
enigmatic teacher and his curriculum. In this direction I would now like to
examine the following texts:
Evidence A: Sources on the life and curriculum

of John of Damascus
1. Vita Damascenica Hierosolymitana [BHG 884] 12
This vita is preserved in a large number of manuscripts in which the
author’s name is not clearly mentioned; this resulted in a controversy
about his identity. His baptismal name (John) is indirectly mentioned in
connection to John of Damascus (¿ ¿ìùíõì§í óïé) in the peroration of the
vita and only in a number of manuscripts. The author is styled either as
patriarch of Jerusalem, or as patriarch of Antioch.13 It is important to note
that he refers to a lowbrow Arabic original, now lost, which he used for the
composition of the Greek text.14 The author does not seem to have had a
sound knowledge of historic events.
10 See JUGIE, La Vie de saint Jean Damascène, 140.
11 KAZHDAN – GERO, Kosmas of Jerusalem, 129.
12 Hence Jerusalem vita or Jerusalem biography. I am here using the citations
in PG 94, 429-490.
13 AUZÉPY, Étienne le Sabaïte et Jean Damascène, 199 and n. 116 argues that the
author of the vita is Patriarch John VII of Jerusalem (964-966 ?). Of the same
opinion is B. FLUSIN, De l’arabe au grec, puis au géorgien: une Vie de Saint Jean
Damascène, in: Traduction et Traducteurs au Moyen-Âge, Actes du colloque
international organisé à Paris, IRHT, 1986, Paris 1989, 51-61, esp. 52-53. On
the other hand, JUGIE, La Vie de saint Jean Damascène, 137, argues that the author
is Patriarch John VI of Jerusalem who was martyred at the hands of the Arabs in
969. DETORAKES, Kosmas, 35, suggests that the redactor of the Greek vita is John
VIII of Jerusalem (1098-1106/7). See also, G. FEDALTO, Hierarchia Ecclesiastica
Orientalis, vols I-II, Padova 1988, vol. 2, 1002-1003.
14 The Life of John of Damascus, 433B, refers to the Arabic Life as “dó÷åäéáóìÝíïò
Pãñïéêéóôß. Also, ibid., 489A-B: Óýããíùèß ìïé, ôñéóìÜêáñ, êár jêÝôçò ãÝíïéü ìïé ôN 103
Nikos Kalogeras
2. Vita Damascenica Marciana [BHG 885b]

This text is preserved in a late-tenth or early-eleventh century Sinaitic
codex. The above date is a terminus ante quem for the vita.15 The redactor
is much interested in the story of the learned teacher. This becomes obvi-
ous from the amount of information he provides about his curriculum,
compared to the length of the whole text. From the seventy-seven printed
lines of the vita the author dedicates six lines to the enigmatic figure of the
teacher and thirteen lines to the educational curriculum of John, who is
the actual hero of the text. The vita presents the teacher as a learned indi-
vidual, well-versed in a number of subjects such as grammar, philosophy,
astronomy, geometry, poetry and arithmetic.
Evidence B: Sources on the life and curriculum of Kosmas Melodos
1. Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, col. 395-396
The above entry refers to Kosmas Melodos (January 15). Kosmas is
mentioned here as Hagiopolites, which may signify that he was a native of
Jerusalem. The passage reads that Kosmas was an orphan, whom John’s of
Damascus father, Sergios, adopted (õjïðïéÞóáôï) when still a child
(íÞðéïí).16 Following a common hagiographic topos on education, the entry
reads that Sergios provided his son with ethical and literary education
(ðÜóçò ðáéäåýóåùò êár óïößáò èåßáò ôå êár Píèñùðßíçò).
As for the teacher, the redactor mentions that he held the office of
Póçêñyôéò [hence asekretis] in Constantinople.17 The vita, however, does not
explain how this man was found in Damascus and how Sergios hired him
as a teacher.18 One should ascribe the omission of such information, I
ðñ’ò Èå’í èåñìüôáôïò êár PíÝíäïôïò, döE ïpò ôï™ôïí êáë’í hñáíïí Tëëïõ ðåðïéç-
êüôïò (vel ðåðïíçêüôïò), ©ò åq÷åí ¿ Tíèñùðïò, Pöåë§ò ášô’í å›ñçêþò, êár äéáëÝêôv
EÁñÜâùí êár ãñÜììáóé êåßìåíïí. Another Arabic vita was written by a certain
Michael, a monk of Arabic origin at monastery of St. Symeon in Antioch; he
penned his text after 1084, probably in 1085. It is noteworthy that this is a dif-
ferent biography from the one used as a model by the author of the Jerusalem
biography of John of Damascus. The extant Arabic Life is edited by C. BACHA,
Biographie de Jean Damascène, Harisa 1912; idem, Biography of St. John Damascene,
London 1912. The vita was translated in German by G. GRAF, Das arabische
Original der Vita des hl. Johannes von Damaskus, Der Katholik 93 (1913) 164-190.
15 The text is now edited anew by R. GENAKOU-BOROVILOU, Âßïò óýíôïìïò EÉùÜííïõ
ôï™ Äáìáóêçíï™ (BHG 885b), Byzantina 22 (2001) 67-73. DETORAKES, Kosmas, 27;
With some reservation KAZHDAN, Literature, 109, dates the vita to the tenth cen-
tury. The anonymous author relates that Kosmas Melodos was an orphan and
was brought up by Sergios Mansur, John’s father, since his early childhood.
16 It is interesting to note that the joint (?) teacher of John and Kosmas is not men-
tioned in the entry of the Synaxarion of Constantinople on John of Damascus.
17 On the office of asekretis, see F. DÖLGER – I. KARAYANNOPOULOS, Byzantinische
Urkundenlehre, Munich 1968, 57-67 and KARAYANNOPOULOS, ÂõæáíôéíÞ
ÄéðëùìáôéêÞ, vol. 1, Thessalonike 1972, 150-151; for a general reading, see also
N. OIKONOMIDÈS, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris 1972.
18 Synax. Eccl. CP, 395: “FÏ ãNñ ðáôÞñ öçóéí EÉùÜííïõ ôï™ Äáìóêçíï™...
ðñïóåëÜâåôü ôéíá ô§í Póçêñçô§í, Tíäñá ðïëõìáèy êár óïöüí· •ò êár ô’í ášôï™
õj’í EÉùÜííçí ðOóáí óïößáí dîåðáßäåõóå ôxí hîùèåí åkò ô’ Pêñüôáôïí, ©óáýôùò
104 êár ôxí êáèE ½ìOò.
believe, to the brevity of the entries in such a large composition as the

Synaxarion of Constantinople.
2. Vita as in Athoniensis Laurae 44 [BHG Auctarium, 394b]

This vita survives only in a single manuscript.19 There is no internal
evidence about the chronology of the composition or the identity of the
author (origins or profession). Judging from the impeccable syntax and
grammar of the text, one presumes that he must have been a learned indi-
vidual. The text relates that Kosmas was born in Damascus, orphaned at a
very young age and was adopted by Sergios Mansur (107. 51-57). The vita
emphasizes the collaboration of John and Kosmas in the anti-iconoclastic
cause.
The teacher, whose name is not mentioned, is presented as a joint
teacher of John and Kosmas. He was, according to the vita, of
Constantinopolitan descent and held the office of asekretis.20 It is impor-
tant to note that the Life provides an explanation as to how this high-
ranked official from Constantinople was found in Damascus, an explana-
tion to which we shall return later.
Evidence C: A joint vita of John and Kosmas

The joint biography of John Damascenos and Kosmas Melodos
This is a Codex Unicus.21 Written by the Patriarch of Jerusalem John
Merkouropoulos (1156-1165), the biography draws upon the Jerusalem
vita of John of Damascus.22 Merkouropoulos mentions that Kosmas
Melodos was a native of Jerusalem. As for the common teacher, he copies
almost verbatim the Jerusalem Life of John. He relates that the teacher was
a monk named Kosmas who originated from Italy; he was captured by Arab
pirates during his pilgrimage to Jerusalem and was subsequently freed by
19 Henceforth Laureotic vita. The text is edited by Th. DETORAKES, Vie Inédite de
Cosmas le Mélode BHG 394b, Analecta Bollandiana 99 (1981) 101-116. Students
of the manuscript have dated it between the eleventh and the thirteenth cen-
turies.
20 DETORAKES, Vie inédite de Cosmas le Mélode, 108.87-90: Píxñ ÂõæÜíôéïò ðÜóçò
óïößáò êár dðéóôÞìçò ôyò dí ëüãv êïìøyò êár ›øçëyò ô² íïÞìáôé åkò Têñïí
dêðåðëçñùìÝíïò, ô† Pîßá |í ½ FÑùìáßùí ãë§óóá ïqäå êáëåsí Póçêñyôéò. Being
more precise, Ignatios the Deacon refers to the word Póçêñyôéò as a Latin word;
see Life of Patriarch Nikephoros (d. 828), ed. C. de Boor, Nicephori archiepiscopi
Constantinopolitani opuscula historica, Leipzig 1880, 144. 9-10: ïœôù ãNñ ðáñN
ô† Ášóïíßäé äéáëÝêôv ô’ EÁóçêñÞôçò —íïìá, ¿ dðr ô§í ìõóôçñßùí ìåèåñìçíåýåóèáé
âïýëåôáé. It is possible that the author of the Life of Kosmas means Latin when
he uses the phrase ½ FÑùìáßùí ãë§óóá. See M. GRIGORIOU-IOANNIDOU, Une
remarque sur le récit des miracles de saint Démétrius, Centre d’études du sud-est
européen 20 (Athens 1987) 7-15.
21 EÁíÜëåêôá FÉåñïóïëõìéôéêyò Óôá÷õïëïãßáò IV, ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, St.
Petersbourg 1897, 303-350: “Âßïò êár ðïëéôåßá ô§í ¿óßùí êár èåïöüñùí ðáôÝñùí
½ì§í êár ášôáäÝëöùí êár ìåëéóó§í ôyò ôï™ Èåï™ dêêëçóßáò EÉùÜííïõ ôï™
Äáìáóêçíï™ êár ÊïóìO, dêôåèårò ðáñN ôï™ QãéùôÜôïõ Pñ÷éåðéóêüðïõ êár
ðáôñéÜñ÷ïõ FÉåñïóïëýìùí EÉùÜííïõ ôï™ Ìåñêïõñïðþëïõ.”
22 For specific similarities between the two texts, see DETORAKES, Kosmas, 40-41. 105
Nikos Kalogeras
Sergios Mansur. Merkouropoulos slightly differentiates his account from

the Jerusalem biography of John and mentions that the teacher traveled
from Italy to Constantinople to acquire his education.23 Merkouropoulos
presumably had at his disposal texts of various origin and diverse data,
which resulted in much confusion in the formation of his own composition.
His text is probably a reworking of previous biographies in such a way as
to accord his account with his own contemporary reality.
Taxonomy of the sources

In his study of Kosmas Melodos, DETORAKES divided the aforemen-
tioned texts into three major “traditions”. Tradition A is represented by the
vita Damascenica Marciana, the anonymous Lauriotic Vita of Kosmas and
the entry on Kosmas in the Synaxarion of Constantinople. With regard to
the teacher, type-A texts present him as a polymath and asekretis from
Constantinople. Tradition B encompasses the Jerusalem biography of
John (according to DETORAKES), its Arabic original, as well as the common
vita of John and Kosmas by John Merkouropoulos.24 The above texts have
a different story to narrate. The teacher, Kosmas by name, is styled as a
learned monk from Italy who was captured by the Arabs.25 Tradition C
provides an unconvincingly different curriculum for the teacher. The tenor
of the texts that belong to tradition C is nebulous and much of the narra-
tive seems to be a conglomeration that includes elements from tradition A
and B intermingled with oral tradition. In view of the above and due to
their great deviation from the first two categories, the texts that fall in tra-
dition C will not be considered further in this study.26
23 Merkouropoulos, Life of John and Kosmas, 311: EÅãþ, …, dî EÉôáëßáò ìcí ªñìçìáé,
dí Pðáë² äc hôé êár Pþñv ô² óþìáôé ôï˜ò ôåêüíôáò Pðïâáë¦í hñùôé ìáèçìÜôùí
ôxí Âáóéëßäá êáôÝëáâïí.
24 For a discussion of the above classification, see KAZHDAN – GERO, Kosmas of
Jerusalem, 126-128.
25 KAZHDAN – GERO, Kosmas of Jerusalem, 129 calls this version of the vita into
question given that the teacher has the same name as Kosmas Melodos.
26 This group of texts is represented by a. the so-called vita of Chalke, ed.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, EÁíÜëåêôá IV, op. cit., 271-302, b. the “Athenian” vita
of John Damascenos and c. the “Vatican” vita (Vatic. Barber. Gr. 583) of Kosmas,
ed. Detorakes, EÁíÝêäïôïò âßïò ÊïóìO ôï™ ÌáúïõìO, Epeteris Hetaireias Byzan-
tinon Spoudon 41 (1974) 265-296. According to this tradition, Kosmas Melodos
originated in Crete and was himself the teacher of John of Damascus. But why
does Crete come to the front of the narrative? As a possible explanation,
DETORAKES, Kosmas, 56, provides the confusion created by the phonetic similar-
ity of the word Póçêñyôéò with Póýãêñéôïò or more plausibly with the phrase dê
ÊñÞôçò or åkò ÊñÞôçí. Thus, type C reports that Kosmas Melodos was a native of
Crete whereon he was captured by pirates and was to Damascus where he served
as the teacher of John the “Hagiopolite” (i.e. John of Damascus). Another vari-
ant of this type (the Marcian version) distinguishes Kosmas the brother from
Kosmas the teacher but identifies Crete as the common place of origin for both.
According to this variant, Kosmas Melodos found himself in Damascus after an
Arab raid and was eventually adopted by Sergios, John’s father. Later, the latter
found Kosmas the teacher who urged him to teach his sons the “Greek letters”
106 and consider them not as lords but rather as sons and servants. KAZHDAN,
The Teacher
The several versions of the individual vitae as well as the joint biogra-
phy of John and Kosmas present the teacher under examination as a well-
versed individual, either a monk or an asekretis but no text associates him
with any kind of teaching prior to his tutoring of John and Kosmas. Based
on the evolution of the literary structure of the texts KAZHDAN provided his
own interpretation on the teacher’s identity:
“From nothing more than a contemporary of Damaskenos, Kosmas
became his friend and companion, even his foster-brother; his Jerusalem ori-
gins were first suppressed and eventually replaced by Damascus; further, the
episcopate of Maiouma was introduced. Confusion, however, does not end
here: the vitae describe the activity of another personage, the teacher of John
and Kosmas: first, he is an anonymous asekretis, the teacher of John only;
then he becomes one of the captives settled by John’s fathering various
places; in the Laureotic vita he acts as the teacher of Kosmas, not of John. In
the Jerusalem biography new features emerge: the teacher originated from
Italy and bore the same name as Kosmas. John of Damascus devoted not a
single word to his alleged teacher, the anonymous asekretis or Kosmas. And
in the Epistle on the Trisagion hymn, he calls himself a disciple of the blessed
patriarch John V of Jerusalem (706-735). Again, his works do not confirm the
existence of the teacher Kosmas who plays such a seminal part in the hagio-
graphical legend of Damaskenos”.27
Both the Laureotic vita of Kosmas Melodos and the entry of the
Synaxarion about him reflect the same tradition. They relate that John and
Kosmas had a common teacher, a learned man from Constantinople who
had earlier filled the office of asekretis. Both sources, however, fail to men-
tion the name of the teacher but still preserve his office. The vita, in addi-
tion, provides an explanation of how this learned asekretis was found in
Damascus and how Sergios Mansur hired him as a tutor for his sons.
According to the same hagiographical account, this asekretis was captured
by the Arabs during a campaign of Leo III against them in Jerusalem and
was transferred to Damascus. The author omits the famous dialogue
between the asekretis and Sergios Mansur as this is recorded in the
Jerusalem Life of John (in which the former, in the capacity of a monk,
enumerated the subjects of his wide knowledge). Another important dif-
ference between the two texts is that, unlike the accounts that portray the
teacher as a monk from Italy, the texts that present the tutor as a
Constantinopolitan asekretis do not refer to his retirement to the monastery
after he had completed the instruction of the two brothers.
At first glance, the story of the teacher being a learned asekretis seems
reasonable, since the primary reason for someone to proceed to higher
education in Byzantium was the desire to ensure a position in the imperi-
al administration. An asekretis should have been a highly educated individ-
ual, since his office was of much importance in the imperial chancery. It
Literature, 110, has detected similarities between tradition C and the “Christian
romance” of Barlaam and Ioasaph.
27 KAZHDAN, Literature, 109. 107
Nikos Kalogeras
seems that the author of the Laureotic vita placed every detail on a solid
historical basis, or, at least, he thought he did. The Arab raids that
occurred in this period constituted the framework wherein the author con-
structed the story about the presence of this asekretis in Damascus: Leo III
campaigned against the Arabs in Palestine, the foremost enemy of
Byzantium at the beginning of the eighth century, and this asekretis who
travelled with the emperor was captured by the Arabs and then transferred
to Damascus. This could be a plausible explanation for how this dignitary
was found in Damascus, except that Leo III never campaigned in
Palestine!28
The date at which this asekretis was found in Damascus is another point
of discussion. If we associate him with Leo III (717-741) based on the
Laureotic vita of Kosmas Melodos then the beginning of Leo’s reign is a
terminus post quem for the presence of this individual in Damascus.
However, the above chronological information, contrasted with the birth
date of John, creates confusion about the historical value of the informa-
tion because, if we believe the information regarding the captivity, John
must have been very old to begin with his Greek education under Kosmas.
This is completely unrealistic considering that one acquires the dãêýêëéïò
ðáéäåßá between the years twelve and eighteen and John must have com-
pleted his instruction early enough considering his massive literary pro-
duction.29 In this respect it would be more realistic to place John’s school-
ing years in the late-seventh century.
The different accounts concerning the education of John of Damascus
as well as the number of inconsistencies as far as the curriculum of his
teacher is concerned made several scholars doubt that this teacher/asekretis
was a real person.30 A seal from Constantinople which dates to the first half
of the eighth century, once belonged to a certain Kosmas asekretis, makes
one think that it is not out of the question that the aforementioned seal
belonged to this individual.31 Despite the importance of this sigillograph-
ic evidence, however, this piece of evidence cannot lead us but to assump-
tions, since we shall never be able to definitely answer whether this teacher
ever existed.
The Lives that present the teacher as a monk from Italy still reproduce
the “captivity story” in an effort to provide a reason for his presence in
28 On the military expeditions of Leo III, see W. KAEGI, Byzantine Military Unrest
(471-843): An Interpretation, Amsterdam 1981, 209-213. Also, idem, The
Byzantine Armies and Iconoclasm, Byzantinoslavica 27 (1966) 48-70.
29 On “secondary education” in Byzantium, see P. LEMERLE, Le premier humanisme
byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siè-
cle, Paris 1971, 100-104.
30 JUGIE, La vie de Saint Jean Damascène, 140 and n. 5 argues that the teacher was
a fictitious person.
31 See PmbZ s.v. Kosmas, nos 4098 and 4103. On the description of the seal, see
V. LAURENT, Le Corpus des sceaux de l’Empire byzantin, vol. 2. L’ administration cen-
trale, Paris 1981, no. 32 (DO 55.1.62). The specimen is also published by G.
ZACOS – A. VEGLERY, Byzantine Lead Seals, no. 2076, Basel 1972. I owe thanks to
108 John Nesbitt for his help on this piece of evidence.
Damascus. The Jerusalem vita of John relates that the teacher Kosmas was
a learned monk from Italy. He was captured by the Arabs in Sicily and was
transferred to Damascus along with several other captives. The story goes
that when the monk was imprisoned in Damascus, John’s father, Sergios
saw him crying, and, therefore, asked him about the cause of his grief. The
latter replied that he was not crying because he was afraid of death but
because he did not have any physical or spiritual children to which he
could transfer his broad knowledge. He added that he was well instructed
in secular education and mentioned the fields of his knowledge, i.e.
rhetoric, dialectics, Aristotelian ethics, physical theory, arithmetic, geome-
try, musical harmony, the movement of heavens, and the rotatory motion
of the stars.32 Sergios who was searching for a teacher for his son delivered
him from captivity and subsequently hired him as an instructor.
The author of the Jerusalem biography was probably aware of the
large-scale migration of Greek monks to Italy, which resulted in the growth
of Greek-speaking monasteries, and thus based his story on the framework
of the Greek cultural drain to the Italian peninsula. The first mention of
Greek monasteries in Rome one finds in the Acts of the Lateran Council
in 649.33 It is known that dissidents from the Monotheletist heresy migrat-
ed from Constantinople to Rome in the mid-seventh century and gradual-
ly, one quarter of the monasteries in the city were Greek-speaking. These
monasteries constituted a source from which several seventh- and eighth-
century Popes drew a good number of their associates and played an
important role in the revival of learning which occurred in Constantinople
in the second half of the ninth century.34
32 Life of John of Damascus, col. 441C: Ô† ¼çôïñéê† ôxí ãë§óóáí dîÞóêçìáé· ôásò
äéáëåêôéêásò ìåèüäïéò êár Pðïäåßîåóé ô’í ëüãïí ðåðáßäåõìáé· ôxí zèéêxí ìåô„åéí ”óçí
¿ Óôáãåéñßôçò, êár ”óçí ¿ ôï™ EÁñßóôùíïò ðáñáäÝäùêå· ôN ðåñr ôxí öõóéêxí èåùñßáí
Tðáóáí, ©ò jêáí’í Píèñþðv díôåèåþñçêá· Pñéèìçôéêyò äc ôï˜ò ëüãïõò ìåìÜèçêá·
ãåùìåôñßáí åkò Têñïí dîÞóêçìáé· Qñìïëïãßáò äc ìïõóéêyò êár Píáëïãßáò åšôÜêôïõò
óåìíïðñåð§ò êáôþñèùêá· ”óá ôå ðåñr ôxí ïšñÜíéïí êßíçóéí, ôxí ô§í PóôÝñùí
ðåñéöïñNí ïš ðáñÝëéðïí, líE dê ìåãÝèïõò êár êáëëïíyò ô§í êôéóìÜôùí Píáëüãùò ô†
ðåñr ôïýôùí ìïõ ãíþóåé, êár ôxí ðåñr ôï™ êôßóôïõ èåùñßáí PíÜëïãïí fîïéìé.
33 See J.-M. SANSTERRE, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine
et carolingienne (milieu du VIe siècle – fin du IXe siècle), Brussels 1983, 2 vols (=
Académie Royale de Belgique. Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres, 2e série, vol.
66/1) I, 10-11.
34 The example of Theodore of Tarsus illuminates this trend. A native of Tarsus,
he was born in 602. He later migrated to Constantinople, then to Rome and ulti-
mately became archbishop of Canterbury by Pope in the middle seventh centu-
ry. On this, see A. GUILLOU, L’école dans l’Italie byzantine, Settimane di studio del
Centro italiano di studi sull’ alto medioevo XIX (Spoleto 1972) 291-311, esp.
299-301, repr. in his Culture et société en Italie byzantine (VIe-XIe s.), London 1978,
VI. Also, B. BISCHOFF – M. LAPIDGE, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury
School of Theodore and Hadrian, Cambridge 1994, esp. ch. 2. Also, M. ANGOLD,
Byzantium: The Bridge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, London 2001, 98-99 and
SANSTERRE, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome I, 31-51. On the Greek presence
in the southern part of the Italian peninsula in the Byzantine era, see J.-M.
MARTIN, Hellénisme et présence byzantine en Italie méridionale (VIIe-XIIIe siècle), in: Ï
Éôáëéþôçò Åëëçíéóìüò áðü ôïí ÆA óôïí ÉÂA áéþíá [ÌíÞìç Í. ÐáíáãéùôÜêç], Insti-
tute for Byzantine Studies, International Symposia 8, Athens 2001, 181-202, esp. 109
186-187 and 201-202.
Nikos Kalogeras
During the Arab conquests of the Middle East many learned individ-
uals took refuge in Italy. The migration continued in the first half of the
eighth century when monks from many regions of the Byzantine territory
migrated to Italy to flee Iconoclasm. Apart from Rome, Greek monks
became the vehicles of Greek culture in South Italy and contributed to the
literary revival in Sicily between the mid-seventh and the mid-tenth centu-
ry.35 Maximos the Confessor attested in one of his letters dated in 646/8
the presence of Greek abbots in Sicily.36 One cannot deny that among the
captives of the Arabs in their raid in Sicily in 662/3 there could have been
Greek monks, members of Greek monasteries of the region. In view of the
above, it would not be unrealistic to deduce that the teacher/monk derived
from Sicily in the way that the vita relates.37
The author of the Jerusalem biography provides simultaneously a
rather pessimistic picture of the cultural image of Damascus. Sergios
Mansur who wanted his sons to receive a solid Greek education shared the
same anxiety with the family of a rich Christian young man a little more
than two centuries earlier at Kallinikos on the Euphrates. The boy (born in
483), a future bishop of Constantina/Tella in Syria was sent by his widow
mother to a local dux at the age of twenty in order to achieve a Greek-style
education.38 Her ambition for her son to achieve a Greek (meaning
pagan) learning, which would befit the social status of the family was no
less agonizing than the despair of Sergios Mansur for whom a qualified
Greek education for his sons would be in accordance with his office and the
social status of the family. While, however, the mother of John of Tella was
disappointed that her son preferred to learn the Psalms and pore over the
theology of Gregory of Nazianzus, Sergios was in despair for not finding a
qualified teacher to provide his sons with a good literary education.39 The
35 On the other hand, in Calabria there was no literary revival until the tenth
century, despite the migration of monks in the region. See SCHIRÒ, Ç âõæáíôéíÞ
ëïãïôå÷íßá ôyò Óéêåëßáò êár ôyò ÊÜôù EÉôáëßáò, 178.
36 SANSTERRE, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome, I, 18.
37 On the raid in question, see Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor: Ôïýôv
ô² hôåé ‡÷ìáëùôßóèç ìÝñïò ôyò Óéêåëßáò, êár ¨êßóèçóáí dí Äáìáóê² èåëÞóåé
ášô§í. M. AMARI, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, 3 vols, Catania 1933, vol. 1, 302-
304, argues that Cosmas was of Sicilian origins and connected his captivity to the
Arab raids against Sicily that affected monastic life as well. The same conclusion
reaches G. SCHIRÒ, Ç âõæáíôéíÞ ëïãïôå÷íßá ôyò Óéêåëßáò êár ôyò ÊÜôù EÉôáëßáò,
FÅëëçíéêÜ 17 (1962) 170-187, esp. 175. On the captivity of monks in the course
of Arabs’ raid in Sicily, see also, SANSTERRE, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome, I,
18, “en 681, durant le troisième concile œcuménique de Constantinople, un
moine «grec» de Sicile devint patriarche d’Antioche.”
38 On the specific incident see S. BROCK, From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac
Attitudes to Greek Learning, in: East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the
Formative Period, ed. N. Garsoïan – Th. Mathews – R. Thompson, Washington,
D.C. 1982, 17-34, esp. 21, repr. in his Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity V,
London 1984.
39 The Life of John of Damascus, 440B-C, relates that it did not suffice for Sergios
to provide his son with a military training, i.e. horse riding, shooting with the bow
110 or fighting against beasts and preferred to find a well-versed teacher to instruct
above accounts need to be read with caution. It is peculiar and quite diffi-
cult to accept that a dignitary such as Mansur had to pin his hope to a cap-
tive (monk or asekretis) for teaching his sons the “Greek wisdom”. The bulk
of Syriac translations of Greek works reveal not only the appreciation of
classical culture in the “Syro-Palestinian” region but also betray that there
was a “network” of scholars who maintained a vivid intellectual life.40
The presence of a group of scholars in the region presupposes an
organized school system which could support and produce them.
Sophronios, Patriarch of Jerusalem (634-638) received his education in a
school in Damascus. The Life of Andrew of Crete (d. 740), a native of
Damascus, relates that in the 660s Andrew, future bishop of Crete, learned
his first letters (ðåæN ãñÜììáôá) in his birthplace. After he had completed
his elementary education, Andrew continued with the study of grammar.41
The vita does not indicate whether Andrew received a secular or an eccle-
siastical education but his syllabus verifies what is known from other
sources, that there was an availability of Greek education in Damascus even
after the Arab conquest of the city.42
There is not much disagreement that the ninth-century cultural
revival of Constantinople came from the East.43 The representatives of
his son in literary education Military training was common among the boys of the
elite. On how military education was perceived by Byzantine aristocracy, see E.
M. JEFFREYS, Nikephoros Bryennios Reconsidered, in: Ç Áõôïêñáôïñßá óå êñßóç (;).
Ôï ÂõæÜíôéï ôïí 11ï áéþíá (1025-1081), Athens 2003, 201-214, esp. 205-207.
40 BROCK, From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning, 19,
refers to “Greco-Syriac” cultural circles. On the cultural milieu in the “Syro-
Palestinian” region with particular emphasis on Damascus in the time of John
Damascenos, see D. SAHAS, Cultural Interaction during the Ummayad Period. The
‘Circle’ of John of Damascus, Aram Periodical 6 (1994) 35-66.
41 Life of Andrew of Crete, ed. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, EÁíÜëåêôá FÉåñïóïëõìéôéêyò
Óôá÷õïëïãßáò 5, 169-179, esp. 171, ch. 3. See also DETORAKES, Kosmas, 92; also P.
J. NASRALLAH, Saint Jean de Damas. Son époque, sa vie, son œuvre, Harissa 1950, 59-
60; LEMERLE, Humanisme, 98.
42 On how Greek culture was preserved in Syria and in Palestine in the eighth
century, see R. P. BLAKE, La littérature grecque en Palestine au VIIIe siècle, Le
Muséon 78, 1-2 (1965) 367-380; also S. H. GRIFFITH, Greek into Arabic: Life and
Letters in the Monasteries of Palestine in the Ninth Century; The Example of the Summa
Theologiae Arabica, Byzantion 35 (1986) 117-138, repr. in his Arabic Christianity in
the Monasteries of Ninth-Century Palestine, no. VIII, London 1992. Also, idem, The
monks of Palestine and the Growth of Christian Literature in Arabic, The Muslim
World 78 (1988) 1-28, repr. in Arabic Christianity, op. cit., no. III.
43 Monks in Palestinian monasteries translated a great number of Christian texts
from Greek into Arabic so as to make those widely available, since by the second
half of the eighth century the audience of Greek texts dramatically diminished.
The biography of Michael the Synkellos (761-845/6) reveals the cultural milieu
in the St. Sabas monastery. Michael himself is the author of a book on syntax,
the earliest book preserved on this subject in the middle Byzantine period,
which met with great popularity in the Italian Renaissance. The text of Michael’s
grammar book was edited by D. DONNET, Le ‘Traité de la Construction de la Phrase’
de Michel le Syncelle de Jérusalem, Brussels 1982. See also, C MANGO, Greek Culture
in Palestine after the Arab Conquest, in: Scritture, libri e testi nelle aree provinciali
di Bizancio, ed. G. Cavallo et al., Spoleto 1991, 149-160, esp. 154. In addition
to their role as spiritual centers, the curriculum of monastic education employs 111
Nikos Kalogeras
Greek culture in the eighth century were collected in Jerusalem and

wealthy members of the Orthodox communities in several Levantine sites
had acquired a secular education.44 The cultural environment of the
region with many deserving representatives, among which was John of
Damascus and Kosmas Melodos does not befit the purported cultural
dereliction of late-seventh century Damascus as this is presented in the
Jerusalem Life of Damascenos. A possible explanation of this picture could
be that the author confused the biographical data of John with the cultur-
al/religious decline of the region in the early-ninth century, part of which
was the abandonment of monasteries and the flight of monks to the
Byzantine Empire.
Judging from the wide knowledge of the monk, it is difficult to accept
that a man of such wisdom and eagerness for teaching had not offered his
teaching services at his monastery prior to his captivity. The scenario of the
captive Greek teacher may prove to be more complex that a simple story of
pure hagiographical interest. The author of the Jerusalem vita directs his
narrative in view of a propaganda, which was purposed to emphasize the
hellenization of John of Damascus through a solid Greek education by a
learned Greek tutor. One should not forget that at the Hiereia Synod (754)
John was attributed the negative characterization Saracen-minded
(Óáñáêçíüöñùí), which, despite its racial meaning, was not intended against
his origins but its pejorative use was directed to his cultural background.45
The above accusation John’s biographer tried to refute by advertising his
preoccupation with the Greek and Christian culture.46 The iconoclastic
Synod of Hiereia does not use the Christian name of Damascenos even
though the latter had by then adopted his monastic name John and had
abandoned his family name Mansur.47 The same synod wanted to empha-
size John’s affinity with the Muslim world and obliterate his affiliation with
Greek culture. Among the Greek literary sources that supported and prop-
agated the Greek and Christian character of his family and tried to reha-
bilitate the “insulting” use of the name Mansur were the Acts of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council and Theophanes who presented Sergios as Píxñ
also secular subjects as this becomes apparent from the schooling of the Graptoi
brothers in the monastery of St. Sabas by Michael Synkellos. See Life of Michael
Synkellos, 52.21-29.
44 C. MANGO, Greek Culture in Palestine after the Arab Conquest, in: Scritture, libri
e testi nelle aree provinciali di Bizancio, ed. G. Cavallo et al., Spoleto 1991, 149-
160, esp. 150-151.
45 For a very good analysis of the racial and ethnic terms in the “service” of the
religious and cultural polemic of Byzantium against Islam, see D. SAHAS, The
Notion of ‘Religion’ with Reference to Islam in the Byzantine anti-Islamic Literature, in:
The Notion of ‘Religion’ in Comparative Research. Selected Proceedings of the
XVI IAHR Congress, ed. U. Bianchi, Rome 1994, 523-530.
46 See J. D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio XIII, Graz
1960, 356: Ìáíóï˜ñ ô² êáêùíýìv êár óá»¼áêçíüöñïíé, PíÜèåìá. Also, AUZÉPY,
Étienne le Sabaïte et Jean Damascène, 194-195.
112 47 SAHAS, John of Damascus on Islam, 6.
÷ñéóôéáíéêþôáôïí and exalted the Mansurs for their attachment to the

Orthodox faith.48
The common vita of John and Kosmas written by Merkouropoulos,
borrows elements from both traditions.49 Concerning the story of the “cap-
tive teacher”, the biographer copies almost verbatim the version of the
Jerusalem Life. He also adds that he originated from Italy and traveled to
Constantinople in order to acquire his education, information that is miss-
ing from the Jerusalem vita. The author uses both accounts, though at the
end provides his own compilation. Concerning the teacher’s presence in
Damascus, he explains that the latter was captured by Arab pirates and was
transferred to Damascus on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
One may call into question the information that Merkouropoulos pro-
vides concerning the education of the teacher. He relates that a student
from Italy traveled in the second half of the seventh century to Constan-
tinople in order to acquire a higher education, which does not seem to
reflect the cultural milieu of the capital in that time. Merkouropoulos’
account is at least suspicious, since the cultural revival of Constantinople in
which such a story would better fit comes from a century later.50 Private
education did not cease to function in the capital even in the most turbu-
lent years. However, the advanced curriculum presented in the vita, postu-
lates an organized education with schools and a large number of teachers
for secondary and higher education, which would not be realistic for the
years between 650 and 750.51 Besides, students who wanted to advance to
the secondary and higher degrees of learning in the Italian peninsula had
several educational opportunities.52 Instead, the portrait of Constan-
tinople as a city with a flourishing culture and as the utmost educational
center would be recognizable to a later audience. It seems that
Merkouropoulos wrote a pastiche biography and tried to connect the high-
brow curriculum of the teacher to cultural environment of the tenth,
eleventh or twelfth century Constantinople.
If we compare all the pieces of information about the curriculum of
the teacher, one would argue that the narrative about him retains the char-
acteristics of a literary construction. The anonymous author of the
48 Theophanes, Chronographia, 559. Also, SAHAS, John of Damascus on Islam, 29.

49 The vita distinguishes Kosmas Melodos from Kosmas the teacher but some-
times “ascribes to the pupil (i.e. Kosmas Melodos) some features of the teacher”.
See KAZHDAN, Literature, 110.
50 W. TREADGOLD, The Revival of Byzantine Learning and the Revival of the Byzantine
State, The American Historical Review 84, 5 (1979) 1245-1266 places the start-
ing point of cultural revival at the end of the eighth century; also, idem, The
Byzantine Revival, 780-842, Stanford 1988, 51-59.
51 MANGO, Greek Culture in Palestine, 149-150. Referring to early eight century
Constantinople MANGO, Who wrote the Chronicle of Theophanes?, 9-17, esp. 11
observes that “in those days education was more or less synonymous with service
in the imperial secreta or in the Patriarchate”.
52 In his “L’école dans l’Italie byzantine”, Guillou provides a picture of the edu-
cational opportunities in the Italian peninsula in the Byzantine period. 113
Nikos Kalogeras
Laureotic vita of Kosmas presents the encounter of a qualified instructor as

a sign of divine intervention (108.84-86). In the Jerusalem biography of
John of Damascus, the teacher is presented to be a monk who did not have
the opportunity to teach until then, even in his monastery, though he was
fortunate enough to meet Sergios at the moment when the latter was
searching for a teacher. Sergios’ desire to find a qualified tutor for his sons
is thus fulfilled in a miraculous way.53
It is equally possible that the hagiographer used the background of his
own learning to fill in the education of the two brothers. This corroborates
an argument that I firstly communicated elsewhere, according to which the
type of saint and the educational level of the writer largely affect the infor-
mation that his/her vita records on education and learning.54 The biogra-
phies of higher ecclesiastics such as patriarchs and bishops as well as of
highbrow monks are much concerned with the description of their educa-
tion. In the present case, the biographer of the Jerusalem Life of John of
Damascus was a learned individual, a patriarch in all likelihood, who was
interested in emphasizing the intellectual qualities of the saint.55 In addi-
tion to his highbrow curriculum, he mentioned all of John’s works, ser-
mons, polemics against Leo III, and orations in favor of icon worship.
The presence of the teacher in the examined biographies has a sym-
bolic meaning. Having in mind the erudition of John of Damascus and
Kosmas Melodos, it is plausible to presume that the two brothers had
received instruction by more than one teacher. The legend of the teacher
contains a historical core that their biographers applied and modified in
order to emphasize the features they wanted about their heroes, especial-
ly John. Why this one stole the show is not difficult to explain. The figure
of the teacher in question served as a metaphor that “carried” the legend
of John of Damascus and his wisdom from one generation to the next. The
legend of the teacher was created and developed through a number of
biographies, not of his own, and was sustained with oral tradition thus
making his story live and thrive.56
53 Life of John of Damascus, 440 C: êár ôxí jåñNí dðéèõìßáí ¿ Èå’ò Pðïðëçñïs ô²
Píäñß, êár ô² æçôï™íôé åœñçôáé ¿ æçôïýìåíïò.
54 See N. KALOGERAS, Byzantine Childhood Education and its Social Role from the
Sixth Century until the End of Iconoclasm, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of
Chicago 2000, 46-49. A characteristic, though not unique, example of this prac-
tice is the information that the learned Ignatios the Deacon provides about the
highbrow education of Patriarch Nikephoros: The Life of Patriarch Nikephoros of
Constantinople, 149.3-151.13.
55 Except for the Jerusalem biography of John of Damascus, the most charac-
teristic parallels of vitae that date from the middle Byzantine period and
describe the secular education of their heroes are those of Theodore the
Stoudite (d. 826) by Michael the Monk, and of Patriarch Nikephoros of
Constantinople (d. 828) by Ignatios the Deacon.
56 DETORAKES, Kosmas, 92 dated the teacher in the first reign of Justinian II (685-
114 695).
Pottery production and use
in Byzantine Constantinople
Introduction
Although there has been a recent upsurge of archaeological interest
in both Byzantine pottery and Byzantine Constantinople (modern
Istanbul), there has been little overall discussion of the production, or
even use, of ceramics in the Byzantine capital. This paper is in two parts:
Part 1 seeks to address this question by reviewing evidence for pottery
use in Byzantine Constantinople, Part 2 presents evidence for Byzantine
pottery production in the city.1
The archaeology of Istanbul presents us with special problems in
relation to pottery production. Only a few excavations on Byzantine sites
in the city have been published in detail, and pottery has only been ade-
quately reported from a handful of these. The published material forms
an outline chronological framework for some categories of pottery, while
others remain less securely dated.2
Although there are distributional grounds for assuming that
Byzantine pottery was produced in or near the city, as we shall see only
one kiln-site has been excavated in Istanbul and just one other discov-
ered in the course of construction. Thus, scholars seeking to identify the
production of pottery in the Byzantine capital are forced to work largely
from unstratified (and often imprecisely located) assemblages and to
seek evidence for pottery manufacture from laboratory analyses, or from
the presence of wasters or kiln furniture.3
1 The most comprehensive recent discussions are a few pages in: V. FRANÇOIS
– J.-M. SPIESER, Pottery and Glass in Byzantium, in: A. E. Laiou (ed.), The
Economic History of Byzantium from the Seventh through the Fifteenth
Century, Washington D.C. 2002, 593-609 (603-605) and K. R. DARK, Byzantine
Pottery, Stroud 2001.
2 Notably the Great Palace, Kalenderhane and Sarac,hane. See: V. FRANÇOIS,
Bibliographie analytique sur la ceramique byzantine à glaçure (= Varia Anatolica IX),
Paris 1997; J. W. HAYES, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, 1992, 7-8 and 11.
3 For (Late) Byzantine kiln furniture: D. PAPANIKOLA-BAKIRTZIS, The Tripod
Stilts of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Pottery, in: Ametos. Volume in Honour of
Professor Manolis Andronikos, Thessaloniki 1986, 641-648. The nearest kilns
are at Ganos on the Sea of Marmara and on the island of Marmara itself. N.
GÜNSENIN, Ganos, centre de production d’amphores à l’époque byzantine, Anatolia
Antiqua 2 (1993) 193-195; P. ARMSTRONG – N. GÜNSENIN, Glazed pottery produc-
tion at Ganos, Anatolia Antiqua 3 (1995) 179-201 and N. GÜNSENIN, Ganos wine
and its circulation in the 11th century, in: M. Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade
4th-12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International 115
Kenneth Rainsbury Dark
As Judith HERRIN has pointed out, texts are little assistance in this
respect. Written sources do not explicitly refer to pottery production in
Constantinople. Indeed, the fact that potters were brought to the capital
in the eighth century in order to help repair the aqueducts could suggest
that there was no substantial local pottery ‘industry’ at this time,
although, as we shall see, these are more likely to have been specialists in
hydraulic ceramics. Consequently, one must rely purely on archaeologi-
cal evidence to determine whether or not pottery was manufactured in
Byzantine Constantinople.4
Pottery in Early Byzantine Constantinople

In common with those living in most of the Early Byzantine world,
the people of fifth- to seventh-century Constantinople used a surprising-
ly restricted range of ceramics. Excluding building materials, these were
principally red-slipped unglazed finewares – especially Phoceaen Red
Slip Ware (PRSW) and African Red Slip Ware (ARSW) – unglazed cook-
ing vessels and the standard range of fifth- to seventh-century amphorae
found in other eastern Mediterranean towns. As elsewhere in the Early
Byzantine Empire, cooking pots and associated unglazed domestic ves-
sels were apparently manufactured locally, although no production-site
has been found, and no wasters are known from definitely pre-seventh-
century contexts.5
As John HAYES has shown, there were also local red-slipped wares.
For example, one such ware that was probably locally manufactured is a
matt red-slip, but white-fabric, pottery identified at Sarac,hane in (espe-
cially, late) sixth-century deposits.6
There seems to be a chronological succession in Constantinople
from PRSW to ARSW in the late sixth century to ARSW, and from ARSW
to local products in the seventh century. This may reflect no more than
the decline of first PRSW, and then ARSW, production but, by the end of
the sixth century, pottery-use in the capital may have become more
dependent on local products. However, no kiln or wasters associated with
these have been found.
Exchange. Papers of the Thirty-eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies,

St. John´s College, University of Oxford, March 2004, Farnham 2009, 145-153.
See also: P. ARMSTRONG – H. HATCHER, Byzantine and Allied pottery, Phase 2: Past
Work on Materials Analysis and Future Prospects, in: H. Maguire (ed.), Materials
Analysis of Byzantine Pottery, Washington D.C. 1997, 1-8 (8).
4 J. HERRIN, Ceramics, in: A. P. Kazhdan (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium, Oxford – New York 1996, 631-635.
5 The Early Byzantine pottery of the city is discussed in: J. W. HAYES, Late
Roman Pottery, London 1972; J. W. HAYES, Supplement to Late Roman Pottery,
London 1980; J. W. HAYES, Excavations at Sarac,hane in Istanbul. Volume 2. The
Pottery, Princeton – Washington D.C. 1992. Byzantine glazed pottery known in
twenty-first century Turkey, including Istanbul, is discussed in: B. BÖHLENDORF-
ARSLAN, Die glasierte byzantinische Keramik aus der Turkei, Istanbul 2004.
116 6 J. W. HAYES, op. cit., 1992, 7-8 and 11.
The introduction of glazed finewares

The most important change in pottery use during the seventh cen-
tury was the widespread adoption of glazed tablewares. Glazing itself was
not new in the region; glazed pottery was produced in small quantities
for centuries. It is found in various parts of the sixth-century Byzantine
Empire and had been manufactured in fourth- and fifth-century north
Italy and the north Balkans. The use of glazed pottery in seventh-centu-
ry Constantinople, therefore, might represent the survival of a continu-
ous tradition of glazed-ware manufacture from the Roman past rather
than a seventh-century innovation.7
Nonetheless, the widespread production of glazed tablewares in the
seventh century Byzantine Empire betokens a significant change. During
the seventh century glazed wares come to replace red-slipped wares. At
this time, it seems, there was a shift from red-fabric to white-fabric
finewares, after centuries of the dominance of red-fabric fineware in the
Roman world.8
The earliest glazed pottery of Constantinople shares several fea-
tures with the red-slipped local whiteware of the sixth century. For
example, as HAYES noted, both can have concave lids with central knobs,
and a colour coat is found below the glaze on many of what may be the
earliest glazed vessels in the city. Although the fabric of the unglazed
sixth-century whitewares and the earliest glazed tablewares (Constan-
tinopolitan Glazed White Ware1, or CGW1) is different, they are per-
haps no more different than are the different groups of subsequent
glazed whiteware fabrics.9
Glazed pottery has an obvious practical advantage, especially as a
container for liquids. But, if this was the case, why were locally produced
amphorae of the eighth and ninth century not glazed? This cannot be
simply because they were closed forms, because glazing first occurs on
closed forms in relation to CGW1. Moreover, many tablewares, including
jugs and other containers for liquids, were produced both unglazed and
glazed. This may suggest that the use of glaze was, in this case, at least as
much a decorative or symbolic as a functional technique.10
7 V. FRANCOIS – J.-M. SPIESER, Pottery and Glass in Byzantium, in: A. E. Laiou

(ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium From the Seventh through the
Fifteenth Century, Washington D.C. 2002, 593-609 (599); J.-M. SPIESER, La
céramique byzantine médiévale, in: C. Abadie-Reynal et al., Hommes et richesses
dans l’Empire byzantin, 2 vols., Paris 1989-1991, vol. 2, 249-260 (250 and notes
10 and 11). For glazed pottery in the sixth-century eastern Mediterranean: I. C.
FREESTONE – K. D. POLITIS – C. P. STAPLETON, The Byzantine glazed pottery from
Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata, Jordan, in: E. Villeneuve – P. M. Watson (eds.), La céramique
byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siècles apr. J.-C.).
Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994, Beirut 2001,197-
205.
8 J. W. HAYES, op. cit., 1992, 7-8.
9 J. W. HAYES, op. cit., 1992,11.
10 J. W. HAYES, op. cit., 1992,15-17. 117
As Liz JAMES has shown, Byzantine perception of colour stressed not

hue but brightness. White, yellow, gold and silver, the colours of CGW1,
all had in common a shared concept of being ‘bright’. Brightness was, as
she notes, important because it had a religious symbolism – both sug-
gesting purity and the ‘light of life’, as an inscription on a slightly later
Byzantine vessel tells us. In this cultural context, white-coloured pottery
may have looked ‘purer’ and ‘brighter’, and so ‘more Christian’. This
symbolism could have been related to the cleanliness or purity of the ves-
sels concerned, or – more likely perhaps – to the religious identity of
those using them. Glazing enhanced this brightness in a way impossible
for red-slipped fabrics.11
The decoration found on CGW1 supports the view that religious
concepts played a part in the mentality of those producing it. The only
common decoration that is found on the vessels is the use of crosses and
fish symbols – both perhaps Christian symbols in this context. Moreover,
the most common decoration on whitewares of the eighth and ninth cen-
turies continued to be the cross.
Consequently, the shift from red-bodied unglazed wares to white-
bodied glazed wares may be explained by the changing cultural values
the seventh and eighth centuries and, in particular, the increased
involvement of Christian belief in almost every aspect of daily life.
Middle Byzantine glazed whitewares

Between c. 800, most fineware vessels used in the capital seem to
have been whitewares (CGW2) distinguished by their distinctive pale
pink, cream or very pure white, fabrics. These glazed finewares were pro-
duced in a restricted range of shapes – plates, small bowls and handled
cups – suggesting a function as tableware, while storage or cooking func-
tions were fulfilled by a series of closely-related unglazed (and coarser
glazed) whitewares and unglazed greywares. Amphorae were still used
for the transport and storage of foodstuffs and other goods.12
From the eighth century onward, new classes of glazed whiteware
were also developed: Petal Ware, Impressed Ware and Polychrome Ware.
Petal Ware may have been produced slightly earlier than Impressed Ware
– sherds occur in eighth-century deposits at SaraC, hane. As Pamela
ARMSTRONG has pointed out, Impressed Ware shares decorative similari-
ties with eighth-century CGW1, so may also have originated in the eighth
century. She has also shown that the majority of Impressed Ware motifs
also characteristically fall into a few categories: crosses, eagles and very
‘Classical’ human figures. The symbolism of the latter is striking in their
visual reference to the Roman past.13
11 L. JAMES, Light and Colour in Byzantine Art, Oxford, 1996. A photograph of
the Polychrome Ware sherd bearing a painted inscription in Greek translated
here as ‘light of life’ was first published in: K. DARK, op, cit., 2001.
12 K. DARK, op. cit., 2001, 63 and 120-121.
118 13 P. ARMSTRONG, From Constantinople to Lakedaimon, in: J. Herrin – M. Mullett

Fig. 1. Impressed Ware base-sherd from Istanbul, probably depicting

a domed building
There are also some cases of rare impressed designs. For example,
one, illustrated here (Fig. 1), depicts what seems to be a domed building,
perhaps a church. This sherd, found in Istanbul, is currently unique
among known examples of Impressed Ware and serves as an example of
such anomalous – perhaps ‘one-off ’ – products.14
HAYES suggested that the images on Impressed Ware sherds were not
readily visible to their users. They are often so vague that they were
almost indistinguishable, but this seems to be due to the use of worn
moulds and stamps, attesting no more than the volume of production.
This is further supported by the very large quantities (many thousands
of sherds) known from Istanbul and elsewhere. Thus, one may assume
that the potters intended the motifs were to be seen. If so, their evoca-
tion of Roman identity is worthy of particular note given their possible
eighth- and ninth-century date.15
The problem of Polychrome Ware

Polychrome Ware, a whiteware decorated with a wide palette of
bright colours, was used in Middle Byzantine Constantinople for both
vessels and wall tiles. This was probably the highest status Middle
Byzantine whiteware pottery. It is unique among Middle Byzantine
glazed wares for sometimes incorporating gold leaf in its decoration, and
most Polychrome Ware tiles from Constantinople are from churches with
known imperial patronage or known imperial buildings. The few excep-
tions include the tiles found at the Topkapï Basilica and those from the
– C. Otten-Froux (eds.), Mosaic. Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw (= BSA Studies,

8), London 2001, 57-68. A colour photograph of the base was published in: K.
DARK, op. cit., 2001.
14 A photograph of the base was first published in: K. DARK, op. cit., 2001.
15 J. W. HAYES, op. cit., 1992, 17. 119
buildings, of enigmatic function, excavated behind Istanbul Archaeo-

logical Museum. Both of these sites are on the acropolis of the Byzantine
capital, where Middle Byzantine imperial building works are well attest-
ed, and an imperial context is possible. The recently excavated, seem-
ingly unused, tiles from the harbourside at Yenikapï might have been in
transit throuht the harbour, perhaps suggesting the export of these prod-
ucts in the eleventh century.16
The dating of Polychrome Ware is the subject of controversy. It was
almost certainly produced in the eleventh and twelfth centuries in Con-
stantinople, in Bulgaria and in Corinth, but recently G. D. R. SANDERS
has disputed that any Polychrome Ware was manufactured earlier than
c.1000. However, his work is based largely on an analysis of the large
amount of Polychrome Ware from Corinth, and not on a detailed study
of the Constantinopolitan or Bulgarian material.17
While there seems no evidence for Polychrome Ware in Greece prior
to the eleventh century, this need only date the period at which it was
imported into that region or at which local version of it was produced.
16 M. M. MANGO, Polychrome Tiles Found at Istanbul: Typology, Chronology and

Function, in: S. E. J. Gerstel – J. A. Lauffenberger (eds.), A Lost Art Re-
discovered. The Architectural Ceramics of Byzantium, University Park PA.,
2001,13-42 (28 and 38-39); E. ETTINGHAUSEN, Byzantine tiles from the basilica in the
Topkapu Sarayi and Saint John of Stoudios, Cahiers Archéologiques VII (1954) 79-
88; E. S. ETTINGHAUSEN, Topkapï Sarayï Basilica, in: S. E. J. Gerstel – J. A.
Lauffenberger, op. cit., 2001, 208-224; M. M. MANGO, Istanbul Archaeological
Museum, in: S. E. J. Gerstel – J. A. Lauffenberger, op. cit., 2001, 183; E. S.
ETTINGHAUSEN, Saint John Stoudios (Imrahor Camii), in: S. E. J. Gerstel – J. A.
Lauffenberger, op. cit., 2001, 203-205; K. R. DARK, op. cit., 2001, 134-135; G.
D. R. SANDERS, Byzantine Polychrome Pottery, in: J. Herrin et al., op. cit., 2001, 89-
104; idem, New relative and Absolute Chronologies for 9th to 13th Century Glazed
Wares at Corinth: Methodology and Social Conclusions, in: K. Belke (ed.), Byzanz als
Raum: zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geographie des östlichen
Mittelmeerraumes, Vienna 2000, 153-174; id., Recent Developments in the
Chronology of Byzantine Corinth, in: C. K. Williams – N. Bookidis (eds.), Corinth,
the Centenary, Athens 2003, 385-400. The Polychrome Ware tiles from the
Yenikapï station excavation were reported by Professor Emeritus Cyril Mango,
on the basis of his own eyewitness testimony, in a lecture at St. John´s College,
University of Oxford on 2nd June 2006, following his visit to the site in
November 2005. For the excavation: U. Kocabas (ed.), The Old Ships of the New
Gate / Yenikapïńin Eski Gemileri, Istanbul 2008.
17 G. D. R. SANDERS, op. cit., 2001, 98 and 101. For chemical and geological
evidence concerning Polychrome Ware see: A. H. S. MEGAW – R. E. JONES,
Byzantine and Allied Pottery: A Contribution by Chemical Analyses to Problems of Origin
and Distribution, Bulletin de la Société Archéologique (further BSA) 78 (1983)
235-265; R. B. MASON – M. M. MANGO, Glazed Tiles of Nicomedia´ in Bithynia,
Constantinople, and elsewhere, in: C. Mango – G. Dagron (eds.). Constantinople
and its Hinterland, Aldershot 1995, 313-331; J. DURAND, Plaques de céramique
byzantines des collections publique françaises, in: H. Maguire (ed.), Materials Analysis
of Byzantine Pottery, Washington D.C. 1997, 25-50; C. VOGT – A. BOPUQUILLON
– M. DUBUS – G. QUERRÉ, Glazed Tiles of Constantinople: Physical and Chemical
Characterization, Manufacturing, and Decoravtive Processes, in: H. Maguire (ed.),
op. cit,, 1997, 51-66; J. A. LAUFFENBURGER – J. L. WILIAMS, Byzantine Tiles in
Walters Art gallery and Dumbarton Oaks Collections, in: H. Maguire (ed.), op. cit.,
120 1997, 67-84.
Scientific studies confirm that some Polychrome Ware was a Constan-

tinopolitan product, and so it is impossible to claim that all the relevant
material from the city was imported from Greece or the Balkans.
Consequently, its occurrence in Greece need be a reliable chronological
guide only to the date at which this class of pottery was first used there.
Interestingly, the important recent review by Rossina KOSTOVA of
Polychrome Ware production in Bulgaria suggests that this began there
in the late ninth century and that, as in Constantinople, its products were
restricted to very high-status use.18
The main problem with dating the earliest use of Polychrome Ware
in Constantinople is a general lack of published excavated contexts.
Despite this, Polychrome Ware appears in what seem to be tenth-century
deposits at Sarac,hane and at the Great Palace and, as Marlia MUNDELL
MANGO has pointed out, Polychrome Ware tiles are incorporated in
Byzantine buildings in the capital datable to the ninth, tenth, eleventh
and twelfth centuries.19
SANDERS dismissed this dating evidence on the grounds that the tiles
(‘revetment plaques’, he terms them) and pottery vessels were separate in-
dustries. However, there are strong reasons for associating the vessels and
tiles. First, the fabric of both tiles and pottery vessels share a similar ‘sig-
nature’ suite of minerals, although several fabrics were used for both prod-
ucts. Second, artistically and technically, Polychrome Ware tiles and vessels
were manufactured and decorated in extremely similar ways, as scholars
have realised for over half a century. Third, both occur on the same sites
and in close proximity to each other, in Constantinople – as at the Great
Palace, Bodrum Camii and Sarac,hane. Fourth, the techniques of produc-
ing both tiles and vessels were imported together to Bulgaria, where they
were thereafter manufactured alongside each other, as SANDERS admits.20
Consequently, it appears that Polychrome Ware was first used in
Constantinople in the ninth century, but may have remained a largely or
wholly Constantinopolitan (even courtly) ware until the late ninth centu-
ry when, arguably small-scale, manufacture began in Bulgaria. From
c.1000, it was used much more widely, produced in Corinth and possibly
at other centres, and exported by ship from Constantinople.21
18 G. D. R. SANDERS, op. cit., 2001. For a recent overiew of the Bulgarian pro-
duction of Polychrome Ware in emulation of that of Constantinople: R. KOSTOVA,
Polychrome ceramics in Preslav, 9th to 11th centuries: where were they produced and how,
in: M. Mundell Mango (ed.), op. cit., 2009, 97-117. Kostova’s paper offers an
important comparison for the Byzantine production of Polychrome Ware.
19 M. M. MANGO, op. cit., 2001, 22-33.
20 G. D. R. SANDERS, op. cit., 2001; K. R. DARK, op. cit., 2001, 134-135.
21 This generalisation is based personal observation in Istanbul and on the
data collection by: V. FRANÇOIS, Bibliographie analytique sur la céramique byzantine
à glaçure (= Varia Anatolica IX), Paris, 1997. See also her maps and discussion
in: V. FRANÇOIS, Sur la circulation des céramiques byzantines en Méditerraneé orientale
et occidentale, in: La céramique médiévale en Mériditerranée, VIe Congrès
International sur la Céramique Mediévale en Méditerranée, Aix-en-Provence
1997, 231-236. 121
Fig. 2. Red-fabric Byzantine wall tile from the New Post Office site,
Istanbul
Interestingly, two tiles similar to Polychrome Ware but in red fabrics

have been found in Istanbul, but have previously gone unnoticed. One
Byzantine wall tile, illustrated here for the first time, was discovered at
the New Post Office site (Fig. 2). This is decorated in Polychrome Ware
style but is uniquely in a red fabric, rather than the white fabrics
employed for all other known Byzantine tiles of this sort. Another tile in
a red fabric was found during construction of the Istanbul Archaeological
Museum.22
Late Byzantine pottery in Constantinople

All of these classes of pottery appear to have remained in use until
the Latin Conquest of 1204. Thereafter, pottery-use alters almost entire-
ly, with stronger Italian cultural and economic connections becoming
apparent. Whitewares and amphorae apparently ceased to be used in the
thirteenth century and red-bodied sgraffito wares became the standard
tableware. These show changes over time. For example, Fine Sgraffito
Ware is characteristic of the twelfth century and new classes of sgraffito
ware, such as Zeuxippus Ware, and the related Champleve Ware, become
common in the thirteenth.23
The pottery of the Late Byzantine period shows improvements in
glazing technology, and ceramic tripods became widely used as kiln
furniture. A rare, luxury, product known as Elaborate Incised Ware has a
distribution largely restricted to Thessaloniki (where it is rare) and Con-
stantinople.24
22 H. EDHEM, Catalogue des poteries byzantines et anatoliennes du Musée de

Constantinople, Constantinople (Istanbul) 1910, 39, number 153.
23 K. R. DARK, op. cit., 2001, 67-69, 112 and 134. See also: V. FRANÇOIS,
Elaborate Incised Ware: un témoin du rayonnement de la culture byzantine à l´époque
paléologue, Byzantinoslavica LXI (2003) 151-168.
24 K. DARK, op. cit., 2001, 139-140. The famous ‘Constantine Bowl’ in The
122 British Museum may be an especially luxurious Elaborate Incised Ware product
This final, Late Byzantine, phase saw customs of pottery use lasting
generations abandoned in favour of new wares. This may relate to the
disruption caused by the ‘Latin Occupation’ from 1204-1261, or to the
migration to the city of new populations during or after this. Altern-
atively, it may represent the greater availability of ‘mass-produced’ glazed
pottery.
Thus, even with our limited archaeological data, one can gain a clear
outline of the history of pottery-use in the city. However, knowing where
this pottery was manufactured would help us considerably. Some previ-
ously unrecognised evidence may assist us to resolve this matter.
Glazed pottery production in Constantinople

Although hitherto apparently unidentified, the 1930s-1950s excava-
tions at the Great Palace produced much evidence for pottery produc-
tion. This includes distinctive kiln furniture (ceramic tripods) in a
twelfth-century context and a series of wasters. All come from the area of
the present Mosaic Museum and the so-called ‘Arasta Bazaar’, so lie with-
in the heart of the Great Palace complex.25
The British Museum collection includes a series of badly burnt sherds
from the excavation, but these are possibly from one of the burning lay-
ers described in the published reports. Of these, sherd GP1.2 has a red
brown fabric with bubbled glaze, GP 1.73, is a very badly burnt body sherd
with deep red and green glaze over a hard grey brown fabric and GP1.72
is a charred rim of an unglazed vessel, probably of Constantinopolitan
White Ware. These may all be ‘burnt sherds’ rather than wasters, although
any of them could be a by-product of pottery production.
However, what seem to be wasters are also present in the British
Museum collection of pottery from the Great Palace. The most striking
is sherd GP1. 41 64, a Polychrome Ware base bearing decoration in yel-
low and brown with black outlining, distorted by misfiring. Two other
sherds may also be wasters. GP1.66 is a turquoise glazed Constan-
tinopolitan White Ware body sherd, with a light cream slip over a pure
white fabric. There are streaks of turquoise and brown glaze on the inte-
rior and light brown exterior glossy glaze. GP1.65 is another turquoise
glazed vessel, in this case in a white fabric with voids and dark brown
inclusions.
This evidence indicates that pottery production took place in the
Great Palace and that that Constantinopolitan whitewares and
of this period, rather than a fake: K. R. DARK, The Constantine Bowl: A Late
Byzantine Diplomatic Gift?, The Burlington Magazine CXXXVI 1101 (1994) 829-
831. (Unpublished) examination by colleagues in the Museum laboratory later
confirmed the technical observations regarding the piece proposed on macro-
scopic grounds in that paper.
25 The excavation is reported in: G. BRETT – W. J. MACAULAY – R. B. K.
STEVENSON, The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, First Report, Oxford 1947
and D. Talbot Rice (ed.), The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, Second Report,
Edinburgh 1958. 123
Fig. 3. Unfinished sherd of Polychrome Ware from Fenari Isa Camii,

Istanbul
Polychrome Ware were produced in, or near, the complex. This supports
evidence from a whiteware waster from Kalenderhane and another –
hitherto unpublished – unfinished sherd of Polychrome Ware from
Fenari Isa Camii (Fig. 3), to attest both glazed whiteware and Polychrome
Ware production in the city.26
The New Post Office site also has a group of Coloured Sgraffito Ware
wasters, attesting production of (technically low-quality) sgraffito pottery
in the city after c.1200. On a study visit to the church of St Saviour in
Chora (Kariye Museum) in the 1970s, Professor Grenville ASTILL (Chair
in Medieval Archaeology at The University of Reading) tells me that he
saw a Byzantine pottery kiln, probably for red-bodied sgraffito wares,
exposed by construction ‘very close to the church’. This was, to my
knowledge, the first Byzantine pottery kiln identified in Istanbul. It
demonstrates that pottery manufacture was present within the city walls,
at least toward the end of the Byzantine period. Its proximity to such an
important Late Byzantine monastic church might suggest a monastic
context for the kiln.27
Recently, excavations at Sirkeci railway station, near the New Post
Office site, have also produced further examples of vitrified pottery,
26 For the waster at Kalenderhane see: A. H. S. MEGAW – R. E. JONES, Byzantine
and Allied Pottery: A Contribution by Chemical Analyses to Problems of Origin and
Distribution, BSA 78 (1983) 235-265 (236). For a summary of and bibliography
for the Byzantine complex at Fenari Isa Camii: M. M. MANGO, Constantine Lips
(Fenari isa Camii), in: S. E. J. Gerstel – J. A. Lauffenberger (eds.), op. cit., 2001,
189-195. However, other centres, notably Nicaea and Nicomedia cannot be dis-
missed as possible sources for some of the whitewares found in Istanbul, while
copies were manufactured in the Byzantine provinces. For Nicaea (modern
Iznik): V. FRANÇOIS, Les ateliers de céramique byzantine de Nicée/Iznik et leur produc-
tion, Xe-début XIe siècle, Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 121/I (1997) 423-
458.
27 I am grateful to Professor G. Astill for permission to publish this observa-
tion. On the environs of the Chora monastery: R. G. OUSTERHOUT, Con-
textualizing the later churches of Constantinople: suggested methodologies and a few
124 examples, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000) 241-251.
wasters and ceramic tripods, associated with what is probably a thir-

teenth-century pottery kiln manufacturing incised sgraffito wares
(including those with monograms) and perhaps other products. It is
interesting that both this and the New Post Office finds are from sites
that were probably adjacent to the Byzantine harbour. If the Yenikapï
Polychrome Ware tiles were produced near the harbour, which is far from
certain at present, then this may be another example of harbourside pot-
tery-production in the city. Perhaps ease of loading and seaborne trans-
portation explains the location of kilns near harbours, but – if so – then
this may suggest the products of these kilns were for overseas distribu-
tion rather than local consumption. This is in contrast to the inland sites,
as at Kariye and Fenari Isa Camii, where ceramic production was pre-
sumably for local use, perhaps even use in the specific complex in which
the kiln was sited, as it presumably was at the Great Palace.28
Conclusion
Together, this evidence enables us to recognise a wide range of pot-
tery production in the Byzantine capital from at least the sixth to thir-
teenth centuries. A whole series of different classes of pottery were
eithter probably or certainly produced in (or near) the city, including
local red-slipped wares, colour-coated white wares, Constantinopolitan
White Ware and Polychrome Ware vessels and tiles.
This is especially interesting given the lack of textual references to
potters in the city. Pottery production in the city may explain why some
classes of pottery (notably seventh-century glazed wares and Polychrome
Ware) seem to appear earliest in Constantinople and why some, such as
Elaborate Incised Ware, are largely restricted to it.
Bibliography:
P. ARMSTRONG 2001, From Contantinople to Lakedaimon, in: J. Herrin – M. Mullett

– C. Otten-Froux (eds.), Mosaic. Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw, BSA Studies
8, London, 57-68.
P. ARMSTRONG – N. GÜNSENIN 1995, Glazed pottery production at Ganos, Anatolia
Antiqua 3, 179-201.
28 The Sirkeci kiln is reported in: Y. WAKSMAN – C. GIRGIN, Les vestiges de pro-
,
duction de céramiques de fouilles de Sirkeci (Istanbul). Premiers elements de characteri-
sation, Anatolia Antiqua 16 (2008) 443-469; S. Y. WAKSMAN – N. ERHAN – S.
ESKALEN, Les ateliers de céramique de Sirkeci (Istanbul). Résultat de la campagne 2008,
Anatolia Antiqua XVII (2009) 457-467, and C,. GIRGIN, Sirekci´de sürdürülen kazï
c,alïsmalarïndan elde edilen sonuc,lar, in: Gün Isiginda: Istanbulún 8000yili:
Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet kazïlarï, Istanbul 2007, 98-105; The New Post
Office site is discussed in: K. R. DARK, The New Post Office site in Istanbul and the
north-eastern harbour of Byzantine Constantinople, International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 33/2 (2004) 315-319. 125
P. ARMSTRONG – H. HATCHER 1997, Byzantine and Allied pottery, Phase 2: Past Work
on Materials Analysis and Future Prospects, in: H. Maguire (ed.), Materials
Analysis of Byzantine Pottery, Washington D.C., 1-8.
B. BÖHLENDORF-ARSLAN 2004, Die glasierte byzantinische Keramik aus der Turkei,
Istanbul.
G. BRETT – W. J. MACAULAY – R. B. K. STEVENSON 1947, The Great Palace of the
Byzantine Emperors, First Report, Oxford.
K. R. DARK 1994, The Constantine Bowl: A Late Byzantine Diplomatic Gift?, The
Burlington Magazine CXXXVI 1101, 829-831.
K. R. DARK 2001, Byzantine Pottery, Stroud.
K. R. DARK 2004, The New Post Office site in Istanbul and the north-eastern harbour
of Byzantine Constantinople, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
33/2, 315-319.
J. DURAND 1997, Plaques de céramique byzantines des collections publique françaises, in:
H. Maguire (ed.), Materials Analysis of Byzantine Pottery, Washington
D.C., 25-50.
H. EDHEM 1910, Catalogue des poteries byzantines et anatoliennes du Musée de
Constantinople, Constantinople, Istanbul.
E. ETTINGHAUSEN 1954, Byzantine tiles from the basilica in the Topkapu Sarayi and
Saint John of Stoudios, Cahiers Archéologiques VII, 79-88.
E. S. ETTINGHAUSEN 2001, Saint John Stoudios (Imrahor Camii), in: S. E. J. Gerstel
– J. A. Lauffenberger (eds.), A Lost Art Rediscovered. The Architectural
Ceramics of Byzantium, University Park PA., 203-205.
E. S. ETTINGHAUSEN 2001, Topkapï Sarayï Basilica, in: S. E. J. Gerstel – J. A.
Lauffenberger (eds.), A Lost Art Rediscovered. The Architectural Ceramics
of Byzantium, University Park PA., 208-224.
V. FRANÇOIS 1997, Les ateliers de céramique byzantine de Nicée/Iznik et leur production,
Xe-début XIe siècle, Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique 121/I, 423-58.
V. FRANÇOIS 1997, Sur la circulation des céramiques byzantines en Méditerraneé orien-
tale et occidentale, in: La céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, VIe Congrès
International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditterranée, Aix-en-
Provence, 231-236.
V. FRANÇOIS 1997, Bibliographie analytique sur la céramique byzantine à glaçure (=
Varia Anatolica IX), Paris.
V. FRANÇOIS 2003, Elaborate Incised Ware: un témoin du rayonnement de la culture
byzantine à l’époque paléologue, Byzantinoslavica LXI, 151-168.
V. FRANÇOIS – J.-M. SPIESER 2002, Pottery and Glass in Byzantium, in: A. E. Laiou
(ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium from the Seventh through the
Fifteenth Century, Washington DC, 593-609.
I. C. FREESTONE – K. D. POLITIS – C. P. STAPLETON 2001, The Byzantine glazed pot-
tery from Deir ‘Ain ‘Abata, Jordan, in: E. Villeneuve – P. M. Watson (eds.), La
céramique byzantine et proto-islamique en Syrie-Jordanie (IVe-VIIIe siècles
apr. J.-C.). Actes du colloque tenu à Amman les 3, 4 et 5 décembre 1994,
Beirut, 197-205.
C, . GIRGIN 2007, Sirkeci’de sürdürülen kazï ,c alïsmalarïndan elde edilen sonuc,lar
(Results obtained from the ongoing excavations at Sirkeci), in: Gün Isiginda:
Istanbul’un 8000 yili: Marmaray, Metro, Sultanahmet kazïlarï, Istanbul, 98-
126 105.
N. GÜNSENIN 1993, Ganos, centre de production d’amphores à l’époque byzantine,

Anatolia Antiqua 2, 193-195.
N. GÜNSENIN 2009, Ganos wine and its circulation in the 11th century, in: M. Mundell
Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade 4th-12th Centuries. The Archaeology of
Local, Regional and International Exchange. Papers of the Thirty-eighth
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St. John’s College, University of
Oxford, March 2004, Farnham, 145-153.
J. HERRIN 1996, Ceramics, in: A. P. Kahzdan (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium, Oxford – New York, 631-635.
J. W. HAYES 1972, Late Roman Pottery, London.
J. W. HAYES 1980, Supplement to Late Roman Pottery, London
J. W. HAYES 1992, Excavations at Sarac, hane in Istanbul. Volume 2. The Pottery,
Princeton – Washington DC.
U. Kocabas (ed.) 2008, The Old Ships of the New Gate / Yenikapï’nin Eski Gemileri
Istanbul.
R. KOSTOVA 2009, Polychrome ceramics in Preslav, 9th to 11th centuries: where were
they produced and how?, in: M. Mundell Mango (ed.), Byzantine Trade 4th-
12th Centuries. The Archaeology of Local, Regional and International
Exchange. Papers of the Thirty-eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine
Studies, St. John’s College, University of Oxford, March 2004, Farnham,
97-117.
L. JAMES 1996, Light and Colour in Byzantine Art, Oxford.
J. A. LAUFFENBURGER – J. L. WILLIAMS 1997, Byzantine Tiles in the Walters Art
Gallery and Dumbarton Oaks Collections, in: H. Maguire (ed.), Materials
Analysis of Byzantine Pottery, Washington D.C., 67-84.
M. M. MANGO 2001, Polychrome Tiles Found at Istanbul: Typology, Chronology and
Function, in: S. E. J. Gerstel – J. A. Lauffenberger (eds.), A Lost Art
Rediscovered. The Architectural Ceramics of Byzantium, University Park
PA., 13-42.
M. M. MANGO 2001, Istanbul Archaeological Museum, in: S. E. J. Gerstel and J. A.
Lauffenberger (eds.), A Lost Art Rediscovered. The Architectural Ceramics
of Byzantium, University Park PA.,183.
M. Mundell Mango (ed.) 2009, Byzantine Trade 4th-12th Centuries. The Archaeology
of Local, Regional and International Exchange. Papers of the Thirty-eighth
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, St. John’s College, University of
Oxford, March 2004, Farnham.
R. B. MASON – M. M. MANGO 1995, Glazed ‘Tiles of Nicomedia’ in Bithynia,
Constantinople, and elsewhere, in: C. Mango – G. Dagron 1995 (eds.),
Constantinople and its Hinterland, Aldershot, 313-331.
A. H. S. MEGAW – R. E. JONES 1983, Byzantine and Allied Pottery: A Contribution by
Chemical Analyses to Problems of Origin and Distribution, Bulletin de la Société
Archéologique 78, 235-265.
R. G. OUSTERHOUT 2000, Contextualizing the later churches of Constantinople: sug-
gested methodologies and a few examples, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54, 241-225.
D. PAPANIKOLA-BAKIRTZIS 1986, The Tripod Stilts of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine
Pottery, in: Ametos. Volume in Honour of Professor Manolis Andronikos,
Thessaloniki, 641-648.
127
G. D. R. SANDERS 2000, New Relative and Absolute Chronologies for 9th to 13th Century
Glazed Wares at Corinth: Methodology and Social Conclusions, in: Byzanz als
Raum: zu Methoden und Inhalten der historischen Geographie des
östlichen Mittelmeeraumes, K. Belke (ed.), Vienna, 153-174.
G. D. R. SANDERS 2001, Byzantine Polychrome Pottery, in: J. Herrin – M. Mullett –
C. Otten-Froux (eds.), Mosaic. Festschrift for A. H. S. Megaw (= BSA
Studies 8), London, 89-104.
G. D. R. SANDERS 2003, Recent Developments in the chronology of Byzantine Corinth,
in: C. K. Williams – N. Bookidis (eds.), Corinth, the Centenary, Athens,
385-400.
J.-M. SPIESER 1989-1991, La céramique byzantine médiévale, in: Hommes et richess-
es dans l’Empire byzantin, 2 vols. Paris, vol. 2, 249-260.
D. Talbot Rice (ed.) 1958, The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors, Second
Report, Edinburgh.
C. VOGT – A. BOUQUILLON – M. DUBUS – G. QUERRÉ 1997, Glazed Tiles of
Constantinople: Physical and Chemical Characterization, Manufacturing, and
Decorative Processes, in: H. Maguire (ed.), Materials Analysis of Byzantine
Pottery, Washington D.C., 51-66.
S. Y. WAKSMAN – C,. GIRGIN 2008, Les vestiges de production de céramiques des fouilles
de Sirkeci (Istanbul). Premiers éléments de characterisation, Anatolia Antiqua 16,
443-469.
S. Y. WAKSMAN – N. ERHAN – S. ESKALE, 2009, Les ateliers de céramiques de Sirkeci
(Istanbul). Résultats de la campagne 2008, Anatolia Antiqua XVII, 457-467.
128
An unknown source of Constantine
Porphyrogenitus
Tibor éIVKOVI∆ (Belgrade)
By Constantine Porphyrogenitusís own admission he authored the

chapter Of Dalmatia and of the adjacent nationsí(chapter 29) of De adminis-
trando imperio (DAI) in 948/949.1 This chapter marks the beginning of the
specific group of chapters dealing with the Southern Slavs namely: Serbs,
Croats, Travounians, Zachloumians, Narentans, and Diocletians who set-
tled in Dalmatia and surrounding areas.2 It is a very important work for
the history of the Southern Slavs, since it is the only source which defined
the time when and how/why the Serbs and the Croats settled in
Dalmatia.3
1 Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio I, ed. R. J. H. Jenkins ñ Gy.

Moravcsik, Washington D. C. 1967, c. 29.234-235 (= DAI I). This chapter appears
to be composed at the same time as chapter 27 about Lombardy; cf. DAI I, c.
27.54.
2 DAI I, cc. 29-36.
3 There are numerous studies dedicated to these chapters; see, G. MANOJLOVI∆,
Jadransko pomorje 9. stoljeÊa u svjetlu istoËno-rimske (bizantinske) povijesti, Rad JAZU
150 (1902) 1-102; J. B. BURY, The treatise De administrando imperio, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 15 (1906) 556-561 (= BURY, Treatise); Lj. HAUPTMANN, Dolazak Hrvata,
Zbornik kralja Tomislava, Zagreb 1925, 86-127; idem, Seobe Hrvata i Srba,
Jugoslavenski istorijski Ëasopis 3 (1937) 30-61; A. DABINOVI∆, Drûavnopravni odnos
Hrvata prema istoËnom carstvu, Rad HAZU 270 (1941) 49-148; G. OSTROGORSKI,
Porfirogenitova hronika srpskih vladara i njeni hronoloöki podaci, Istorijski Ëasopis 1-2
(1948) 24-29; B. GRAFENAUER, Prilog kritici izvjeötaja Konstantina Porfirogenita o dosel-
jenju Hrvata, Historijski zbornik (futher HZ) 5 (1952) 1-56; J. FERLUGA, Vizantija i
postanak najranijih juûnoslovenskih drûava, Zbornik radova Vizantoloökog instituta
(futher ZRVI) 11 (1968) 55-66; idem, Vizantijsko carstvo i juûnoslovenske drûave od
sredine X veka, ZRVI 13 (1971) 75-107; L. MARGETI∆, Konstantin Porfirogenit i vrijeme
dolaska Hrvata, Zbornik Historijskog zavoda JAZU 8 (1977) 5-88; B. FERJAN»I∆,
Struktura 30. glave spisa De administrando imperio, ZRVI 18 (1978) 61-80 (=
FERJAN»I∆, Struktura ); idem, Dolazak Hrvata i Srba na Balkansko poluostrvo, ZRVI 35
(1996) 117-154 (= FERJAN»I∆, Dolazak); idem, Vasilije I i obnova vizantijske vlasti u
IX veku, ZRVI 36 (1997) 9-30; V. KOä∆AK, Pripadnost istoËne obale Jadrana do splitskih
sabora 925-928, HZ 33-34 (1981) 291-355; Lj. MAKSIMOVI∆, Struktura 32 glave spisa
De administrando imperio, ZRVI 21 (1982) 25-32; idem, Pokrötavanje Srba i Hrvata,
ZRVI 35 (1996) 155-174; N. KLAI∆, O problemima stare domovine, dolaska i pokröta-
vanja dalmatinskih Hrvata, Zgodovinski Ëasopis 29/4 (1984) 253-270; eadem,
Najnoviji radovi o 29, 30. i 31. poglavlju u djelu De administrando imperio cara
Konstantina VII. Porfirogenita, Starohrvatska prosvjeta (1985) 31-60; I. äEV»ENKO,
Re-reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Byzantine Diplomacy, ed. J. Shepard ñ S.
Franklin, Ipswitch 1995, 167-195; S. ∆IRKOVI∆, ìNaseljeni gradoviî Konstantina
Porfirogenita i najstarija teritorijalna organizacija, ZRVI 37 (1998) 9-32. For the olden
historiography see, Fontes Byzantini Historiam populorum Jugoslaviae spectantes II,
rec. B. FerjanËiÊ, Beograd 1959, passim. 129
Tibor éivkoviÊ
It is usually accepted that Constantine collected this material from his

informants from Dalmatia.4 A thorough analysis that attempted to identi-
fy all Constantineís sources for chapters 29-36 of the DAI had not been
written thus far.5 It can be assumed that Constantine, as he did in the
other parts of the DAI, used not only the accounts brought to him by his
emissaries and eyewitnesses6 but also from other written historical works.
We are going to make an analysis of the sections in chapter 29 which
are related to Salona, Emperor Diocletian and the imperial palace. In the
works of classical authors these usually come together, either as a passage
or as a story. We are assuming that Constantine also could have used sim-
ilarly written source[s] in which all the information provided formed a
single account. The main question is whether this source was contempo-
rary to the Emperor (10th century), or was indeed much older.
There is a general opinion, pointed out by J. B. BURY, that specific
opening words of particular section in various chapters of the DAI, isteon
oti, oti (kóôÝïí ”ôé, ”ôé) are signaling that section is pigeonhole for use in the
treatise.7 These sections are sometimes coherent entries from one
Constantineís primary source on the particular issue but sometimes it
could have been composed from several sources.8 The lack of cohesion in
the chapters and inside of the specific sections, shows that the DAI is not a
complete work, but rather a draft left for further correction and elabora-
tion. In fact, some chapters were completed, some elaborated almost as the
final draft, while majority was left unfinished.9 This is a very important con-
4 See the examples in: FerjanËiÊ, Dolazak, 120, n. 9. The question on the
Constantineís sources ëOf the Croats/Serbsí, was, in fact, never the matter of thor-
ough research. The only exception is, B. FERJAN»I∆, Dalmacija u spisu De adminis-
trando imperio ñ vrela i putevi saznanja, ZRVI 29/30 (1991) 9-21 (= FerjanËiÊ, Vrela).
5 For instance, in Constantine Porphyrogenitus De administrando imperio II:
Commentary, ed. R. J. H. Jenkins, London 1962, 101 (= DAI II), passage 29.2-7 is left
without any explanation. The complete commentary collected in DAI II was more
review of various scholarly opinions than research for Constantineís sources. The
edition on Litavrin is, even though published much later, also without this impor-
tant approach; cf. Konstantin Bagryanorodnyi Ob upravlenii imperiey, ed. G. G.
Litavrin ñ A. P. Novoselcev, Moskva 1989, 361-368 (= Litavrin, Ob upravlenii).
6 Cf. FERJAN»I∆, Struktura, 73-75. See, A. R”NA-TAS, Hungarians and Europe in the
Early Middle Ages, Budapest 1999, 54.
7 BURY, Treatise, 525, 538.
8 We assumed that these sub-sections could be identified by typical fine-seam
expressions such as Ï£ôïò ï¤í (now this, then this, therefore this); ‘EÁëëN êár (but also);
or FÇ äc êár (but and), inserted in many oti-sections. DAI I, c. 29.7, 11, 14, 68. Cf.
P. HUBY, Theophrastus of Eresus, Sources of his Life, Writings, Thought & Influence,
commentary, vol. 4, Psychology, Leiden 1992, 49, about the beginning of a sen-
tence with alla kai, which could itself be a sign of a switch of the speakers. For FÇ äc êár
see, A. GARSKY ñ C. HEIL ñ T. HEIKE ñ J. E. AMON, Documenta Q, Reconstructions of Q
Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated, ed. S.
Carruth, Leuven 1997, 279-280.
9 The best and most accurate definition of the Constantineís approach to his
sources wrote J. B. BURY, Treatise, 550: We see at once that we are here getting a glimpse
into Constantineís workshop. Author of these three accounts (i. e. the story on Soldan
130 preserved in De thematibus, De administrando imperio, and Vita Basilii), has drafted
clusion, which we should always bear in mind when trying to understand

the accounts recorded by Constantine. It means that in the search for the
sources about Emperor Diocletian and Salona, we have to carefully analyse
his notes in all chapters that are related to Emperor Diocletian and Salona.
The same source was decomposed, and then composed again, depending
on the need of the writer in the specific section of particular chapter.10
Sections of chapter 29 related to Salona, Emperor Diocletian

and his palace
1.1 GÏôé Äéïêëçôéáí’ò ¿ âáóéëå˜ò ðÜíõ ôyò ÷þñáò Äåëìáôßáò zñÜóèç,
äé’ êár Pð’ ôyò FÑþìçò ëá’í Pãáã¦í ìåôN ôNò öáìéëßáò ášô§í, dí ô†
ášô† ôyò Äåëìáôßáò ÷þñu ôïýôïõò êáôåóêÞíùóåí, ïm êár FÑùìOíïé ðñïóç-
ãïñåýèçóáí äéN ô’ Pð’ FÑþìçò ìåôïéêéóèyíáé, êár ôáýôçí ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí
ôxí dðùíõìßáí díáðïöÝñïíôáé.11
The emperor Diocletian was much enamored of the country of Dalmatia, and
so he brought folk with their families from Rome and settled them in this same coun-
try of Dalmatia, and they were called Romani from their having been removed from
Rome, and this title attaches to them until this day.12
The story said that Emperor Diocletian loved Dalmatia, and that
under his rule an orderly settlement of the Romans occurred in Dalmatia,
is unparalleled in the works of classical authors. The oti-prefix indicates
that it was a note which was not completely merged with the other sections
in the chapter. It could have contained excerpts of the source, maybe its
resume, or perhaps it was an interpretation made by Constantine himself.
In the first statement Diocletian was much enamored of the country of Dalmatia
seems to be the latter ñ the conjecture of Constantine on the account he
had read. The question we face today is ñ what kind of source Constantine
could have used to conclude that Diocletian was much enamored of the
country of Dalmatia? Constantine could have concluded Diocletianís
affection for Dalmatia from the information that Diocletian was of
Dalmatian origin, the fact found in the works of the 4th century writers
and those based on their works.13 The same source probably contained
them independently at different times from the same document, which formed part of his col-
lection. We would just add that the same conclusion is valid for the chapters on the
Slavs of Dalmatia 29-36, especially chapters 30-32.
10 In another document we argued that Constantine made another, more per-
fected version of the DAI, in 959; cf. T. éIVKOVI∆, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and
the Ragusan Authors before 1611, Forging Unity, Belgrade 2007, 157-173.
11 DAI I, c. 29.2-7.
12 All translations of the sections quoted in this paper are from DAI I.
13 Eutropi Breviarium ab urbe condita cum versionibus graecis et Pauli Landolfique
additamentis, ed. H. Droysen, MGH AA II, Berolini 1879, lib. IX, c. 19:
...Diocletianum imperatorem creavit Dalmatia oriundum, virum obscurissime natum, adeo
ut a plerisque scribae filius, a nonnullis Anullini senatoris libertinus fuisse credatur. For
the death of Diocletian, Eutropius, lib. X, c. 28, says: Diocletianus privatus in villa,
quae haud procul a Salonis est. Eutropius flourished between 350 and 370. Paul the 131
Tibor éivkoviÊ
the statement that he [Diocletian] brought folk with their families from Rome
and settled them in this same country of Dalmatia. The settlement of Roman
veterans was the practice of numerous Roman Emperors and Diocletian
certainly was not an exception to this practice. However, as we said, it was
only Constantine who mentioned the settlements of the Romans in
Dalmatia during the rule of Emperor Diocletian.14 This exclusive infor-
mation could mean that Constantine draw his information about
Diocletian from a lost historical source.
Virius Nicomachus Flavianus (died 394), held (among many) the
office of Praetorian Prefect (390 and 393), and wrote, now lost ñ Annales of
Rome. According to an inscription he was historicus disertissimus.15 He was
also a pagan and very anti-Christian. The writer of the Epitome could have
used his work.16 The Epitome itself is an independent work very close to
Deacon (8th century) also repeats Eutropius: ...Dioclitianum imperatorem creavit

Dalmatia oriundum, virum obscurissime natum, adeo ut a plerisque scribae filius, a nun-
nullis Anuli senatoris libertinus fuisse credatur; cf. Pauli Historia Romana, Scriptores
rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum, Berolini 1879, 80.1-3. This sentence,
also preserved in Eusebiusí Chronici canones, in fact runs as: in villa sua Spalato, not
in villae suae palatio; cf. R. W. BURGESS, Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian
Chronography, Stuttgart 1999, 97. That is preserved also in Prosperi Tironis Epitoma
de Chronicon, MGH AA IX/1, ed. Th. Mommsen, Berolini 1882, 448: Diocletianus
haud procul a Salonis in villa sua Spalato moritur (Prosperiís Chronicon was written
in 433). Landulf Sagax (806), based on Eutropius and Paul Deacon, says:
Diocletianus...Dalmatia oriundus, virum credatur matre pariter atque oppido nomine
Dioclea, quorum vocabulis donec imperium sumeret, Diocles appellatus...; Inter haec
Diocletianus Salonae defunctus est; cf. Eutropi Breviarium ab urbe condita cum versio-
nibus graecis et Pauli Landolfique additamentis, ed. H. Droysen, MGH AA II, Berolini
1879, 321, 325. Another, anonymous writer, who wrote Epitome de caesaribus
around 395, says: Diocletianus Dalmata, Anullini senatoris libertinus, matre pariter
atque oppido nomine Dioclea quorum vocabulis, donec imperium sumeret, Diocles appella-
tus...; cf. Epitome De ceasaribus, Sextus Aurelius De caesaribus, ed. F. Pichlmayr,
Leipzig 1911, c. 39.1. It is repeated in Ekkehardi Chronicon universale ad a. 1106,
MGH SS VI, ed. G. H. Pertz, Hannoverae 1844, 110.29-32: Diocletianus...vir
obscurissime natus de Dalmatia. Quidam enim dicunt, cum fuisse filium cuisdam
Dalmatae scribae, alii vero libertinum Anulii senatoris. Fuit autem natus de civitate et
matre Dioclea, unde et ipse, quousque imperium sumeret, Diocles appellatus est. Ekkehard
combined Eutropiusí and Epitomeís account on Diocletianís origin. In another
Medieval text, Annales Magdeburgensis, MGH SS XVI, ed. G. H. Pertz, Hannoverae
1869, 119, beside the repetition of Ekkehardís account on the origin of
Diocletian, added that Diocletianus...a Salona moritur. Iordanes, a Goth or Alan,
who flourished in the middle of the 6th century in Constantinople, has only:
Diocletianus Delmata, scribe filius; cf. Iordanis Romana et Getica, MGH AA V/1, ed.
Th. Mommsen, Berolini 1882, Romana, 38.13
14 Roman citizens (cives Romanorum), as the inhabitants of some Dalmatian
towns were explicitly mentioned already in Plinyís Hist. Nat. lib. III, 22 (they
inhabited: Tragurium, Salona, Narona, Rhizinium, Ascrivium, Butua, Olchinium,
Scodra).
15 See, J. J. OíDONNELL, The Career of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, Phoenix 32
(1978) 129-143.
16 For the Epitome de caesaribus, see, The Cambridge History of Classical Literature,
The Later Principate, ed. E. J. Kenny, Cambridge 1983, 59-60 (= CHCL); also,
A. CAMERON, The Epitome de Caesaribus and the Chronicle of Marcellinus, The Classical
132 Quarterly, New Series 51/1 (2001) 324- 327.
Sex Aurelius Victor (ca. 370), but in Victorís work this specific informa-
tion about Emperor Diocletianís origin or birthplace does not exist. We
do not know the nature of Nicomachusís work ñ how extensive it was, or
even which period of Roman history it covered.17 However, we do know
that he was from the western part of the Roman Empire; his family had
property in Sicily, that he was vicarius in Africa (377), and after that
quaestor sacri palatii (389).18 Being a senator who held public offices, most-
ly in Rome and Africa, indicate that he may never visited eastern parts of
the Empire, i. e. Constantinople or Asia Minor. Since he was also a man
of military career he could have been the one that mentioned Emperor
Diocletianís settlement of the veterans in Dalmatia. For now, this is just a
hypothesis.
In chapter 30 of the DAI, Constantine summarised his previous
accounts on Diocletian and Salona from chapters 29 and 31. He also men-
tioned that in Salona dwelt his [Diocletianís] nobles and large numbers of the
common folk.19 It appears that Constantineís source used in chapter 29, for
Diocletianís resettlement of the Romans, mentioned also these two social
groups of colonists. This settlement of the Romans in the time of Emperor
Diocletian generally did not mention the social categories Constantine
repeatedly used in chapters 33, 35, and 36, in which he spoke of the pre-
vious, Roman population in the territories where Slav princedoms of the
Zachloumians, Diocletians, and Pagans/Narentans were established.20 It
would have been rather unusual that Emperor Diocletian repopulated
such large areas of Dalmatia, from Salona along the coast to Dioclea, not
to mention the interior of Dalmatia. Therefore, this is Constantineís own
conclusion drawn from a Latin source in which it was theoretically stated
that Diocletian settled families of nobles and common folk of Romans in
Salona and/or Spalato.21 This interpretation Constantine warmly
embraced when explaining the situation in other parts of Dalmatia in the
time of the Slav settlement. He did not have to mention different social
categories of the settlers that indeed could have been mentioned by the
Latin source for this particular purpose. He did not use this information
in chapters 29 and 31, as he did in chapter 30.
The second part of this account, from ïl êár FÑùìOíïé, at the first
glance, seems to be Constantineís own interpretation. Namely, Romaioi,
FÑùìásïé, was usual term which Byzantine writers used to describe
17 His Annales probably covered the history of Roman Empire after Tacitusí
work; cf. S. N. C. LIEU, From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views,
London 1996, 6.
18 CHCL, 60.
19 DAI I, c. 30.16-17. Chronologically Constantine wrote Chapter 30, after he
had finished 31. We have explained why it was enlisted before chapter 31 in the
manuscript; see ñ T. éIVKOVI∆, Conversio Chroatorum et Serborum, A Lost Source,
Athens 2010, in print.
20 DAI I, cc. 33.3-5; 35.3-4; 36.3-5.
21 Note the Latinism familia in this section (DAI I, c. 29.4). 133
Tibor éivkoviÊ
Christian subjects of the (Byzantine) Empire. Only in chapters 29-36,

Constantine used the term FÑùìOíïé, but in all other chapters of the DAI
FÑùìásïé22 was used. It is worth to mention that only in chapters 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 35, and 36, he used both terms always relating it to the story of
Diocletianís settlement of the Romans in Dalmatia. This rather unusual
use of the two different terms with similar meaning could not be acci-
dental and certainly was not due to the political conception of some spe-
cific chapters (29-36) of the DAI.23 The term FÑùìOíïé is actually translit-
eration of the Latin name for Romans.24 It is this term, in chapter 29, that
Constantine used in the opening sections where he is telling of the
Dalmatian tradition about the fall of Salona. The persistent use of this
term in this section presumably reveals that he used a written source
about these events, and more probably, this source was initially written in
Latin.25 Applied to the story about Soldan,26 since it is repeated in Vita
Basilii (Theophanes Continuatus), this methodology (use of the term
FÑùìásïé) points out that this story, since it originated in Italy, must have
been translated from Latin into Greek before Constantine wrote chapter
29, of the DAI (948/949).27 The story about Soldan, preserved in Vita
Basilii, was stripped off its Latinisms carefully.28 Consequently, it means
that Vita Basilii, where the story about Soldan appears in more improved
style, is posterior to 948/949.29
We have to assume, judging by the term FÑùìOíïé used in this section
(1.1) of chapter 29, that Constantine followed his Latin source. The
22 See, DAI I, p. 307 (Index).

23 These political connotations are proposed by many authors, see, Litavrin, Ob
upravlenii, 361-362; V. STANKOVI∆, Idejna naËela Konstantina Porfirogenita i dalmatin-
ski Romani, ZRVI 38 (2000) 70 sqq. Some interesting suggestions on the DAI and
generally on Constantineís works, can be found in, J. SHEPHARD, The Uses of
ìHistoryî in Byzantine Diplomacy: Observations and Comparisons, in: Porphyrogenita,
Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour
of Julian Chrysostomides, ed. C. Dendrinos ñ J. Harris ñ E. Harvalia-Crook ñ
J. Herrin, London 2003, 91-116, especially from 109 on (= Shephard, Observations).
24 Cf. A. KALDELLIS, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity
and the Reception of the Classical Tradition, Cambridge 2008, 42 sqq; 340 sqq.
25 Constantine used in the DAI ca. 100 Latinisms (see, DAI I, Glossary).
However, more than 90% of them were well accepted in Greek language long
before his own time. Therefore, only particular Latinisms in the DAI could reveal
eventual usage of a Latin source.
26 DAI I, c. 29.88-216.
27 Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekkeri, Theophanes Constinuatus, Ioannes
Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus, Bonnae 1838, 289.3-294.2;
DAI I, c. 29.88-216.
28 I. –URI∆, Romejski govor i jezik Konstantina VII Porfirogenita, ZRVI 24/25 (1986)
130 (= –URI∆, Romejski govor), noticed that the story about Soldan, even though
originated from Italy, is almost completely stripped off the all latinisms (except
the words such as kastron and rex).
29 See, also, SHEPHARD, Observations, 103-104. The same conclusion, based on
134 some other evidence, BURY, Treatise, 551.
Romans mentioned in the source were, probably, described as the citizens

of Rome (cives Romanorum), and they were still called Romans up to the
days of the author (ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí) of that particular source. It is by
no means Constantineís interpretation. The phrase ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí
could be also a specific trace that could lead us to the Latin source, since
Constantine, when referred to some events of his time, used another phrase ñ
ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í (see below, 1.2). One could say that the original sentence
in Latin had been usque ad praesentem diem and ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí would
have been a literal translation of the Latin phrase. It is true that
Constantine used both phrases in various chapters of the DAI, and that
this kind of analysis would prove nothing, but these two phrases, at least,
can indicate the date of Constantineís source. When he used ìÝ÷ñé ôyò
óÞìåñïí it would have revealed a situation contemporary to his source in
that part of the DAI, and when he used ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í, it would mean he
was updating it to, then, most current style.30
1.2. Ï£ôïò ï¤í ¿ âáóéëå˜ò Äéïêëçôéáí’ò êár ô’ ôï™ EÁóðáëÜèïõ
êÜóôñïí ³êïäüìçóåí, êár dí ášô² ðáëÜôéá däåßìáôï ëüãïõ êár ãñáöyò
QðÜóçò dðÝêåéíá, ®í êár ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí ôyò ðáëáéOò åšäáéìïíßáò
ëåßøáíá öÝñïíôáé, êUí ¿ ðïë˜ò ÷ñüíïò ášôN êáôçíÜëùóåí.31
Now this Emperor Diocletian founded city of Spalato and built therein a
palace beyond the power of any tongue or pen to describe, and remains of its ancient
luxury are still preserved to-day, though the long lapse of time has played havoc
with them.32
The opening words in Constantineís text in Greek: Ï£ôïò ï¤í,
(Therefore this, now this) show either that Constantine contracted his
source, or he used another source. He probably abbreviated his source
since he falsely stated that Emperor Diocletian founded Spalato, which in
fact could have been the consequence of haste and direct abbreviation of
the source.33 Actually, Emperor Diocletian had built a palace nearby
Salona in the small village of Aspalathos, from which, during the Early
Middle Ages, emerged early medieval city of Spalato.34 This confusion is
a clear indication that Constantine was retelling his source, and impetu-
ously mentioned that Emperor Diocletian founded Spalato.35 The follow-
30 See n. 37.
31 DAI I, 29.7-11.
32 The translation the long lapse of time is not quite accurate ñ it is too harsh. It
would be better: many years or much time.
33 Spalato, Aspalathos, is already mentioned in Notitia dignitatum, ed. O. Seeck,
Berlin 1876, 150 (= Notitia); cf. also, Tabula Peutingeriana, ed. K. Miller, Stuttgart
1916, segm. VI, 3; see, also, Pliny, Nat. Hist., XII, 52, who describes the plant of
this name; see also, DAI II, 107.
34 The first Early Medieval writer who mentioned Spalato (Spalathron) is
Anonymous of Ravenna; cf. Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia et Gvidonis
Geographica, ed. M. Pinder ñ G. Parthey, Berolini 1860, 209.8.
35 In chapter 30 of the DAI Constantine repeated himself that Diocletian found-
ed Spalato; cf. DAI I, 30.15-16. To make it even worse, he says that Diocletian also 135
Tibor éivkoviÊ
ing passage clearly shows Constantineís abbreviation of his source (see

below, 1.3). The adverb, oun, also indicates that the author was approach-
ing the end of a section or passage. In this particular case, we have to
assume that between Constantineís fragment 1.1 and 1.2, there was a part
of the original Latin text, which he did not include in his narrative.36
Otherwise, the adverb oun is coming too close to the beginning of the sec-
tion to be rendered as the closing sign, so what we should assume is that
in between was a part of the text which he temporarily excluded.
There are some other important parts of this sentence, which could
be useful to determine when this source was composed. One should note
that the palace was still well preserved, not ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í, as Constantine usu-
ally referred to during his time, but ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí.37 Later in the text
Constantine said that palace of Emperor Diocletian was practically in
ruins for which he used the phrase ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í.38 Additionally, there is
unusual poetic expression that the palace was (of such beauty? of such size?)
beyond the power of any language or pen to describe.39 Throughout the DAI,
Constantine never used such a kind of expression. On the contrary,
Constantineís language is basic, simplified, and even harsh.40 There is an
interesting suggestion about the style of the writer of the Epitome de cae-
saribus, the style that was pompous, forced: fluebat cruor fluminum modo; sta-
bant acerui montium similes.41 If the author used Nicomachusís work as a
reference we could ask ourselves ñ had he copied Nicomachusí style, as
founded Salona; cf. DAI I, 30.14-15. This, chaotic interpretation of his sources,
suggests that Constantine was trying to abbreviate from his previous narrative and
his sources, a general picture on the topics of his interests. This cannot be
observed as deliberate changing of his sources.
36 This adverb, oun, is most profoundly explained on the examples from the
New Testament; cf. E. J. RICHARD, First and Second Thessalonians, Sacra Pagina, ed.
D. J. Harrington, Collegeville 1995, 181; see, also, D. A. CARSON, The Gospel
According to John, Grand Rapids 1991, 234; 330; 660.
37 ÌÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í: DAI, cc. 31.1; 32.1; 33.1; 34.2; 35.1; 36.2 (in the titles of the
Slav chapters, composed by Constantine); 39.13-14 (referring to his own time);
40.21 (referring to his own time); 45.12 (referring to his own time); 45.20 (refer-
ring to his own time); 45.38 (referring to his own time). ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí: DAI
I, 19.11 (according to his Eastern source); 27.41 (according to his Latin source);
37.13-14 (referring to his own time); 45.39 (referring to his own time); 50.25
(could be either from the Greek source or from an account from his own time).
Some specific insertions in original Latin source intended to determine some-
thing what is as it was before his own time ñ í™í ï¤óáí; DAI I, 27.66 (New Capua).
The general conclusion could be that the phrase ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í always refers to
Constantineís time, while the phrase ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí could have double mean-
ing.
38 DAI I, c. 29.239-240. It is important to note that here Constantine drew
information about Spalato from the Archives of Constantinople.
39 Note the Present Tense of this sentence. Constantine probably slipped off the
word beauty (Lat. formositas, pulchritudo, decor).
40 –URI∆, Romejski govor, 130. Constantine himself says: For I have not been studious
to make a display of fine writing or of an Atticizing style...; cf. DAI I, c. 1.8-15.
136 41 See, CHCL, 59.
well? If this sentence was taken from Nicomachus, as well as the statement
that Emperor Diocletian settled the Romans in Dalmatia, then
Constantineís source on Salona, Emperor Diocletian and his palace, was
not posterior to 394.
The next important detail is that for this anonymous writer
(Nicomachus?) many years passed by since the time when the palace was
built. As far as we know the palace became the property of the fiscus (ca.
316) and the northern part of it, called Gynaecium Jovense, became the
clothing factory for the Roman army.42 It means that palace of Diocletian
could have been in a very good shape until the end of the 4th century, and
probably some time after that.43 The anonymous writer had, at least judg-
ing by his expression about (beauty, size) of the palace which neither any
tongue or pen can describe, some stylistic tendencies. It could be also a sign
that he was an eyewitness. If he was not an eyewitness then he had to have
used some other source which contained this description, and we could
be facing, in this section of chapter 29, traces of two unknown sources.44
It is more probable that it was one, now lost, source. It is also important
to note that his source did not mention Goths, which appeared in
Dalmatia in 395. This could be a good reason to narrow down the date of
its origin before their arrival to Dalmatia and devastations they had made
in that province.45
1.3. EÁëëN êár ô’ êÜóôñïí Äéüêëåéá, ô’ í™í ðáñN ô§í Äéïêëçôéáí§í

êáôå÷üìåíïí, ¿ ášô’ò âáóéëå˜ò Äéïêëçôéáí’ò ³êïäüìçóåí, ”èåí êár ôxí
dðùíõìßáí FÄéïêëçôéáíïßE êáëåsóèáé ïß ôyò ÷þñáò dêåßíçò díáðåéëÞöáóéí.46
Moreover, the city of Dioclea, now occupied by the Diocletians, was built by the
same Emperor Diocletian, for which reason those of that country have come to be
called by the name of Diocletians.
This section also suggests, by the opening word EÁëëN êár, that
Constantine is proceeding to abbreviate his source, but it is also possible
that he used another source, as well. Since we assumed that the beginning
of chapter 29 emerges from an introduction of an unknown Latin source
which contained the information about the origin of Emperor Diocletian,
i.e. the place of his birth, the names of his parents, and some of his basic
political deeds, the sentence (up to ³êïäüìçóåí) could have been the
42 Notitia, 150. See, J. BELAMARI∆, Gynaeceum Iovense Dalmatiae ñ Aspalatho,

Tetrarchic Practice in Name Giving, Diokletian und die Tetrarchie, ed. A.
Demandt ñ A. Goltz ñ H. Schlage-Schˆningen, Rome 2004, 145 (= BELAMARI∆,
Gynaeceum).
43 See, generally, DAI II, 107-108.
44 It is interesting that Thomas Tusci wrote a passage of very similar content: Hic
(sc. Diocletian) in Dalmatia iuxta mare prope Salonas, unde oriundus extiterat,
palatium magnitudinis admirande construxit, in quo templa magne pulcritudinis fecit
Veneri simul et Iovi, Mercurio et Marti ea faciens dedicari; Tusci, 491.12-14.
45 See, P. MACGEORGE, Late Roman Warlords, Oxford 2002, 18, and n. 5.
46 DAI I, c. 29.11-14. 137
Tibor éivkoviÊ
logical part of that section of the same source (ô’ í™í ðáñN ô§í
Äéïêëçôéáí§í êáôå÷üìåíïí is Constantineís insertion). The following part
(from ”èåí) seems again as Constantineís own interpretation. It means
that Constantine inserted this sentence after he told the story about
Diocletianís palace. It would also explain the early appearance of the ad-
verb oun already at the beginning of his second sentence of section 1.1.
The statement that Emperor Diocletian founded the city of Dioclea
was recorded by Constantine Porphyrogenitus for the first time. Since
Epitome De caesaribus, composed around 395, did not mention this infor-
mation,47 it could mean that Constantine took it from his, as we assume,
main Latin source about Diocletian. It is worth to mention that the 12th
century Byzantine historian Iohannes Cinnamos also repeated: ... ÄéüêëåéÜ
ôå ðüëéò ðåñéöáíÞò, |í Äéïêëçôéáí’ò ¿ Ñùìáßùí däåßìáôï ášôïêñÜôùñ.48
A particular written source, on which Cinnamosí brief notice of Dioclea
eventually depends, is not known.49
There is yet another important clue in section 1.3. Since Constantine
inserted in his main Latin source an explanation about the name of the
Slav princedom of Dioclea (chapter 35), which derived from the town he
mentioned that was founded by Diocletian, then we have an additional
reason to believe that the manuscript we have today is at least the second
draft of the DAI. Such kind of insertion suggests strongly that Constantine
had not only have collected the material for the Slav princedoms, but he
also had made an original, easy to use, division of the chapters.50
1.4. FÇ äc êár ô§í ášô§í FÑùìÜíùí äéáêñÜôçóéò ƒí ìÝ÷ñé ôï™

Äáíïýâåùò ðïôáìï™...51
The territory possessed by these Romani used to extend as far as the river
Danube... which are called Romani to this day.
From here onwards Constantine began to elaborate the story about

the fall of Salona. The beginning of this long section, marked with FÇ äc
êár actually was taken from another source. This source, obscure as it may
be, was most probably written in Latin.52 We do not have any parallels of
this story in any later medieval texts. On the contrary, the 13th century
sources (all posterior to 1260), i. e. Thomas of Spalato, Thomas Tusci,
47 See note 13.

48 Ioannis Cinnami Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis gestarum, ed. A.
Meineke, Bonnae 1836, 249.5-6.
49 It is not impossible that Cinnamos had access to the DAI.
50 Inspiration, that Diocletians are named according to the city of the same name,
could be from Plinyís Hist. Nat. III, 22, since here he mentions the tribe Docleatae.
51 DAI I, c. 29.14-15.
52 Note the Latinisms praeda, flammula, praedor, and campus in this section of
the DAI I, c. 29.14-53; cf. DAI I, c. 29.21; 29.39; 29.47. Naturally, all these ëlati-
nismsí can be found elsewhere in Byzantine authors, but in this case there is a sig-
138 nificant ëconcentrationí of them.
Rudger ñ ìPriest of Diocleaî, speak of Totilaís Goths (ca. 535) and their role
in the destruction of Salona.53 The tradition, which connected the
destruction of Salona with the Slavs and Avars, already disappeared at that
time. It is highly probable that sections 1.4 and so on, of chapter 29,
belong to the same source which spoke of the earliest Croatian history,
and which was much more recognizable in chapters 30 and 31. We would
like to underline that this source has nothing to do with the previous one
about Diocletian, Salona, Spalato, and the palace of Diocletian.
The name of the river Danubius was perhaps taken from the Latin
text or Constantineís Latin source, indeed. Constantine used this name
often and in various chapters of the DAI, probably due to the origin of his
sources.54 But, Ister would be more appropriate Greek name for Danube,
as he said in chapter 42: ¿ IÉóôñïò, ¿ êár ÄáíïÞâéïò ëåãüìåíïò ðïôáìüò.55
This is a sort of clarification for the reader whom Greek name Istros was
more familiar than Danubios. However, this example cannot solve the
problem whether in this section Constantine followed the Latin text or
was it just the consequence of the common use of both names in
Byzantium as it appeared to be the case in the works of many Byzantine
authors? The latter seems more probable.
1.5 Êár ãNñ ðëçóßïí ôyò èáëÜóóçò ›ð’ ô’ ášô’ êÜóôñïí êÜóôñïí
hóôéí, ô’ dðéëåãüìåíïí Óáë§íá, ìÝãåèïò h÷ïí ô’ {ìéóõ Êùíóôáíôéíïõ-
ðüëåùò [...]56
For near the sea, beneath that same city, lies the city called Salona, which is
half as large as Constantinople[...]
It can certainly be noted that this statement was based on the source
written in Present tense. Someone who wrote from Constantinople did not
record it but someone from Salona or Dalmatia (generally from the West)
ñ Salona, which is half as large as Constantinople. As for the anonymous
writer it appears Salona still existed. This conclusion can explain
Constantineís statement on the palace of Diocletian (1.2) that remains of
its ancient luxury are still preserved to this day (ìÝ÷ñé ôyò óÞìåñïí). It means
not up to the time of Constantine, but up to the time of his source. This
statement was inserted into the main narrative, based on another source,
about the fall of Salona. That is why it opened with Êár ãNñ (lit. and for).
The name of the city, below which Salona lies slipped off, (›ð’ ô’ ášô’
êÜóôñïí êÜóôñïí hóôéí) is just additional example that here Constantine
53 Historia Salonitana Thomae Archidiaconi, ed. O. PeriÊ ñ M. MatijeviÊ-Sokol ñ

R. KatiËiÊ, Split 2003, 30.28-32.4; 34.1-36.27; Thomae Tusci Gesta imperatorum et
pontificum, ed. E. Ehrenfeuchter, MGH SS XXII, ed. G. H. Pertz, Hannoverae
1872, 491.17-18 (= Tusci); Gesta regum Sclavorum I, ed. D. KunËer, Beograd 2009,
6.18-12.5
54 See, DAI I, 294-295.
55 DAI I, c. 40.42-43. See, also, Stephani Byzantii ÅÈÍÉÊÙÍ quae supersunt, ed. A.
Westermann, Lipsiae 1839, 97.25: ÄÜíïõâéò ƒ ÄÜíïõóéò, IÉóôñïò ¿ ðïôáì’ò.
56 DAI I, c. 29.25-27. 139
Tibor éivkoviÊ
abbreviated his source. That unnamed city was, without any doubt,
Spalato, mentioned in Constantineís Latin source as the town where
Emperor Diocletian had built his palace. It means also that this sentence,
or more precisely, the second part of the same sentence, was originally
placed just behind the explanation that Emperor Diocletian built his
palace in Aspalathos, or something along these lines: He also built a palace
in the city of Aspalatho, near by Salona, which lies... That is why Constantineís
Latin source did not have to repeat the name of that city.
The statement that Salona was half as large as Constantinople is obvi-
ously untrue. During its finest hour Salona could have had population of
maximum 60,000,57 what would have been some 10% of Constantinopleís
population during the middle of the 6th century. An eyewitness who saw
both cities in the 6th century hardly could have made such a mistake.
There is, of course, a solution, hinted already in the commentary of sec-
tion 1.2, where we suggested that Constantineís source was written before
394. If section 1.5 belongs to the same source, as it seems it does, then our
mysterious eyewitness was right ñ Salona was as half as large as
Constantinople not in the 6th, but at the very end of the 4th century.
Namely, Constantinople started to enlarge and grow in population more
rapidly after Theodosianís (Theodosius II, 408-450) walls were built
between 408 and 413. It means that the population of Constantinople, at
the very end of the 4th century did not surpass ca. 120,000 ñ 150,000, and
it was twice as big as Salona. Therefore, based on this data, we can pin
point Constantineís Latin source to between ca. 380 and 394.
Nicomachusís Annales, our main ësuspectí as the author of this Latin
source, emerges as a perfect solution. For him, many years passed by and
did not affect the Diocletianís palace that much, must be about 70 to 80
years.
1.6. ...dí ¹ ðÜíôåò ïj ÑùìOíïé Pð’ ðÜó÷á... ôï™ í™í FÑùìOíïé

êïëï™íôáé.58
The following section elaborates further on the story of the fall of
Salona. This source, as we already underlined, had nothing to do with the
anonymous Latin source that mentioned Emperor Diocletian and his
palace. Here, we will just stress out that Constantine in this section used
the term FÑùìOíïé with such persistency (seven times) that it is quite obvi-
ous that he had translation of the Latin text in front of him. In this sec-
tion, he never merges FÑùìOíïé, with FÑùìásïé. It is also important to note
that this account was drawn from the source which contained a direct
speech ñ ìThese Romani, now that they have crossed over and found booty, will
in future not cease coming over against us, and so we will devise a plan against
them.î59 The closing sentence of this section, in which it is stated that the
57 Cf. BELAMARI∆, Gynaeceum, 143.

58 DAI I, c. 29.27-53.
140 59 DAI I, c. 29.34-36.
Romani escaped to the islands, and partly to the other cities such as
(Decatera?),60 Ragusa, Spalato, Tetrangourin, Diadora, Arbe, Vekla and
Opsara, where they live to this day and still are called Romani (FÑùìOíïé),61
probably is combination of Constantineís source (the names of the cities
and islands) and some other information about these places from other
source[s] much closer to his own time. The key phrase is ìÝ÷ñé ôï™ í™í,
which probably suggests Constantineís updating. It also means that he
already collected information about these cities from another source,
most probably from the Archives of Constantinople, which he would have
used extensively in the last sections of chapter 29.62
After the episode about Soldan, which Constantine took almost liter-
ally from his Italian source, there are final sections of this chapter dealing
with particular towns in Dalmatia: Ragusa, Spalato, Tetrangourin,
Decatera, Diadora, each opened with characteristic oti.63 After these short
sections there is the final one in which Constantine summarised the polit-
ical situation in the rest of Dalmatia.64 Constantineís sources on these
matters are not subjects of this study.
A possible reconstruction of Constantine’s Latin source on

Diocletian
We can assume that chapter 29 of the DAI was based on at least three
major sources.65 In this study we deal only with one of them, the one
which contained either information about Emperor Diocletian, or those
which had been focused on him. We can also say with great probability
that the source in which Constantine found the information about
Emperor Diocletian was written between 380 and 394. It appears reason-
able to consider Virius Nicomachus Flavianus as the most probable author
of this source. If Epitome de caesaribus depends largely on Nicomachusís
work, and since we know what kind of interests the author of the Epitome
expressed, then we must assume that stylistically Nicomachus was not too
far from the Epitome. The author of the Epitome was interested mostly in
the birthplaces of the Emperors, their origin and their private lives. It
means that Nicomachus was interested in these facts, too. Therefore, we
would try to reconstruct eventual Nicomachusís text on Emperor
Diocletian. It should sound as following:
60 DAI I, c. 29.50. We are not sure that Jenkinsí emendation ôN ÄåêÜôåñá is cor-
rect. In the manuscript of the DAI it states clearly: ôÜäå êÜóôñá ô’....; cf. Codex
Parisinus gr. 2009, fol. 68r, lin. 2.
61 DAI I, c. 29.50-53.
62 DAI I, c. 29.217-284.
63 DAI I, c. 29.217-284.
64 DAI I, c. 29.285-295.
65 1. An anonymous account on Diocletian (Nicomachus?); 2. Imperial Archives
for the cities of Dalmatia; 3. An anonymous Latin text about the earliest history
of the Croats. 141
Tibor éivkoviÊ
Diocletianus oriundus est Dalmatia quam terram multum dilexit. Pater eius
Anullini senatoris libertinus, mater autem Dioclea oriunda fuisse creditur. Idem
oppidum Diocletianus in honorem matris reaedificavit. [...] Aedificavit etiam
palatium in civitate Aspalathi, et sub eadem civitate est civitas ad mare sita, quasi
media Constantinopolis magnitudine, tali pulchritudine quam nec ullo stilo nec
lingua ulla describi possit. Licet multi anni peracti sint, vestigia antiqui luxus
usque ad praesentem diem manent. Palatio constructo Diocletianus multitudinem
hominum tam nobili, quam ignobili genere, Roma deduxit. Ipsos Salonae collo-
cavit, quo etiam nunc vivunt...
Diocletian was born in Dalmatia and because of that he loved this province
very much. His father, a former slave of the senator Anullinus and his mother was
from the town of Dioclea. This same city Diocletian rebuilt in the glory of his moth-
er. He also built a palace in the city of Aspalatho, and below this city there is a city
at the seashore, and it is as half large as Constantinople, of such beauty, beyond
the power of any tongue or pen can describe. Even though many years passed by,
the remnants of its ancient luxury are still preserved until these days. When
Diocletian built his palace he brought many colonists from Rome, both of noble and
ordinary people, and settled them in Salona where they still liveÖ
This reconstruction is based only on the fragments of the original

Latin text, which are apparently preserved in chapter 29 of the DAI, and
according to what we know about Emperor Diocletian from the Epitome, is
based, probably, on Nicomachus. It is highly probable that some other
sections, which should contain description of Diocletianís physical
appearance and some of his daily habits or moralization of his character,
also were part of this text. However, Constantine, having not been inter-
ested in such things simply neglected them. It is possible however to say
with a greater certainty that Constantineís information about Salona,
Emperor Diocletian, and his palace, are not unusual anymore, or that
they were interpreted poorly by Constantine. He used, from his source,
only those sentences he found interesting for chapter 29. He did not both-
er to update information about Salona, and Diocletianís palace.
Constantine in his usual peculiar way listed many cities in various
provinces in the De thematibus, drawn from Hieroclesís Synecdemus, which
were actually destroyed or leveled to the ground centuries before his own
time.66 This also could mean that he did not consider this version of chap-
ter 29 as the final one. He was merely making the second draft of the DAI,
tying up the first draft, and rearranging his material in a more appropri-
ate way by adding to it more detail.
There is an interesting question, which naturally arises from this
analysis: ñ where did Constantine get this source from in relation to the
affairs related to Italy, Venice, and Dalmatia (chapters 26-29 of the DAI)?
It must be somehow connected with diplomacy conducted between
66 See, De thematibus, Constantinus Porphyrogenitus De thematibus et De

142 administrando imperio, ed. I. Bekkerus, Bonnae 1840, 52.5-11; 56.5-10, et passim.
Roman I Lacapenos, and Hugo, King of Italy, since they were exchanging
ambassadors during the peaceful period from 926 to 944.67 The interest
of Byzantines in Italian affairs could have been the reason why the
Imperial court was looking for various information related to these
regions. Constantine was at that time, without any doubt, already deeply
occupied in various scientific fields. The ambassadors sent by Hugo in
943,68 with the specific task to negotiate the marriage between Hugoís
daughter Bertha to Constantine Porphyrogenitusís son Roman, could be
observed as Constantineís interest for history and his pursuit for the
sources. The ambassadors led by Liutprand, Bishop of Cremone, in 948
(September, 17th), who was residing in Constantinople for some six
months or more,69 could have brought some manuscripts as special gifts
to the son-in-lawís father from Hugo.70 That way Constantine would have
gathered his sources about Dalmatia and Italy just in time when he began
to write the chapters of the DAI. However, it rather seems that Liutprand
and Constantine have had conversations via an interpreter,71 and imme-
diately written down by the scribe who was present, since we find almost
identical passages in Liutprandís Antapodosis in regards of the Italian
affairs.72 They, simply, were exchanging their knowledge about history.
Therefore, it is possible that Liutprand knew about the story of Diocletian
and his palace, based on a source (Nicomachus?), which he had read in
Italy and therefore mentioned it to Constantine. It is worth to mention
that Thomas Tusci, speaking of Diocletian said: ...Itaque Dioclicianus, genere
Dalmatinus, sed nobilitate obscurus, ab exercitu in Dalmatia imperator est factus.
Modum autem, quo regnum pervenerit, non recolo me legisse, sed a quibusdam,
qui multas legerunt antiquas ystorias, audivi que dicam.73
67 Liutprandi Antapodosis, MGH SSRG III, ed. G. H. Pertz, Hannoverae 1839,

332.39-42 (= Antapodosis); cf. T. C. LOUNGHIS, Les ambassades byzantines en Occident
depuis la fondation des Ètats barbares jusquí aux Croisades (407-1096), Athènes 1980,
200-201.
68 Ibidem, 201.
69 Antapodosis, 338.1-2.
70 See, BURY, Treatise, 553.
71 Antapodosis, 339.16-17.
72 See examples of these sections at both authors in, BURY, Treatise, 554-555.
73 Tusci, 490.37-40. 143
An analysis of Symeon the New
Theologian’s Hymn LVI
Symeon the New Theologian is one of the most remarkable person-

alities who lived in Byzantium in the tenth and early eleventh century: he
was a great mystic, an influential theologian, and during his life played
a key role in ecclesiastical matters and theological debates. Symeon wrote
extensively in prose and verse mainly for his monastic congregation, and
his writings convey an interesting picture of Byzantine society, both reli-
gious and secular, as perceived by the Theologian from his monastic
position.1
The works of Symeon have been thoroughly studied from a theolog-
ical point of view due to the relevance of his thought; however, little or
no attention has been paid to their literary merits. In this study I would
like to devote some time to the discussion of one of Symeon’s Hymns of
the Divine Love 2 and look at it mainly as a poetic creation, rather than as
a theological expression or personal evidence.3 This is an attempt to stir
1 The main source of information about the New Theologian is the life com-
posed by his disciple Niketas Stethatos thirty years after Symeon’s death, and
which I. HAUSHERR edited under the title: Un grand mystique byzantin: Vie de
Syméon le Nouveau Théologien, Orientalia Christiana XII 45 (1928). The following
is by no means a complete bibliography, but on Symeon see K. HOLL,
Enthusiasmus und Bussgewalt beim griechischen Mönchtum. Eine Studie zu Symeon dem
Neuen Theologen, Leipzig 1898; G. MALONEY, The Mystic of Fire and Light,
Denville, N.J. 1975; B. KRIVOCHÉINE, Dans la lumière du Christ. Saint Syméon le
Nouveau Théologien (949-1022). Vie – Spiritualité – Doctrine, Chevetogne 1980; H.
J. M. TURNER, St. Symeon the New Theologian and Spiritual Fatherhood, Leiden
1990; J. A. MCGUCKIN, Symeon the New Theologian (d. 1022) and Byzantine monas-
ticism, in: A. Bryer – M. Cunningham (eds.), Mount Athos and Byzantine
Monasticism, Aldershot 1996, 17-35; H. ALFEYEV, St. Symeon the New Theologian
and orthodox tradition, Oxford 2000; S. Chialà – L. Cremaschi (eds.), Simeone il
Nuovo Teologo e il monachesimo a Costantinopoli, Bose 2003; J. KODER, Normale
Mönche und Enthusiasten: Der Fall des Symeon Neos Theologos, in: Religiöse Devianz.
Untersuchungen zu sozialen, rechtlichen und theologischen Reaktionen auf
religiöse Abweichung im westlichen und östlichen Mittelalter, ed. D. Simon,
Frankfurt 1990, 97-119; id., Ãéáôß ¿ Óõìåþí ¿ ÍÝïò Èåïëüãïò hãñáöå ôïýò œìíïõò
ôïõ, Nea Estia 1794 (ÍïÝìâñéïò 2006) 806-819.
2 Symeon Neos Theologos, Hymnen: Prolegomena, kritischer Text, Indices, A. Kambylis
(ed.), Berlin – New York 1976.
3 Although the main focus of this study is poetic diction and style, theological
issues and personal narrative will also come up often as they play such a funda-
mental role in Symeon’s poetry; however I will not discuss them at great length,
except when necessary, for the sake of brevity. Readers who would like to pur-
sue particular aspects of the doctrine of the New Theologian can avail them-
144 selves of the references provided in the bibliography.
deeper interest in Byzantine poems and show their intrinsic richness;

Byzantine poetry, despite the common opinion that envisages it as a
pedantic work of mimesis, contains in fact literary creations of great rele-
vance and beauty, and deserves to be studied as a literary genre per se and
as a mirror of the social and intellectual milieu in which it was produced.
Hence, I shall examine Symeon’s hymn LVI, a prayer in fifteen-syllable
verses – the so-called political verse that the Theologian was the first to
adopt in the composition of Byzantine religious poetry4 – according to
stylistic and literary principles, and I hope to be able to show what a
inspiring field of research Byzantine poetry is. In addition to that,
Symeon’s poems are even more fascinating since they were not conceived
as a proper poetic oeuvre, but their composition responded to a very
peculiar and powerful kind of inspiration, as it will be discussed later in
this study.
Something that needs to be mentioned briefly before undertaking
such investigation, and that the reader ought to keep in mind, is the
author’s recurrent claim to be illiterate. Unquestionably Symeon did not
consider himself a poeta doctus or a writer – he composed the Hymns
under mystic inspiration and wrote his various discourses as part of his
official duty as hegoumenos – but was he truly as agrammatos as he claimed
to be, or is this one of his frequent declarations of ôáðåéíüôçò? Was he
really completely unaware of literary and poetic artifices, and did he pay
no attention at all to the form of his compositions? A careful analysis of
Symeon’s poems can shed some light on this issue and provide an
answer, though an incomplete one, to this question. Let us then take a
closer look at the text.
Hymn LVI
Symeon conceived this poem as a thanksgiving to God for all the
benefits and graces which were bestowed upon him during his life;
although this is a short composition that develops and ends rather
abruptly in just 39 lines, yet it is interesting as it touches upon some top-
ics that are recurrent in the poet’s writings and relevant to his personal
history, such as the abandonment of world and family, his spiritual father
and the persecutions which accompanied him throughout his existence.5
4 On the political verse see J. KODER, Die Hymnen Symeons des Neuen Theologen.
Untersuchungen, und Textgeschichte zur Edition des Niketas Stethatos. JÖBG 15
(1966) 153-199; Syméon Le Nouveau Théologien, Hymnes, Intr., texte critique et notes
par J. Koder, trad. par J. Paramelle – L. Neyrand, I-III, (= Sources Chrétiennes
156, 174, 196), Paris 1969-1973, I 82-94; id., Der Fünfzehnsilber am kaiserlichen
Hof um das Jahr 900, Byzantinoslavica 33 (1972) 214-219; id., Ãéáôß ¿ Óõìåþí ¿
ÍÝïò Èåïëüãïò, 813-814; M. J. JEFFREYS, The nature and origins of the political verse,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 28 (1974) 141-195; M. D. LAUXTERMANN, The spring of
Rhythm, Wien 1999, 39-42.
5 On Symeon’s poetry see R. MAISANO, La poesia religiosa di Simeone il Nuovo
Teologo, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 13 (1977) 35-46; U. CRISCUOLO,
I prodromi della ripresa platonica: Simeone il Nuovo Teologo, in: R. Maisano (ed.), 145
Marina Bazzani
Åš÷Þ ðñ’ò Èå’í dðr ôïsò ãåãïíüóéí åkò ášô’í jêåôÞñéüò

ôå ¿ìï™ êár åš÷áñéóôÞñéïò
Êýñéå, äüò ìïé óýíåóéí· êýñéå, äüò ìïé ãí§óéí·

êýñéå äßäáîïí êPìc ðïéåsí ôNò díôïëÜò óïõ·
êUí {ìáñôïí ©ò Tíèñùðïò (›ðcñ Tíèñùðïí, ïqäáò),
PëëN ó˜ ô† ïkêåßu óïõ, èåÝ ìïõ, åšóðëáíã÷íßu
5 zëÝçóÜò ìå ô’í ðôù÷üí, ô’í “ñöáí’í dí êüóìv,
êár dðïßçóáò, äÝóðïôá, • ìüíïò ó˜ ãéíþóêåéò·
Pð’ ðáôñ’ò êár Päåëö§í, óõããåí§í ôå êár ößëùí,
Pð’ ãyò ôyò ãåíÝóåùò, dî ïnêïõ ãïíéêï™ ìïõ
©ò dî Ákãýðôïõ óêïôåéíyò, ©ò dî ]äïõ ìõ÷§í ìå
10 (ïŸôùò ãNñ dìïr äÝäùêáò ô² åšôåëås óïõ äïýëv
ðåñr dêåßíùí dííïåsí êár ëÝãåéí dí óõíÝóåé)
Pðï÷ùñßóáò, å¡óðëáã÷íå, êár ðñïóëáâüìåíüò ìå
êár ô† ÷åéñß óïõ ô† öñéêô† êñáôÞóáò }ãáãÝò ìå,
åkò •í çšäüêçóáò dí ã† ãåíÝóèáé ìïõ ðáôÝñá,
15 êár ôïsò ðïór ðñïóÝññéøáò ášôï™ êár ôásò PãêÜëáéò·
êPêåsíïò ìå ðñïóÞãáãå ô² ó² ðáôñß, ×ñéóôÝ ìïõ,
êár óïr äéN ôï™ ðíåýìáôïò, ¯ ôñéNò ¿ èåüò ìïõ,
êëáßïíôá ©ò ô’í Tóùôïí êár ðñïóðßðôïíôá, ëüãå,
êáè¦ò ášô’ò dðßóôáóáé, ”ôé däßäáîÜò ìå,
20 êár ó˜ ïšê Pðçîßùóáò õjüí óïõ ìc êáëÝóáé·
− Píáîßïõ óôüìáôïò êár ¼õðáñ§í ÷åéëÝùí,
− ëüãïõ ãëþóóçò ðåíé÷ñOò ›ìíåsí óå Pðïñïýóçò
åš÷áñéóôåsí ôå êár ëáëåsí ôNò óNò åšåñãåóßáò,
Sò åkò dìc ô’í “ñöáí’í dðïßçóáò êár îÝíïí,
25 îÝíïí ›ðÜñ÷ïíôá dí ã†· ïj ãNñ óïr êüóìïõ îÝíïé,
ôN äÝ ãå óN êár ôN ô§í ó§í “öèáëìïr ïš÷ ¿ñ§óéí,
ãë§óóá ëáëåsí ïš äýíáôáé, ïšäc êüóìïò ÷ùñyóáé.
ÄéN ôï™ôï ï¤í, äÝóðïôá, ìéóås ½ìOò ¿ êüóìïò,
Pðïäéþêåé, ëïéäïñås, öèïíås, ìáßíåôáé, êôåßíåé
30 êár ðÜíôá ðñÜóóåé êáèE ½ì§í ðåñéðßðôùí dí ôïýôïéò·
½ìåsò äÝ, ©ò åšäüêçóáò, ïj ôáðåéíïß óïõ äï™ëïé
dí Póèåíåßu kó÷õñïß, dí ðåíßu ðëïõôï™ìåí,
dí ðÜów èëßøåé ÷áßñïìåí —íôåò hîù ôï™ êüóìïõ·
½ìåsò, ¯ äÝóðïôá, ó˜í óïß, êüóìïò äE h÷åé ô’ ó§ìá.
35 ëïéðüí ðëáíOôáé ¿ ôõöë’ò ðçë’í êáôÝ÷ùí ìüíïí,
Storia e tradizione culturale a Bisanzio fra XI e XII secolo. ÉôáëïåëëçíéêÜ

Quaderni 13 (1993) 1-28; id., Poesia e poetica negli Inni di Simeone Nuovo Teologo,
in: U. Criscuolo – R. Maisano (eds.), La poesia bizantina, ÉôáëïåëëçíéêÜ Quaderni
8 (1995) 55-77; F. CONCA, L ’ inno 17 di Simeone il Nuovo Teologo, Atti Accad.
Pontaniana 49 (2000) 139-150, unfortunately I was not able to get hold of this
article; A. MARKOPOULOS, Vergöttlichung und Erlösung. Versuch einer Lektüre des
Hymnos Nr. 13 von Symeon Neos Theologos, in: Byzantina Mediterranea. Festschrift
für Johannes Koder zum 65. Geburtstag., eds. K. Belke – E. Kislinger – A. Külzer
146 – M. A. Stassinopoulou, Wien 2007, 435-444.
•ò ïšäE ášô’í êåñäÞóåéå· äþóåé ãÜñ, ©ò ›ðÝó÷ïõ,

dí ô† dó÷Üôw óÜëðéããé ðíåõìáôéê’í êár ôï™ôïí,
êár ôüôå ìüíïò ôN êáêN ôN näéá êåñäÞóåé
ó˜í ôïsò ¿ìüöñïóéí ášôï™ êár ôõöëïsò öéëïêüóìïéò.6
“Lord, give me comprehension, Lord, give me knowledge; Lord, teach
me too to perform your commandments, even though, as a human, I
have sinned beyond human capacity, you know. But you, my God, in
your compassion had pity on me poor, and orphan in the world, and
you did, oh Lord, what you alone know: you separated me from my
father and brothers, from relatives and friends, from the land of birth,
from my paternal home, as if from a dark Egypt, as from the depths of
Hades. (For thus you granted me, your worthless servant, to reflect
upon those things and to speak with understanding). And you have
received me, oh Merciful, and taking hold of me with your awesome
hand you led me to the one whom you were well pleased to be my father
on earth, and you threw me at his feet and into his arms. He led me to
your Father, oh my Christ, and to you through the Holy Spirit, oh God,
my Trinity. He led me weeping like the prodigal son and prostrated, oh
Word, as you know because you have taught me. And you did not think
it unfit to call me your son. Alas for my worthless mouth and vile lips;
alas for the word of an impoverished tongue that is unable to praise you
with hymns, and to thank you and to tell of the acts of kindness you per-
formed for me, orphan and stranger, stranger in the world. For those
who are yours, are strangers to the world; eyes do not see your deeds
and those of your followers, tongue cannot utter them, nor can the
world give them a place. For this reason, Lord, the world hates us, chas-
es us, abuses us, envies us, rages at us, kills us and carries out all kinds
of actions against us when it falls upon us in these. But we, as it pleased
you, your humble servants in weakness are strong, in poverty are rich,
in all affliction we rejoice as we are outside the world; we are with you,
oh Lord, while the world holds our body. Finally the blind man errs, as
he owns just a piece of clay, which he will not hold on to; for he will give
it back even in its spiritual form, as you promised, at the last trumpet,
and then, alone he will hold only his own evils, together with those of
like mind and the blind lovers of the world.”
v. 1-2: the poem opens with an anaphoric sequence of appeals to
God to obtain from Him comprehension, knowledge7 and obedience.
The first line is perfectly balanced as it is divided into two hemistichs,
which have exactly the same structure and differ only in the internal
object; the following line begins with the invocation êýñéå as well, but
does not repeat the binary pattern äüò ìïé äüò ìïé.8 It is interesting to
notice the order in which Symeon makes his request to God, for he asks
6 The text printed above is the one established by Kambylis; the translation is
mine. I am grateful to Dr. Mary Whitby and Professor Raffaella Cresci for their
valuable comments.
7 The same qualities appear together also in Symeon, Hymnen 58. 2, p. 448.
8 On the use of repetitions and ‘periodic disposition’ of words as a powerful way
to express a lyric outburst and release emotions see R. MAISANO, La poesia reli-
giosa di Simeone, 39-45. 147
Marina Bazzani
firstly for comprehension and then for knowledge; óýíåóéí in the first
place seems to underline that deep and true comprehension of the
divine mysteries can be granted only by God, and that its role is some-
how more relevant than that of ãí§óéò. Whereas pleading for óýíåóéò and
ãí§óéò imply a passive role for Symeon, the next request envisages an
active one on his behalf, as he asks to be taught how to follow and accom-
plish God’s commandments.
v. 4-5: the direct dialogue between the poet and God is underlined
by the constant use of personal and possessive pronouns; in line 4 óïõ
and ìïõ create an internal rhyme and seem to connect the poet to God
even more closely; if on the one hand Symeon tends to unite the ele-
ments of the verse, on the other hand he creates suspense by means of
the hyperbaton between ô† ïkêåßu óïõ and åšóðëáã÷íßu. The sequence of
thought, as well as that of the verse, is broken by the enjambment with the
next verse; in this way zëÝçóáò gains an emphatic position at the begin-
ning of line 5 and helps connect the two verses more closely, while cre-
ating simultaneously a sense of suspense in the reader. Symeon positions
mercy and pity near one another, as if one stemmed from the other; this
is not the only time when the two words are side by side, in fact in hymn
41. 31 we find êçñýôôù óïõ ô’í hëåïí, ›ìí§ ôxí åšóðëáã÷íßáí and in hymn
45. 118 dêâëýæåéò hëåïò êár âñýåéò åšóðëáã÷íßáí. Although in the previ-
ous examples the order of the words is reversed, it seems clear that for
Symeon pity and mercy involve and require one another.
The enjambment between lines 4 and 5 delays the revelation of the
identity of the target of God’s mercy, which is no one else than Symeon,
who presents himself as spiritually poor and orphan in the world, a topic
particularly frequent throughout the Hymns. The verse is crafted careful-
ly so to give great relevance to this concept, for ô’í ðôù÷üí and ô’í
“ñöáíüí occupy the central part of the verse as to capture the attention
of the audience and of the reader. It is hard to determine whether in this
case “ñöáíüò has only a metaphorical meaning, or alludes to both his
family situation and the death of the Studite, the poet’s spiritual father,9
as happens in hymn 37. 45-49. Since the Studite is mentioned shortly
afterwards in the poem, it is likely that “ñöáíüò here refers to Symeon’s
condition of spiritual abandonment and wretchedness that precedes his
encounter with the Studite and his conversion.
9 On the role of the spiritual father in the thought of Symeon see I. ROSENTHAL-
KAMARINEA, Symeon der Neue Theologe und Symeon Studites, Ökumenische Einheit
3 (1952) 103-120; H. GRAFF, The spiritual director in the thought of Symeon the New
Theologian, in: P. Cranfield – J. A. Jungmann (eds.), Kyriakon, Festschrift
Johannes Quasten, I-II, Münster 1970, II, 608-614; K. WARE, The spiritual father
in St. John Climacus and in Symeon the New Theologian, Studia Patristica 18 (1985)
299-316; H. J. M. TURNER, St. Symeon the New Theologian; id., La paternità spiri-
tuale in Simeone il Nuovo Teologo, in: S. Chialà – L. Cremaschi (eds.), Simeone il
Nuovo Teologo e il monachesimo a Costantinopoli, Bose 2003, 199-223; I.
ALFEEV, Simeone Studita e Simeone il Nuovo Teologo, in: S. Chialà – L. Cremaschi
(eds.), Simeone il Nuovo Teologo e il monachesimo a Costantinopoli, Bose
148 2003, 45-102, especially 51-55.
v. 7-8: Symeon introduces another theme pivotal to his thought,

namely the inevitability of separation from family and friends to follow
God completely.10 One, however, must detach himself not only from
people and affections, but also from places such as one’s own country;
Symeon seems to recognize and to admit to the strong bond between
country, household and family by using óõããåí§í, ãåíÝóåùò and ãïíéêï™,
which are connected by the common “root” ãÝíïò, ãßãíïìáé. The theme
of severed family ties and friendship seems to present itself in two dif-
ferent ways throughout the Hymns: either it is God’s action that draws
Symeon away from the world, as in this case, or it is the poet himself
who decides to die to his relatives and to the world in order to seek only
God, as it occurs for example in hymn 8. 15, where Symenon says that
God reveals himself to those who ãïíåsò êár Päåëöï˜ò ìéóÞóïõóéí Pìßóùò,
and in hymn 50. 113 where he writes hëéðïí åšè˜ò êüóìïí êár ôN ôï™
êüóìïõ.
v. 9: the poet compares the habitually positive image of one’s own
country and home to biblical Egypt and Hades, as places of darkness and
spiritual perdition. The comparison of Egypt to an abyss of passions and
a land of slavery is developed at a greater length in hymn 18,11 where the
Studite embodies a new Moses, who liberates Symeon from Pharaoh and
takes him away from Egypt, that is from the world and its sins. It is inter-
esting to observe how two elements from very different cultural back-
grounds – biblical Egypt and classical Hades – find their place side-by-
side in such a profoundly religious text. Both comparisons concur to
imbue the verse with a strong sense of darkness that becomes a metaphor
for the moral darkness in which the poet lay before turning his life to
God, and in which all those who do not completely renounce the world
and embrace monastic life will be at the end of the days.
v. 12: the line begins with Pðï÷ùñßóáò, which governs the personal
pronoun ìå pendent at the end of line 9, and concludes the continuous
flow of thoughts from line 7 creating suspense and unity within the
poem. Symeon manages to provide further unity with the preceding
verses by using å¡óðëáã÷íå referring to the Lord, which resumes the con-
cept of divine mercy previously expressed in line 4. Although the verse
does not present any striking peculiarity in its form, it is set apart by the
contrast of the two verbal form Pðï÷ùñßóáò and ðñïóëáâüìåíïò, since the
former conveys the idea of separation whereas the latter has a connota-
tion of acceptance and reception.
v. 13-14: the poet describes the divine hand that held and guided
him to the Studite as öñéêôÞ, awe-inspiring, to be shuddered at, a word
common in patristic authors to refer to the mysteries of the sacraments
(Chrys., In Ep. ad Philipp. 62, 204; In Jo. 59, 77); by using it, Symeon
underlines the greatness of the action of God who is at the same time
merciful, terrible and mysterious. The poet describes how God saved
10 For further examples see Symeon, Hymnen 2. 40-43, p. 55; 14. 30-31, p. 97.
11 Especially in lines 124-222, pp. 148-151. 149
Marina Bazzani
him by leading him to the Studite, whom he considers his only earthly
father; Symeon stresses the idea that the spiritual father is the only
authority whom one ought to obey in this world by placing dí ã† just
before the end of the first hemistich, and he further underlines it
through the alliteration between ã† and ãåíÝóèáé. In addition to that, the
poet bestows particular prominence upon ðáôÝñá, placed right at the end
of the verse and preceded by ìïõ, the use of which in this case is atypi-
cal, as ìïõ is usually enclitic; here, however, its position is probably dic-
tated by the prosodic rule that requires the accent to fall on to the penul-
timate syllable of the verse.
v. 16-18: as in a mirroring game, God guides Symeon to the Studite
who, in his turn, leads him to God the Father and to Christ through the
action of the Holy Spirit. The poet highlights the harshness of the spir-
itual journey and his distress by describing himself as êëáßïíôá, and in
doing so he also recalls the importance of tears in the process of repen-
tance and approach to the Lord.12 Symeon expresses his unworthiness to
be forgiven by God comparing himself to the prodigal son: being
Tóùôïò13 is one of the most frequent accusations that the poet takes upon
himself (hymn 14. 51; 28. 170; 41. 21), probably because the parable of
the prodigal son (Lk. 15. 11-32) resembles at best Symeon’s personal
story of sin and redemption. For it took the poet many years before he
abandoned the secular world for good, despite the experience of a first
mystical vision at the age of twenty; Tóùôïò therefore could contain an
12 Symeon is perhaps the strongest advocate of the necessity for tears for he
believed that only the way of tears lead to the vision of the divine mysteries; how-
ever, this theme played an important role already in patristic literature. For the
gift of tears in the Fathers of the Church see for example Athanasius Alexandrinus,
De Virginitate 17 (p. 52.12; PG 28, 272c); Evagrius Ponticus, De Oratione 5-6 (PG
79, 1168d – 1169a). For tears of repentance and compunction see Joannes
Climacus, Scala 28 (PG 88, 1132b; 1137b; 1140d). For tears and baptism see
Chrysostomus, Homeliae de poenitentia 3.4 (2.301a); Joannes Climacus, Scala 7 (PG
88, 804a). For an overview of the patristic teaching on tears see I. HAUSHERR,
Penthos: La doctrine de la componction dans l’Orient chrétien, Rome 1924 (=
Orientalia Christiana Analecta 132); M. LOT-BORODINE, Le mystére du ‘don des
larmes’ dans l’Orient chrétien, in: La vie spirituelle 48 (1936) 65-110. Tears are an
essential aspect of Symeon’s doctrine and are mentioned throughout his writ-
ings as a constant reminder to his brethren; see for example Cat. 4, 670-677; 5.
122-125; 29, 137-150 in: Syméon le Noveau Théologien, Catéchèses, I-III, ed. B
Krivochéine, (= Source Chrétiennes 96, 104, 113), Paris 1963-1965; Symeon
Hymnen 4. 85-88, p. 63; 15. 250-261, p. 110. On the role of tears in Symeon see
SISTER SYLVIA MARY, St. Symeon the New Theologian and the way of tears, Studia
Patristica 10 (1970) 431-435; H. ALFEYEV, St. Symeon the New Theologian, 208-215;
J. CHRYSSAVGIS, Una teologia della spontaneità: la via delle lacrime in Simeone il Nuovo
Teologo, in: S. Chialà – L. Cremaschi (eds.), Simeone il Nuovo Teologo e il
monachesimo a Costantinopoli, Bose 2003, 289-308.
13 Tóùôïò appears already in patristic literature, for example Chrysostomus,
Homiliae in I ad Corinthios 17.6 (PG 61, 139.44); Joannes Climacus, Scala 28 (PG
88, 1129d). Theodore Studite uses Tóùôïò as a derogatory term referred to him-
self in a fashion very similar to Symeon’s, Theodorus Studites, Sermones Catecheseos
Magnae 15, 42. 29, 49, 138. 13, ed. J. Cozza-Luzi, (= Nova Patrum Bibliotheca
150 9/2), Roma 1888-1905.
autobiographical hint and point to Symeon’s redemption and his defin-

itive return to God after a period of dissolution in the world.14
v. 21-23: at this point the narration breaks into a series of exclama-
tions, which express Symeon’s inability to thank and praise God for his
kindness; the poet insists on his incapacity to speak worthy words by
mentioning right after one another Píáîßïõ óôüìáôïò, ¼õðáñ§í ÷åéëÝùí15
and ãëþóóçò ðåíé÷ñOò, the three main sources of human utterance, which,
even jointly, cannot adequately praise the Lord because of their human
limitations. It is interesting to observe how Symeon manages to give the
hymn unity and coherence through the use of the adjectives juxtaposed
to the nouns; for in this case the adjectives are connected and reminis-
cent of what the poet has said earlier. PíÜîéïò mirrors and contrasts with
the preceding Pðçîßùóáò: Christ has not deemed it unworthy to call
Symeon a son of God in spite of his unworthy tongue; ¼õðáñüò, with its
metaphorical meaning of sordid and mean, calls back to mind Symeon’s
initial self-accusation, present throughout the Hymns, to have sinned
beyond all human capacity. Finally, ðåíé÷ñüò, which conveys the idea of
both poor and needy,16 resumes and reinforces Symeon’s definition of
himself as ðôù÷üò and “ñöáíüò. The inability to express God’s marvels
and the divine experience is a recurrent topic in the Hymns, derived from
the tradition of apophatic Byzantine theology;17 the difficulty for the
poet does not only lie in voicing what he has experienced, but even
attempting to convey those extraordinary experiences to others and to
write them down causes him enormous distress, as it appears in hymn 11.
30-32 (ð§ò äc êár ëüãv ãñÜøù; ðïßá ÷årñ ëåéôïõñãÞóåéå, / ðïsïò êÜëáìïò
ãñÜøåé, ðïsïò ëüãïò dêöñÜóåéå), or in hymn 20. 171-172 (êár Póèåí§ ô’í
ëïãéóìüí, ðïí§ ìïõ ôxí êáñäßáí, / ”ôé ëáëåsí ïš äýíáìáé ðåñr óï™) to
mention just a few examples.
v. 24-25: again Symeon describes himself as “ñöáíüò and îÝíïò dí ã†,
îÝíïò êüóìïõ, thus emphasizing his detachment from human ties and the
material world.18 The sense of extraneousness from the rest of humani-
14 For some of the other sins Symeon takes upon himself see Symeon, Hymnen,
20. 138-139, p. 163; 24. 71-81, p. 215.
15 See the 7th prayer of the service of preparation for the Holy Communion
(EÁêïëïõèßá ôyò Èåßáò ÌåôáëÞøåùò), which is attributed either to Symeon the
New Theologian or to John of Damascus, Horologion to mega, ed. B.
Koutloumousianos, Venice 1851, 447-449. There are a number of similarities,
both in style and content, between the prayer and the present hymn, especially
in the first verses Pð’ ñõðáñ§í ÷åéëÝùí,/ Pð’ âäåäõñOò êáñäßáò,/ Pð’ PêáèÜñôïõ
ãëþôôçò. I would like to thank Dr. D. Skrekas for his help with this reference.
16 On the poverty of words see also Symeon, Hymnen 58. 9, p. 448.
17 On the inexpressibility of God and his actions see Symeon, Hymnen 1. 1-25, pp.
45-46; 29, pp. 267-283, 261-262. On the poetic function of the ineffability of
the divine see R. MAISANO, La poesia religiosa, 41-45.
18 For the use of îÝíïò with the meaning of ‘alien, foreign, of different nature’
in patristic writers see Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis 2.9 (PG 8, 976c);
Athanasius Alexandrinus, Sermo maior de fide 25 (PG 26, 1280b). îÝíïò is also used
to indicate something unusual and marvelous – Justinus, I Apologia 16.4 (PG 6,
352d) – as well as someone devoted to solitary life away from the world, see 151
Marina Bazzani
ty is further stressed in line 25 by the repetition of the word îÝíïò – the

second time preceded by the genitive of separation êüóìïõ – and by its
eye-catching position both at the beginning and at the end of the verse,
a position which seems to encapsulate Symeon and his likes and to sep-
arate them from all the rest of humanity. In line 24 it is worth consider-
ing the peculiar verbal construction åkò dìc dðïßçóáò; generally ðïéÝù,
when used with the meaning of doing something to another, governs
either double accusative or, more rarely, dative, although this peculiar
form is found in Thuc., 2.8.4, and Arr. An. 2.2.3. This is a very interest-
ing case of a later usage of this expression that testifies the evolution of
the language, the weakening of cases, and the slow disappearance of the
dative case in Byzantine Greek.
v. 26-27: in these verses Symeon again underlines the sense of alien-
ation and distance from the world by saying that worldly people cannot
see or utter the gifts of God, and that there is no room for God’s follow-
ers on earth; he also vents the absolute lack of perception and commu-
nication between the two parties. The sense of isolation in which the
author and his followers are encapsulated is stylistically conveyed and
highlighted by the triple repetition of the negative conjunction ïš.
v. 28-30: isolation is not the only problem for God’s servants; as
there is no room for and understanding of them, the world hates them.
Symeon expresses the extent of the hatred through a climactic sequence
of verbs in asyndeton; the five verbs in succession give the verse a fast
rhythm and present in detail the sort of abuses the poet had to suffer
and the way these were perpetrated, both in words, as ëïéäïñås, and –
rather emphatically – in actions, as êôåßíåé. Most likely here Symeon
points to his personal experience and refers to all the persecutions he
had to bear from his enemies on account of his faith and his teaching;
mentions of all the sorrows he endured during his life are scattered in
his writings and in these instances it is conspicuous how the author,
rather than blaming his enemies, asks God for the endurance to over-
come these trials.19
v. 31-33: notwithstanding all the suffering and persecutions, the ser-
vants of God rejoice in their condition; Symeon voices the complete
acceptance of his existence with a series of striking paradoxes, which
reveal an obvious neo-testamentary influence (Cor. 1. 25; 2 Cor. 8. 9),
and at the same time disclose the magnitude of God’s providence and
the significance of being a stranger to the world. These antinomies not
only have a powerful stylistic function, but also, at the same time, convey
an important doctrinal message about the impenetrable effects of divine
Apophthegmata Patrum (PG 65, 256c). Symeon uses îÝíïò in all its accepted
meanings.
19 See for instance Symeon, Hymnen, 4. 91-98, pp. 63-64; 20; 140-164, pp. 163-
164; 36. 63-65, p. 317. I have dealt with this issue at greater length in M.
BAZZANI, Autobiographical Elements in Symeon the New Theologian. Modes and Causes
of Self-Disclosure in the Writings of the New Theologian, Byzantinoslavica 64 (2006)
152 221-242, in particular 234-239.
grace.20 On a stylistic note, it is possible to observe in line 32 a sort of

variatio between its first and second part; for the verse consists of two very
similar hemistichs, beginning respectively with dí Póèåíåßu and dí ðåíßu
followed by the adjective kó÷õñïß and the verb ðëïõôï™ìåí. In the latter
part of the verse, Symeon uses the verbal form instead of the corre-
sponding adjective ðëïýóéïé, not only to give the verse variety but also for
metrical reasons, since ðëïýóéïé would not abide by the rule that gener-
ally requires a paroxytone at the end of the verse.
v. 34: once again Symeon reasserts his estrangement from the world
by revealing that he and his like are with God in spirit, whereas the world
holds only their bodies. The close bond between God and his servants is
underlined also in the language: for the internal rhyme of ½ìåsò and ó˜í
óïß connects the two parties very tightly; moreover, the division of the
verse into two well-distinguished cola accentuates further the neat sepa-
ration between those of the world and those outside of it.
v. 35-37: Symeon reveals the self-deception of those who are in the
world and believe they are rich because they have great wealth, while
they do not even own their body, which the poet sadly calls ðçëüí, a mere
piece of clay to be returned to God on the day of the final judgment.
Symeon describes them as blind, and it is rather important and fascinat-
ing to understand why he does so; as mentioned already, light plays a
major role in Symeon’s writings and in his doctrine: the divine light is
the expression of God, and for a Christian the vision of light is the high-
est degree in the conscious experience of God, and the aim to pursue
throughout life.21 Those who do not pursue the light with all their
strength are therefore blind and lie in the darkness of sin; suffice it to
remember the numerous times when Symeon, recalling his life before
conversion, describes himself as sitting in a darkest pit, dí ëÜêêv
êáêùôÜôv (hymn 37. 24).22 Also in this hymn sin and darkness are asso-
ciated; it is enough to recall how Symeon describes the separation from
his family and friends as a departure from Ákãýðôïõ óêïôåéíyò and ]äïõ
ìõ÷§í, two definitions that convey a perspicuous idea of darkness. Thus,
the definition of the world as ôõöëüò does not come as a surprise, but
20 For the frequent use of paradox in Symeon’s hymns and its stylistic function
see R. MAISANO, La poesia religiosa, 38-39.
21 On the topic of divine light see V. LOSSKY, Vision de Dieu, Neuchâtel 1962; B.
KRIVOCHÉINE, Le thème de l’ivresse spirituelle dans la mystique de St Syméon le Nouveau
Théologien, Studia Patristica 5 (1962) 368-376; D. STATHOPOULOS, The divine light
in the poetry of St. Symeon the New Theologian (949-1025), The Greek Orthodox
Theological Review 19/2 (1974) 95-111; G. MALONEY, The Mystic of Fire and Light,
83-111; B. FRAIGNEAU-JULIEN, Le sens spirituals et la vision de Dieu selon Symeon le
Nouveau Théologien, Paris 1985; G. MARTZELOS, La visione di Dio in Simeone il
Nuovo Teologo, in: S. Chialà – L. Cremaschi (eds.), Simeone il Nuovo Teologo e
il monachesimo a Costantinopoli, Bose 2003, 165-198.
22 The word ëÜêêïò is used already in Patristic writings to describe both a real
pit, such as Daniel’s den (Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromateis 1.21, PG 8, 8025b), and
in a metaphorical sense to indicate evil (Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Explanatio in Pss.
39.1, PG 69, 980b). 153
Marina Bazzani
actually refers to what has been said earlier in the text; for Symeon writes
that worldly people do not see, ïš÷ ¿ñ§óéí, God’s gifts and those who are
with Him: the idea of blindness and shadow seems to be lurking
throughout the text, as a metaphor of human life lived away from God
and a warning of its consequences.23
v. 37-39: the hymn ends with an admonition to the lovers of the
world: on the day of the last judgment, the poet warns, they shall be left
with nothing else but their own evils. The warning is somehow made
more poignant by the abrupt end of the composition; while most of the
hymns generally close with praises of and prayers to the Lord, in this
case the text ends with the mention of the ôõöëïr öéëüêïóìïé and their
¿ìüöñïíåò; in this way Symeon draws attention to this category of men
interested only in material wealth, and simultaneously he succeeds in
detaching them from the rest of the composition, and in conveying the
impression of isolation they will experience on the day of the divine
judgment.
Conclusions
Although more issues could still be addressed in the text, it is time
to draw some conclusions on hymn LVI and on the poetic technique of
Symeon. This hymn is structured in a slightly peculiar way, as it starts
with a series of appeals to God, but stops rather unexpectedly without a
final doxology, as it usually happens in the Hymns, and ends instead with
the mention of the fate that awaits those who are devoted to worldly mat-
ters. At a first reading one might have the impression that there is no
unity in the poem’s structure; however, on a closer inspection, it is evi-
dent that there are internal references and recurring topics throughout
the text – such as the presence of light and darkness, as well as the fact
that the narrative starts and ends with the suggestion of darkness, i.e.
dark Egypt and the blind lovers of the world – which confer congruity on
the hymn. Although the lack of a final prayer is not a unique occurrence,
for instance also hymn 23 ends with an exhortation to the reader,
nonetheless we should question the motivation why Symeon decided for
such a sudden ending.
Firstly we could assume that the hymn is incomplete; but I do not
think this is the case. For the composition has a coherent development
and its narrative seems to follow the vicissitudes on the Saint’s life step
by step, from the time when he was a novice to the time of his hegoume-
nate and, perhaps, exile with all the afflictions that fell upon him. In
addition to that, one can notice throughout the poem a continuous com-
plementary discourse between the condition of human beings before and
after benefiting from the grace of God – initially in the person of
Symeon, then, toward the end of the poem, in the contrast between the
23Darkness is often associated with human life throughout the hymns, see for
example 2. 70, p. 57; 52. 98, p. 417. In hymn 37. 19, p. 319 Symeon admits to
154 have been a victim of blindness before being rescued by God.
ôáðåéíïß äï™ëïé of God and the ôõöëïr öéëüêïóìïé – which also gives con-
sistency to the poem. I believe that the reason for such an abrupt ending
is to be sought elsewhere, and namely in the edifying function of the
Hymns.24 As I have argued in the past,25 by showing God’s miracles and
mercy Symeon hopes to urge his flock to embrace the ascetic struggle
and to seek repentance and salvation; the same happens here, for
Symeon shows how God saved him from sin and made him His son,
though he was an unworthy sinner. At the same time, however, the Saint
reminds his brethren of what will happen to those who do not fully accept
Christ and His commandments, but continue to pursue worldly matters,
loosing sight of the truth and the good. Therefore, by concluding the
hymn in such an unpredicted way Symeon most likely hoped to carve
deeply in the mind of his monks the terrible and eternal consequences
of secular pursuing; in this occurrence one should also observe how skill-
fully the poet avails himself of a stylistic artifice, side by side to theolog-
ical teachings, in order to achieve greater efficacy and accomplish his
goal. There is another remarkable feature in this composition, which can
be detected throughout the hymns, namely the fact that this poem,
although seemingly structured as an interior dialogue between God and
the Saint with no apparent awareness of, or concern for an external audi-
ence, nevertheless in the end acquires an outward dimension and collec-
tive value for the well-being of the Saint’s brethren and the salvation of
humanity.
In addition to the unusual conclusion this hymn present several
other points of interest that are worthy of consideration. The presence of
several autobiographical references is among the valuable aspects of this
poem; Symeon mentions the abandonment of his family and the
encounter with the Studite, he then hints at trials and persecutions suf-
fered from his foes; although none of this information is explicit or easy
to locate within Symeon’s life, it certainly reflects real events, as trials and
persecutions are mentioned so often in his writings. Another typical fea-
ture present in this composition is the poet’s tendency to self-accusation
of innumerable sins, and to self-abasement; here Symeon describes him-
self as Tóùôïò and as åšôåëxò äï™ëïò, two among the most common epi-
thets that the poet bestows upon himself. The tendency to blame himself
has a threefold function; on the one hand it fulfills Symeon’s need to pre-
serve his ôáðåéíüôçò, then it is a way to praise the inscrutability of God’s
providence, finally it has a pedagogical purpose with respect to his
monks. In fact, although the hymn is conceived as a thanksgiving and a
24 Throughout his life Symeon tried to show his brethren the path that leads to
salvation by means of both his writings and his actions; in Cat. 21, 139-140 he
describes himself as ÷çëùôÞò ìáíéêþôáôïò with regard to his desire to share his
mystical experience with his monks. See B. KRIVOCHÉINE, The most enthusiastic
zealot, Ostkirchliche Studien 4 (1955) 108-128. See also J. KODER, Ãéáôß ¿ Óõìåþí
¿ ÍÝïò Èåïëüãïò, 815-818.
25 See M. BAZZANI, Autobiographical elements in Symeon the New Theologian, 240-
242. 155
Marina Bazzani
prayer to God, it is possible to trace, particularly in the last part, an

exemplifying and exhortatory function, which is devised for the sake of
the poet’s flock: revealing how the öéëüêïóìïé deceive themselves and
what awaits them in the afterlife is certainly an attempt to arouse the con-
sciences of his brethren, as mentioned above.
Before concluding it is necessary to re-address the issue of Symeon’s
alleged illiteracy. As we have said in the beginning Symeon calls himself
PãñÜììáôïò; Niketas in the Life states that his hero was not interested in
secular education and that refused to proceed to higher education when
in Constantinople,26 and recalls how Symeon wrote the Hymns not as a
literary pursue but under the constraint of the Holy Spirit.27 However, it
would be misleading to affirm that Symeon was completely lacking any
poetic and literary knowledge, and evidence proves this claim to be
wrong. As seen in this hymn, Symeon is not uninterested in poetic effects
and rhetorical figures; on the contrary, it is evident that he often man-
ages to stress certain thoughts and to give them prominence in the verse
through the careful disposition of words, while unity is given to the text
by internal references and by the choice of vocabulary.28 It is undeniable
that Symeon pays greater attention to content rather than to form: there
is no polishing of the text, especially in the longest compositions, and
sometimes there are metrical inaccuracies; however, it would be a serious
mistake to deny his acquaintance with poetic rules, the thoughtful use of
rhetorical devices, especially in the moments of deeper lyrical outburst,
and an effort to apply them to his poems. As this composition unques-
tionably demonstrates, Symeon achieves poetic results of great effect and
stirring beauty thanks to the original use of these tools, while all the time
he aims at retaining stylistic simplicity.
I hope that this study has succeeded to stir curiosity and interest in
Symeon’s poems and to illustrate some of the numerous lines of enquiry
that Byzantine poetic texts offer to scholars.
26 Niketas, Life, 3. 5-8. See G. PODSKALSKY, L’orizzonte culturale di Simeone il Nuovo

Teologo, in: S. Chialà – L. Cremaschi (eds.), Simeone il Nuovo Teologo e il
monachesimo a Costantinopoli, Bose 2003, 129-136.
27 Niketas, Life, 111. Symeon himself mentions how a èá™ìá öñéêôüí forced him
to reveal his mystical experiences, even though he was unwilling to do so; see
Symeon, Hymnen 1. 41-45, p. 46.
156 28 See R. MAISANO, La poesia religiosa, passim.
Odalric von Reims und sein Bericht
über die Translation der Reliquien
des Hl. Clemens
In der letzten Fußnote seines Beitrags Odalric de Reims, ses manuscrits

et les reliques de saint Clément à Cherson1 in der Festschrift für Edmond-
René Labande äußerte Baudouin de GAIFFIER die feste Zuversicht, dass
sich Paul DEVOS in naher Zukunft mit der Legende der Translation der
Gebeine von Papst Clemens I. von Cherson nach Rom auseinanderset-
zen würde, die er eben vorgestellt hatte.
Seitdem sind über dreißig Jahre ins Land gegangen, und das
Problem der Legende Translatio facta a Iulio papa2 ist immer noch
ungelöst, wie auch die Legende selbst nur ganz vereinzelt besprochen
worden ist – und dies meistens ohne die als Festschriftbeitrag gut ver-
steckte Publikation de GAIFFIERs zu benutzen, sondern indem auf die alte
Edition in den Acta Sanctorum zurückgegriffen wurde.
Die ganze Stelle ist aus dem sog. Psalter des Odalric entnommen
und lautet in der Edition GAIFFIERs folgendermaßen:
Anno incarnati Verbi millesimo XLVIII, quando Henricus, rex
Francorum, misit in Rabastiam Catalaunensem episcopum R,3 pro filia
regis illius terrae, Anna nomine, quam debebat ducere uxorem, depre-
catus est Odalricus4 prepositus eundem episcopum, quatinus inquirere
dignaretur utrum in illis partibus Cersona esset, ubi sanctus Clemens
requiescere legitur, vel si adhuc mare parciebatur die natalis eius et
peruium esset euntibus.
Quod et fecit; nam a rege illius terre, scilicet Oresclauo,5 hoc didi-
cit quod Iulius papa in regionem ubi sanctus Clemens iacebat, ad destru-
endam haeresim, que illis in partibus pululaverat, perrexit. Cumque,
peracta negocio, idem papa ab illis partibus regredi inciperat, apparuit
ei angelus Domini, dicens: «Noli recedere; a Domino enim tibi preci-
1 B. de GAIFFIER, Odalric de Reims, ses manuscrits et les reliques de saint Clément à

Cherson, in: Études de civilisation médiévale (IXe-XIIe siècles). Mélanges offerts
à Edmond-René Labande à l’occasion de son départ à la retraite et du XXe
anniversaire du CESCM pars ses amis, ses collègues, ses élèves, Poitiers 1974,
315-319.
2 Unter diesem Titel scheint sie in der BHL unter Nr. 1857b auf.
3 Roger II. von Châlons-sur-Marne (1042-1065).
4 Ulrich von Reims, seit 1040 Kanzler des Bf. von Reims.
5 Jaroslav I., der Weise (1019-1054). 157
Stefan Allbrecht
pitur ut revertaris et transferas corpus sancti Clementis quod hactenus in

mare iacuit.» Cum Iulius: «Quomodo, inquit, hoc potest fieri, cum mare
non parciatur, nisi in die natalis eius?» Cui angelus ait: «Hoc erit tibi
signum quod Dominus tibi precipiat reverti, quia mare in occursum
tuum parciatur. Perrexit ibi et transtulit corpus sancti Clementis, et
posuit illud super ripam et edificavit ibi ecclesiam, et assumens de cor-
pore eius reliquias, Romam secum detulit. Contigit autem ut, illo defe-
rente, die quo reliquias cum summa honorificentia populus recepisset
«Romanus», eodem die sepulcrum, quod in mari relictum erat cum solo
se super mare erigeret et fieret insula, ubi illius regionis homines
«basilicam construxerunt» et congregationem. Ex tunc, ad illam ecclesi-
am navigio itur.
Retulit etiam idem rex Georgius Sclauus (lege Oresclavus) episcopo
Catalaunensi, «quod ipsemet» quondam ibi perrexit et inde secum
attulit capita sanctorum Clementis et Phebi, discipuli eius, et posuit in
civitate Chion, ubi honorifice venerantur. Que eciam capita eidem epis-
copo ostendit.6
Es handelt sich also um die Brautwerbung König Heinrichs I. von
Frankreich bei Großfürst Jaroslav dem Weisen im Jahr 1048, durch die
Anna von Kiew zur französischen Königin wurde.7
Die Frage ist, woher Jaroslav diese sonst ganz unbekannte
Translationsgeschichte hatte?
Es ist m. E. auszuschließen, dass Jaroslav diese Legende erfunden
hat, denn einerseits lässt sie sich so nicht aus dem weit verbreiteten
Martyrium Clementis bzw. den Miracula Clementis ableiten,8 anderer-
seits scheint es höchst unwahrscheinlich, dass Jaroslav selbst den anson-
sten weniger bekannten Papst Julius I. (337-352)9 ins Spiel gebracht
hätte. Johannes HOFFMAN geht davon aus, dass aufgrund einer
Verwechslung Papst Julius (†352) an die Stelle von Konstantin-Kyrill
getreten sei. Tausche man diese wieder aus, so „haben wir in groben
Zügen wieder die durchaus glaubwürdige Geschichte von der Auffindung
und Translation der Clemensreliquien durch den hl. Lehrer der Slawen
vor uns. Ja, sogar die nach der Translation erfolgte Errichtung einer
Basilika über dem ehemaligen Clemensgrab findet dann in der auf der
Grabinsel ausgegrabenen Kirche des 10. Jhds. ihre Bestätigung.“10
6 B. de GAIFFIER, Odalric de Reims, 318. Eine fast identische Stelle befindet sich
in der Bibliothek Casanatense in Rom auf Seite 258 des Codex 1055, einer
Handschrift des 12. Jh.s, nach der Passio sancti Clementis und den Wundern des-
selben Papstes nach Gregor von Tours unter der Überschrift: De translatione cor-
poris eiusdem, BHL 1857b.
7 Vgl.: R. HALLU, Anne de Kiev, reine de France, Rome 1973.
8 Zur Verbreitung siehe: F. PASCHKE, Die beiden griechischen Klementinen-Epitomen
und ihre Anhänge: überlieferungsgeschichtliche Vorarbeiten zu einer Neuausgabe der
Texte (= Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur; Bd. 90), Berlin 1966.
9 Vgl. W. M. GESSEL, s.v. Julius I., in: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirchenge-
158 schichte 5 (2006) 1083.
Odalric von Reims und sein Bericht ¸ber die Translation...
Es fällt aber schwer zu glauben, dass die Auffindungsgeschichte, wie

sie uns für Konstantin-Kyrill überliefert ist, dergestalt deformiert worden
sein kann, denn der Name, der Grund des Aufenthalts, die Art der
Auffindung, die Tatsache, dass die Insel erst nach der Auffindung ent-
stand, dass dort eine Kirche erbaut worden sei, dass zuvor der Papst am
Ufer eine Kirche erbaut habe: All das findet keine Entsprechung bei
Konstantin-Kyrill. Die göttliche Weisung an Kyrill im Traum könnte man
noch mit einem Engel vertauschen, eine Kirche hat er aber nicht
errichtet. Auch fand Konstantin-Kyrill die Insel bereits vor, die in dieser
apokryphen Legende erst nach der Abreise des Heiligen entstanden sein
soll u.s.w. Ferner dürfte das Slovo na prenesenie moštem in dieser Zeit noch
nicht in Kiev bekannt gewesen sein.11
Laut dem Bericht Bf. Rogers II. behauptete Jaroslav von sich, er
habe die Kopfreliquien selbst nach Kiew gebracht. Markus OSTERRIEDER
war daher der Ansicht, dass Jaroslav die Schädel von Clemens und
Phöbus 1044 im Zuge seines Feldzuges gegen Byzanz mitgebracht
habe.12 Gewöhnlich wird allerdings diese Reliquientranslation seinem
Vater Vladimir I. d. Hl. zugerechnet,13 was wohl auch das Richtige sein
dürfte, da der unglückliche Feldzug von (recte) 1043 nicht über Cherson
gegangen ist.14
Mit den Reliquien wird auch die dazugehörige Legende aus Cherson
nach Kiew gekommen sein. Über Kiev muss dann im Übrigen die auch
in die Sächsischen Weltchronik eingedrungene Information verbreitet
worden sein, dass Clemens I. (und damit auch Papst Martin I.) in der
Rus’ gestorben sei.15
10 J. HOFMANN, Unser heiliger Vater Klemens. Ein römischer Bischof im Kalender der
griechischen Kirche (= Trierer Theologische Studien, 54), Trier 1992, 66f. Auch
Acta SS. Martii 2, 15* Nr. 19 und J. B. LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers; I/1. S.
Clement of Rome, Hildesheim – New York 21890. ND 1973 1/1, 91, Anm. 1 hal-
ten diese Notiz für eine „lediglich etwas durcheinandergebrachte Überliefer-
ung“ (HOFMANN, Unser heiliger Vater, 66, Anm. 198).
11 Dass im Slovo o Ëude des 11. Jh.s die Translatio facta a Iulio papa nicht erwähnt
ist, stört nicht, denn zum einen ging es dem Autor um die neuerliche
Translation der Gebeine in die neu errichtete Kirche, zum anderen schöpfte er
wohl aus einer der weit verbreiteten Clemensepitomen, an die er sich anlehnte.
J. K. BEGUNOV, Ðóńńęîĺ ńëîâî î ÷óäĺ Ęëčěĺíňŕ Ðčěńęîăî č ęčðčëëîěĺôî-
äčĺâńęŕ˙ ňðŕäčöč˙, Slavia 43 (1974) 26-46. Begunovs Versuch, eine kyril-
lomethodianische Tradition „im weiteren Sinne“ als Tradition der Slawen zu
etablieren, dank derer diese die byzantinische Kultur vermittelt bekamen, ist
m.E. ein wenig gezwungen und kann keine unmittelbaren Überlieferungs-
stränge beweisen. 45f.
12 M. OSTERRIEDER, Das Land der Heiligen Sophia, Wiener Slawistischer Almanach
50 (2002) 5-62, hier 40f.
13 Vgl. HOFMANN, Unser heiliger Vater, 67.
14 Vgl. u.a. J.-P. ARRIGNON, Les relations diplomatiques entre Byzance et la Russie de
860 à 1043, Revue des études slaves 55 (1983) 129-137.
15 „Do wart gemarteret de dridde paves Clemen [to Ruzen (so die Rezensionen
A u. B.] in deme ellende.“ „He veng den paves Martinum unde vorsande in to
Ruzen in dat ellende, dar starf he martyr.“ Sächsische Weltchronik. Eberhards 159
Stefan Allbrecht
Es bleibt zu fragen, wann und warum diese Legende entstanden

ist.
In der Translatio facta a Iulio papa ist von einer Insel mit einer
Kirche und einem Klostergebäude sowie von einer Kirche am Ufer die
Rede.
Als KOSCIUSZKO-WALUZYNICZ 1890 die sog. Clemens-Insel unter-
suchte,16 fand man in der Tat die Fundamente einer kleinen Kirche,
die aufgrund von Münzfunden aus der Zeit Romanos’ I. (920-944) in
die erste Hälfte des 10. Jh.s datiert wurde. Eine frühere Kirche ist
möglicherweise im 8. Jh. zerstört worden.17 Wegen ihrer architektoni-
schen Anlage schloss man auf eine Klosteranlage, zu der auch eine
Krypta gehört habe, die Bertie Delagarde als Grabstätte des hl.
Clemens ansprach.18 Diese Anlage sei also in der Zeit nach der
Wiederauffindung der Reliquien durch den Slawenapostel errichtet
worden. Da aber die Vita Constantini-Cyrilli cum translatione s. Clementis
davon spricht, dass der heilige Reliquiensucher und seine Helfer auf
gewisse Strukturen gestoßen seien,19 wird zu seiner Zeit ein älterer,
verfallener Bau bestanden haben, der mit der genannten Kirche, die
im 8. Jh. zerstört sein soll, übereinstimmen könnte. Bedauerlicher-
weise wird man dies archäologisch wohl nicht mehr untersuchen kön-
nen.20
Aber auch die Kirche am Ufer scheint in der cyrillomethodiani-
schen Überlieferung ihr Echo gefunden zu haben, referiert doch
Anastasius in seinem Brief an Gauderic, dass Konstantin die Gläubigen
Reimchronik von Gandersheim. Braunschweigische Reimchronik. Chronik des Stiftes
S. Simon und Judas zu Goslar. Holsteinische Reimchronik, ed. L. Weiland (= MGH,
Deutsche Chroniken und andere Geschichtsbücher des Mittelalters, 2)
Hannover 1877, 1-384, hier 105 u. 143. Die sächsische Weltchronik entstand um
einiges später im 13. Jh. Vgl. dazu: J. WOLF, Die Sächsische Weltchronik im Spiegel
ihrer Handschriften: Überlieferung, Textentwicklung, Rezeption, München 1997.
16 Ŕ. Ë. ÁĹÐŇÜĹ ÄĹËŔĂŔÐÄ, Äðĺâíîńňč ţćíîé Ðîńńčč. Ðŕńęîďęč Őĺðńîíĺńŕ.
Ěŕňĺðčŕëű ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč Ðîńńčč, Nî. 12, St. Petersburg 1893.
17 F. DVORNÍK, Les légendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byzance (= Byzan-
tinoslavica, Supplementa 1), Prague 1933, 196.
18 Zit. nach A. ESSER, Wo fand der hl. Konstantin-Kyrill die Gebeine des hl. Clemens
von Rom?, in: Cyrillo-Methodiana. Zur Frühgeschichte des Christentums bei den
Slaven 863-1963, Köln – Graz 1964, 126-148, hier 139-141.
19 Navigantes itaque cum ingenti devotione ac fiducia, psallentes atque orantes
pervenerunt ad insulam, in qua videlicet existimabant sancti corpus martiris
esse. Eam igitur undique circumdantes et multo luminum splendore lustrantes,
ceperunt magis ac magis precibus sacris insistere et in acervo illo, quo tantum
thesaurum quiescere suspicari dabatur, curiose eatis et instantissime fodere. Vita
Constantini-Cyrilli cum translatione S. Clementis. Italská legenda, in: Magnae
Moraviae fontes historici II. Textus biographici, hagiographici, liturgici (=
Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis Facultas philosophica 118), ed. L. E.
Havlík, Brunae 1967, 120-133, hier 124f.
20 E. JASTRZEBOWSKA, Il culto di s. Clemente a Chersoneso alla luce della ricerca arche-
ologica, in: Studi su Clemente Romano: Atti degli Incontri di Roma, 29 marzo e
22 novembre 200, ed. Ph. Luisier (= Orientalia Christiana Analecta 268), Roma
160 2003, 127-137.
aufgefordert habe, am Meeresufer (litus) zu graben, womit er kaum das

Ufer der Insel gemeint haben wird, von der erst später die Rede ist.21
Wichtig ist aber, dass Konstantin-Kyrill die Reliquien überhaupt auf
der Insel bzw. am Gestade suchte.
Hätte er nur die allgemein verbreiteten Texte des Martyriums und
des Miraculum gekannt, hätte er die Reliquien in einem templum im
Meer gesucht und auf die dies natalis des Heiligen gewartet, um trocke-
nen Fußes zum Grab zu gelangen.22 Da er aber erfahren musste, dass das
Wunder des recessus maris seit langem aufgehört hatte,23 hätte er wohl
traurig von seinem Vorhaben Abstand genommen.
Konstantin-Kyrill hatte aber genauer recherchiert und las daraufhin
Bischof, Klerus und Volk vor, „quid de passione, quidve de miraculis,
quid etiam de scriptis beati Clementis et praecipue quid de templi siti
penes illos structura et ipsius in ipso condicione librorum numerositas
commendabat“24, und zog darauf mit ihnen los. Das heißt, er muss über
eine Textsammlung verfügt haben, in der zusätzlich zum Martyrium, den
Miracula und den Clemens-Briefen (wo nichts über eine Insel zu lesen
ist) noch eine besondere Information über die Kirche(n) und das Grab
enthalten war.
Natürlich könnten ferner mit der Basilika auf der Insel und der
Kirche am Festland der Translatio facta a Iulio papa Gebäude gemeint
sein, die im 10. Jh., also zur Zeit Vladimirs, sichtbar waren, Gebäude, die
dort im 9. Jh. nach und aufgrund der Erhebung der Gebeine Clemens‘
durch Konstantin-Kyrill errichtet worden sind.
Andererseits haben wir den im frühen Mittelalter weit verbreiteten
Pilgerbericht des Archidiakons Theodosius, den er wohl zwischen 518
und 530 als eine Beschreibung des Heiligen Landes und der angrenzen-
den Länder verfasst bzw. redigiert hatte. Man mag unterschiedlicher
Meinung darüber sein, ob Theodosius selbst in Cherson gewesen ist und
woher er gegebenenfalls seine Informationen bezog.25 Deutlich wird aber
doch, dass zu seiner Zeit die Gläubigen „in barcas“ zum Grab des Papstes
führen,26 was leicht mit der Erzählung der Translatio facta a Iulio papa in
21 MGH Epp. VII, 436-438 „[…] omnes ad illa litora fodienda et tam pretiosas
reliquias sancti martyris et apostolici inquirendas ordine, … penitus animavit.”
22 A. R. M. Dressel (ed.), Clementinorum epitomae duae, Leipzig 1873, 122-232.
23 MGH Epp. VII, 436-438, hier 436
24 MGH Epp. VII, 436-438, hier 437.
25 Negativ äußert sich H. DONNER, Pilgerfahrt ins Heilige Land. Die ältesten Berichte
christlicher Palästinapilger (4.-7. Jahrhundert), Stuttgart 1979, 190-225, positiv D.
CLAUDE, Spätantike und Frühmittelalterliche Orientfahrten: Routen und Reisende, in:
Voyages et voyageurs à Byzance et en Occident du VIe au XIe siècle. Actes du col-
loque international organisé par la Section d’Histoire de l’Université Libre de
Bruxelles... (5-7 mai 1994), ed. A. Dierkens (= Bibliothèque de la Faculté de
Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège, 278), Genève 2000, 235-253,
hier 243.
26 Itinera Hierosolymitana sæculi IV-VIII, in: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum
Latinorum, 38, ed. P. Geyer, Wien 1898, 135-150, hier 143f. Dass dann das 161
Stefan Allbrecht
Deckung zu bringen ist, dass „ex tunc, ad illam ecclesiam navigio itur“ (s.o.).
Die Translatio facta a Iulio papa könnte daher in einer Zeit entstanden
sein, als das höchstwahrscheinlich in Rom entstandene Martyrium auch
in Cherson bekannt geworden ist, also im 5. Jh. Dort hatte man, wie
HOFMANN überzeugend dargelegt hat, ein sich auf einer Insel befind-
liches heidnisches Osiris-Heiligtum in ein christliches Clemens-
Heiligtum umgewandelt und den Kult etabliert.27 Diese Umwidmung
der Insel bzw. die Einrichtung des Clemens-Heiligtums nicht auf dem
Meeresgrund, sondern an Land, musste allerdings – wenigstens den
Pilgern – erklärt werden. Dies könnte dann der Anlass gewesen sein,
diese Legende zu erfinden.
Es bleibt allerdings eine weitere Schwierigkeit: Nach wie vor ist
ungeklärt, warum ausgerechnet Papst Julius I., der niemals im Osten war
und der auch die Passio noch nicht kennen konnte, die Reliquien-
translation vorgenommen haben soll.
Papst Julius I. war ein entschiedener Gegner des Arianismus und
Verfechter des Glaubenssymbols von Nikaia. Sein Eintreten zugunsten
der Bischöfe Athanasios von Alexandrien und Marcellus von Ankyra und
die kontroverse Untersuchung dieser Streitfälle auf der Synode von
Serdica 343 vertiefte die Spaltung zwischen den Arianern im Osten und
den Anhängern des Niceanum I im Westen,28 dieweil Konstantinopel
arianisch dominiert wurde. Auf der Seite der Gegner des Arianismus
stand auch Jerusalem, namentlich Bischof Cyrillus (348-386), der auf-
grund der antinicaeanischen Haltung der Kaiser Constantius II. (337-
361) und Valens (364-378) und weil er die Unabhängigkeit von Caesarea
erlangen wollte, 357 abgesetzt worden ist. Nach wiederholter Ab- und
Wiedereinsetzung nahm er 381 am Konzil von Konstantinopel als
Vertreter der Orthodoxie teil.29 Auf demselben Konzil ist nun auch ein
Aitherios als Bischof von Cherson bezeugt, von dem zwei der überliefer-
ten Viten sagen, er sei wie seine Vorgänger aus Jerusalem gekommen.30
Es scheint daher so, als ob man sich in Cherson nicht nur eine alte,31
Meer sich um gleich sechs Meilen zurückgezogen haben soll, die Boote dann
also für acht Tage auf dem Trockenen lagen, klingt nach einer Vermischung mit
dem in der Passio beschriebenen Wunder.
27 Dazu passt auch, dass die Vita der hll. Bfe von Cherson von der Vernichtung
der heidn. Tempel etc. spricht. Auch die Passio Clementis erzählt die
Vernichtung von Tempeln und Hainen und die Einrichtung von Kirchen,
allerdings bereits für Clemens, was eine Vordatierung sein dürfte. Vgl.
HOFMANN, Unser heiliger Vater.
28 GESEL, s.v. Julius I.
29 U. WAGNER-LUX – H. BRAKMANN, Jerusalem I., in: RAC, 631-718, hier 682f.
30 C. ZUCKERMANN, The Early Byzantine Strongholds in Eastern Pontus, Travaux et
Mémoires 11 (1991) 527-553, hier 547.
31 Vgl. F. DVORNÍK, Les légendes, 194. Dagron ist der Ansicht, dass die Passio
septem (BHG 266n. 267) Cherson ein hohes Alter erfunden habe, wodurch
Cherson. ihrer älteren „Rivalin“ Bosporos mindestens gleichrangig werden
sollte. G. DAGRON, Crimée ambiguë (IVe-Xe siècles), in: Ěŕňĺðčŕëű ďî ŕðőĺîëîăčč,
162 čńňîðčč č ĺňíîăðŕôčč Ňŕâðčč 7 (2000) 289-301, hier 290.
sondern auch eine von arianischen Häretikern gesäuberte Geschichte

zugelegt habe. Auch später, im 9. Jh., nutzte man denselben Kunstgriff,
als der Verfasser der Vita des Johannes von Gotthia diesen nach dem
Konzil von Hiereia 754 in Jerusalem gewesen und später in Georgien
geweiht sein lässt, sodass Johannes eine blütenrein ikonodule
Vergangenheit erhielt.32
Darüber hinaus scheint es tatsächlich Verbindungen nach Syrien
und möglicherweise auch nach Rom gegeben zu haben. Syrische
Beziehungen sind bereits zu VASILIEVs Zeiten diskutiert und akzeptiert
worden.33 Auf römischen – wenn nicht antiocheischen – Einfluss könnte
das in der Vita der sieben Bischöfe von Cherson genannte Petrus-
Patrozinium zurückgehen: Schon das Doppelpatrozinium Peter und Paul
ist im byzantinischen Raum ausgesprochen selten – eine erste Kirche
wurde unter dem praefectus praetorio Rufinus auf seinen Gütern am
Bosporos im letzten Viertel des 4. Jh.s gestiftet – als Einzelpatron hinge-
gen tritt er außerhalb Roms erst spät auf. Theodor Studites hat eine
Petruskirche gegründet, weil erder den Kephas als Symbol der Recht-
gläubigkeit an sich verehrte. Er stand damit nur an der Spitze einer
neuen Petrus-Verehrung in Konstantinopel, die sich im 9. Jh. im Zuge
der Liquidierung des Ikonoklasmus und der Streitigkeiten um den
Patriarchenthron etablierte. Das legt nahe, dass in Cherson im 9. Jh. eine
Petruskirche geweiht worden ist, deren Gründung aber einem der
Apostel der Krim zugeschrieben wurde; sollte diese Vita im 9. Jh. in
Cherson entstanden sein, dann hätte der Autor stark am Erfahrungs-
horizont seiner Mitbewohner vorbeigeschrieben.34
Als Entstehungszeitpunkt für die erste Redaktion wird man dann für
beide Texte das frühe 5. Jh. annehmen, als auch das Martyrium
Clementis entstanden ist.35 Wenn es richtig ist, dass das Martyrium
Clementis seinen Ursprung in Rom hat und von dort erst nach Cherson
gekommen ist, wo es erweitert worden ist, wie DELEHAYE vorschlug,36 so
32 M.-F. AUZÉPY, La vie de Jean de Gothie (BHG 891), in: La Crimée entre Byzance
et le Khaganat khazar, ed. C. Zuckerman, Paris 2006, 69-85.
33 A. A. VASILIEV, The Goths in the Crimea, Cambridge, Mass. 1936, 6-9.
34 V. v. FALKENHAUSEN, San Pietro nella religiosità bizantina, in: Settimane di stu-
dio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 34 (1988) 627-636, hier bes.
629-632; eadem, Petri Kettenfeier in Byzanz. Fantasien über ein Apostelfest, in: Fest
und Alltag in Byzanz, ed. G. Prinzing – D. Simon, München 1990, 129-144.
35 PASCHKE, Die beiden griechischen Klementinen-Epitomen und ihre Anhänge, 71.
Die Entstehung wird für die Zeit kurz nach der Entstehung der Vita Clementis
durch Rufinus v. Aquileia datiert. Also bald nach 411/12. Rufinus (ca. 345-
411/12) seinerseits war 380 an die Spitze des Ölbergklosters in Jerusalem
getreten und 397 nach Italien zurückgekehrt, seine Haupttätigkeit war dort die
Übertragung griechischer Schriften ins Lateinische. H. R. DROBNER, s.v. Rufinus,
in: Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 8 (1994) Sp 959-972.
36 Vgl. aber die Einwände, wie sie Paschke zusammenfasste, PASCHKE, Die beiden
griechischen Klementinen-Epitomen und ihre Anhänge, 67. Wenn die Entstehung des
Martyriums nicht mit Rom in Verbindung zu bringen ist, kann es gleichwohl
bald nach Cherson gelangt sein, wo es dann weiterentwickelt worden ist. 163
Stefan Allbrecht
könnte zur gleichen Zeit auch die Translatio facta a Iulio papa entstanden
sein, welche die Translation auf eine Insel gerechtfertigt hätte.37
Eine Neufassung der Translatio nach der Wiederauffindung der
Gebeine des hl. Clemens durch Konstantin-Kyrill ist damit nicht aus-
geschlossen, an eine Erstfassung kann allerdings nicht gedacht werden.
Bedenkenswert sind in diesem Zusammenhang die Überlegungen von I.
FRANKO und neuerdings Ch. TRENDAFILOV, die davon ausgehen, dass es
vor der Auffindung durch Konstantin-Kyrill noch weitere Auffindungen
gegeben haben mag.38 Einige Male hört man später im Zusammenhang
mit dem Vierten Kreuzzug von anderen Reliquientranslationen, und
zwar erstens von einem Kopfreliquiar des hl. Papstes, das sich im Kloster
Trentafolia (d.i. Èåïôüêïõ ôyò ÐåñéâëÝðôïõ) befunden haben soll, als es
der französische Ritter Dalmatius de Serciaco zusammen mit Pontius de
Busseria raubte und 1206 nach Cluny brachte.39 Dieses Reliquiar sei
nach Auskunft eines syrischen Priesters namens Mose, der sich den
Rittern als ein ausgesprochener Spezialist für die Reliquien Konstan-
tinopels vorstellte, „a quodam imperatore a mari Constantinopolim […]
translatum.“ Wann das stattgefunden haben soll, wusste er offenbar
selbst nicht.40 Von der Echtheit der Reliquien durften sich die beiden
37 Ein römischer Pilger, aufgrund der Passio in Cherson, hätte sich natürlich
darüber wundern können, dass er nichts von den Reliquien in Rom gehört hatte
– eine Clemenskirche gab es ja immerhin –, der Autor der Translatio wird aber
kaum für ein römisches Publikum geschrieben haben.
38 Franko gibt zu bedenken, dass Konstantin-Kyrill lediglich der Verfasser des
Slovo gewesen sei, und dass er nicht aus falscher Bescheidenheit nichts weiter
erzählen wollte, wie Anastasius sagt, sondern weil er nichts weiter sagen konnte.
I. FRANKO, Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der cyrillo-methodianischen Legenden, Archiv für
slavische Philologie 28 (1906) 229-255, hier 236. Gegen die Richtigkeit der
Überlegungen Frankos hinsichtlich einer früheren Translatio, die nichts mit
Konstantin-Kyrill zu tun habe, vgl. DVORNÍK, Les légendes, 194f. sowie B. NEIL,
The Cult of Pope Clement in Ninth-Century Rome, Ephemerides liturgicae 117 (203)
103-113, hier 107 (allerdings ist das Argument, der Strategos, nicht der
Metropolit, sei mit dem Kaiser Nikephoros I. verwechselt worden). Man wird
gegen Anastasius auch einwenden, dass der Verfasser des Slovo ja keineswegs
bescheiden schweigen, sondern allen über den Fund erzählen wollte, wovon das
ganze erste Kapitel des Slovo spricht. vgl. Th. BUTLER, Saint Constantine-Cyril’s
“Sermon on the Translation of the Relics of Saint Clement of Rome”, Cyrillometho-
dianum 17-18 (1993-1994) 15-39, hier 22.
Ch. TRENDAFILOV, Őĺðńîíńęŕ ëĺăĺíäŕ, in: Ęčðčëî-ěĺňîäčĺâńęŕ ĺíöčęëîďĺäč˙
â ÷ĺňčðč ňîěŕ, t. IV, Sofija 2003, 384-388, hier 386. Trendafilov spricht von
einem Theodosios, der im 7. Jh. von Prozessionen gesprochen habe, die das Ziel
hatten, die Reliquien des Clemens zu entdecken. Bedauerlicherweise – aber für
einen Lexikonartikel vollkommen üblich – gibt Trendafilov hierfür keinen
Beleg an, er nennt auch nicht die Viten, wo analoge Suchaktionen beschrieben
worden seien.
39 Zu Dalmase de Sercy und Ponce de Bussières vgl. J. LONGON, Les compagnons
de Villehardouin. Recherches su les croisés de la quatrième croisade, Genève 1978, 219f.
40 R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin. Ie partie. Le siège de
Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique. T. III. Les églises et les monastères, Paris
²1969, 218-222 u. idem, Le monastère de la Théotocos Péribleptos à Constantinople,
in: Académie Roumaine, Bulletin de la section historique 26 (1945) 192-201.
164 Die Kirche soll Manuel II. erbaut haben, das Kloster selbst wurde allerdings von
Ritter aber überzeugen, als sie der hl. Clemens, der für Christus ins Meer
gestürzt wurde, um Christi Willen vor demselben Schicksal bewahrte.41
Ferner gab es aber offensichtlich auch in Konstantinopel außer dem
Kopfreliquiar noch ein Armreliquiar, das nach Halberstadt ging.42 1247
gehörte ein Kopfreliquiar des hl. Clemens gemeinsam mit denen der hll.
Blasius und Simeon (unklar ist, um welchen Clemens es sich handelt) zu
den Reliquienschätzen, die Balduin II. Ludwig IX. übergab – sie wurden
noch im 15. Jh. für die Sainte Chapelle verzeichnet.43 Nivel de Suessions
schenkte der Äbtissin von S. Maria Suessionensis u.a. Reliquien „de San-
cto Clemente“,44 Warinus, Ebf. von Thessalonike vermachte 1239 Abt
und Konvent von Aquicinctinis einen Teil des Kopfes des hl. Clemens.45
Lambert von Novoiomensis, der Kaplan Balduins I., schenkte dem
Kloster S. Johannes in Vineis u.a. due dimidie coste sancti Clementis, pape &
martyris.46 Ohne daher behaupten zu wollen, auch nur eine dieser
Reliquien sei echt gewesen, scheint es also auch in Konstantinopel eine
entsprechende Clemens-Tradition gegeben haben, wenn man nicht
davon ausgeht, dass die Reliquienräuber nicht zwischen dem heiligen
Papst und Klemens v. Ankyra, dem zwei Kirchen in Konstantinopel ge-
Romanos III. Argyros (1028-1034) gegründet, wozu er von einem gewissen

Triakontaphyllos (daher der Beiname) das Gelände erwarb. Das Kloster
beschrieb noch 1200 Antonios von Novgorod als eines der reichsten der ganzen
Stadt; und 1402 bestaunte Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo die Reliquienschätze und
die Architektur des Komplexes. Die Reliquien könnten demnach von Romanos
III. oder von jedem späteren Kaiser übertragen worden sein.
41 Appendix ad Hugonem. Rostangni Cluniacensis monachi tractatus. Exceptionis capi-
tis S. Clementis papae et martyris ab Constantinopoli ad Cluniacum translate, tempore
Hugonis abbatis, Patrologia latina 209, 905B-914C, bzw. P. E. D. Comte de Riant
(ed.), Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae, tomus 1, Genevae 1877-1878
(Neudruck Paris 2004), 127-140. Eine französische Übertragung findet sich in
MICHAUD, Bibliothèque des croisades, Paris 1829. Ausführlich dazu auch: R.
CEILLIER – L. É. RONDET, Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques, vol.
14/2, Paris 1863, 856-858.
Zur Reliquie vgl. auch G. TOUSSAINT, Die Sichtbarkeit des Gebeins im Reliquiar – eine
Folge der Eroberung Konstantinopels?, in: Reliquiare im Mittelalter, ed. B.
Reudenbach (= Hamburger Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte, 5), Berlin 2005,
89-106, hier 95. Vgl. R. RÜCKERT, Zur Form der byzantinischen Reliquiare,
München 1958, 15 u. H. Comte de RIANT, Les dépouilles religieuses enlevées à
Constantinople au XIIIe siècle, et des documents historiques nés de leur transport en
Occident, in: Mémoires de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France, 4.
série, vol. VI, Paris 1875, 1-214, hier 127-140. Während Toussaint die Reliquie
allerdings für in den Revolutionswirren verloren hält, behauptete noch C. de la
ROCHETTE, Histoire des évêques de Mâcon, Mâcon 1867, 210: «Cette précieuse
relique, honorée dans l’église abbatiale de Cluny jusqu’en 1793, est aujourd’hui
conservée dans la cathédrale d’Autun.»
42 Riant (ed.), Exuviae I, 21. Vgl. G. TOUSSAINT, Konstantinopel in Halberstadt, Alte
Reliquien in neuem Gewand, Mittelalter 10 (2005) 38-62.
43 Riant (ed.), Exuviae II, 133f. u. 256f.
44 Riant (ed.), Exuviae II, 68 u. 190.
45 Riant (ed.), Exuviae II, 124.
46 Riant (ed.), Exuviae II, 61f. 165
Stefan Allbrecht
weiht waren (wobei in der einen seit Basileios I. auch sein Haupt mit den
Reliquien seines Gefährten Agathangos lag47), unterscheiden konnten.
Die so gut bekannte Translatio durch Konstantin-Kyrill ist also kein
Solitär gewesen.
Es gibt möglicherweise einen weiteren Hinweis darauf, dass die
Translatio facta a Iulio papa alt ist und wenigstens ins 6. Jh. zurückreicht.
Auch hier wies Baudouin de Gaiffier den Weg, indem er darauf aufmerk-
sam machte, dass die Vita sancti Illidii eine weitere Translation von
Clemensreliquien kennt;48 aber auch bei Gregor von Tours ist unab-
hängig davon die Rede.
Laut Gregor von Tours kam ein Pilger zu einem Landgut in der
Nähe der Stadt Limoges, das darunter litt, dass eine ehemals reich
sprudelnde Quelle unzugänglich geworden war, sodass die Bewässerung
des Landes, die die wirtschaftliche Grundlage der Region war, zusam-
menbrach. Im dritten Jahr nach dieser Katastrophe habe aber ein Pilger
Reliquien des hl. Clemens mitgebracht, die er Aridius, dem (späteren)
Abt von Yrieix anbot, welcher prüfte, ob die Reliquien echt seien. Dazu
legte er die Reliquien am Quellmund nieder und betete, dass „qui quon-
dam in deserto damnatis ad secanda marmora flumen inriguum pate-
fecit, in hunc locum aquas, quas prius pia indulserat clementia,
Clementis iterum intercessio revocaret.”49
Der hier überlieferte Ausschnitt aus dem Liber in gloria martyrum des
Gregor von Tours belegt nach Esser, dass „die Wallfahrt [nach Cherson]
im 6. Jahrhundert in nicht geringer Blüte gestanden haben muss“.50 Da
etwa einige Zeit vorher Theodosius seinen später sehr verbreiteten
Pilgerführer De situ terrae sanctae herausbrachte, der ebenfalls den Kult
bezeugt, ist es nicht von der Hand zu weisen, dass ein Pilger aus dem
heutigen Frankreich sich auf den Weg nach Cherson machte. Dass der
anonyme Pilger nur Kontaktreliquien mitgebracht habe, wie Esser
behauptet,51 ist nicht zu belegen, denn anders als im Westen52 galt das
Märtyrergrab im Osten nicht als unantastbar und Reliquien wurden dur-
chaus bereits im 4. Jh. von ihrer ursprünglichen Ruhestätte verbracht.
Die Geschichte selbst ist auf die Zeit zwischen 540-545 und 591 zu
datieren, als Aridius von Limoges in Limoges lebte. Da Aridius hier urbis
47 ÊëÞìçò dí ôïsò Åšäïîßïõ und ÊëÞìçò dí ô² Ðáëáôßv in der sich diese Reliquien
befanden. JANIN, Géographie, 281.
48 De GAIFFIER, Odalric, Anm. 24.
49 Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis Miracula et Opera Minora, ed. B. Krusch (= MGH
SRM I, 2.), Hannoverae 1885, cap. 35.
50 A. ESSER, Gebeine des hl. Clemens, 138.
51 A. ESSER, Gebeine des hl. Clemens, 138.
52 Vgl. A. ANGENENDT, Corpus incorruptum. Eine Leitidee der mittelalterlichen
Reliquienverehrung, Saeculum 42 (1991) 320-348. Im 7. Jh. war jedoch bereits
eine merkliche Lockerung zu dieser Praxis zu verspüren, vgl.: A.-M. HELVÉTIUS,
Hagiographie und Heiligenverehrung, in: Die Franken, Wegbereiter Europas. Vor
1500 Jahren: König Chlodwig und seine Erben, ed. Reiss-Museum Mannheim,
166 Mainz 1996, 401-406, hier 405.
presbyter und nicht Abt genannt wird, was er ab 564-572 war, dürfte das
Ereignis zwischen 540-545 und 564-572 zu bestimmen sein.
Bei der Komposition des Liber in gloria martyrum um 590 konnte sich
Gregor von Tours im Übrigen vor allem auf Aridius stützen, der ein
Hauptinformant für Wunder aller Art war. Eben jener Aridius berichtet
von den Reliquien des hl. Clemens, sodass Gregor die hier
wiedergegebene Geschichte gewissermaßen aus allererster Hand hatte.
Etwas später verbreitete sich die Legende von der Apostolizität des
Christentums in Frankreich, die hervorhob, dass der hl. Clemens seine
Schüler nach Frankreich geschickt habe, um dort das Evangelium zu
predigen. Unter diesen Schülern seien u. a. auch der hl. Dionysius,
Eutropius, Ursinus, Saturinus und Austremoine gewesen.53
Diese Explosion der Clemensverehrung scheint also in einem
Zusammenhang mit der Reliquientranslation gestanden zu haben.
In Clermont, so wissen wir aus dem Ende des 9. oder zu Beginn des
10. Jh.s entstandenen Libellus de Ecclesiis Claromontanis, wurde der hl.
Clemens sowohl an einem eigenen Altar in der Kirche St. Illidius als
auch in einer eigenen Kirche verehrt.54
In einer Handschrift des 11. Jh.s aus Clermont befindet sich ein
kurzer Text De brachio sancti Clementis quod beatus Illidius atulit (BHL
1851d), der beschreibt, dass nach dem Tod des hl. Clemens Illidius zu
seinem Grab geeilt sei, um dort eine Reliquie zu gewinnen. Diese habe
er auch erworben, indem sich dem betenden Bischof der päpstliche
Arm entgegengestreckte, den er schließlich im Hauptaltar seiner
neuerrichteten Kirche in Clermont niederlegte. Nach einiger Zeit des
Vergessens – die Kirche war 919 von den Normannen zerstört worden,
958 wurde sie in ein Benediktinerkloster umgewandelt – hätten dann
allerdings Abt Mancidius und Bischof Begon um 980 die Reliquie im
Hauptaltar wieder gefunden und in einen Schrein gelegt. Van der
STRAETEN hielt diese Notiz wohl zu Recht für einen Augenzeugen-
bericht.55 In einer Handschrift des 12. Jh. der Pariser Bibliothèque
Nationale wurden einige Fragmente einer Vita des hl. Illidius aus der
Feder eines gewissen Winebrands gefunden, die insgesamt als verloren
gilt und nur bei Jean Savaron (1550-1622) überliefert ist. Deutlich
bunter und dramatisch geschrieben als jener Augenzeugenbericht
beruft sie sich auf vetustissimæ etiam picturæ atque scripturæ, wobei
van der STRAETEN und schon Godefroid HENSCHEN den oben genan-
53 E. GRIFFE, Les origines chrétiennes de la Gaule et les légendes clémentines, Bulletin
de littérature ecclésiastique 56 (1955) 3-22.
54 I. WOOD, Constructing Cults in Early Medieval France: Local Saints and Churches
in Burgundy and the Auvergne 400-1000, in: Local Saints and Local Churches in
the Early Medieval West, ed. A. Thacker – R. Sharpe, Oxford 2002, 155-187.
Aus dem 10. Jh. ist ferner eine Handschrift mit der lateinischen Passio und dem
Miraculum überliefert. Clermont-Ferrand 83 A 8, vgl. PASCHKE, Die beiden
griechischen Klementinen-Epitomen und ihre Anhänge, 114.
55 J. van der STRAETEN, Notes d’hagiographie clermontoise, Analecta Bollandiana 82
(1964) 383-396, hier 391-396. 167
Stefan Allbrecht
nten Text De brachio… für eine solche scriptura gehalten haben.56

Trotz aller Unterschiedlichkeiten sind die Parallelen der Illidius-
Geschichte zur Legende Translatio facta a Iulio papa nicht zu übersehen:
1. In beiden Fällen handelt es sich um ein Translationsgeschehen,
dass die Autoren heiligen Bischöfen des 4. Jh.s zuschreiben, einer Zeit
also, als das Martyrium Clementis noch gar nicht bekannt gewesen ist.
2. Beide haben eine Reliquie mit nach Hause genommen, nachdem
sie zuvor die ausdrückliche Erlaubnis des hl. Clemens bzw. den Auftrag
Gottes dazu erhalten hatten – denn das Martyrium Clementis spricht ja
unzweideutig davon, dass sich der heilige Papst ursprünglich genau das
verbeten hatte und intakt bleiben wollte.
Das ist in dieser Zeit für die östliche Kirche durchaus nicht selb-
stverständlich, da anders als im Westen Reliquienteilungen – wie gesagt
– durchaus üblich waren.57 Es lassen sich denn auch hier Parallelen zum
Teilungsverbot des Clemens finden: Im Testament der vierzig Märtyrer
von Sebaste bitten diese die Gläubigen darum, dass sie nach ihrem Tod
gemeinsam begraben und nicht mehr getrennt werden wollten. Auch
sollte sich niemand einen Teil von ihnen aneignen.58 Aber schon Basilios
d. Gr. erzählt davon, dass ihre sterblichen Überreste Heil bringend über
die ganze Welt verstreut worden seien. Gregor von Nyssa bestätigt dies
und gibt zu (oder rühmt sich vielmehr) selbst einen Teil von ihnen zu
besitzen. Nach Rom, das selbst Reliquienteilungen nicht zulassen wollte,
ging laut Asterius von Amaseia das Haupt des hl. Phokas. Fructuosus von
Tarragona erschien den Reliquiensammlern selbst, ganz ähnlich wie es
bei Clemens beschrieben ist, um ihnen zu befehlen, dass er nicht verteilt
sondern an Ort und Stelle begraben werde.59
3. Schließlich lässt sich ohne große Umstände der Name Iulius zu
Ilidius verändern oder vertauschen.
Es handelt sich dabei aber wohl nicht um eine Veränderung der
Legende Translatio facta a Iulio papa durch den ansonsten doch recht glaub-
56 Van der STRAETEN, Notes d’hagiographie clermontoise, 392. Eine andere Quelle
könnte Usuardius gewesen sein, da Winebrand wie Usuardius Cherson nach
Lykien verlegt.
Die Clemensreliquie wurde offenbar noch bis 1789 in Clermont in iner Kapelle
verehrt. Vgl. L. BRÉHIER, s.v. Allyre (Saint), in: Dictionnare d’histoire et de géo-
graphie ecclésiastiques 2 (1914) 628-630.
57 Zur Situation im Westen nochmals: ANGENENDT, Corpus incorruptum.
Gleichwohl schätzte man auch im Merowingerreich Teilreliquien, die aus dem
Osten kamen. So befanden sich zur Zeit Gregors v. Tours etwa in Clermont
Apostelreliquien, Reliquien des hl. Stephanus, des Ciricius und des Laurentius.
Man darf hierbei nicht die starke Präsenz von Syrern in Gallien vernachlässigen.
M. WEIDEMANN, Kulturgeschichte der Merowingerzeit nach den Werken Gregors von
Tours, Teil 2, Mainz 1982, 183. Für die Hinweise zu den byzantinisch-
merowingischen Beziehungen danke ich Herrn Dr. Jörg Drauschke.
58 G. N. BONEWETSCH, Die Apocalypse Abrahams. Das Testament der vierzig Märtyrer (=
Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche, Bd.1, 1.), Leipzig 1897.
59 H. LECLERCQ, Reliques et Reliquaires, in: Dictionaire d’archéologie chrétienne
168 et de liturgie 14 (1948) 2294-2359, hier 2306f.
würdigen anonymen Augenzeugen.60 Daher scheint es nahe zu liegen,

dass er hierbei eine alte, wenn auch nach-gregorianische Legende wieder-
gab,61 die vielleicht sogar auf jenen anonymen Pilger zurückgeht, welcher
nach Gregor von Tours Reliquien des hl. Clemens mit sich gebracht hatte.
Um die Bedeutung der Kirche von Clermont zu unterstreichen, könnte
dann Ende des 6. Jh.s unschwer die ursprüngliche Legende verbessert
worden sein, sodass es plausibel wurde, dass diese bedeutende Reliquie im
Hauptaltar ausgerechnet in der Kirche des hl. Illidius aufbewahrt worden
ist.62 Gleichzeitig oder etwas später wurde sie dem Martyrologium ange-
passt, in dem zu lesen war, dass Cherson in Lykien liege.63
Eine Reliquienübertragung von Cherson nach Clermont würde auch
recht gut in eine Zeit passen, als die Beziehungen zwischen Byzanz und
dem Merowingerreich eine ungekannte und später nicht mehr erreichte
Dichte aufwiesen:
Schon Justinian I. (527-565) ging mit Childebert I., seit 511 König
in Paris, und Theudebert I., bis 547 König in Reims militärische
Bündnisse ein.64 Um 535 schloss er dann ein Bündnis mit den Mero-
wingern gegen die Ostgoten in Italien.65 Zwei byzantinische Gesandt-
schaften an Theudebald, Theudeberts Sohn, und eine Gegengesandt-
schaft unter der Leitung Leudardus’ sind für die 50er Jahre des 6. Jh.s
bezeugt, die über das gegenseitige Verhältnis in Italien verhandelten.66
60 Es ist nicht auszuschließen, dass unter dem Einfluss der Nachricht, die
Odalric erworben hat, eine neue Welle der Clemensverehrung durch das Land
ging, so hieß es seit dem 11./12. Jh., dass bspw. Memmius (Châlons sur Marne),
Sanctinus (Verdun) und Evarcius (Orleans) – allesamt Bischöfe des 3. u. 4. Jh.s
– von Clemens geweiht worden seien. Keiner dieser Orte beansprucht allerdings
Clemensreliquien für sich. vgl. HOFMANN, Unser heiliger Vater, 46.
61 So auch van der STRAETEN, Notes d’hagiographie clermontoise, 396.
62 S.-M. MOSNIER, Les saints d’Auvergne. Histoire de tous les personnages de cette
province honorés par l’église d’un culte public, t. 1. Paris 1900, 548, nimmt an, dass
Illidius die Reise nicht allein wegen der Reliquien angetreten habe, sondern um
an einem der Synoden von Serdika oder Nikomedia teilzunehmen, wo auch gal-
lische Bischöfe anzutreffen gewesen waren. Da allerdings der Kenner der
Geschichte von Clermont Gregor von Tours dies und auch die
Reliquientranslation in seiner Vita Illidii nicht überliefert, muss diese Annahme
zurückgewiesen werden.
63 Martyrologii Usuardini Pars secunda a mense iulio. IV Idus. Die 10. Natalis beati
Martini Papæ, qui ob fidem Catholicam ab imperatore Constantino hæretico de
ecclesia raptus, ac perductus Constantinopolim, relegatus apud Cersonam Liciæ
provinciæ, ibidem vitam finivit, multis in eodem loco virtutum signis usque
hodie refulgens. In: Le martyrologe d’Usuard. Texte et commentaire par J. Dubois
(= Subsidia hagiographica 40), Bruxelles 1965.
64 G. WOLF, Fränkisch-byzantinische Gesandtschaften vom 5. bis 8. Jahrhundert und die
Rolle des Papsttums im 8. Jahrhundert, in: Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte,
Siegel- und Wappenkunde 37 (1991) 1-13, hier 2.
65 R. HOLTZMANN, Die Italienpolitik der Merowinger und des Königs Pippin, in: Das
Reich: Idee und Gestalt, ed. H. Dannenbauer – F. Ernst, Stuttgart 1940, 100.
66 O. VEH, Procopius Caesariensis: Werke: griechisch-deutsch. 2. Gotenkriege,
München 1978, IV (VIII), 24,12-30; Th. FISCHER, s.v. Theudebald, in: Reallexikon
der germanischen Altertumskunde 35 ( 2007) 116f. 169
Stefan Allbrecht
In dieser Zeit gelangte auch eine andere, wenngleich deutlich

bedeutendere Reliquie – nämlich eine Kreuzreliquie – in den Westen, als
es zwischen 567 und 569 der ehemaligen Königin Radegunde erfolg-
reich gelungen war, durch Gesandte in Konstantinopel ein Kreuzpartikel
für ihr Kloster in Poitiers zu erlangen.67
Weitere Bündnisverhandlungen werden für die Zeit um 580
berichtet, die darin gipfelten, dass Childebert II. von Austrasien und
vielleicht auch Chilperich I. von Neustrien einen Vertrag mit Tiberios I.
eingingen.68 587/88 reiste eine Gesandtschaft des Childebert II. (575-
596) und seiner Mutter Brunichilde nach Konstantinopel, um dort
Briefe an das Kaiserpaar und andere hochgestellte Persönlichkeiten in
Konstantinopel zu übergeben.69 Ein weiteres Bündnis wurde kurz nach
600 geschlossen, danach kam es nochmals zu einer kurzen Fühlung-
nahme um 630 und 634, die aber bis 756 der letzte überlieferte diplo-
matische Kontakt der beiden Reiche war.70
Man sieht also, dass die Kontakte eng waren, sodass eine Reliquien-
translation von Cherson ins Frankenreich durchaus ins Bild passt.
Beide Translationsberichte gehen daher höchstwahrscheinlich aus
den oben genannten Gründen auf dieselbe Quelle zurück.71 Daran
67 R. FAVREAU, Radegunde in Poitiers, in: Radegunde – ein Frauenschicksal zwi-

schen Mord und Askese, Erfurt 2006, 64-78, hier 71f.
68 So z. B. R. HOLTZMANN, Die Italienpolitik der Merowinger und des Königs Pippin,
112; G. WOLF, Fränkisch-byzantinische Gesandtschaften vom 5.-8. Jh., 3, datiert das
Bündnis bereits in das Jahr 579; J. M. SANSTERRE, Die Franken und Byzanz, in: Die
Franken, Wegbereiter Europas. Vor 1500 Jahren: König Chlodwig und seine
Erben, ed. Reiss-Museum Mannheim, Mainz 1996, 396-400, hier 398 vermutet
ein Bündnis mit Austrasien ebenfalls 579, während das Ergebnis der
Verhandlungen mit der Gesandtschaft aus Neustrien unbekannt sei.
69 SANSTERRE, Die Franken und Byzanz, 398. Eine Auflistung des Briefwechsels
zwischen Konstantinopel und den germanischen Herrschern bei: R. HELM,
Untersuchungen über den auswärtigen diplomatischen Verkehr des römischen Reiches im
Zeitalter der Spätantike, in: Archiv für Urkundenforschung 12 (1932) 375-436,
386.
70 WOLF, Fränkisch-byzantinische Gesandtschaften vom 5.-8. Jh., 6, 10.
71 Ein weiterer Bericht findet sich im Liber de vita Christi ac omnium pontificum des
Bartolomeo Platina (1421-1481) aus dem Jahre 1475. Hier lautet die ein-
schlägige Stelle zu Papst Clemens, „Hanc ob rem motus Traianus, ex satellitibus
suis quosdam mittit, qui Claementem in mare proiicerent, alligata ad collum
anchora, cuius sacratissimum corpus non ita multo post ad littus delatum est:
atque eo loci sepultum, extructo templo, unde fons divinitus emanaverat.“
(zitiert nach der Ausgabe von G. Gaida in: Rerum Italicarum Scriptores ser. 2,
Bd. III/1, p. 18). Das Plusquamperfekt emanaverat deutet darauf hin, dass der
Ort gemeint ist, an dem Clemens die Quelle gefunden hatte. Dabei kann es sich
durchaus um einen küstennahen Ort gehandelt haben. Giacinto Gaida verwies
zu dieser Stelle auf Tolomeo da Lucca (Histor. Eccles, II, XI, col. 774, C1-D15),
dort findet sich allerdings die „kanonische“ Variante, die Tolomeo weitgehend
wörtlich nach Vinzenz von Beauvais Speculum historiale X, 53-54: „Ex quo facto,
cum Traiano hec intimata fuissent, quemdam ducem ad illam transmisit insu-
lam, qui solum Clementem ligata anchora ad collum eius precepit in mari sub-
mergi (X, 53). Cum autem Christiani orarent Deum, ut corpus sui martyris
170 demonstraret, statim mare per tria miliaria recedit a littore, ingressique locum
ändert auch der Einwand nicht, dass die Translatio facta a Iulio papa, wie
wir sie aus dem Munde Jaroslavs kennen, eine Geschichte erzählt, die in
weiten Teilen von der des Illidius abweicht. Das hat aber seinen Grund
darin, dass in Clermont das Translationsgeschehen an die lokale Cle-
menstradition angepasst werden sollte.
Bei allen Unwägbarkeiten der Überlieferung scheint demnach in
der Translatio facta a Iulio papa eine ursprünglich chersonitische
Erzählung vorzuliegen, die schon im 5. Jh. existierte und die logischer
Bestandteil einer Clemenstradition in Cherson war, die von Clemens‘
Martyrium, Wundern und Verehrung erzählte.
Christiani invenerunt in modum templi marmorei habitaculum et ibi in archa

saxea corpus beati Clementis et anchoram iuxta ipsum (X, 54). Welche Quelle,
bzw. welches Legendar Bartolomeo Platina benutzte, bleibt unbekannt. Es ist
möglich, dass seine Vorlage Kenntnis von Odalrics Bericht hatte und ihn mit
anderen Notizen verband, die davon sprechen, dass am Grab Clemens’ Kranke
geheilt wurden, die mit Wasser besprengt wurden oder Wasser tranken, das an
seinem Grab wohl in Erinnerung an sein Wasserwunder hervorgequollen sein
mag. „Ïj ôïsò íåöñïsò dôáæüìåíïé êár ëéèé§íôåò ìüíw ô† ôï™ ëåéøÜíïõ ášôï™
ðñïóøáýóåé êár œäáôïò ÜãéáóèÝíôïò ¼áíôéóì² êár ðüóåé ôï™ íïóÞìáôïò Pðïëýïí-
ôáé, Pëãõíüìåíïß ôå íüóv ïjuäÞðïôå ðñ’ò ôxí ôï™ jåñïìÜñôõñïò êáôáöåýãïíôåò
âïÞèåéáí kÜóåùò Pðïëáýïõóéí.“ DRESSEL, Clementinorum epitomae duae, 178f. Wie
weit der Bericht Odalrics aber verbreitet war, ist nicht zu erschließen, jedenfalls
hat Alberich von Troisfontaines (†ca. 1252) den Text offenbar gekannt und so
notierte er: «Anno 343. Rome Iulius papa natione Romanus annis 11. Iste est qui
corpus beati Clementis pape levatum de mari, ab angelo ammonitus Romam
retulit.» P. Scheffer-Boichorst (ed.), Chronica albrici monachi trium fontium, MGH
SS 23 (1874) 631-950, hier 686.
Weil die gesamte Entstehungsgeschichte der Insel fehlt, ist es auch möglich, dass
hier ein weiterer Beleg für dieses Translationsgeschehen zu sehen ist. 171
Organization and Modus Operandi
of the Manufacturing Industry in
Byzantium, Tenth-Twelfth Centuries
Introduction
The institutional structure of the manufacturing industry in
Byzantium comprised guild-organized private enterprises operating in a
few state-designated sectors and only in the capital, and a host of unor-
ganized nano-and-small-scale enterprises operating outside the guild
organizational structure in the capital and in the provinces. The cursory
treatment of both organizational structures up until now inevitably has
left important issues unexplored, thereby affording limited insights into
their structure, modus operandi, nature of market competition, norms of
business behavior, and the role of the state. The purpose of this paper is
to fill in these lacunae and determine more definitively with the help of
an appropriately constructed analytical framework the place and scope
of the respective activities of both organizational forms within the totali-
ty of the Byzantine industrial sector from the 10th to the 12th centuries.
Particular emphasis is placed on the internal organization and opera-
tions of the manufacturing establishments, the business organization
form they assumed, their territorial penetration, their orientation of lo-
cation, the implications of the guilds’ occupational exclusivity, the degree
of competition they faced, their strengths and weaknesses, the conditions
for their growth, the rules of conduct in commercial transactions and
their enforceability, and the role of the market mechanism in price and
wage determination. Furthermore, the paper addresses issues in dispute
providing more cogent answers; identifies misread sources and unsup-
ported assertions; and puts in proper perspective the state’s industrial
policy.
The Domain of the Guild-Organized Manufacturing

The Book of the Eparch1 defined a limited number of manufacturing
activities in the capital that had to be undertaken exclusively by private
1 The Book of the Eparch (EÅðáñ÷éê’í Âéâëßïí) (hereafter BE), promulgated in 911
or 912 albeit there is no unanimity on the date, codified earlier decrees con-
cerning the activities of private guilds located in the capital. A critical edition of
the Greek text with a German translation is by J. KODER, Das Eparchenbuch Leons
des Weisen, Vienna 1991. The Book of the Eparch is the main source of informa-
172 tion on the Byzantine guild system.
Organization and Modus Operandi of the Manufacturing Industry...
enterprises mandatorily organized into guilds, and thereby established

statutorily their sectoral sphere of operation. In these designated manu-
facturing sectors: silk manufacturing (BE, Ch. 7, 8), candlemaking (BE,
Ch. 11), soapmaking (BE, Ch.12), and tanning (BE, Ch.14) guild mem-
bership was compulsory and a precondition for the practice of the craft
– these crafts were not to be practiced outside the guild organizational
structure.2 The fundamental purpose of these provisions was to forestall
the development of parallel manufacturing activities in the same sector, as
the coexistence of guild-controlled and non-guild-controlled activities
made no sense in the state’s framework of industrial policy.3 At the same
time, there was a clear-cut division of labor within the guild organiza-
tional structure, in the sense that no guild was allowed to undertake an
economic activity already assigned to another. Contrary to what has been
argued,4 the institution of the guild system and the provisions of the Book
2 A. P. CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, Ô’ EÅðáñ÷éê’í Âéâëßïí ËÝïíôïò ôï™ Óïöï™ êár áj

Óõíôå÷íßáé dí Âõæáíôßv, Athens 1935, 4, 36, 50; G. MICKWITZ, Die Kartellfunktionen
der Zünfte und ihre Bedeutung bei der Enstehung des Zunftwesens, Helsinki 1936, 226,
230-231; idem, Die Organisationsformen zweier byzantinischer Gewerbe im X.
Jahrhundert, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 36 (1936) 72-74, 76; A. D. SIDERIS, FÉóôïñßá
ôï™ Ïkêïíïìéêï™ Âßïõ, Athens 1950, 264, 269; A. STÖCKLE, Spätrömische und byzan-
tinische Zünfte, Leipzig 1911, 11; E. MAYER, Review of Stöckle’s book:
Byzantinische Zünfte, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 21 (1912) 531-535; M. I.
SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo i torgovlja v Konstantinopole v nachale X v. [Crafts and Trade
in Constantinople at the Beginning of the Tenth Century], Vizantiskij
Vremennik 4 (1951) 24; B. MENDL, Les corporations byzantines, Byzantinoslavica
22 (1961) 302-303, 312-318; P. SCHREINER, Die Organisation byzantinischer
Kaufleute und Handwerker. Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und
frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa, Göttingen 1989, Teil 6, 54; G.
G. LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo i gosudarstvo v X-XI vv. [Byzantine Society and
State in 10th-12th Centuries], Moscow 1977, 151, 154-155; Ch. DIEHL, Études
byzantines, Paris 1905, 143; idem, Byzantium: Greatness and Decline, Rutgers
University Press 1957, 89; S. RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Trade and Industry, in:
Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Cambridge 1987, 2, 154; idem,
Byzantine Civilisation, London 1933, 175; A. M. ANDRÉADÈS, The Economic Life of
the Byzantine Empire, in: N. H. Baynes – H. St. L. B. Moss (eds.), Byzantium,
Oxford 1962, 62; G. ZORAS, Le corporazioni bizantine, Rome 1931, 101-108; C. M.
MACRI, L’ organisation de l’économie urbaine dans Byzance sous la dynastie de
Macédoine, Paris 1925, 34-36, 43, 46, 49-50, 60; D. SIMON, Die byzantinischen
Seidenzünfte, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 68 (1975) 40-44; G. OSTROGORSKY, History
of the Byzantine State, Oxford 1968, 253-254; S. VRYONIS, Jr., Byzantine Äçìïêñáôßá
and the Guilds in the Eleventh Century, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963) 297 n.
26, 300 n. 46, 304, 309 ns 84, 86, 310 n. 91, 313 n. 114; A. TOYNBEE, Constantine
Porphyrogenitus and his World, London 1973, 41; T. TALBOT RICE, Everyday Life in
Byzantium, London 1967, 121-122; H. HUNGER, State and Society in Byzantium, in:
idem, Epidosis, Munich 1989, 205; Ph. SHERRARD, Byzantium, New York 1966,
117; N. OIKONOMIDES, Entrepreneurs, in: The Byzantines, ed. G. Cavallo, Chicago
1997, 154.
3 See pp. 181-184 below.
4 MICKWITZ, Kartellfunktionen, 213, 216, 228-231; R. S. LOPEZ, Silk Industry in the
Byzantine Empire, Speculum 20 (1945) 15-16, 18, 20, 23; ZORAS, Corporazioni
bizantine, 70-71, 107; MACRI, Organisation, 35, 53, 74; LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe
obshchestvo, 130, 139, 144, 148, 150, 154; A. P. KAZHDAN, Derevnja i gorod v
Vizantii IX-X vv. [Country and Town in Byzantium in the Ninth and Tenth 173
George C. Maniatis
of the Eparch did not aim to prevent intra-guild competition and thereby
enable the members to set monopoly prices, protect guild members from
the competition of unorganized craftsmen and noble owners of work-
shops, or shield them from the vicissitudes of the marketplace. A sharp
distinction should be made between the exclusive right of the guild
members as a group to be involved in a certain economic activity, and the
ability of individual guild members to take advantage of this prerogative
and wield price-setting power in the marketplace. What is true collec-
tively for the entire guild membership as a class is not necessarily true for
each member of a class (“fallacy of division”). Occupational monopoly is
not tantamount to market monopoly. Effective exercise of monopoly pric-
ing requires the existence of highly concentrated market structures, col-
lusion of guild members with ability to set prices and enforce price dis-
cipline on fractious members to ensure compliance, closed entry into the
guild, protection from external competition, and a supportive or quies-
cent law enforcement officialdom. These conditions were nonexistent.
The alleged monopoly power of the guilds is predicated on the
implicit, but unwarranted, assumption that the Byzantine guilds formed
a monolithic bloc of like-minded businessmen acting in concert, and the
explicit, but unsupported, view that the main purpose of instituting the
guild system was to prevent intra-guild price competition. The Book of the
Eparch did not impose price discipline on guild members to the end of
raising or maintaining prices as has been alleged5 because such an act
would have been contrary to the notion of free market and the anti-
monopoly tenor of the law. The prohibition to pursue parallel economic
activities outside and inside the guild system did not intend to promote the
narrow economic interests of the members but to induct prospective
practitioners in these designated sectors into the guild system within
which they could freely set up shop and compete legally. By funneling all
manufacturing activity into a statutorily designated sector, competition
would be enhanced through the increased number of participating play-
ers, the strict division of labor could be enforced, and the concentration
of economic power and emergence of monopolistic markets, a major
concern of the government, would be thwarted. The guild system would
have no raison d’être were these designated activities allowed to be con-
ducted in a dualistic fashion concurrently by a host of unorganized crafts-
men.
The guilds were created by fiat and, as part of the administrative
apparatus, were under the state’s direct control exercised by the eparch
Centuries], Moscow 1960, 319-320, 336, 344; idem, Tsekhi i gosudarstvennye mas-
terskie v Konstantinopole v IX-X vv. [Guilds and State Workshops in
Constantinople in IX-X Centuries], Vizantiskij Vremennik 6 (1953) 138-139;
SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 24; E. FRANCÈS, L’ état et les métiers à Byzance,
Byzantinoslavica 23 (1962) 239-241; The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium I-III, ed.
A. P. Kazhdan, Oxford 1991 (hereafter ODB), s.v. Guilds.
174 5 See n. 66 below.
and the chiefs he appointed. The rules and regulations defining the
scope of their activities and the members’ code of conduct were set forth
externally and in the form of edicts issued by the state. In enforcing the
rules of business conduct, the guilds did not act as stewards of the busi-
ness interests of the members.6 In fact, the guilds lacked an internal
organizational structure,7 in the sense that these entities did not have
bylaws, i.e. a body of working regulations defining concrete objectives
and the requisites for actions leading to their implementation. Nor did
they have officers responsible for the conduct of their affairs.8 The guilds
themselves did not function as business establishments but as second-tier
institutions. Each guild comprised an array of independent establish-
ments plying the same craft which took on the form of sole proprietor-
ship or partnership (êïéíùíßá, eôáéñßá) and operated under the guild
superstructure or umbrella.9
Although conditioned on certain qualifications (integrity, capacity,
means) and the attestation of respectable persons, legal entry into a guild
was not restricted. Advisedly, the Book of the Eparch did not fix the num-
ber of firms that could be established within each guild, a built-in flexi-
bility which allowed for membership to increase in response to a rise in
6 MICKWITZ, Kartellfunktionen, 229; MACRI, Organisation, 73-74; A. ANDRÉADÈS,

Byzance, paradis du monopole et du privilège, Byzantion 9 (1934) 172-173; KAZHDAN,
Tsekhi, 144; idem, Derevnya, 344; R. S. LOPEZ, Silk Industry in the Byzantine Empire,
16, 18, 20, 23; R. BROWNING, The Byzantine Empire, London 1980, 79, maintain
that the guild system served the interests of their members.
CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, Óõíôå÷íßáé, 38, 48; A. E. R. BOAK, The Book of the Prefect,
Journal of Economic and Business History 1 (1929) 597-598; E. FRANCÈS, La dis-
parition des corporations byzantines, in: Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’
Études Byzantines, 1961, Belgrade 1964, 2, 97; idem, L’ état, 248; OIKONOMIDES,
Entrepreneurs, 154-156; RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Trade, 154, and LITAVRIN,
Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo, 134, 140-141, 147-148, 151, argue that the guild system
served the interests of the state. OSTROGORSKY, History, 254; SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo,
24-25; MENDL, Corporations byzantines, 318, and P. CHARANIS, On the Social
Structure of the Later Roman Empire, Byzantion 17 (1946) 50, assert that the state
regulations had in view not only the interests of the state, but also those of the
public at large and the crafts themselves.
7 CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, Óõíôå÷íßáé, 36-38, 54; MACRI, Organisation, 36. See also
n. 8 below. Contra: R. S. LOPEZ, The Role of Trade in the Economic Readjustment of
Byzantium in the Seventh Century, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959) 77, without
comment.
8 STÖCKLE, Byzantinische Zünfte, 84, 102, 137-138.
9 LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo, 129, 153, maintains that the guilds were a
particular variety of êïéíùíßá, i.e. a partnership. This parallelism is misleading.
Êïéíùíßá and eôáéñßá were forms of business organization pertaining to individual
enterprises. Guilds, on the other hand, formed a superstructure or second tier enti-
ty comprising enterprises operating in the same sector which might take the
legal form of êïéíùíßá, eôáéñßá, or sole proprietorship. In consequence, partner-
ships cannot be equated with guilds. For a typology of the relationships among
first and second tier organizational forms in the Byzantine business sector, see
G. C. MANIATIS, The Domain of Private Guilds in the Byzantine Economy, Tenth to
Fifteenth Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55 (2001) 347-349 and the schemat-
ic diagram opposite p. 350. 175
George C. Maniatis
market demand for their output. Possession of technical skills was not a
precondition to setting up shop as long as the requisite expertise could
be acquired by forming a partnership or by hiring.10 The decision to
accept new members was not made by guild members or their chiefs but
by the eparch. Guild members not only did not nominate, but they were
not even consulted on prospective candidates as the authorities were
concerned about their impartiality and loyalty.11 On the other hand, exit
from the guild was not restricted,12 while it was mandatory when a mem-
ber wished to take up another trade among guild-designated activities. A
member could be expelled from the guild for unbusinesslike conduct or
infraction of the law, a decision that was made by the eparch. A sentence
to exile also resulted in expulsion.13
Slaves could become guild members, particularly in activities viewed
as of low esteem (ô§í âáíáýóùí ôå÷í§í),14 provided they were vouched
for by their wealthy masters and were not explicitly excluded. This pro-
vided an investment opportunity that apparently was not overlooked by
venturesome wealthy individuals. By using their slaves as surrogates they
could remain inconspicuous and avoid being involved in the day-to-day
operations of the enterprise. Interestingly, such an involvement in guild-
organized activities has been criticized as an infiltration of lucrative busi-
nesses or as stealthy, forcible, sinister and an exploitative act deriving
from the exercise of economic or political power.15 Yet, such entry, far
10 The Book of the Eparch would certainly have stipulated technical skills as an
admission requirement if indeed this was an essential precondition. Cf.
SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 17; LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo, 140 n. 94. Contra:
KAZHDAN, Derevnja, 317; idem, Tsekhi, 141-142.
11 CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, Óõíôå÷íßáé, 37-38, 47; MACRI, Organisation, 52, 73;
SIDERIS, FÉóôïñßá 269; SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 17; J. LINDSAY, Byzantium into Europe,
London 1952, 158. Contra: RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Civilisation, 175. The entrance
fee levied by some guilds (BE, 8. 13, 12. 2) was nominal and could hardly have
been intended to forestall competition between existing and prospective new
members, as CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, asserts: Óõíôå÷íßáé, 54. At times new entry was
probably challenged by existing members, but it is unlikely that they could sway
the eparch’s decision, as he was keenly interested in increasing productive
capacity and fostering intra-guild competition which would ensure high quality
of output, lower prices, and higher employment. Entry was probably denied
when it would result in chronic excess capacity and oversupply, leading to cut-
throat competition, dramatic price reductions, subnormal earnings or losses to
enterprises and labor, and high rates of business mortality – to prevent excessive
or destructive competition.
12 STÖCKLE, Byzantinische Zünfte, 62-64.
13 BE, 2. 12; 3. 5.
14 BE, 7. 3; 8. 13; 12. 9. See also G. C. MANIATIS, The Guild-Organized Candle
Manufacturing Industry in Constantinople – Tenth-Twelfth Centuries, Byzantinoslavica
67 (2009) 207-208.
15 D. JACOBY, Silk in Western Byzantium before the Fourth Crusade, Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 84/85 (1991/1992) 477; SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 15-16, 30; FRANCÈS,
L’ état, 239-240; A. MUTHESIUS, The Byzantine Silk Industry: Lopez and Beyond,
Journal of Medieval History 19 (1993) 34-37; LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo,
176 150.
from being surreptitious, suspect or inimical, should be viewed as a con-

scious and forward-looking effort on the part of the authorities to pro-
vide a vent to latent entrepreneurship and tap a source of capital for the
expansion of industrial activities. New entry would promote competition
through growth of the guilds’ members, expand production for domes-
tic consumption and exports, and increase employment opportunities
and the chances of better pay for the capital’s workforce – policy objec-
tives yielding significant economic and political dividends.
The guilds were headed by chiefs who were trusted state officials,
were appointed by the eparch, and were accountable to him.16 The chiefs
saw to it that guild members complied with the rules and regulations,
and served as a liaison between the eparch and the membership. This
liaison function did not mean that the chiefs safeguarded the interests of
the guild members. By the same token, the fact that the chiefs oversaw
the activities of the members did not imply that they managed their busi-
ness as has been argued.17 The chiefs did not interfere with the firms’
decision-making process and did not micromanage their activities.
Private enterprises operating in guild designated sectors did not lose
their managerial independence, as the guilds had no binding internal
regulations dictating how each member ought to conduct his business.
The state’s representative in its relations with guilds was the eparch,
the highest ranking official in the capital. He had absolute authority
over the guilds, overseeing the economic activities of their members
and ensuring their compliance with the law. His judicial authority
empowered him to decide on infractions of rules inflicting penalties of
varying severity on offenders, and to adjudicate disputes arising from
commercial transactions.18 A mechanism for adjudicating labor dis-
putes existed, such complaints being argued before the eparch’s bureau.
16 BE, 5. 1; 14. 1, 2. STÖCKLE, Byzantinische Zünfte, 84; CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS,
Óõíôå÷íßáé, 47-48, 49 and n. 1, 54 and n. 3; BOAK, Book of the Prefect, 599;
RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Civilisation, 175; SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 39; TALBOT RICE,
Byzantium, 122; OIKONOMIDES, Entrepreneurs, 155, and G. DAGRON, The Urban
Economy, Seventh-Twelfth Centuries, in: The Economic History of Byzantium,
Washington DC 2002 (hereafter EHB), 410, maintain that the chiefs of the
guilds, though official organs of the state, were chosen from among their mem-
bers. However, this is true only for the society (óýëëïãïò) of the notaries (not a
guild proper) who, because of their legal training, distinct quasi-judicial func-
tion, and high ethical standards were subject to a different set of rules, includ-
ing a numerus clausus (BE, 1. 1-3, 13, 22, 23). In dealing with the guilds proper
(óõóôÞìáôá), the Book of the Eparch nowhere indicates that the chiefs were elect-
ed from among guild members or alludes to the process of their selection. This
is understandable, as the authorities could not trust active guild members to per-
form their duties impartially because of their vested interest.
17 CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, Óõíôå÷íßáé, 38.
18 R. J. MACRIDES, The Competent Court, in: A. E. Laiou – D. Simon (eds.), Law
and Society in Byzantium: Ninth-Twelfth Centuries, Washington DC 1994, 117-
129; BE, 1. 10, 11; 22. 1-3; Basilika (ÂáóéëéêÜ), Athens 1896-1900 (hereafter B),
ed. I. D. Zepos, B. 6. 4. 13; 7. 1. 1; Synopsis Basilicorum, in: Jus Graecoromanum
(hereafter JG), ed. I. and P. Zepos, Athens 1931, A. 66. 32; Ecloga Basilicorum,
ed. L. Burgmann, Frankfurt 1988, 7. 3. 23. 2; Peira, in: JG 4, 51. 29. 177
George C. Maniatis
To ensure fairness in business deals, statute law and the Book of the
Eparch set norms of business behavior and standards for the orderly
conduct of commercial transactions, inflicting severe penalties on non-
compliant guild members. The guilds did not have an internal inspec-
tion or prosecutorial system of their own. The enforcement of rules and
regulations was the responsibility of the eparch’s office and the body of
his inspectors and informers.
The view is held that guilds were active in the provinces as well.19
Yet, most provincial towns were small and had a limited number of crafts-
men. The few larger ones had more business establishments, but they
encompassed a wide range of activities each with a small number of
craftsmen – hardly an inviting situation that would have prompted the
state to set up a nation-wide guild system based on a functional division
of labor. The requisite critical mass for establishing a purposeful guild
superstructure simply was not there. Besides, the state had no particular
interest in controlling the activities of scores of minuscule undertakings
scattered throughout the empire. If a guild organizational structure was
in force in the provinces, it surely would have been cited in the existing
legislation as has been the case in earlier times.20 Moreover, were the
authorities so keen on controlling all industrial and commercial activity
in the provinces through a guild organizational structure, they would
have instituted an elaborate national regulatory apparatus. This would
have entailed the development of an extensive and expensive adminis-
trative machinery and would have to take on some legal form. Yet, nei-
ther the legal texts nor the narrative sources provide such evidence.
Moreover, a passage in the Ordinance of emperor Michael Palaeologos
issued in the mid-thirteenth century21 commands provincial civilian and
19 STÖCKLE, Byzantinische Zünfte, 3; CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, Óõíôå÷íßáé, 4, n. 2, 37-
38; LOPEZ, Silk Industry, 23, n. 2; JACOBY, Silk in Western Byzantium, 457 and n.
25, 490-492 and n. 230, 499; M. F. HENDY, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary
Economy c. 300-1450, London 1985, 245; TALBOT RICE, Byzantium, 136; P.
TIV»EV, Sur les cités byzantines aux XIe-XIIe siècles, Byzantinobulgarica 1 (1962)
173; N. OIKONOMIDÈS, Hommes d’ affaires grecs et latins à Constantinople (XIIIe-XVe
siècles), Montreal 1979, 111-112; P. MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos
1143-1180, Cambridge 1993, 158, 167; OSTROGORSKY, History, 253; SCHREINER,
Organisation, 51-52; E. FRANCÈS, La féodalité et les villes byzantines au XIIIe et au
XIVe siècles, Byzantinoslavica 16 (1955) 86; M. ANGOLD, The Byzantine Empire
1025-1204, London 1997, 284; TOYNBEE, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 41;
LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo, 149; DAGRON, Urban Economy, 417-418; A. E.
LAIOU – C. MORRISSON, The Byzantine Economy, Cambridge 2007, 54. Contra:
SIDERIS, FÉóôïñßá, 266-267, 277, 296, n. 2; RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Trade, 161; G.
MAKRIS, Studien zur spätbyzantinischen Schiffahrt, Genoa 1988, 142-146; A.
KAZHDAN – G. CONSTABLE, People and Power in Byzantium, Washington DC 1982,
141, maintain that we do not know whether the guild system extended to the
provinces.
20 Codex Theodosianus, 12. 1. 162; 12. 6. 29; 13. 1. 9; 13. 5. 1, 2; 14. 3. 2, 5, 8;
14. 4. 9, 10; 14. 7. 1, 2; 14. 8. 1; Codex Justinianus, 11. 7. 1; 11. 9. 4, 7.
21 Cited in L. BURGMANN – P. MAGDALINO, Michael VIII on Maladministration (=
Fontes Minores VI), Frankfurt 1984, 382. See also G. C. MANIATIS,
178 Operationalization of the Concept of Just Price in the Byzantine Legal, Economic and
military authorities to set “just” prices for necessities and stamp out prof-
iteering. The very fact that the Ordinance affords regional authorities
unprecedented regulatory power over the price of staples betokens the
absence of guilds in the provinces, as such regulatory function would
have already been assigned to them. Nor does the Ordinance institute a
guild organizational structure because this was not common practice
and the measure was of a temporary nature to meet a crisis. All in all,
telling factors lead to the inference that the guild system was confined
to the capital.
The scholarship is divided on the issue whether or not the guild sys-
tem disintegrated after the 12th century. Most scholars maintain that the
guilds disappeared on grounds that their rules and regulations leave no
trace in later Byzantine times; no reference is being made to guilds in
legal texts and narrative sources during this late period; competition
from provincial towns, especially in silks, diminished the importance of
manufacturing in the capital; the economic institutions of the capital
were transformed following the ascendancy of the Latins; and the weak-
ening of state authority resulted in the breakdown of the earlier strict
controls.22 Others acknowledge the coexistence of guild-like organiza-
tional forms in particular sectors that did not fit the guild model but
rather that of small scale producers, which lacked the solidity and the
permanence of guilds.23 Finally, others argue that guilds continued to
exist beyond the twelfth century as unofficial bodies but they had adopt-
ed a western style, in the sense that their chiefs were not appointed by
the government, they represented all members before the authorities,
and state control eased under the influence of the Latins.24
Political System, Byzantion 71 (2001) 172-174 and especially n. 108, for the stip-
ulations of the Ordinance and their implications.
22 P. CHARANIS, On the Social Structure and Economic Organization of the Byzantine
Empire in the Thirteenth Century and Later, Byzantinoslavica 12 (1951) 151-152; G. I.
BRATIANU, Nouvelles contributions à l’étude de l’approvisionnement de Constantinople sous
les Paléologues et les empereurs ottomans, Byzantion 6 (1931) 645; FRANCÈS, Disparition,
93-101; M. I. SJUZJUMOV, Kniga Eparkha [The Book of the Eparch], Sverdlovsk
1949, 10; I. P. MEDVEDEV, Problema manufactury v trudakh klassikov marxisma-leninis-
ma i vopros o tak nazyvaemoi vizantiiskoi manufakture [The Problem of Manufacture
in the Studies of Marxism-Leninism, and the Question of Byzantine Manufacture],
Leningrad 1970, 402-404; KAZHDAN – CONSTABLE, People and Power, 32; L. MAKSI-
MOVIC, Charakter der sozial-wirtschaftlichen Struktur der spätbyzantinischen Stadt (13.-15.
Jh.), in: XVI. Internationaler Byzantinistenkongreß, Wien, October 1981,
Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik, Akten Teil I, 1981, 160-164; SCHREI-
NER, Organisation, 59-60; HENDY, Studies, 258, 585; MAKRIS, Studien, 142-146;
ANGOLD, Byzantine Empire, 279-280; idem, The Shaping of the Medieval Byzantine
‘City’, Byzantinische Forschungen 10 (1985) 31-34.
23 K.-P. MATSCHKE, Die Schlacht bei Ankara und das Schiksal von Byzanz, Weimar
1981, 156-157; idem, The Late Byzantine Urban Economy, Thirteenth-Fifteenth
Centuries, in: EHB, 2, 493-494.
24 CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, Óõíôå÷íßáé, 4 and n. 2; OIKONOMIDÈS, Hommes d’ affai-
res, 108-114; RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Civilisation, 176; DAGRON, Urban Economy, 418;
E. PAPAGIANNI, Byzantine Legislation on Economic Activity Relative to Social Class, in:
EHB, 3, 1093. 179
George C. Maniatis
The minority view that guilds continued to exist in one form or

another beyond the twelfth century is wanting in several respects. In the
first place, it fails to appreciate the serious implications of the very
changes that allegedly (and correctly) had taken place after the 12th cen-
tury: the changes referred to were patently incompatible with the guild
organizational structure as normally understood and suggest a devolu-
tion into quite different forms of business organization. Specifically, the
statutory guilds (óõóôÞìáôá) of the 10th-12th century form had lost their
previous authority, standing, mandatory participation, and controlling
functions, and had morphed into privately controlled non-hierarchical
entities, e.g. associations (óùìáôåsá) whose membership was optional, as
the state had relinquished direct control over their activities formally
exercised by appointing their chiefs, their elected heads did not repre-
sent all practitioners of the trade, and the titles of their representatives
lost their honorific distinction and became mundane. In a status-con-
scious society, it is unlikely that high-ranking officials in positions of
authority, such as the chiefs of guilds, would suddenly bear prosaic titles.
Apparently, a notable change had taken place: whereas before the chiefs
were government officials, now they were members of their associations
and had a collegiate status, acting as primi inter pares, as the prefix ðñùôï-
(first) suggests: ðñ§ôïò ô§í êáìáëáõêÜäùí, first of the cowlmakers;
ðñùôïìáÀóôùñ, head of the builders; ðñùôïìáêåëëÜñéïò, first of the butch-
ers. The very change in the provenance of the heads of the guilds is a
reflection of a profound institutional change as well. Inferring the exis-
tence of a guild from a designation pertaining to a representative of a
craft association or the foreman of a gang of construction workers is
hardly conclusive. Second, partnerships were a form of business organi-
zation pertaining to a group of individuals, while guilds formed a super-
structure or second tier comprising a group of enterprises. As second tier
entities guilds discharged a supervisory and not an operational function,
and hence they were not involved in business activities.25 Third, the
weakening of the state authority during the late Byzantine period result-
ed in a breakdown of earlier controls rendering the guild system a hol-
low shell, and referring to these new entities as guilds is a misnomer.
Finally, the commercial and financial domination of the Latins in the
capital’s marketplace, who operated outside the guild system and
enjoyed extraterritorial rights, coupled with a weak state authority, led to
a market dualism, discriminatory treatment of the market players, and
resentment within the Greek business community.26 These circumstances
changed the dynamics of the marketplace, defined new economic and
political parameters, and enabled the indigenous business community,
traditionally hostile to any form of restrictions, to challenge the status quo
25 See n. 9 above.
26 CHARANIS, Economic Organization, 149-151; FRANCÈS, Disparition, 98, 100;
ANGOLD, Byzantine ‘City’, 32; TALBOT RICE, Byzantium, 130; OIKONOMIDES,
180 Entrepreneurs, 165-167; HENDY, Studies, 249.
and defy with impunity the guild regulations. Clearly, the notion that the
guild system continued to function past the 12th century cannot be per-
suasively defended. The enabling environment simply was not there.
Compelling economic and political circumstances shaped not only atti-
tudes but institutions as well.27
The Domain of Unorganized Manufacturing

In assessing the place of the unorganized manufacturing within the
Byzantine industrial organizational structure, it would be useful to dis-
tinguish among the various views expressed on the subject: (a) all crafts
were mandatorily organized into guilds and none was practiced outside
the guild system; (b) the same crafts that were organized into guilds were
also practiced simultaneously outside the guild system; and (c) unorga-
nized crafts operated only in activities not statutorily controlled by
guilds. Thus, the argument has been advanced that in Constantinople,
which accounted for the largest concentration of manufacturing in the
empire, all manufacturers in every industry were organized into guilds,28
implying the absence of any unorganized manufacturing units in the
capital. Yet, as already alluded, only manufacturing establishments oper-
ating in a limited number of state designated sectors were mandatorily
organized into guilds. By design, a multitude of manufacturing units was
left outside the guild organizational structure and the state’s purview,29
as the authorities did not deem it necessary to regulate their activities:
their large number, diverse activities, small scale of operations, and lack
of records would have rendered their supervision costly and unmanage-
able; their trades did not involve prohibited articles; they operated in a
highly competitive environment and hence there was no particular
27 The view has been expressed that there were no substantial differences
regarding the organization and activities between the guilds in Byzantium and
the West. MICKWITZ, Kartellfunktionen, 232-234; RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Trade, 154;
KAZHDAN, Tsekhi, 143-144; idem, Derevnja, 344; LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo,
154. However, despite superficial similarities of the guild system in the two
regions, there were singular differences in conception, objectives and policy
directives, modus operandi, inclusiveness, extent of territorial penetration, degree
of attained and exercisable market and pricing power, hierarchy of the indus-
trial workforce, and the causes of their demise. Also, the respective organiza-
tional structures, market conduct and performance, regulatory mechanisms,
and extent of controls employed in each case were far from analogous. For a
comparative analysis of these two institutional arrangements, see G. C.
MANIATIS, The Guild System in Byzantium and Medieval Western Europe. A
Comparative Analysis of Organizational Structures, Regulatory Mechanisms and
Behavioral Patterns, Byzantion 76 ( 2006) 463-570.
28 See n. 2 above.
29 Scores of unregulated crafts are enumerated in B. 54. 6. 6; Ph. KOUKOULES,
Âõæáíôéí§í Âßïò êár Ðïëéôéóìüò, Athens 1948, B, I, 179-220; K. ARMENOPOULOS,
FÅîÜâéâëïò (hereafter Hexabiblos), ed. K. G. Pitakis, Athens 1971, 2. 4. 15-22.
Important industries located in the capital and its outskirts, e.g., metalworking,
woodworking, glassmaking, woolen and linen, pottery, grain milling, operated
outside the guild organizational structure. 181
George C. Maniatis
concern that they might act in concert and thereby exploit the consumer;
and they were under the jurisdiction of the eparch of the city, as were the
guilds, and subject to the provisions of statute law concerning the con-
duct of their commercial dealings and reprehensible business prac-
tices.30 These circumstances would hardly justify their induction into
countless guilds (óõóôÞìáôá) and the concomitant inordinate augmenta-
tion of the requisite bureaucracy to oversee their activities with question-
able effectiveness. Put differently, the state had no compelling reason to
enjoin this multitude of craftsmen to organize themselves into guilds,
and this explains why there is no reference to them in the Book of the
Eparch.31 Rather, the state enabled these unorganized crafts to form vol-
untary associations (óùìáôåsá), i. e. independent, self-governed organiza-
tions, initiated and set up by their own members, and run by elected
members and their own instituted by-laws, if they thought that this vehi-
cle served their purposes.32
The upshot is that there were many crafts spanning a cross-section
of economic endeavors whose practice did not require their induction
into the guild organizational structure, and whose compulsory enrollment
into guilds not only would have served no purpose but also would have
been impractical and counterproductive – the regulatory system was not
as pervasive as has been thought. The co-existence of guild-controlled
and non-guild-controlled economic activities in the same sector made no
sense in the state’s framework of industrial policy. Nevertheless, due to
political developments, the situation had changed by the early 12th cen-
tury. By that time, the Latins had gained a foothold in the capital and,
taking advantage of the weakened executive power of the state and the
commercial privileges and extraterritorial rights secured by earlier
treaties, they set up workshops in their quarters which operated outside
the guild system.33 And apparently so did silk manufacturing workshops
30 “Ïj ô§í ôå÷í§í ô² dðÜñ÷v [›ðüêåéíôáé]”: Peira, 51. 29. For the relevant pro-
visions of the law see ns. 76-91 below.
31 The existence of crafts operating outside the guild system in non-guild relat-
ed activities is also acknowledged, albeit without elaboration, by BOAK, The Book
of the Prefect, 608 n. 5; KAZHDAN, Tsekhi, 138-139, 144, 146-147, 153; idem,
Derevnja, 308, 334, 344; H. GEHRING, Das Zunftwesen Konstantinopels im zehnten
Jahrhundert, Jahrbücher für Nationalöconomie und Statistik 38 (1909) 580;
LOPEZ, Silk Industry, 15-16; ANGOLD, Byzantine ‘City’, 29-30; idem, Byzantine
Empire, 94; SIDERIS, FÉóôïñßá 264, 267-268; N. H. BAYNES, The Byzantine Empire,
London 1946, 216; DAGRON, Urban Economy, 407.
32 In the capital, associations had to register and their activities were moni-
tored for transgressions of the law by the eparch: ÐÜíôá ôN dí Êùíóôáíôéíïðüëåé
óùìáôåsá … ô² dðÜñ÷v ôyò ðüëåùò ›ðïêåßóèùóáí B. 6. 4. 13; B. 8. 2. 101. In the
provinces, jurisdiction over associations was assigned to the local authorities. B.
54. 16. 16.
33 Georgios Pachymeres, De Andronico Palaeologo, ed. B. G. Niebuhr, Bonn 1835,
2, 243; FRANCÈS, Disparition, 98; C. MANGO, Byzantium: The Empire of New Rome,
London 1998, 83-86; ANGOLD, Byzantine ‘City’, 32; idem, Byzantine Empire, 226-
227, 229-231; RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Civilisation, 168-170, 181, 185, 187; A. R.
182 LEWIS, Naval Power and Trade in the Mediterranean, A.D. 500-1100, Princeton
run by Jews located in Latin quarters under the protection and patron-
age of the Italians.34 Ultimately, the disintegration of the guild organi-
zational structure toward the end of the 12th century put an end to the
dichotomy between guild and non-guild organized industrial activities.
In the same vein, the view is also held that the same crafts organized
into guilds were also practiced concurrently outside the guild system by
small unorganized craftsmen.35 This hypothesis is untenable. The Book
of the Eparch clearly defined the economic activities that had to be under-
taken by private enterprises obligatorily organized into guilds.36 In these
specified instances the practice of a craft by unorganized outsiders at any
scale was prohibited,37 the field being left open only to guild-organized
enterprises of varying plant scales. It would be simplistic to suggest that
a mandatory guild system was instituted only to allow the parallel conduct
of the same economic activities outside the purview and control of the
authorities, whether by noblemen, wealthy enterprising individuals, or
independent craftsmen, as has been argued.38 It would serve no purpose
1951, 215; OIKONOMIDES, Entrepreneurs, 164-165; M. E. MARTIN, The Venetians in

the Byzantine Empire before 1204, Byzantinische Forschungen 13 (1988) 208-210;
MATSCHKE, Late Byzantine Economy, 471, 476.
34 D. JACOBY, Les quartiers juifs de Constantinople à l’ époque byzantine, Byzantion
37 (1967) 167-221; idem, The Jews of Constantinople and their Demographic
Hinterland, in: C. Mango – G. Dagron (eds.), Constantinople and its Hinterland,
Aldershot Hampshire 1995, Part No.18, 221-232; idem, Les juifs vénitiens de
Constantinople et leur communauté du XIIIe au milieu du XVe siècle, in: idem,
Recherches sur la Méditerranée orientale du XIIe au XVe siècle, London 1979,
Variorum Reprints, Part 12, 397-400; idem, The Jews and the Silk Industry of
Constantinople, in: idem, Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean,
Ashgate 2001, Variorum Reprints, Part 11, 1-20.
35 STÖCKLE, Byzantinische Zünfte, 8; GEHRING, Zunftwesen, 580; ZORAS,
Corporazioni bizantine, 172; P. HORDEN, The Confraternities in Byzantium, in: W. J.
Shields – D. Wood (eds.), Voluntary Religion, London 1986, 35; TALBOT RICE,
Byzantium, 122, 129, 131-132; ANGOLD, Byzantine ‘City’, 29-30; idem, Byzantine
Empire, 93-99; KAZHDAN, Derevnja, 344; JACOBY, Silk Industry, 12-17; idem, Silk
Economics and Cross-Cultural Artistic Integrat: Byzantium, the Muslim World and the
Christian West, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 58 (2004) 206 n. 43; MUTHESIUS, Silk
Industry, 31, 32, 39, 66.
36 See pp. 173-174 above. In economic activities undertaken by firms manda-
torily organized into guilds, membership was a precondition for the practice of
a craft. CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, Óõíôå÷íßáé, 4, 36, 50; MICKWITZ, Organisations-
formen, 72-74; SIDERIS, FÉóôïñßá, 264; MENDL, Corporations byzantines, 302, 304,
312-318; LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo, 151. Contra: MUTHESIUS, Byzantine
Silk, 31. However, guild membership was obligatory only for the proprietor of a
business establishment; craftsmen, including Jews, were employed only as hired
laborers.
37 BE, 11, 1; 12. 1, 4, 6.
38 Significantly, guild members were forbidden to supply raw silk and finished
goods to non-guild members (BE, 6. 16; 7. 1; 12. 4, 6, 7); buy imported raw silk
on behalf of influential or wealthy persons (BE, 6. 10; 7. 1); act as procurement
agents for members of unauthorized guilds, barter, or purchase goods they were
not authorized to handle (BE, 11. 8; 12. 7); or sell unprocessed raw silk to mer-
chants and Jews for resale outside the city (BE, 6. 13; 7. 1). Clearly, the purpose 183
George C. Maniatis
to set up an organizational structure, designate operational functions at

each stage of the manufacturing process and distribution, and enact
elaborate regulations concerning admission, obligations and conduct,
only to let the assigned activities to be conducted outside the guild sys-
tem. Had this happened, the guild system effectively would have been
scuttled.39
of these restrictions was to forestall the establishment of manufacturing enter-

prises operating outside the guild system in those sectors designated by the state
as falling within the purview of the guild organizational structure.
39 JACOBY, Silk Industry, 3-17, Silk Economics, 206 ns. 43 and 46, and The Jews and
the Silk Industry of Constantinople, in idem, Byzantium, Latin Romania and the
Mediterranean, Variorum Reprints, Ashgate 2001, Part XI, 1-20, postulates that
even during the peak of the imperial power in the 10th-11th centuries, i.e. prior to
the deep commercial penetration of the Latins in the capital, manufacture of small
silk pieces outside the guild system by Jews and non-Jews alike “must [emphasis
added] have been common” as was generally the practice in Italy; that there exist-
ed an extensive “underground” trade involving the illicit export of raw silk and
silk manufactures – an activity carried on by a network of silk workers, manufac-
turers, and merchants operating on the sly within the guild organizational struc-
ture in an attempt to evade taxation and state supervision ; and that illicit activi-
ties were facilitated by the pervasive venality within the ranks of the imperial
administration. LAIOU – MORRISON, The Byzantine Economy, 89, also believe that
even in the second half of the 10th century, “illicit exports of highest quality silks
to Western Europe seem to have been common”. These assertions appear to be
overstated and dismissive of the willingness and ability of the authorities to enforce
the law. Besides, extension of a practice occurring in the West to Byzantium by
analogy is gratuitous. Certainly, oversight by the vigilant chiefs of the guilds and
the army of informers might not be foolproof at all times, as prohibited trade
could still take place stealthily by means of various devices: use of Venetian ships
to carry merchandise belonging to Jews: LEWIS, Naval Power, 217; securing export
permits and special letters of safe conduct from the Latin authorities: K.-P.
MATSCHKE, Commerce, Trade, Markets, and Money: Thirteenth-Fifteenth Centuries, in:
EHB, 2, 772; or even purchase of certificates of Genoese citizenship: H. HEYD,
Histoire du commerce du Levant au Moyen-Âge, Leipzig 1936, 1, 459; A. E. LAIOU,
Constantinople and the Latins, Cambridge 1972, 261-262. Moreover, it should be
noted that only prized silks (i.e. large pieces of silk fabrics dyed with murex purple)
were non-tradable; high quality silks not exceeding ten nomismata were legally
exportable; and small pieces of purple-dyed silks could be sold domestically
(Novel 80 of Leo VI) and possibly exported. Further, high quality and value silks
could still be produced and exported by using lower quality purple dyes, which
nonetheless could create the desired shades of purple, crimson, and scarlet by
applying appropriate dyeing techniques.
ANGOLD, Byzantine Empire, 94, and Byzantine ‘City’, 29-30, maintains that the
silk manufacturing guilds in the capital could not meet the demand for silks and
had to compete with workshops operating outside the guild system, particularly
at the cheap end of the market. But there was already in the 10th century a thriv-
ing silk industry in such provincial towns as Thebes, Corinth, Andros (JACOBY,
Silk in Western Byzantium, 461, 462, 468), which could have supplied (and most
likely did supply) the capital with an array of small silk pieces, assuming that the
supply by local producers did not increase in the capital to meet the rising
demand – a bold assumption.
In sum, the claimed intricacies of the underground trade in raw silk and silks
are imaginative but implausible. Absent fully documented evidence of flagrant
misconduct of the government authorities and of persistent lax enforcement of
the law, the extent of the alleged unauthorized traffic remains conjectural and
184 incidental at best. The warning provisions of the Book of the Eparch aimed to
Internal Organization and Operations of Manufacturing

Establishments
Part of the Byzantine labor force specialized in the production of a
wide variety of manufactured articles operating as independent produc-
ers. They set up shop primarily in towns and were heavily concentrated
in the capital, the major production and consumption center of the
empire and a busy entrepôt. By and large, they comprised individually
or family owned operations albeit partnerships were not uncommon.
Production took on primarily the form of one-man-managed small scale
operations, was carried on in small workshops (dñãáóôÞñéá) owned or
rented, and employed family, hired, slave or apprentice labor. To a less-
er extent, handicraft production assumed the form of a household indus-
try, carried on usually by farming out work to be done at the worker’s
home mainly by family members. The diversity of tasks to be performed
in the relatively “capital intensive” guild-organized silk weaving,40 soap-
making, candlemaking,41 and tanning,42 resulted in a degree of special-
ization of the workforce at the shop floor, as each process required par-
ticular in-house skills and experience. This also implied that the size of
workshops dictated by technology, space requirements, and number of
employed workers in these industries would have been relatively larger,
albeit occupying the upper end of what might still be called small scale
establishments. To be sure, there was room for artistic, skill-intensive
work of exquisite craftsmanship in an array of precious sacred objects
used by the Church, and in hand-weaving, jewelry, embroidery, ceramics,
etc. catering to the needs of a limited refined circle of consumers includ-
ing exports.43 But the bulk, grass-roots demand was basically for mun-
thwart potential transgressions and cannot be construed as proof of a prevailing

pattern of illicit trade. For details on the vigorous administration and effective-
ness of the law pertaining to guild activities in Byzantium, see G. C. MANIATIS,
Organization, Market Structure, and Modus Operandi of the Private Silk Industry in
Tenth-Century Byzantium, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53 (1999) 267-298, especially
273-274, 297 and n. 126. Certainly, the situation changed dramatically by the
12th century due to the commercial penetration of the Italians as already dis-
cussed (pp. 180-181, 182-183 above), the weakening of the state authority, the
decline of the silk industry in the capital, and the attenuation of the political sig-
nificance of prized silks, leading to the de facto abandonment of the earlier
restrictions following the disintegration of the guild system.
40 E.g., loom builders, silk dressers, weavers, pattern harness makers, draw-
boys, dyers. A. MUTHESIUS, Essential Processes, Looms, and Technical Aspects of the
Production of Silk Textiles, in: EHB, 1, 161; eadem, Silk Industry, 35; MANIATIS,
Private Silk Industry, 283, 291-295.
41 MANIATIS, Candle Manufacturing, Byzantinoslavica 67 (2009) 209.
42 E.g., tanners (âõñóïäÝøáé, óêõôïäÝøáé), softeners (ìáëáêáôÜñéïé), stretchers,
dyers, leathercutters (ëùñïôüìïé). BE, 14. 2; KOUKOULES, Âõæáíôéí§í Âßïò, 2, I,
188-189; ODB, s.v. Leather.
43 A. CUTLER, The Industries of Art, in: EHB, 2, 555-587; I. KALAVREZOU, Luxury
Objects, in: The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine
Era A.D. 843-1261, H. C. Evans – W. D. Wixom (eds.), New York 1997, 218-253; 185
George C. Maniatis
dane products of common use requiring ordinary skills and forming a

relatively undemanding market for superior craftsmanship. In these
activities production techniques were traditional, fairly standardized, and
relatively easy to acquire: foundry and blacksmith work, metalworking,
stoneworking, brickmaking, woodsawing, pottery, household utensils,
furniture, linen, wool and cotton cloth, leather products, agricultural
implements, general purpose tools, construction materials, glassmaking,
woodworking, dairy products, and the multitude of products subsumed
under these industries. Workshops where the array of these activities was
conducted have been identified in the capital and its outskirts and in
many provincial towns.44 In a setting where the scale of operations was
circumscribed, the margins for deepening intra-firm process specializa-
tion and improving production techniques, work methods, shop-floor
organization, and overall productivity were limited in the absence of
market pressure to reorient production toward mass-produced articles.
On the marketing side, small-scale operators disposed of their products
largely through direct contact with the final consumer or through mid-
dlemen (e.g., grocers)45 when the producer found it convenient, lacked
marketing skills, or had no direct access to the market.
In rural communities, blacksmiths, joiners, saddlers, cobblers, grain
millers,46 etc., catered to the needs of local and possibly nearby villagers.
They worked singly, possibly with a helper or an apprentice, in a shed or
W. D. DIXOM, Byzantine Art and the Latin West, in: The Glory of Byzantium, 435-
507; J. C. ANDERSON, Manuscripts, in: The Glory of Byzantium, 83-111; T. F.
MATHEWS, Religious Organization and Church Architecture, in: The Glory of
Byzantium, 21-81; A. BALLIAN, Liturgical Implements, in: Byzantium: Faith and
Power (1261-1557), ed. H. C. Evans, New York 2004, 117-141; J. DURAND,
Precious-Metal Icon Revetments, in: Byzantium: Faith and Power, 243-257;
J. LOWDEN, Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium, 1261-1557, in: Byzantium:
Faith and Power, 259-293; W. WOODFIN, Liturgical Textiles, in: Byzantium: Faith
and Power, 295-323; RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Trade, 141, 151; GUERDAN, Byzantium,
100-101; J. HALDON, Production, Distribution and Demand in the Byzantine World, c.
660-840, in: I. L. Hansen – C. Wickham (eds.), The Long Eighth Century, Leiden
2000, 249-250 and ns. 55, 56.
44 A. BRYER, The Means of Agricultural Production: Muscle and Tools, in: EHB, 1,
101-113; M. K. PAPTHANASIOU, Metallurgy and Metalworking Techniques, in: EHB,
1, 121-127; J.-P. SODINI, Marble and Stoneworking in Byzantium, Seventh-Fifteenth
Centuries, in: EHB, 1, 129-146; V. FRANÇOIS – J.-M. SPIESER, Pottery and Glass in
Byzantium, in: EHB, 2, 593-609; Ch. BOURAS, Aspects of the Byzantine City, Eighth-
Fifteenth Centuries, in: EHB, 2, 516-520; E. DEUTERMAN MAGUIRE, Ceramic Arts of
Everyday Life, in: The Glory of Byzantium, 255-271; KOUKOULES, Âõæáíôéí§í Âßïò,
2, II, 5-116; KAZHDAN, The Peasantry, in: The Byzantines, ed. G. Cavallo, Chicago
1997, 48-49, 58-60; A. E. LAIOU, Ìåôáîý Ðáñáãùãyò êáß ÊáôáíÜëùóçò : Åq÷áí
Ïkêïíïìßá ïj ÂõæáíôéíÝò Ðüëåéò;, in: Academy of Athens, Proceedings, Athens
2006, B, 97-107; A. E. LAIOU – C. MORRISON, The Byzantine Economy, 73-79, 115-
130. See also n. 29 above.
45 E.g., grocers bought from independent producers and retailed earthenware,
hardware, woodenware, construction materials, and dairy products. BE, 13. 1.
46 On the ownership, location, technology, and modus operandi of grain mills,
see G. C. MANIATIS, The Personal Services Market in Byzantium, Byzantion 74
186 (2004) 42-49.
at their homes. At times they might work in the homes of important cus-
tomers. The service was rendered upon request resulting in immediate
delivery: e.g., repair of an agricultural implement, fit a horseshoe, or
production of a standard article, usually one at a time, e.g., a plow, or in
accordance with the customer’s particular requirements, e.g., a saddle.
These crafts were male occupations and selection of apprentices tended
to be confined to family circles. Entry into the craft was conditioned on
the supply of existing craftsmen which depended on the time required
for apprentices to learn a skill; the apprentice throughput which was con-
strained by the minuscule number and size of units in operation locally
(usually a master craftsman); and the viability of new undertakings large-
ly determined by the size and rate of growth of the local market, as
defined by population growth, the disposable income of the inhabitants,
and the attendant demand for such services. Because of the limited liq-
uidity of the peasants, compensation of these craftsmen in kind probably
was not uncommon.
In small-scale largely “labor-intensive” activities, more so in nano-
enterprises (say run solely by an artisan or employing one or two work-
ers) occupying the lower end of the small scale spectrum, but even in rel-
atively “capital-intensive” industries, the entrepreneur/master craftsman,
being a hands-on worker as well, ensured effective control of the work
process which obviated the need for supervisory labor, while the close
master-worker relationship ensured low labor turnover, work discipline,
and relatively high performance as the owner could capture the worker’s
full potential (at times probably abusively), and there was no room for
slowdown or make-work activities. Coordination of sourcing, production
and marketing required the owner’s personal attention and was man-
ageable as long as the level of activity was modest. The critical point in
the growth of an industrial establishment was reached when it became
essential to delegate operational and managerial functions, even if access
to capital through self-financing, borrowing or formation of a partner-
ship could be ensured. However, an increase in the scale of operations
placed heavy demand on organizational and managerial skills, and many
owners might not be capable of taking this bold step because they had
moved up from the shop floor, lacked such innate capabilities as these
faculties and the requisite experience were in short supply and unevenly
distributed, or became risk-averters above a certain threshold of enter-
prise size. As a result, enterprise growth – but not sector growth – was held
back, as the response to the growing demand for an industry’s output
tended for the most part to be met through the horizontal proliferation of
small scale workshops, based on new entry of master craftsmen, well-to-
do merchants, or vouched for slaves. This process was reinforced by lack
of functional literacy and numeracy, limited borrowing capacity, wide
product variation, production in small quantities and short runs in the
absence of market pressure to reorient production toward standard mass-
produced articles, complacency, the uncertainty and magnified risk of
persistent capacity underutilization, and dim prospects of increasing 187
George C. Maniatis
market share due to stiff competition from more efficient and lower cost
enterprises which had overcome these impediments and could chip away
at their competitors’ share of the market. Also, in many instances the
ebbs and flows of demand favored smaller units affording operational
flexibility. This is a more plausible explanation for the largely small-scale
structure both of guild-organized and unorganized manufacturing in
Byzantium, rather than the view that the state deliberately did not allow
private individuals to manufacture “on a more than petty scale”,47 or
that private initiative was stifled and capital accumulation was hindered
by expedient administrative devices.48 Indeed, there is no evidence in
the legal or primary sources that the size of workshops,49 the number of
47 RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Trade, 153; idem, Byzantine Civilisation, 173-174, 176;

FRANCÈS, L ’état, 239, 241, 243; idem, Disparition, 95; KAZHDAN – WHARTON
EPSTEIN, Byzantine Culture, 22.
48 OSTROGORSKY, History, 253, 288; MACRI, Organisation, 53; TALBOT RICE,
Byzantium, 121, 123; MICKWITZ, Organisationsformen, 76; MANGO, Byzantium, 56;
OIKONOMIDES, Entrepreneurs, 156-157; TOYNBEE, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 40,
42-43, 57, 69; LOPEZ, Silk Industry, 18; ANGOLD, Byzantine Empire, 93-94;
KAZHDAN, Tsekhi, 137, 140, 149, 153; idem, Derevnja, 320, 330-331, 344;
LINDSAY, Byzantium, 159; FRANCÈS, L ’ état, 239-241, 243; DIEHL, Byzantium, 89;
RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Civilisation, 173-174, 176; A. E. LAIOU, The Byzantine
Economy: An Overview, in: EHB, 3, 1149, 1164; LAIOU – MORRISON, The Byzantine
Economy, 57-58, 60; J. HANSON, Byzantium: A History, Strand 2005, 158-159. The
propounded notion is based on misperception of the scope of the Byzantine reg-
ulatory regime. On the scope of regulation in Byzantium, see MANIATIS, The
Guild System in Byzantium and Medieval Western Europe, 553-556.
It is worth noting in this context that the possibility afforded to enterprising
individuals to establish partnerships and pool together their available resources
to augment the financial strength of their enterprise and thereby expand their
activities; the absence of price controls in manufacturing and wholesale activi-
ties; the absence of any restrictions on enterprise scale of operations; the intra-
and-inter-sectoral differences in the capital intensity of such industries as tex-
tiles, leathermaking, candlemaking, and soapmaking to name a few; the fact that
guild members in several important trades contributed to a fund according to
their means for the collective purchase of imported inputs (BE, 5. 3; 6. 8; 7. 4;
9. 3); and the existence of guild members who were unable to procure supplies
wholesale and had to buy retail from wealthier members (BE, 6. 9; 7. 2, 4), attest
to the varying financial strength of the players and the concomitant asymmetric
size distribution of industrial and commercial enterprises. The views therefore
expressed by MANGO, Byzantium, 56, that the guild system was “designed” to dis-
courage private initiative and enrichment, by OSTROGORSKY, History, 288, that
the draconian state controls left no place for the deployment of private initiative
to any great extent, and by OIKONOMIDES, Entrepreneurs, 156, that the economic
power and aggressiveness so necessary for making progress in business and
establishing larger enterprises were absent, are not borne out.
49 GUERDAN’s assertion, Byzantium, 91, that “size was the subject of regulation
and no shop was to be so big that it could hold more than ten people” is based
on no legal or narrative source. Also, misinterpreting the elliptic formulation of
the overarching provision BE, 18. 5 pertaining to all guilds: åk ôéò öùñáè† …
dñãáóôÞñéïí dðáýîùí … ›ðïìåíÝôù ôéìùñßáí, KAZHDAN, Derevnja, 320, Tsekhi, 140,
and LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo, 146, maintain that guild regulations pro-
hibited the expansion of a member’s workshop. However, the provision actually
prohibits bidding up slyly the rent of another’s workshop, the violator being sub-
188 ject to expulsion from the guild, and has nothing to do with the size of the work-
workers to be employed,50 the scale of firms’ operations, or the price and

level of profit was ever fixed in manufacturing and related commercial activ-
ities. State interference in the operations of a multitude of establish-
ments not only would have been impracticable, but such micromanage-
ment would have been counterintuitive, counterproductive, and contrary
to the entrenched free market system in force.
The one-man-one-trade rule whereby the law enjoined guild mem-
bers from partaking in more than one guild51 did not inhibit the growth
of an enterprise within its prescribed manufacturing activity. The policy
aim of the rule was to restrain the growth of firms in size by vertical or
horizontal integration through the union of crafts and trades or at the
expense of enterprises operating upstream, downstream or laterally,
which was not a reflection of genuine market growth but the outcome of
the exercise of sheer market power. The law aimed to prevent enterprise
growth unrelated to market demand, dominant occupancy of the market
by a few multi-stage firms, and weakening or elimination of competition
through the exercise of monopoly power. The authorities assessed that
the risk of monopolization of the market outweighed the potential ben-
efits of integration, preferring to err on the side of caution. Growth of
market demand would rather be satisfied by a plurality of firms – exist-
ing and new entrants in free competition as new entry was not hindered.
Enterprising and price competitive firms were not impeded from
exploiting their growth potential, as they could increase their market
shares by taking advantage of the growth in demand for their products
and by chipping away at the shares of fellow guild members through
intra-guild competition. The Book of the Eparch did not forbid price and
non-price competition, did not secure the market position of guild mem-
bers, and did not prevent the exit of noncompetitive enterprises.
Preservation of competition was a major objective of the regulatory
regime.52
shop as is evidenced from other provisions of the Book of the Eparch with com-
plete constructions specifically referring to dðáýîùí ô’ díïßêéïí (an increase in
the rent): FÏ ôï™ eôÝñïõ dñãáóôÞñéïí ô’ díïßêéïí êáôN äüëïí dðáýîùí … Pðïðá-
íÝóèù ôyò dðéóôÞìçò, BE, 9. 4; 19. 2; 4. 9; 11. 7; 13. 6. BOAK, Book of the Eparch,
616; E. H. FRESHFIELD, Roman Law in the Later Roman Empire: Byzantine Guilds
Professional and Commercial, Cambridge 1938, 42; ZORAS, Corporazioni bizantine,
133; and KODER, Eparchenbuch, 131, also interpret the provision BE, 18.5 as pro-
hibiting attempts to raise someone’s rental.
50 KAZHDAN, Derevnja, 311.
51 B. 60. 32. 1; BE, 7. 3; 8. 6; 11. 2, 8; 12. 4, 6; 14. 2; 18. 5.
52 See n. 67 below. The view has been expressed that, because of the rigorous
control by the state, the guild system forestalled the crises of overproduction and
underproduction. ZORAS, Corporazioni bizantine, 103; MACRI, Organisation, 60;
ANDRÉADÈS, Economic Life, 63; GUERDAN, Byzantium, 97. However, there is no sub-
stance to this claim since there was no state or guild interference with the deci-
sion-making process of the individual enterprises, and there were no external or
internal regulations aiming at securing conformity in the scale of operations of
the individual enterprises as reflected in the absence of any restrictions on the 189
George C. Maniatis
Though subject to the vicissitudes of the marketplace which at times

might result in high mortality rates,53 manufacturing establishments
endured because their owners were hardworking, resourceful, and ener-
getic; possessed deep knowledge of their trad; exercised effective control
over all aspects of their business; and they were thrifty and determined
to succeed. Their scale of operations was designed to take advantage of
market conditions and requirements: there was no demand for stan-
dardized mass produced articles, as for the most part goods were pro-
duced one at a time, with individual variations, and often to specifica-
tions set by a particular customer; or were purchased in small quantities
calling for production in small lots and short runs. Small scale operations
afforded operational flexibility, enabling producers to make adjustments
in the face of changing market conditions as results could be assessed
quickly and corrected, exploit hitherto unsuspected chances for profi-
table economic activities, or take advantage without delay of emerging
market opportunities. They economized on the use of scarce fixed and
working capital as workshops were usually rented from wealthy individu-
als or religious establishments,54 equipment and tools were simple and
easily maintained,55 and often depended on unpaid family labor or
worked on materials provided by suppliers, while stocking up with raw
materials, work-in-progress, and inventories in finished products were
kept at minimal levels. Hence overhead costs generally tended to be low
and fairly uniform within each industrial sector.
quantity of inputs to be used, the number of workers to be employed, the type
of equipment to be deployed, or the amount of output to be produced.
53 Common causes of business failure included: indebtedness, exacerbated by
the high cost of capital; excessive competition; fluctuations in market demand;
inability to meet changing market requirements; or operational inefficiencies
resulting in uneconomic production – all sapping the firm’s staying power.
54 Workshops could be the property of landowners, churches and monasteries
who leased them out to manufacturers and merchants. Novel 88 (1187) of
emperor Isaak Angelus, in: JG 1, 446-447; Actes d’ Iviron, ed. J. Lefort, Paris
1985, no. 4; Actes de Docheiariou, ed. N. Oikonomidès, Paris 1984, no. 4.15-16,
73-86; Actes de Kutlumus, ed. P. Lemerle, Paris 1988, nos. 8. 12; 18. 44; Les
Archives de Saint-Jean-Prodrome sur le mont Ménécée, ed. A. Guillou, Paris 1955, no.
4. 25; F. MIKLOSICH – J. MÜLLER (hereafter MM), Acta et diplomata graeca medii
aevi sacra et profana, Vienna 1860-1890, 4, 286; MM 5, 164; N. OIKONOMIDÈS,
Quelques boutiques de Constantinople au Xe s.: prix, loyers, imposition (Codex Patmiacus
171), Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972) 345-356; Actes de Lavra, ed. P. Lemerle
– A. Guillou – N. Svoronos – D. Papachryssanthou, Paris 1979, 1, no. 4. 3-9, 23-
25; 3, nos. 25, 168. 4-5; N. SVORONOS, Remarques sur les structures économiques de
l’Empire byzantin au XIe siècle, Travaux et Mémoires 6 (1976) 65; KAZHDAN,
Derevnja, 309-315; ANGOLD, Byzantine Empire, 278-279; DAGRON, Urban Economy,
422. The Great Church (Hagia Sophia) owned some 1,100 workshops in
Constantinople located in various quarters: Novels 43 and 59 of Justinian. These
possessions were reconfirmed by successive imperial chrysobulls and their num-
ber kept increasing over the centuries as a result of bequests and donations by
the faithful.
55 Since the equipment was not subject to recurrent technological changes the
problem of obsolescence arose infrequently. This obviated the need for frequent
190 replacement and kept operating expenses low.
The preponderance of labor-intensive activities in the unorganized

manufacturing sector was economically rational and efficient,56 generat-
ed gainful employment far exceeding that of the guilds because of their
much greater number, raised family incomes, and stimulated demand.
Household undertakings in particular facilitated the dispersion of pro-
duction and the full and part-time employment of women and children,
thereby supplementing a household’s income and bringing into the pro-
ductive process otherwise unutilized or underutilized labor at zero or low
opportunity cost. Given the status of women at the time, their participa-
tion in the urban labor force was limited: taking up jobs outside their
home was reproachable, but also tending to domestic chores and rearing
children did not leave much free time. Nevertheless, the need to make a
living often compelled women to seek employment, usually in the textile
industry, e.g., as carders, spinners, weavers, embroiderers, retailers, seam-
stresses, etc. Women were also involved in other industrial and trade activ-
ities, such as ropemaking, dyeing, manufacture of bow and musical
strings, worked in family workshops, and were engaged in household pro-
duction of cloth part of which was sold in the marketplace. Women of
servile status, for whom societal perceptions were not a matter of great
concern, were more likely to take up artisanal activities.57 Seasonal or
irregular employment opportunities could disrupt the flow of wage earn-
ings, or place workers in a weak bargaining position. In household units,
children began learning their parents’ craft from a very early age. When
a craft was not carried on at home, the only way a person could acquire a
skill was to practice the craft as an apprentice to a master craftsman.
Though unstructured and unsupervised by the state, apparently this was
a workable institutional arrangement for vocational training.
Small scale and household industry tended to concentrate in or
very near urban centers, the location being dictated by the availability
56 Economic efficiency relates to economy in the use of a nation’s available
resources given the level of technology, and posits that factors of production
(labor, capital, land) should be combined in different proportions when their
relative quantities and prices differ. Given the scarcity (and high price) of capi-
tal and the abundance (low cost) of labor, factor proportionality in Byzantine
manufacturing which employed to a great extent labor-intensive methods of
production reflected an economically efficient utilization of scarce resources. On
the chronic scarcity of capital and the interest rate structure in Byzantium, see
MANIATIS, Operationalization of the Concept of Just Price, 178-186.
57 Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. Th. Preger, New York 1975,
250; Ioannis Tzetzae Epistulae, ed. P. A. M. Leone, Leipzig 1972, Epistula no. 71;
Poèmes prodromiques en grec vulgaire, D. C. Hesseling – H. Pernot (eds.),
Amsterdam 1910, IV, ll. 258-259; SATHAS, Ìåóáéùíéêx ÂéâëéïèÞêç, Athens 1872,
5, 530; KOUKOULES, Âõæáíôéí§í Âßïò, 2, I, 210, 216, 232-233; Ch. M. BRAND, Some
Byzantine Women of Thebes – and Elsewhere, in: ÔÏ ÅËËÇÍÉÊÏÍ: Studies in
Honor of Speros Vryonis, Jr., ed. J. S. Langdon et al., New Rochelle – New York
1993, vol. 1, 59-60; A.-M. TALBOT, Women, in: The Byzantines, ed. G. Cavallo,
Chicago 1997, 130-131; A. E. LAIOU, The Role of Women in Byzantine Society,
Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 31 (1981) 243-249; LAIOU –
C. MORRISON, The Byzantine Economy, 127, 130; SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 311;
MANIATIS, Private Silk Industry, 280 n. 64. 191
George C. Maniatis
of skilled, semi-skilled, or trainable unskilled labor; the need for direct

access to markets, as in the case of service activities where customer
specifications and face-to-face contact with the client were necessary
(e.g., embroidering, tailoring, shoemaking, drapery, leather goods); the
incidence of high transport costs;58 or the risk of damage or pilferage
in transporting finished goods.59 Cost structures in individual small
scale enterprises in a given location and industry probably were not very
dissimilar as the equipment and technology employed were virtually the
same, scale economies marginal if any, wages for skilled labor rather
uniform, and business overhead similar, the main difference (and com-
petitive advantage) being the efficiency with which the requisite inputs
were organized, utilized and managed. Though simple and traditional,
the techniques employed were appropriate for the stage of development
of the economy (more use of cheap labor and less use of expensive capi-
tal) and did not necessarily imply inefficiency. With small establish-
ments using simple manufacturing equipment and turning out plain
articles and in small quantities in the absence of demand for mass-pro-
duced items, there were limited opportunities for economically and
technologically meaningful vertical integration of the production
process by manufacturing internally the requisite inputs in the unorga-
nized manufacturing sector, while it might not be permitted in guild
organized industries (e.g., silk industry). Whether as a result of delibe-
rate product differentiation, differences in skill, or wanting quality con-
trol, differences in the quality and finish of products were inevitable.
However, such differences very likely fostered price and non-price com-
petition.
Conditions of work were decided by the contracting parties60 and,
contrary to what has been alleged,61 wage rates were not set by the state
58 Processes which reduced substantially the weight, bulk, or handling difficul-

ty of primary raw materials (weight-losing), e.g., marble and building blocks,
bricks, tiles, sawed wood, cheese, butter, tended to be located close to primary
sources (material-oriented), as they rendered the final product cheaper to trans-
port to distant markets.
59 Other factors affecting the location of particular industrial activities and
workshops were the use of furnaces and flammable materials and the emission
of noxious fumes and stench harmful to public health, concerns which impelled
the authorities to enact pertinent regulations. Thus, certain activities had to be
undertaken only in the outskirts of towns, while crafts permitted to operate in
towns had to maintain a certain distance from other workshops and the citizens’
houses. BE, 11. 1; 12. 3; Hexabiblos, 2. 4. 15-21.
60 SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 14, 19-21; MACRI, Organisation, 148. The Book of the
Eparch did impose conditions on the hiring of a special category of workers of
superior skills in great demand and short supply employed in the all-important
silk industry; but it did not interfere with their remuneration. Such operatives
could not be hired for more than a month at a time, they could not be hired
away from another employer before they had completed the task(s) they had
been paid for by their current employer, and they were not to receive advance
pay for more than thirty days’ work. BE, 6. 2, 3; 8. 10, 12. The purpose of the
192 intervention was to make available these skilled operatives to all employers and,
or the guilds; they were determined by an array of factors including the

prevailing demand-supply conditions. Judging from the fact that riots,
so frequent in the capital, appeared to have political and not social char-
acter, wages though unregulated apparently were not suppressed.62 The
actual wage level in manufacturing was determined by a worker’s mastery
of a particular skill, his productivity, market circumstances at any given
time, gender, age, and the firm’s profitability. Given the relatively high
percentage of wages in the cost of production, the limited margins for
productivity improvement through capital deepening, and the strong
competitive market pressures, with notable exceptions, firms genuinely
could not afford to pay high wages to hired laborers.63 In many
instances, the net profit of the owner himself probably barely exceeded
the wage of a well-paid skilled worker. The survival of the small enter-
prise, particularly of the nano-enterprise, depended largely on the hard
work of the owner and his family and the long hours they put in.
The obstacles to setting up shop were not insurmountable, particu-
larly for enterprising skilled laborers and merchants in good standing
and with personal savings or ability to borrow, as legal barriers to new
entry were nonexistent and economic barriers to entry (e.g., capital
requirements, minimum economic plant size) were relatively low. Start-
ups could be financed by family members and/or by borrowing from rel-
atives and friends. Formation of a partnership was a convenient way to
raise capital and minimize or avoid borrowing, with one partner con-
tributing his skilled labor and the other capital, marketing ability, or the
workplace.64 Nevertheless, to run or expand their business, small scale
apparently, to the imperial silk workshops as well since the latter had to com-
pete with the private sector for their services. SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 16, 20, MACRI,
Organisation, 149-150, LINDSAY, Byzantium, 160, and DAGRON, Urban Economy,
420, extend the hiring regulations pertaining exclusively to the silk industry to
craftsmen employed by all guilds. However, there is no such provision in the
Book of the Eparch as would be expected for a matter with far-reaching implica-
tions for the conduct of industrial activities. Extending rules applying strictly to
the particular circumstances of the silk industry by analogy to other sectors is
gratuitous.
61 GUERDAN, Byzantium, 95; DIEHL, Byzantium, 89; RUNCIMAN, Byzantine
Civilisation, 175, 188; ANDRÉADÈS, Byzance, 172-173; ZORAS, Corporazioni bizantine,
5; M. V. LEVTSCHENKO, Byzance: Dès origins à 1453, Paris 1949, 170; ODB, s. v.
Guilds; KAZHDAN – WHARTON EPSTEIN, Byzantine Culture, 22; A. KAZHDAN, State,
Feudal and Private Economy in Byzantium, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993) 99;
TALBOT RICE, Byzantium, 121; LINDSAY, Byzantium, 160.
62 RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Civilisation, 192, 200; ANDRÉADÈS, Byzance, 176;
CHARANIS, Economic Organization, 147-149; VRYONIS, Jr., Guilds, 291, 293, 303-
314; HENDY, Studies, 571-582, 590. LINDSAY, Byzantium, 160, argues that wages
were kept down by “law” – a claim not supported by source material.
63 Based on evidence from hagiographic sources, SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 18,
maintains that the financial situation of the majority of the independent opera-
tors of workshops was rather difficult.
64 A partnership could be legally established between two or more persons, for
life or for a specified period, and with unequal financial or in kind contributions
by the partners. Profits and losses were distributed as agreed; but it could not be 193
George C. Maniatis
operators often had to resort to debt financing to meet their fixed and
working capital needs, usually paying money-lenders above statutory
interest rates because of lack of collateral, the higher risk of illiquidity
and default, and the protracted and expensive litigation to collect in case
of default.65 Dealers in raw materials and wholesaler/retailer buyers
could provide credit as a way to secure an outlet or uninterrupted sup-
plies of finished goods, at times interest-free. Still, in instances of osten-
sibly interest-free borrowings, the cost of credit could be hidden in high-
er prices of raw materials bought or lower prices of finished goods sold.
Inability of a small operator to finance the purchase of his inputs or mar-
ket his output could result in financial dependence, and the greater his
reliance on a particular merchant the more agreed prices could be
depressed and profit margins squeezed.
stipulated that some partners were entitled to the entire profit in exclusion of
the rest (societas leonina). The affairs of the partnership were managed by a syn-
dic who was legally authorized to carry out business deals which were binding to
the partners. Articles of association probably were brief as the law dealt in great
detail with the rights, obligations, and conduct of the partners. B. 8. 2. 101; B.
11. 1. 14; B. 12, 1, 4, 5, 7 scholium, 30, 68, 72, 78, 83; Synopsis Basilicorum, K.
21. 1, 4-6, 10, 18; Ó. 12. 1. 3; Prochiros Nomos, in: JG 2, 19. 1, 5-7; 20. 1; Epitome,
in: JG 4, 10. 1, 6-9, 23; Prochiron Auctum, in: JG 7, 20. 1, 3, 7, 9, 23, 29; 21. 1, 7,
11; Epanagoge Aucta, in: JG 6, 25. 6, 7; Ecloga Private Aucta, in: JG 6, 11. 12;
Ecloga ad Prochiron Mutata, in: JG 6, 12. 16, 17; Synopsis Minor, in: JG 6, K. 1;
Hexabiblos, 3. 10. 1, 4, 16; 3. 11. 1.
SJUZJUMOV, Remeslo, 26, notes that Leo VI in his Novels 102 and 103, in: P.
Noailles – A. Dain, Les Nouvelles de Léon VI le Sage, ed. and transl., Paris 1944,
335-341, extolled the formation of industrial and commercial partnerships (ô§í
ðñáãìÜôùí êïéíþíçóéò) because they offered great advantages when they were
organized judiciously and thoughtfully (ó˜í öñïíÞìáôé êár ëïãéóì²). For when a
well-to-do person associates with another (êïéíùíåsí eôÝñv) of similar financial
strength, their combined economic power becomes mightier and they can make
more profit from their joined wealth (Novel 102, 335, 337). The experience
from existing associations (êïéíùíçìÜôùí) shows that he who makes a larger con-
tribution into the association (ô’ ðëÝïí ìÝñïò dí ô† êïéíùíßu óõíåéóöÝñùí) receives
the largest share of the profits (ô’ ðëÝïí ôï™ êÝñäïõò ðïñßæåóèáé) and the agree-
ment works well. (Novel 103, 339). In fact, Leo VI went one step further. He not
only encouraged the formation of partnerships, but even sanctioned the forma-
tion of mandatory partnerships between owners of contiguous waterfront proper-
ties (communio rerum) engaged in fixed-net fishing if they did not agree volun-
tarily to form a joint operation when it was demonstrably advantageous to the
participants and the common good. For details, see G. C. MANIATIS, The
Organizational Setup and Functioning of the Fish Market in Tenth-Century
Constantinople, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000) 14-18.
65 When the borrower’s creditworthiness was shaky or the creditor could not
obtain security, effective interest rates tended to exceed the legally set maxima.
And devices to conceal usury difficult to detect and police were available: pay-
ment of the interest in advance, disbursement of an amount less than the con-
tracted principal, repayment of the principal before the maturity of the loan,
and no mention of interest or commissions in the contract. On the availability
and price of capital, see MANIATIS, Operationalization of the Concept of Just Price,
178-186.
66 MICKWITZ, Kartellfunktionen, 229, 234; LOPEZ, Silk Industry, 18; LEVTCHENKO,
194 Byzance, 170; ZORAS, Corporazioni bizantine, 58, 70-71, 105, 107; ANDRÉADÈS,
Price Competition in the Manufacturing Industry

As a rule, prices in Byzantium were established by market forces
under conditions of free and fair competition within a framework of a
private enterprise system. Neither the state nor the guilds set the prices
or profit margins of manufactures – contrary to recurring assertions.66
The contracting parties were allowed to take advantage of prevailing
market conditions and their bargaining skill to arrive at a price consis-
tent with their personal circumstances.67 Clever exploitation of an
advantageous situation or outwitting the other party did not run counter
to the bona fides requirement in sales contracts. To be astute and shrewd
was viewed as being in the nature of business life, and indeed an every-
day occurrence in private exchanges. Haggling and puffing were seen as
taking place as a matter of course before a sales contract was consum-
mated. Aggressive bargaining was an integral and essential part of trade
negotiations as it promoted competitive price structures and improved
quality. Nevertheless, the authorities were concerned that market prices
could be manipulated. To prevent such occurrences and ensure the
unimpeded functioning of the market mechanism, they set norms of
business conduct to thwart unfair competition and enacted anti-monop-
oly legislation.68
Economic Life, 57, 62, 66; OSTROGORSKY, History, 253-54; ODB, s. v. Guilds;
TALBOT RICE, Byzantium, 121; GUERDAN, Byzantium, 93; DIEHL, Byzantium, 89;
RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Trade, 158; idem, Byzantine Civilisation, 188; KAZHDAN, State,
99; KAZHDAN – WHARTON EPSTEIN, Byzantine Culture, 22; H. ANTONIADIS-BIBICOU,
Démographie, salaires et prix à Byzance au XIe siècle, Annales. Économie, Sociétés,
Civilisations 27 (1972) 239; LITAVRIN, Vizantiiskoe obshchestvo, 139; SJUZJUMOV,
Remeslo, 25-26, 31; ANGOLD, Byzantine ‘City’, 32; idem, Byzantine Empire, 93;
LINDSAY, Byzantium, 158; BROWNING, The Byzantine State, 79. Contra:
CHRISTOPHILOPOULOS, Óõíôå÷íßáé, 61; MACRI, Organisation, 87; SIDERIS, FÉóôïñßá,
261. According to SCHREINER, Organisation, 54, if necessary, the state could fix
prices.
67 “It is only natural that goods of higher market value to be purchased at a
lower price, and goods of lower market value be sold at a higher price”: B. 20.
1. 22, 3 and scholium further; agreements reached in any manner by those
engaging in lawful transactions are enforceable: B.11. 1.7, 67. In fact, “in buy-
ing and selling, the contracting parties are allowed to outmaneuver one anoth-
er on the price”: B. 20. 1. 22 and scholia; B. 19. 10. 66; Synopsis Basilicorum, Y.
7. 5. See also B. 53. 7. 1; B. 19. 1. 93, 94, 95; Epitome, 16. 30; Synopsis Basilicorum,
A. 3. 21; 12. 19; Synopsis Minor, Ð. 42, 93; Attaleiates, Ponema, in: JG 7, 11. 2;
Peira, 38. 5; Prochiron Auctum, 15. 34, 37; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 101; 3. 3. 69, 70 and
scholium; 3. 3. 72. The flexibility permitted in business conduct and aggressive
bargaining indicates that one bought at his own risk (caveat emptor): “It behooves
the buyer to investigate and ascertain the facts before consummating a deal (“Äås
ãNñ ô’í Pãïñáóôxí ðñ’ ôï™ óõíáëëÜãìáôïò äéE dñåýíçò ãåíÝóèáé êár Pêñéâï™í êár
ïœôù óõíáëëÜóóåéí “). Ecloga Legum, in: JG 2, 9. 1; Ecloga Privata Aucta, 10. 2, 4;
Prochiron Auctum, 15. 52.
68 B. 19. 18. 1; B. 60. 44. 2; Synopsis Basilicorum, Ð, 24. 1; Epitome, 15. 25;
Synopsis Minor, M. 4; E. 45; Attaleiates, Ponema, 11. 7.
69 See pp. 173-174 and ns. 4 and 5 above. Failure to put the regulatory regime
in proper perspective gave rise to the unsupported notion that the state con- 195
George C. Maniatis
In the guild-organized sectors, the institution of the guild system did

not aim to protect and advance the narrow economic interests of the
members, thwart intra-guild competition, or achieve equality of eco-
nomic results for all members as has been alleged.69 Competition was
thought to be beneficial to all parties concerned because it promoted
efficiency, resulted in low prices, and benefited the consumer. To this
end, the state was intent on frustrating monopolistic leanings, inter alia,
through pro-competitive legislation, the one man-one trade directive,70
and unimpeded entry into a guild. The rationale was that in workably
competitive markets the parties have the choice to bargain, shop around,
or wait, so that they can make informed decisions and strike the best
deal. Grouping the manufacturers of a particular sector under the guild
umbrella did not automatically translate into ability of individual guild
members to wield market power and set prices at will, since the free-
wheeling members did not act on command, in unison or in conformity
with internal rules. The dynamics of market exchange fostered econom-
ic individualism and independent action, thereby weakening cooperative
dealings and resulting in conventional businesslike intra-group behavior.
After all, guilds were not voluntary associations of enterprising individu-
als with a common agenda; as practitioners of a particular craft they were
coerced into joining a state mandated guild. The fairly large number of
guild members in each sector resulted in largely competitive market
structures and by and large normal profits. Moreover, unimpeded entry
trolled every aspect of the economic activity in the capital and the provinces, and
led to sweeping, albeit unfounded, pronouncements about far-reaching price
controls and a fettered command-and-control economy. The issue is discussed
in extenso in G. C. MANIATIS, Price Formation in the Byzantine Economy Tenth to
Fifteenth Centuries, Byzantion 73 (2003) 401-444 and especially n. 79.
70 See p. 18 and n. 52 above. Several hypotheses have been advanced regard-
ing the rationale of this provision: to keep the guilds from banding together and
become a threat to the state, to foster specialization of labor, to eliminate inter-
mediaries, to facilitate state supervision, or to make easier the levy and collec-
tion of taxes and prevent tax fraud. J. P. WALTZING, Étude historique sur les corpo-
rations professionnelles chez les Romains, Louvain 1895, 1, 147 n. 1, 150, 354 n. 3;
STÖCKLE, Byzantinische Zünfte, 98-99; MACRI, Organisation, 35, 57-58; ZORAS,
Corporazioni bizantine, 76-78. Though plausible, these explanations do not derive
from the Book of the Eparch or the narrative sources and are peripheral at best.
The intention of “one man – one trade” rule was to prevent enterprise growth
unrelated to market demand. The state was concerned that union of enterprises
dealing in industrial or trade activities would have resulted in acquisition of
monopoly power by entrenched guild members, dominant occupancy of the
marketplace, and weakening or elimination of competitors based on the exer-
cise of sheer market power. Hence the prohibition of vertical integration, i.e.
expansion into preceding or succeeding phases of production and distribution
(BE, 4. 7; 6. 14; 7. 3; 8. 6), and horizontal integration, i.e. expansion into similar
or diverse activities carried on by other guilds (BE, 2. 1; 4. 1; 5. 1; 10. 6; 11. 2;
13. 1; 15. 1). The authorities judged that the risk of monopolization of the mar-
ket outweighed the potential and uncertain benefits of integration preferring to
err on the side of caution. The policy aim of the rule was that the growth of mar-
ket demand be shared by as many firms as possible and be met by existing firms
196 and new entry thereby fostering more intense competition.
of new enterprises; difficulties in reaching unanimity due to the dispari-

ty of bargaining power and the direct conflict of interest of the parties as
to how the costs of and benefits from collective action will be shared –
further exacerbated in the face of ever-changing market conditions;
unenforceability of collusive arrangements and price discipline on frac-
tious members in a multi-player setting; unpredictability of the potential
benefits of synergy; illegality of sub rosa agreements; and lack of a sup-
portive or quiescent administration were potent countervailing forces
which tended to deter collective action and foster a pro-competitive atti-
tude among guild members. A set of regulatory provisions of agoranomic
nature ensured correct business conduct in business deals, promoted the
orderly function of the marketplace, and maintained a level playing field
by facilitating access of all guild members to market opportunities, by
forestalling unlawful competition, and by establishing a set of non-shift-
ing parameters that defined unambiguously the rules of the game.
Significantly, the regulatory regime did not stifle private initiative or
interfere with the decision-making process and the strictly technico-eco-
nomic dimensions of the firm’s operations, thereby affording enterpris-
ing individuals ample room for independent action. Once in place, the
rules provided a legal framework which enabled entrepreneurs and con-
tracting parties to make rational decisions and conduct their affairs with
a considerable degree of certainty, as is attested by the growing industri-
al activity during the period under review.71 Equality of opportunity
rather than equality of economic results was the foundation of the state’s
industrial policy.
Within this industrial setting and policy framework, the concentra-
tion of the unorganized industry in urban centers comprising numerous
firms producing quite similar goods and complementary services gave
rise to a highly competitive market in each craft. Price competition tend-
ed to be intense as a result of comparative shopping, hard bargaining
between buyers and sellers, and the free trade policy. In some industries
it was reinforced by unfair competition from immigrant and naturalized
citizens located in Latin quarters. Nevertheless, vigorous competition
apparently had beneficial socio-economic repercussions, in that it pro-
moted efficiency in production, kept prices low, and assured the con-
sumer of a fair deal. In rural communities the local demand for crafts-
men’s services was not only inherently limited but was also affected by the
peasants’ self-dependence, satisfying most of their requirements in-
71 A. HARVEY, Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire 900-1200, Cambridge
1989, 85-90, 115, 213-224, 261-262; M. F. HENDY, Byzantium, 1081-1204: An
Economic Reappraisal, in: idem, The Economy, Fiscal Administration and
Coinage of Byzantium, Northampton 1989, Variorum Reprints, Part II, 46-48,
50-52; idem, Byzantium, 1081-1204: The Economy Revisited, Twenty Years On,
Variorum Reprints, Part III, 9-27; idem, The Economy: A Brief Summary, in: S.
Vryonis, Jr., Byzantine Studies, New Rochelle – New York 1992, 141-152;
Angold, Byzantine Empire, 81-88, 280-283; RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Trade, 151-152;
KAZHDAN – WHARTON EPSTEIN, Byzantine Culture, 31-46; LAIOU – MORRISSON, The
Byzantine Economy, 89, 91, 96, 164. 197
George C. Maniatis
house in a crude fashion. Thus, a good deal of woodwork, e.g., tables,

stools, beds, chests, and construction work, e.g., sheds, ledges, barns,
fences, ovens, berms, ditches, was done by the peasants themselves in
their spare time. Since the local market could not accommodate more
than one craftsman in each activity, the craftsman had a virtual monopoly.
However, as most peasants eked out a living, the craftsman wielded only
nominal monopoly power since, realistically, the margins for extracting
monopoly profit were very limited. Still, setting an indiscriminate fixed
fee for all users of his service might not enable a craftsman to achieve
steady employment and make a living. He might then opt to practice
price discrimination by charging each user according to his ability to pay,
and still be forced to become an occasional itinerant craftsman to keep
himself fully occupied.
Rules of Business Conduct in the Manufacturing Sector

To instill good faith and ensure fairness in business deals involving
manufactured products, in the sense that the negotiated price reflected
the simultaneous fulfillment of the buyer’s expectations and the seller’s
promised qualities of the sold article, statutory law set norms of business
behavior and standards for the orderly conduct of commercial transac-
tions, inflicting severe penalties on noncompliant craftsmen. In addition,
the Book of the Eparch set sector-specific provisions for the guild-orga-
nized enterprises aiming to enforce the avowed division of labor among
guilds,72 frustrate unfair intra-guild competition,73 prevent fraudulent
transactions,74 and ensure the observance of rules pertaining to preven-
tion of fires, hoarding or adulteration of raw materials, and their use
during days of fast.75 In particular, if a vendor, having agreed on the
price and received earnest money, backed out of the deal, he had to pay
the buyer double the earnest money; if the buyer reneged, he forfeited
the earnest money.76 The vendor had the right to keep the earnest
money he received and refuse delivery if the buyer did not pay him with-
in the agreed upon time.77 The seller who failed to deliver on a deal was
liable for the buyer’s loss of potential gain (äéáöÝñïí) even if the sus-
tained loss exceeded the value of the article.78 After the delivery of the
sold article, the seller could not renege on grounds that he changed his
mind.79 Had a vendor sold an article which he did not actually own and
72 BE, 8. 6; 11. 2; 12. 6; 14. 2; 18. 5.

73 BE, 8. 10; 12. 5.
74 BE, 7. 1, 6; 8. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10; 11. 1, 4, 5-7, 9; 12. 4, 7.
75 BE, 11. 1, 3, 4; 12. 3, 8.
76 B. 22. 1. 76; B. 19. 10. 76; Synopsis Basilicorum, A. 3. 2b; A. 45; Epanagoge, in:
JG 2, 23. 2; Epitome, 16. 3; Prochiros Nomos, 14. 1; Prochiron Auctum, 15. 3 Peira,
44. 3; Epanagoge Aucta, 21. 3; Synopsis Minor, A. 27; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 1, 3, 57.
77 B. 19. 1. 88, 90, 91; Peira, 45. 17; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 42.
198 78 B. 19. 8. 1; Synopsis Basilicorum, A. 10. 1; Epitome, 16. 54; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 52.
was subsequently legally taken away from the buyer, he was liable to the
purchaser for the price as well as for the lost gain.80 Buyers were not per-
mitted to exact slyly the reduction of the agreed upon price, e.g., by
claiming that the good did not have particular attributes, was overpriced,
or was obtainable elsewhere cheaper.81 The contracting parties, having
set a time-limit for the consummation of a deal, could agree that if with-
in the intervening period someone else offered a higher price the sale
could be invalidated.82 Exaggerated praise and declarations without
promise were not binding. But if the vendor categorically promised
nonexistent attributes he was liable for deception.83 Vendors were for-
bidden to sell their wares based on misleading information (e.g., mis-
representation of quality),84 alter their measures, use scales which had
not been stamped by the eparch’s office,85 or bid up deceitfully the rent
of someone else’s workshop.86 Also, to impress self-discipline and pro-
bity in their dealings, the law enjoined certain craftsmen to watch one
another and report underhanded deals, being held responsible if they
79 Ecloga Legum, 9. 1; Ecloga ad Prochiron Mutata, 11. 16; Ecloga Privata Aucta,
10. 2.
80 B. 19. 11; Synopsis Basilicorum, A. 13. 11, 13; Epitome, 16. 64; Peira, 38. 85;
Attaleiates, Ponema, 11. 4 Prochiron Auctum, 15. 33; Synopsis Minor, Ð. 20.
81 BE, 18. 5; Hexabiblos, 6. 14. 12.
82 B. 19. 2. 1, 2; Synopsis Basilicorum, A. 4. 1; Y. 7.1. 2; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 14, 95.
83 B. 19. 10. 17; B. 10. 3. 37; Synopsis Basilicorum, A. 3. 11, 20; Peira, 38. 30;
Synopsis Minor, A. 92; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 19, 66.
84 FÏ ðùë§í ôéíß ôé dí åkäÞóåé dðßøïãïí, ïš ìüíïí åkò ô’ ôßìçìá, PëëN êár åkò ðOóáí
ôxí dê ôïýôïõ æçìßáí êáôÝ÷åôáé (vendors knowingly misinforming buyers are liable
not only for the price of the article but for any resulting damage as well).
B.19.10.1; Synopsis Basilicorum, A. 10. 6, 9; Epanagoge, 39. 33; Epitome, 16. 11 n.
18; Ecloga ad Prochiron Mutata, 11. 14; Prochiron Auctum, 15. 45.
85 B. 60. 22. 6 scholium; B. 60. 51. 33; Synopsis Basilicorum, Ð. 24. 3, 5; Attaleiates,
Ponema, 35. 58 Synopsis Minor, Ð. 52; Ó. 26.
86 Leases were subject to the same rules as sales contracts. They were freely
negotiable, and rentals could be renegotiated at agreed upon intervals or at
the expiration of the lease. The law imposed no ceilings on rentals. A lease
could not be annulled on grounds that the agreed rental was less than the
going rate, unless deception could be proven. A tenant could not be evicted
against his will before the expiration of his lease even if someone offered a
higher rent. B. 20. 1. 2; Synopsis Basilicorum, M. 13. 12, 13, 28; Epanagoge, 24.
13; Epitome, 7. 1, 19, 26; Prochiron Auctum, 18. 19, 33; Hexabiblos, 3. 8. 1, 2, 20,
34; 6. 14. 12. Nonetheless, in connection with workshops leased to guild mem-
bers, the Book of the Eparch criminalized the acquisition of such properties, for
the most part in prime or desirable locations and hence in short supply, by
deceitfully bidding up the rent. BE, 4. 9; 9. 4; 10. 3; 11. 7; 13. 6; 19. 2 and the
blanket provision 18. 5 for the guilds not explicitly mentioned. Apparently,
the authorities were concerned that such stealthy practices could create an
unsettling business environment by unwarrantedly strengthening the bargain-
ing power of the landlords in the face of a highly inelastic supply of rental
properties, thereby forcing aggrieved tenants to accept unjustifiably excessive
rent increases or face eviction and loss of goodwill. The provision did not pro-
hibit rental adjustments reflecting changes in market conditions; rather, the
aim was to frustrate opportunistic behavior. Certainly, the action taken did not 199
George C. Maniatis
failed to do so.87 Sales concluded by coercion, intimidation,88 or fraud

were not condoned: ½ êáôN äüëïí ðñOóéò ïšê hññùôáé (fraudulent sales are
invalid).89 Finally, vendors had to make the buyer aware of latent defects.
Concealment of blemishes could result in cancellation of the deal, reduc-
tion of the price, or a fine (caveat venditor);90 however, the vendor was not
responsible for defects if they were obvious or were made known to the
buyer (sale as is).91
The law defined the courts of competent jurisdiction (lower, superi-
or or of special jurisdiction) for the adjudication of lawsuits lodged in the
capital and the provinces.92 In the provinces justice was dispensed by
provincial judges (èåìáôéêïr äéêáóôáß) assisted by deputies (÷áìáéäéêáóôáß)
in matters pertaining to discovery: depositions, production of docu-
ments, etc.93 Disputes arising from commercial transactions involving
guild members were adjudicated by the eparch, while those involving
unorganized manufacturers by the eparch in the capital, and by the lower
courts in the provinces whose verdicts could be appealed to the superior
court in the capital. A discontented litigant could ultimately appeal to
the emperor. A verdict by an unauthorized court (Pðñüóöïñïí
äéêáóôÞñéïí) was invalid.94 However, any authorized judge (ðñüóöïñïò
äéêáóôÞò) had jurisdiction over litigants consenting to submit their case
to him (óõíáéíïýíôùí êár ›ðïâáëëüíôùí eáõôïýò).95 Trials before any judge
involving financial or bad faith breach of contract had to be decided
within three years.96
The requisite legal framework certainly was there, but the dispen-
sation of justice in Byzantium, as revealed in cases involving sales of
land, ownership of real estate, boundaries of estates, bequests, and set-
tlement of dowries, had serious shortcomings: poorly trained and venal
mean to ban competition as MICKWITZ, Kartellfunktionen, 223, argues, or that

the eparch regulated the rent of the workshops, as KAZHDAN asserts, Tsekhi,
148, Derevnja, 321.
87 B. 54. 17.
88 B. 19. 10. 61, 65; B. 10. 2. 21; Synopsis Basilicorum, A. 12. 18; Epanagoge, 6.
5; Epanagoge Aucta, 5. 4; Epitome, 14. 30; 16. 29; Peira, 38. 51; Prochiron Auctum,
15. 21, 3; Hexabiblos, 1. 11. 2, 3, 11, 12, 13; 3. 3. 68.
89 B. 19. 10. 68, 73; Synopsis Basilicorum, A. 12. 1; Epanagoge Aucta, 49. 1;
Epitome, 16. 29, 48; Peira, 38. 54.
90 B. 19. 10. 1, 34; B. 19. 8. 13; Attaleiates, Ponema, 11. 3; Synopsis Basilicorum,
A. 10. 6; A. 12. 1; Prochiron Auctum, 15. 32; Ecloga ad Prochiron Mutata, 24. 38;
Synopsis Minor, Ð. 19; Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 57-58, 61.
91 B. 19. 10. 4; Peira, 38. 21; Ecloga Privata Aucta, 10. 3; Synopsis Minor, A. 92;
Hexabiblos, 3. 3. 65.
92 See n. 18 above.
93 B. 7. 1. 3; Peira, 15. 8; 51. 10; 66. 24.
94 B. 7. 3. 23, 2; Ecloga Basilicorum, 7. 6. 13.
95 B. 7. 5. 1, 2; Peira, 23. 4; 51. 29.
200 96 B. 7. 6. 13; Hexabiblos, 1. 4. 14.

judges,97 non-jurist judges,98 disregard of legal principles and rules,

inconsistent and opportunistic reasoning, êáôE ïkêïíïìßáí (as it suits the
circumstances) trials, divergent, contradictory, and even reversal of pre-
vious court decisions, tainted verdicts, guile and slyness of the advo-
cates, and protracted litigation processes tended to undermine the con-
fidence of the plaintiffs in the impartiality of the verdicts handed down.
This latitude in the dispensation of justice could be easily exploited by
influential litigants.99 Moreover, the high cost of litigation further lim-
ited court accessibility by aggrieved parties.100 The emperors appeared
to be committed to equity and justice, vowed to appoint qualified and
incorruptible judges, and repeatedly tried to rectify this morbid situa-
tion. But, despite their pronouncements, they were unable to secure the
integrity, impartiality and celerity of the judicial decision-making
process.101 Lacking a body of adjudged cases pertaining to business
transactions such as those referred to above it is not possible to pass judg-
ment on how effectively the law actually worked in practice and to what
97 Georgios Pachymeres, De Andronico Paleologo, 3, 16-17, 235-237; Nicetae
Choniatae Historiae, ed. I. A. Van Dieten, Berlin 1975, 334, 337; Nikeforos
Gregoras, Historiae byzantinae, ed. L. Schopen, Bonn 1829, 1, 437-438, 536-538;
Nikolaos Cabasilas, Lettre à Cydonès, in: R. J. Loenertz, Démétrius Cydonès,
Correspondance, Vatican 1956, No. 186, I, Epistula 1, 169; D. SIMON,
Rechtsfindung am byzantinischen Reichsgericht, Frankfurt 1973, Greek translation
by I. M. Konidaris: FÇ åœñåóç ôï™ äéêáßïõ óô’ Píþôáôï âõæáíôéí’ äéêáóôÞñéï,
Athens 1982, 11; D. K. PAPADATOU, FÇ ÓõìâéâáóôéêÞ EÅðßëõóç FÉäéùôéê§í Äéáöïñ§í
êáôÜ ôÞ ÌÝóç êáß GÕóôåñç ÂéæáíôéíÞ EÅðï÷Þ, Athens 1995, 2 and n. 6, 4, 5; S. N.
TROIANOS, Ïj ÐçãÝò ôï™ Âõæáíôéíï™ ÄéêÜïõ, Athens 1986, 157; idem, FÇ ÈÝóç ôï™
Íïìéêï™ / Äéêáóôy óôÞ ÂõæáíôéíÞ Êïéíùíßá, Athens 1993, 33, 36-41, 45-47;
OSTROGORSKY, History, 503; KAZHDAN – CONSTABLE, People and Power, 161.
98 In many instances, jurists were individuals with acquired skills and experi-
ence from exposure to law by having handled legal issues in their capacity as
office holders who dabbled as judges (íïìïôñéâïýìåíïé). So in effect judgeships
became an avocation. MAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 356-360.
Magistrates who presided over the courts were not fully familiar with the law,
nor were they expected to be. They had been appointed not because of the
knowledge of the law, but because of a dignity, loyalty to the emperor, or
because they were related to him. MACRIDES, The Competent Court, 120-121. Also,
because of their importance and lucrativeness, provincial judgeships went to
non-jurists. N. OIKONOMIDÈS, L’ évolution de l’ organization administrative de
l’Empire byzantin au XIe siècle (1025-1118), Travaux et Mémoires 6 (1976) 134.
99 Nicetae Choniatae Historiae, 204-205; TROIANOS, ÈÝóç, 9-11, 14-20, 26-36; D.
SIMON, Ðåñß ôyò EÁîßáò ôï™ Âõæáíôéíï™ Äéêáßïõ, FÅëëçíéêÞ Äéêáéïóýíç 30 (1989)
274-281; idem, Åœñåóç, 19-36; ANGOLD, The Byzantine Empire, 63-65; N.
OIKONOMIDES, The ‘Peira’ of Eustathios Romaios: an Abortive Attempt to Innovate
Byzantine Law (= Fontes Minores VII), Frankfurt 1986, 183-185, 190-192; idem,
Organisation, 133-135.
100 Novel 38 (126) of Andronicos II, in: JG 1, 562; Gregoras, Historiae, 1, 536-
538; SIMON, Åœñåóç, 10-11; TROIANOS, ÈÝóç, 33, 41-42, 45, 47; idem, ÐçãÝò, 134.
101 Novels 45 and 97 of Leo VI, in: JG 1, 115, 164; Novel 5 (1047) of
Constantine IX Monomachos, in: JG 1, 618-627; Novel 6 (947) of Constantine
VII Porphyrogennetos, in: JG 1, 215; Novel 66 (1166) of Manuel I Comnenos,
in: JG 1, 389-396; Novel 38 (1296) of Andronicos II Palaeologos, in: JG 1, 562;
Gregoras, Historiae, 1, 536-538. 201
George C. Maniatis
extent the business community had recourse to the conventional judicial

system and to the eparch’s bureau, the more so since there were paral-
lel avenues for the resolution of disputes whose validity was affirmed by
law: the voluntary institutions of arbitration and compromise.
In arbitration (compromissum), a neutral third party chosen by the dis-
puting parties (ájñåô’ò êñéôÞò, ákñåô’ò äéêáóôÞò, äéáãíþìùí) rendered a
binding decision after holding a hearing.102 In the case of compromise
(äéÜëõóéò, transactio),103 the litigants settled the dispute between them-
selves without referring it to arbitration, upon what appeared to the par-
ties to be equitable terms in the face of uncertainty regarding the facts of
the case, the law, or the outcome of a court decision.104 In this instance,
a controversy was terminated by mutual concessions: the parties backed
down from their original claim, an act that implied a sacrifice in the
sense that they gave up something of value in exchange for something
having a more pressing claim. Legally, a compromise was tantamount to
an irrevocable decision, and held only between those who took part in it
(EÉóïäõíáìås ô† PðïöÜóåé ½ äéÜëõóéò. ÐOóá äéÜëõóéò dðr ìüíïéò êñáôås ôïsò
óõíáñÝóáóéí).105 It is reasonable to expect that these vehicles were used
frequently by the business community in resolving disputes arising from
commercial deals, as they avoided the formalities and the vexation of
ordinary litigation, resulted in expeditious decisions, were less costly, and
inspired greater confidence since the dispensation of justice by the courts
was perceived as uneven.
Conclusion
This article set out to examine particular issues pertaining to the
guild-organized and unorganized manufacturing industry in Byzantium
during the first two centuries of the second millennium which heretofore
remained virtually unexplored. Contrary to common belief, the guilds
played a far less determining role in manufacturing in the capital (and
no role at all in the provinces), as their activities were statutorily restrict-
ed to a few designated sectors. A multitude of unorganized establish-
ments operated independently in numerous crafts outside the guild
organizational structure and the state’s direct control, as there were no
compelling reasons for their inclusion in the guild system and oversee-
ing their activities. The notion that all manufacturing workshops were
mandatorily organized into guilds, or that the same crafts which were
102 B. 7. 1. 14; B. 7. 2. 1, 7, 13, 17, 19-21, 27, 34; Hexabiblos, 1. 4. 47-66.

103 ÄéÜëõóßò dóôéí PìöéâáëëïìÝíïõ ðñÜãìáôïò [÷ñÝïõò] ôïìÞ [óõìâéâáóìüò] (com-
promise is the resolution of the ambiguity about a thing [or debt]. B. 11. 2. 1;
Epanagoge. 26. 1; Epanagoge Aucta, 45. 6; Prochiron Auctum, 21. 2; Ecloga Privata
Aucta, 16. 4; Hexabiblos, 1. 9. 2; 1. 10. 1, 2, 4, 5, 11-16.
104 B. 11. 2. 1, 9, 37; Hexabiblos, 1. 9. 2; 1. 10. 14; PAPADATOU, EÅðßëõóç, 11, 20-
21.
105 B. 11. 2. 9, 37; Synopsis Basilicorum, Ä. 27. 7; Epanagoge, 27. 3; Epitome, 11.
202 34; Epanagoge Aucta, 45. 2; Prochiron Auctum, 21. 25, 44, 47.
organized into guilds were also practiced concurrently outside the guild
system is not substantiated.
The guilds did not fix the number of members that could join. With
new entry virtually unimpeded, the size of the guild membership was
determined by market forces, providing a flexibility that fostered indus-
trial expansion, increased employment, promoted competition, and ben-
efited the consumer. Entry was further facilitated by the opportunity of
venturesome well-off individuals and nobles to use their slaves as surro-
gates to set up shops, a practice that has been gravely misconstrued and
unjustifiably discredited. The guilds did not prohibit the expansion of a
member’s workshop or set the number of workers he could employ as has
been argued. In terms of plant scale, even relatively “capital intensive”
industries likely occupied the upper end of what still might be called
small scale establishments. Contrary to prevailing belief, the chief of the
guild did not interfere with the enterprises’ decision-making process and
did not attempt to micromanage their activities.
The guilds’ occupational exclusivity did not secure a market monopoly,
as the guild system did not aim to promote the economic interests of the
members, thwart intra-guild and external competition, or achieve equal-
ity of economic results. The fact that certain craftsmen were statutorily
grouped under the guild superstructure did not mean that they wielded
market power, as these uninhibited members did not act on compulsion
or in compliance with internal rules and regulations. Guilds were not vol-
untary associations of enterprising individuals with a common order of
business; the practitioners of these particular crafts were obligated to
join state mandated guilds. Large membership, unimpeded entry, diffi-
culties in reaching unanimity on a course of action, fragility of collusive
agreements, strict enforcement of anti-monopoly statutory laws, and an
unsupportive administration were potent countervailing forces fostering
a pro-competitive attitude. Regulations of agoranomic nature in place
went a long way in ensuring correct business conduct and in maintaining
a level playing field by securing access of all guild members to market
opportunities.
The unorganized manufacturing industry comprised a wide range of
activities, largely of the artisanal type, and was carried on mainly in small
scale establishments of varying sizes and to a lesser extent in households.
Small scale operators employed simple equipment and techniques, used
little capital, and exhibited operating flexibility which enabled them to
meet variegated demand requirements, adjust to changing market con-
ditions, take advantage of emerging market opportunities, and weather
the vicissitudes of the market. The survival of the small scale enterprise,
and particularly of the numerous nano-enterprises, depended largely on
the owner’s resourcefulness and the hard work and long hours he and his
family put in. In both guild-organized and unorganized manufacturing,
inability to delegate operational and managerial functions, limited bor-
rowing capacity, lack of functional literacy and numeracy, risk aversion
above a certain threshold of enterprise size, complacency, and the 203
George C. Maniatis
magnified risk of capacity underutilization in the face of market uncer-

tainties hampered enterprise growth – albeit not sector growth. These
appear to have been more plausible reasons for the largely horizontal
increase of manufacturing establishments in response to growing de-
mand – multiplication of small scale workshops rather than the alleged
deliberate state policy to keep enterprise growth in check.
The concentration of manufacturing in urban centers and the
entrenched free trade policy tended to result in largely competitive mar-
ket structures. The state for its part refrained from fixing prices, profit
margins and wages – contrary to what has been argued. Moreover, to
ensure fairness and the unimpeded functioning of the market mecha-
nism, the state set and strictly enforced norms of business conduct and
enacted pro-competitive legislation. The authorities opted for a free –
but not unbridled – market economy. Yet, the regulatory regime did not
stifle private initiative or interfere with the decision-making process and
the strictly technico-economic dimensions of the firms’ operations,
thereby affording enterprising individuals ample room for independent
action. The government fully appreciated the enormity of the task of
having state officials set the prices for countless goods, substituting their
judgment for the market forces. Being pragmatic, the authorities dis-
counted the notion that public servants could judge better than the mar-
ket, and correctly sensed the impracticality of such a major undertaking
in a complex business environment. Clearly, the long-standing view of a
shackled economy is indefensible. In the main, the government favored
market-based economic policies and solutions coupled with judicious
regulation aimed to prevent abuse of power and unsavory practices that
resulted in profiteering. Once in place, constructive rules provided a
steady referent enabling entrepreneurs and contracting parties to make
rational decisions and conduct their affairs with a considerable degree of
certainty, as is attested by the growing industrial activity experienced
during the period under review. The enforceable legal concepts of arbi-
tration and compromise, by bypassing the glacial proceedings and
uncertainty of the judicial system, provided the business community with
alternative more expedient and expeditious vehicles for the resolution of
disputes arising from commercial transactions.
204
Äðĺâíĺéřčĺ ăðŕôôčňč Ńîôčéńęîăî
ńîáîðŕ â Ęčĺâĺ č ĺăî äŕňčðîâęŕ
Íŕäĺćäŕ Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ – Â˙÷ĺńëŕâ Â. ĘÎÐÍČĹÍĘÎ (Ęčĺâ)
Âűöŕðŕďŕííűĺ íŕ ńňĺíŕő ŕðőčňĺęňóðíűő ńîîðóćĺíčé íŕäďčńč č

ðčńóíęč (graffiti) ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň ńîáîé âŕćíűé čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé čńňî÷íčę,
ďîçâîë˙ţůčé ďðîëčňü ńâĺň íŕ ěíîăčĺ âîďðîńű, ńâ˙çŕííűĺ ń čńňîðčĺé č
ęóëüňóðîé Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâü˙. Âűäŕţůčěń˙ ôĺíîěĺíîě äðĺâíĺðóńńęîé
ęóëüňóðű ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ăðŕôôčňč ďŕě˙ňíčęŕ ďĺðâîé ďîëîâčíű Ő˛ â. – Ńîôčč
Ęčĺâńęîé, ńîńňŕâë˙ţůčĺ ęîëîńńŕëüíűé ęîðďóń ďîäëčííűő ýďčăðŕ-
ôč÷ĺńęčő ňĺęńňîâ. Ńîôčéńęčĺ ăðŕôôčňč, íŕ÷číŕ˙ ń 1920/30-ő ăă., čçó÷ŕëč
íĺńęîëüęî ďîęîëĺíčé ó÷ĺíűő. Îäíŕęî âîçěîćíîńňü řčðîęîăî č
ďëŕíîěĺðíîăî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ ăðŕôôčňč ďî˙âčëŕńü áëŕăîäŕð˙ ðŕńęðűňčţ
ôðĺńîę čç-ďîä ěŕńë˙íűő çŕďčńĺé â ďðîöĺńńĺ ðĺńňŕâðŕöčîííűő ðŕáîň
ęîíöŕ 1950-ő – ďĺðâîé ďîëîâčíű 1960-ő ăă. Áîëüřŕ˙ çŕńëóăŕ â čő
âű˙âëĺíčč č čńńëĺäîâŕíčč ďðčíŕäëĺćčň čçâĺńňíîěó óęðŕčíńęîěó
ó÷ĺíîěó Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘÎĚÓ, ďîńâ˙ňčâřĺěó ńîôčéńęčě ăðŕôôčňč
íĺńęîëüęî ěîíîăðŕôčé č ěíîćĺńňâî ďóáëčęŕöčé.
Íî îăðîěíîĺ ęîëč÷ĺńňâî íŕäďčńĺé îńňŕëčńü íĺ âű˙âëĺííűěč, ŕ
ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî – íĺ čçó÷ĺííűěč. Ę ňîěó ćĺ ěíîăčĺ ðŕíĺĺ îáíŕðóćĺííűĺ
íŕäďčńč ńĺăîäí˙ ěîăóň áűňü ďî-íîâîěó ďðî÷čňŕíű č ďĺðĺîńěűńëĺíű, ÷ňî
ńî âńĺé î÷ĺâčäíîńňüţ ďîęŕçŕëč íîâĺéřčĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ ńîôčéńęčő
ăðŕôôčňč, ďðîâîä˙ůčĺń˙ ęŕę ó÷ĺíűěč äŕëĺęîăî č áëčćíĺăî çŕðóáĺćü˙,
ňŕę č ŕâňîðŕěč äŕííîé ńňŕňüč – ńîňðóäíčęŕěč Íŕöčîíŕëüíîăî çŕďî-
âĺäíčęŕ «Ńîôč˙ Ęčĺâńęŕ˙». Ĺńëč íŕřč çŕðóáĺćíűĺ ęîëëĺăč ďîëüçóţňń˙
ôîňîăðŕôč˙ěč č ďðîðčń˙ěč ăðŕôôčňč, îďóáëčęîâŕííűěč ĺůĺ Ń. Ŕ.
ÂŰŃÎÖĘČĚ, ěű ďîńňŕâčëč ńâîĺé çŕäŕ÷ĺé ńîáńňâĺííîĺ íŕňóðíîĺ
čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ăðŕôôčňč, â ňîě ÷čńëĺ – ðŕíĺĺ âű˙âëĺííűő č îďóáëč-
ęîâŕííűő. Â íŕńňî˙ůĺĺ âðĺě˙ â Íŕöčîíŕëüíîě çŕďîâĺäíčęĺ «Ńîôč˙
Ęčĺâńęŕ˙» ďðîâîäčňń˙ ďëŕíîěĺðíŕ˙ ðŕáîňŕ ďî ęîěďëĺęńíîěó čçó÷ĺíčţ
ýďčăðŕôčęč ńîáîðŕ č ńîńňŕâëĺíčţ ďîëíîăî ęîðďóńŕ ńîôčéńęčő íŕäďčńĺé.
Ýňî óćĺ ďðčíĺńëî ńâîč ðĺçóëüňŕňű: â 2006 ă. íŕěč âű˙âëĺíű
ńĺíńŕöčîííűĺ, áĺç ďðĺóâĺëč÷ĺíč˙, íŕäďčńč, ďðîëčâŕţůčĺ ˙ðęčé ńâĺň íŕ
äčńęóńńčîííóţ ďðîáëĺěó äŕňčðîâęč Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé.
Ńîăëŕńíî ëĺňîďčńíűě čńňî÷íčęŕě, őðŕě áűë îńíîâŕí â 1017 ă.
(Íîâăîðîäńęŕ˙ ˛ ëĺňîďčńü)1 čëč â 1037 ă. (Ďîâĺńňü âðĺěĺííűő ëĺň).2
Ęŕćäŕ˙ čç äŕň čěĺĺň ńâîčő ěíîăî÷čńëĺííűő ďðčâĺðćĺíöĺâ č îďďîíĺíňîâ.
Â íŕóęĺ ńóůĺńňâóĺň ĺůĺ îäíŕ ňî÷ęŕ çðĺíč˙ – Í. Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ, ńîăëŕńíî
1 Ďîëíîĺ ńîáðŕíčĺ ðóńńęčő ëĺňîďčńĺé (äŕëĺĺ – ĎŃÐË). Ň.3: Íîâăîðîäńęŕ˙
ďĺðâŕ˙ ëĺňîďčńü ńňŕðřĺăî č ěëŕäřĺăî čçâîäîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 2000, 15; 180.
2 ĎŃÐË. Ň. 1: Ëŕâðĺíňüĺâńęŕ˙ ëĺňîďčńü, Ěîńęâŕ 1997, ńňëá. 151; ĎŃÐË. Ň. 2:
Čďŕňüĺâńęŕ˙ ëĺňîďčńü, Ěîńęâŕ 1998, ńňëá. 19. 205
Íŕäĺćäŕ Í. Íčęčňĺíęî – Â˙÷ĺńëŕâ Â. Ęîðíčĺíęî
ęîňîðîé îáĺ ëĺňîďčńíűĺ çŕďčńč íĺ îňðŕćŕţň äĺéńňâčňĺëüíîăî ôŕęňŕ

îńíîâŕíč˙ Ńîôčč čěĺííî â óęŕçŕííűĺ ëĺňîďčń˙ěč ăîäű; ýňč ˙âíî
ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čâűĺ çŕďčńč ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ňĺíäĺíöčîçíűěč, č ń íčěč íĺëüç˙
ńâ˙çűâŕňü íč îńíîâŕíčĺ Ńîôčč, íč çŕâĺðřĺíčĺ ĺĺ ńňðîčňĺëüńňâŕ.3
Ďðîâĺä˙ ęîěďëĺęńíîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ďčńüěĺííűő čńňî÷íčęîâ, ŕðőč-
ňĺęňóðű, ěîíóěĺíňŕëüíîé ćčâîďčńč č íĺęðîďîë˙ Ńîôčéńęîăî ńîáîðŕ, Í.
Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ ďðčřëŕ ę âűâîäó, ÷ňî ńîáîð áűë ńîçäŕí â ęîíöĺ ďðŕâëĺíč˙
Âëŕäčěčðŕ – â íŕ÷ŕëĺ ęí˙ćĺíč˙ ßðîńëŕâŕ. Ďðč îďðĺäĺëĺíčč îáðŕçîâ
ńâ˙ňűő äë˙ ďîíčěŕíč˙ čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé ďðîăðŕěěű čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíčöŕ
ďðčâëĺęŕëŕ ęŕę îáíŕðóćĺííűĺ äî íĺĺ ăðŕôôčňč íŕ ôðĺńęŕő, ňŕę č ðŕíĺĺ
íĺčçâĺńňíűĺ.4 Ăðŕôôčňč áűëč ĺţ ďðčâëĺ÷ĺíű č ďî-íîâîěó îńěűńëĺíű
ňŕęćĺ ďðč čńńëĺäîâŕíčč ńîôčéńęîăî íĺęðîďîë˙.5
Ăðŕôôčňč Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé ˙âë˙ţňń˙ âŕćíĺéřčě ŕðăóěĺíňîě č äë˙
ðĺřĺíč˙ ďðîáëĺěű ĺĺ äŕňčðîâęč. Ýňî îáóńëîâëĺíî ňĺě, ÷ňî îíč íĺďî-
ńðĺäńňâĺííî ńâ˙çŕíű ń ěĺńňîě, ďðĺäěĺňîě č âðĺěĺíĺě íŕďčńŕíč˙, ń
ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęîé č čńňîðčęî-ęóëüňóðíîé ńðĺäîé.6 Îďčðŕ˙ńü íŕ ăðŕôôčňč
ęŕę íŕ äîńňîâĺðíűé čńňîðč÷ĺńęčé čńňî÷íčę, â ďîëüçó äŕňčðîâęč
îńíîâŕíč˙ ńîáîðŕ 1017 ă. âűńęŕçűâŕëń˙ Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ.7 Ăëŕâíűě ń ýňîé
ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ áűëî ăðŕôôčňč ą 2, ęîňîðîĺ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëü ÷čňŕë ęŕę äŕňó
1031/1032 ă. Äŕňčðîâęó Ń. ÂŰŃÎÖĘÎĂÎ ń ďðčâëĺ÷ĺíčĺě óęŕçŕííîăî
ăðŕôôčňč ďîääĺðćŕëč Ď. Ď. ŇÎËÎ÷ĘÎ,8 íĺńęîëüęî ďĺðĺčíŕ÷čâ ÷ňĺíčĺ –
Â. ÎÐĹË č Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘ.9
Â âîçěîćíîńňč ďî˙âëĺíč˙ ăðŕôôčňč â 1032 ă. óńîěíčëń˙ Ŕ. Â.
ĎÎĎĎÝ, ń÷čňŕţůčé ýňó äŕňó ðĺňðîńďĺęňčâíîé;10 ŕðăóěĺíňű Ŕ. Â. ĎÎĎĎÝ
ďîääĺðćŕë Ţ. Ń. ŔŃĹĹÂ.11 Îäíŕęî â Ńîôčč íĺ âńňðĺ÷ĺíî ðĺňðîńďĺę-
ňčâíűő äŕňčðîâŕííűő íŕäďčńĺé, ÷ňî îáú˙ńí˙ĺňń˙ ńďĺöčôčęîé ńðĺäíĺâĺ-
ęîâîăî ěčðîâîççðĺíč˙: çŕďčńč íŕ ńňĺíŕő őðŕěŕ ďðčçâŕíű áűëč «ââĺńňč â
âĺ÷íîńňü» (ńŕęðŕëčçîâŕňü) ŕęňóŕëüíîĺ ńîáűňčĺ, ŕ íĺ íŕďîěíčňü î ňîě,
÷ňî áűëî. Äŕňčðîâŕííűĺ íŕäďčńč-ăðŕôôčňč ńðîäíč ëĺňîďčńíűě çŕďčń˙ě
î ęŕęčő-ňî ńîáűňč˙ő, íŕ÷číŕţůčěń˙ ńëîâŕěč «Â ëĺňî…»
Âű˙âëĺíčţ, ďðî÷ňĺíčţ č, áĺçóńëîâíî, číňĺðďðĺňŕöčč ăðŕôôčňč â
çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîé ńňĺďĺíč ńďîńîáńňâóĺň ďðčí˙ňŕ˙ íŕěč ěĺňîäčęŕ íĺ
âűáîðî÷íîăî, ŕ ńďëîříîăî ęîěďëĺęńíîăî ďðî÷ňĺíč˙ íŕäďčńĺé, ňî ĺńňü
3 Í. Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ, Ðóńü č Âčçŕíňč˙ â ěîíóěĺíňŕëüíîě ęîěďëĺęńĺ Ńîôčč
Ęčĺâńęîé: Čńňîðč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ďðîáëĺěŕňčęŕ, Ęčĺâ 1999, 200-224.
4 Ňŕě ćĺ, 161-184, 224-240.
5 Í. Í. ÍłĘłŇĹÍĘÎ, Ńâ˙ňŕ Ńîôł˙ Ęčżâńüęŕ: łńňîðł˙ â ěčńňĺöňâł, Ęčżâ 2003, 134-164.
6 Ň. Â. ÐÎĆÄĹŃŇÂĹÍŃĘŔß, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ íŕäďčńč íŕ ńňĺíŕő őðŕěîâ: íîâűĺ
čńňî÷íčęč Ő˛-XV ââ., Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 1992, 5.
7 Ń. Î. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Ăðŕôôłňł ňŕ ńďîðóäćĺíí˙ Ńîôłż Ęčżâńüęîż, Óęðŕżíńüęčé
łńňîðč÷íčé ćóðíŕë (1966) ą 8; Ń. Î. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Ăðŕôłňł ňŕ ÷ŕń ďîáóäîâč
Ńîôłéńüęîăî ńîáîðó â Ęčşâł, â: Ńňŕðîäŕâíłé Ęčżâ, Ęčżâ 1975.
8 Ď. Ď. ŇÎËÎ÷ĘÎ, Äðĺâíčé Ęčĺâ, Ęčĺâ 1983, 78.
9 Â. ÎÐĹË – Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘ, Çŕěĺňęč î äðĺâíčő ęčĺâńęčő ăðŕôôčňč, Ŕðőĺîëîăł˙
(1995) ą 1, 125.
10 Ŕ. ĎÎĎĎÝ, Ăðŕôłňł é äŕňŕ ńďîðóäćĺíí˙ Ńîôłż Ęčżâńüęîż, Óęðŕżíńüęčé
łńňîðč÷íčé ćóðíŕë (1968) ą 9.
206 11 Ţ. Ń. ŔŃĹĹÂ, Ďðî äŕňó áóäłâíčöňâŕ ęčżâńüęîż Ńîôłż, Ŕðőĺîëîăł˙ (1979) ą 32.
Äðĺâíĺéřčĺ ăðŕôôčňč Ńîôčéńęîăî ńîáîðŕ â Ęčĺâĺ č ĺăî äŕňčðîâęŕ
âîńďðč˙ňčĺ čő íĺîňúĺěëĺěűěč ęîěďîíĺíňŕěč îęðóćŕţůĺăî ýďčăðŕ-

ôč÷ĺńęîăî ěŕňĺðčŕëŕ, â ęîíňĺęńňĺ ôóíęöčîíŕëüíîăî íŕçíŕ÷ĺíč˙ ďîěĺ-
ůĺíč˙, ăäĺ îíč âîçíčęëč, ŕ ňŕęćĺ ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîăî öĺðęîâíî-ňĺîëîăč-
÷ĺńęîăî č ńčěâîëč÷ĺńęîăî ňîëęîâŕíč˙ îáðŕçíűő ŕðőčňĺęňóðíî-őóäî-
ćĺńňâĺííűő ôîðě, ń ęîňîðűěč ýňč íŕäďčńč ńâ˙çŕíű â ňîďîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîě č
ńěűńëîâîě ŕńďĺęňŕő. Čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ ăðŕôôčňč â ňĺőíč÷ĺńęîě ŕńďĺęňĺ
ďðîâîäčňń˙ íŕěč ďî ńňŕíäŕðňíîé ěĺňîäčęĺ: ôîňîăðŕôčðîâŕíčĺ íŕäďčńĺé
ďðč áîęîâîě ńęîëüç˙ůĺě îńâĺůĺíčč č ďðîðčńîâęŕ čő ęîíňóðîâ ďî
ďîëó÷ĺííűě ôîňîăðŕôč˙ě ďðč čçó÷ĺíčč îðčăčíŕëŕ íŕäďčńč čëč ðčńóíęŕ.
Ýňîň ěĺňîä íŕěíîăî ýôôĺęňčâíĺĺ, ÷ĺě ńí˙ňčĺ ęŕëüęč. Â ďðîöĺńńĺ
čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ íŕěč âű˙âëĺíű íĺńęîëüęî ðŕííčő çŕďčńĺé, ńîäĺðćŕůčő
ďð˙ěűĺ äŕňű, ęîňîðűĺ âďčńűâŕţňń˙ â îňðĺçîę âðĺěĺíč 1011-1037 ăă. –
ńóůĺńňâóţůčĺ â ńîâðĺěĺííîé íŕóęĺ ęðŕéíčĺ őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ ðŕěęč,
ěŕðęčðóţůčĺ âðĺě˙ îńíîâŕíč˙ Ńîôčč. Âî âðĺě˙ ďîäăîňîâęč ę čçäŕíčţ
äŕííîé ńňŕňüč â Ńîôčéńęîě ńîáîðĺ íŕěč áűëč îáíŕðóćĺíű ĺůĺ ňðč
ðŕííčő äŕňčðîâŕííűő íŕäďčńč. Ďĺðâŕ˙ čç íčő (ą 1684), íŕőîäčňń˙ â
ăëŕâíîě ŕëňŕðĺ őðŕěŕ. Îň íĺĺ ńîőðŕíčëčńü ďĺðâűĺ ňðč öčôðű xfk, ŕ
áóęâŕ, îáîçíŕ÷ŕţůŕ˙ ĺäčíčöű, óíč÷ňîćĺíŕ âűáîčíîé. Âĺðőíĺé
âîçěîćíîé őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęîé ÷ĺðňîé ďî˙âëĺíč˙ íŕäďčńč, ĺńëč ďîäńňŕâčě
ěŕęńčěŕëüíîĺ ęîëč÷ĺńňâî ĺäčíčö q (= 9), ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ 6529 (1021) ă.
Ďîńęîëüęó çŕďčńü âűďîëíĺíŕ ďî ńóőîé řňóęŕňóðęĺ, íčćíĺé âîçěîćíîé
őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęîé ÷ĺðňîé âűďîëíĺíč˙ ăðŕôôčňč ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ 6526 (1018) ă.,
ň.ĺ., âðĺě˙ îńâ˙ůĺíč˙ ďðĺńňîëŕ.12 Âňîðŕ˙ íŕäďčńü (ą 2126) îáíŕðóćĺíŕ â
ďðčäĺëĺ ńâ. Čîŕęčěŕ č Ŕííű íŕ ôðĺńęĺ ń îáðŕçîě ńâ. Ńŕââű, ĺĺ
ńîőðŕííîńňü äîńňŕňî÷íî őîðîřŕ˙, ńîńňŕâë˙ţůčĺ ÷ĺňęî ÷čňŕţňń˙:
xefelexe. Ęŕę âčäčě, ŕâňîð ďîń÷čňŕë íĺîáőîäčěűě óęŕçŕňü îęîí÷ŕíčĺ
ęŕćäîăî ÷čńëčňĺëüíîăî: {Â ëĺňî} řĺńňčňűń˙÷íîĺ ď˙ňčńîňîĺ ňðčäöŕňîĺ
řĺńňîĺ, ň.ĺ., 6536 (1028) ă. Íŕäďčńü íĺ îďóáëčęîâŕíŕ. Ňðĺňüĺ ăðŕôôčňč ń
äŕňîé (ą 2035) îáíŕðóćĺíî â öĺíňðŕëüíîě íĺôĺ őðŕěŕ íŕ ôðĺńęĺ ń
îáðŕçîě ńâ. ě÷. Âŕðëŕěŕ. Íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ ďîâðĺćäĺíč˙ äðĺâíĺé řňóęŕňóðęč,
ňóň ÷čňŕĺňń˙ äŕňŕ xfma, ň.ĺ. 6541 (1033) ă.13 Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, íŕ
ńĺăîäí˙říčé äĺíü â Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé îáíŕðóćĺíű ńĺěü äðĺâíĺéřčő
äŕňčðîâŕííűő íŕäďčńĺé: 1018/1021, 1022, 1028, 1033 (ňðč íŕäďčńč), 1036 ă.
Â ôĺâðŕëĺ 2010 ă. â öĺíňðŕëüíîě íĺôĺ Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé íŕ ôðĺńęĺ ń
îáðŕçîě ńâ. Ďŕíňĺëĺéěîíŕ îáíŕðóćĺíŕ íŕäďčńü ń óęŕçŕíčĺě äŕňű 1019 ă.
Ýňč ôŕęňű óęŕçűâŕţň, ÷ňî â 20-30-ĺ ăă. Ő˛ â. ńîáîð Ńâ˙ňîé Ńîôčč áűë
óćĺ ďîëíîńňüţ ðŕńďčńŕí č ôóíęöčîíčðîâŕë. Íŕěč ďðčí˙ňŕ ńďëîříŕ˙
íóěĺðŕöč˙, ďðîäîëćŕţůŕ˙ íóěĺðŕöčţ Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘÎĂÎ, – íîâîîáíŕ-
ðóćĺííűĺ ăðŕôôčňč ďîëó÷ŕţň íîěĺð, íŕ÷číŕ˙ ń 417-ăî. Âńĺ ôîňîăðŕôčč,
ďðîðčńîâęč č ÷ňĺíč˙ íŕäďčńĺé ďóáëčęóţňń˙ âďĺðâűĺ.
12 Â. Â. ĘÎÐÍ˛ŞÍĘÎ, Íŕéäŕâíłřĺ äŕňîâŕíĺ ęčðčëč÷íĺ ăðŕôłňł Ńîôłż Ęčżâńüęîż:
íîâŕ çíŕőłäęŕ, â: Ďŕě’˙ňęč Íŕöłîíŕëüíîăî çŕďîâłäíčęŕ “Ńîôł˙ Ęčżâńüęŕ”:
ęóëüňóðíčé äłŕëîă ďîęîëłíü. Ěŕňĺðłŕëč ˛V ěłćíŕðîäíîż íŕóęîâîż ęîíôĺðĺíöłż
“Ńîôłéńüęł ÷čňŕíí˙”. Ęčżâ, 25-26 ćîâňí˙ 2007 ð., Ęčżâ 2009.
13 Í. Ě. ÍłĘłŇĹÍĘÎ – Â. Â. ĘÎÐÍ˛ŞÍĘÎ, Ĺńőŕňîëîăł÷íł äŕňč â ăðŕôłňł Ńîôłż
Ęčżâńüęîż íŕ ôðĺńęŕő Ńîôłż Ęčżâńüęîż ˙ę łńňîðč÷íĺ äćĺðĺëî, Ŕðőłâč Óęðŕżíč 5-6
(262) (2009) 51-52, łë. íŕ ń. 56. 207
ą 1 (ðčń. 1). Ýňî äðĺâíĺéřĺĺ ăðŕôôčňč, ńîäĺðćŕůĺĺ ďð˙ěóţ äŕňó,

íŕőîäčňń˙ íŕ ţćíîé ńňĺíĺ ńĺâĺðíîăî Ăĺîðăčĺâńęîăî ŕëňŕð˙, ęîňîðűé
ďðčěűęŕĺň ę ćĺðňâĺííčęó. Íŕäďčńü âűöŕðŕďŕíŕ íŕ ôðĺńęĺ ń
čçîáðŕćĺíčĺě ńâ. Âŕńčëč˙ Âĺëčęîăî, íŕ óðîâíĺ ăðóäč ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ ńðĺäíĺăî
ðîńňŕ. Ďîęŕçŕňĺëüíî, ÷ňî äðĺâíĺéřĺĺ äŕňčðîâŕííîĺ ăðŕôôčňč Ńâ˙ňîé
Ńîôčč ďðč ďóáëčęŕöčč ďîëó÷čëî ďĺðâűé íîěĺð, őîň˙ ďðč ÷ňĺíčč íŕäďčńč
Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ äîďóńňčë çíŕ÷čňĺëüíűĺ îřčáęč, ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî â ňîě, ÷ňî
äŕňčðîâŕë ĺĺ 1042 ă.14 Â. ÎÐĹË č Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘ, ďðĺäëîćčâřčĺ, âíĺ ńîěíĺíč˙,
áîëĺĺ ęîððĺęňíîĺ ÷ňĺíčĺ ăðŕôôčňč, ńďðŕâĺäëčâî óęŕçŕëč íŕ ŕáńîëţňíî
íĺâîçěîćíîĺ ń ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ ďŕëĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő íîðě čńňîëęîâŕíčĺ
ÂŰŃÎÖĘČĚ äŕňű. Îíč ďðĺäëîćčëč äŕňčðîâŕňü íŕäďčńü 6530 (1022) ă. čëč,
ďðĺäďî÷ňčňĺëüíĺĺ, 6540 (1032) ă., őîň˙ ŕðăóěĺíňîâ â ďîëüçó ďðĺäďî÷ňĺíč˙
áîëĺĺ ďîçäíĺé äŕňčðîâęč íĺ ďðčâĺëč. Číňĺðĺńíî, ÷ňî ďðč ýňîě
čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč óęŕçŕëč íŕ âďîëíĺ ÷ĺňęîĺ ďðî÷ňĺíčĺ â ăðŕôôčňč äŕňű 6530
ă.15 Ěîćíî ďîëŕăŕňü, ÷ňî íŕ âűâîäŕő ýňčő ŕâňîðîâ, óâĺðĺííűő â ňîě, ÷ňî
Ńîôč˙ îńíîâŕíŕ â 1017 ă., ńęŕçŕëŕńü ŕâňîðčňĺňíîńňü ëĺňîďčńč, ńâ˙-
çűâŕţůĺé ńîçäŕíčĺ Ńîôčč ń čěĺíĺě ßðîńëŕâŕ; 1022 ă. ęŕę âĺðőíčé
âîçěîćíűé âðĺěĺííîé ðóáĺć çŕâĺðřĺíč˙ ďîńňðîéęč č ðîńďčńč ńîáîðŕ,
âčäčěî, ďîęŕçŕëń˙ čě î÷ĺíü ðŕííčě, íĺ «âďčńűâŕţůčě» ńîçäŕíčĺ Ńîôčč
â őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęčé ęîíňĺęńň ęí˙ćĺíč˙ ßðîńëŕâŕ. Ńňîčň ňŕęćĺ îňěĺňčňü,
÷ňî ăðŕôôčňč ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕëîńü čěč íĺ â îðčăčíŕëĺ, ŕ ďî ôîňîăðŕôč˙ě č
ďðîðčńîâęĺ Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘÎĂÎ. Â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ ńěűńë íŕäďčńč ďî-ďðĺćíĺěó
îńňŕëń˙ ěŕëî ďîí˙ňíűě, ŕ ďðč čńďðŕâëĺíčč íĺęîňîðűő îřčáîę áűëč
äîďóůĺíű íîâűĺ.
Âî âðĺě˙ ďëŕíîěĺðíűő ðŕáîň ďî čçó÷ĺíčţ ăðŕôôčňč, ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî
–íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî â ńîáîðĺ, íŕě óäŕëîńü ďîëíîńňüţ ďðî÷čňŕňü ňĺęńň
íŕäďčńč. Ęŕę ńďðŕâĺäëčâî çŕěĺňčëč Â. ÎÐĹË č Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘ, ăðŕôôčňč
ńîńňîčň čç äâóő ńňðîę č âęëţ÷ŕĺň äâĺ íŕäďčńč, ŕ íĺ îäíó.
Âĺðőí˙˙ ńňðîęŕ îńíîâíîé íŕäďčńč:
x16f17l18 op19as20ñ21
14 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ íŕäďčńč Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé. Ő˛-XIV ââ.
Âűďóńę ˛, Ęčĺâ 1966, 15-16, ňŕáë. ˛, 1; ˛˛, 1.
15 Â. ÎÐĹË – Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘ, Çŕěĺňęč.., 124-125.
16 Áóęâŕ x â äâŕ ðŕçŕ âűřĺ ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń îńňŕëüíűěč, íŕä íĺé ďðî÷ĺð÷ĺíî
ňčňëî â âčäĺ ăîðčçîíňŕëüíîé ÷ĺðňű.
17 Áóęâŕ f ďî ðŕçěĺðŕě ðŕâíŕ x, ňčňëî íŕä íĺé íĺ ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙.
18 Ń. Ŕ. Âűńîöęčé ÷čňŕë ĺĺ ęŕę l č, ďðčáŕâčâ ę íĺé äâĺ áóęâű âĺðőíĺé ńňðîęč,
ďî ĺăî ěíĺíčţ o č e, ďîëó÷čë îęîí÷ŕíčĺ loe, ŕ çŕňĺě ďðčńîĺäčíčë ĺăî ę
÷čńëčňĺëţ xf (6500). Â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ îí ďîëó÷čë, ęŕę ðĺçîííî îňěĺňčëč Â. Îðĺë č
Ŕ. Ęóëčę, íĺâĺðî˙ňíóţ ń ëčíăâčńňč÷ĺńęîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ ôîðěó „ď˙ňčńîňëîĺ”
ëčáî „ď˙ňčńîňîĺ”. ×ňîáű ďîëó÷čňü äŕňó 6550 (1042) ă., Ń. Ŕ. Âűńîöęčé
ďîńëĺäíţţ áóęâó ďĺðâîé ńňðîęč (ĺĺ íŕ÷ŕëî áűëî íĺďðŕâčëüíî ďðî÷čňŕíî čě ęŕę
„v7 l5to”) i îďðĺäĺëčë ęŕę n (50), ęîňîðŕ˙ áűëŕ ďîńňŕâëĺíŕ čě ďĺðĺä
÷čńëčňĺëĺě xf (6500) ń íĺâîçěîćíűě íŕďčńŕíčĺě äĺń˙ňęîâ ďĺðĺä ňűń˙÷ĺé, ÷ňî
ńďðŕâĺäëčâî ęðčňčęîâŕëč Â. Îðĺë č Ŕ. Ęóëčę. Ńŕěč îíč ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕëč ýňó áóęâó
ęŕę l čëč, ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, m, î ÷ĺě, ďî čő ěíĺíčţ, ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň «íĺáîëüřîé ńëĺä
íŕä ëĺâűě íŕęëîííűě ýëĺěĺíňîě». Íŕ ńŕěîě äĺëĺ ýňó áóęâó ŕáńîëţňíî
íĺâîçěîćíî ďðčí˙ňü çŕ m, ďîńęîëüęó íčęŕęîăî ńëĺäŕ íĺîáőîäčěîăî äë˙ áóęâű m
208 «ýëĺěĺíňŕ» íŕ ńňĺíĺ íĺ ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙, çŕňî ÷ĺňęî ÷čňŕĺňń˙ l, ëĺâŕ˙ ęîńŕ˙
Íčćí˙˙ ńňðîęŕ îńíîâíîé íŕäďčńč:

z–22atoi23 24gi25di26---27os28t29i30
ęîňîðîé ńďóńęŕĺňń˙ ńî çíŕ÷čňĺëüíűě óęëîíîě č ďĺðĺńĺęŕĺň áóęâó f; íŕä l

ďðî÷ĺð÷ĺíî ňčňëî â âčäĺ ăîðčçîíňŕëüíîé ÷ĺðňű, ęîňîðîĺ ńîĺäčí˙ĺňń˙ ń ĺĺ
âĺðőíĺé ÷ŕńňüţ. Íĺîáőîäčěî îňěĺňčňü ĺůĺ îäíó, äîďóůĺííóţ Â. Îðëîě č Ŕ.
Ęóëčęîě íĺňî÷íîńňü: â ňðŕíńëčňĺðŕöčč ňĺęńňŕ áóęâű âĺðőíĺé ńňðîęč, ęîňîðűĺ Ń.
Âűńîöęčé ÷čňŕë ęŕę „loe”, áűëč çŕěĺíĺíű čńńëĺäîâŕňĺë˙ěč íŕ „poq”; îäíŕęî
íčęŕęčő ńëĺäîâ áóęâű p íĺ çŕěĺňíî íč íŕ ńňĺíĺ, íč íŕ ôîňîăðŕôčč Ń. Ŕ.
Âűńîöęîăî, ęîňîðîé ďîëüçîâŕëčńü čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč.
19 Áóęâŕ p ÷ŕńňč÷íî ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ â íčćíĺé ÷ŕńňč, îäíŕęî ÷ĺňęî
ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙; Ń. Âűńîöęčé ÷čňŕë ĺĺ ęŕę e, Â. Îðĺë č Ŕ. Ęóëčę – ęŕę q,
ďðčíŕäëĺćŕůóţ äðóăîé çŕďčńč. Îńňŕëüíűĺ áóęâű áűëč ďðîďóůĺíű čńńëĺäîâŕ-
ňĺë˙ěč.
20 Áóęâŕ çíŕ÷čňĺëüíî ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ, ÷ňî äĺëŕĺň ĺĺ ďîőîćĺé íŕ ęčðčëëč÷íóţ o
ëčáî ăðĺ÷ĺńęóţ ä. Áóęâŕ âîńńňŕíŕâëčâŕĺňń˙ íŕěč ďî ęîíňĺęńňó ęŕę s.
21 Áóęâŕ íĺ ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ čç-çŕ ďîâðĺćäĺíčé řňóęŕňóðęč, ńîőðŕíčëŕńü ëčřü
âĺðňčęŕëüíŕ˙ ÷ĺðňŕ č ďðčěűęŕţůčé ę ĺĺ ńĺðĺäčíĺ ôðŕăěĺíň ăîðčçîíňŕëüíîé.
Ďîâðĺćäĺííŕ˙ áóęâŕ ěîćĺň ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňüń˙ ęŕę c, i čëč 5. Ďî ęîíňĺęńňó
íŕčáîëĺĺ ďðčĺěëĺěîé áóäĺň ĺĺ ðĺęîíńňðóęöč˙ ęŕę áóęâű c. Ńëĺäóţůŕ˙ áóęâŕ íĺ
ńîőðŕíčëŕńü, ĺĺ ńëĺäîâ ďðîńëĺäčňü íĺ óäŕĺňń˙. Ďî ęîíňĺęńňó îíŕ ěîćĺň áűňü
âîńńňŕíîâëĺíŕ ęŕę 5.
22 Áóęâŕ óíč÷ňîćĺíŕ âűáîčíîé, ďî ęîíňĺęńňó č ęîíňóðŕě îíŕ îďðĺäĺë˙ĺňń˙ ęŕę l.
23 Ńëîâî zlatoi Ń. Âűńîöęčé ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕë ęŕę íŕäďčńü v7 lto n, Â. Îðĺë č Ŕ.
Ęóëčę ďðŕâčëüíî îďðĺäĺëčëč ĺăî ęŕę zlatoi.
24 Ńðĺäíţţ ÷ŕńňü ńňðîęč çŕíčěŕţň áóęâű xf, ðŕńńěîňðĺííűĺ âűřĺ.
25 Íŕä áóęâŕěč gi íŕőîäčňń˙ ňčňëî â âčäĺ ăîðčçîíňŕëüíîé ÷ĺðňű.
26 Ňčňëî íŕä áóęâŕěč di íĺ ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙. Ďîâðĺćäĺííŕ˙ âĺðőí˙˙ ÷ŕńňü
áóęâű i ďîçâîë˙ĺň äîďóńňčňü, ÷ňî ňčňëî, ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, íĺ ńîőðŕíčëîńü. Őîň˙ íĺ
čńęëţ÷ĺíŕ âîçěîćíîńňü ňîăî, ÷ňî ńîęðŕůĺííîĺ ńëîâî áűëî íŕďčńŕíî č áĺç ňčňëŕ,
ňŕę ęŕę ňŕęčĺ âŕðčŕíňű íŕďčńŕíč˙ íĺîäíîęðŕňíî âńňðĺ÷ŕţňń˙ ńðĺäč ăðŕôôčňč
ńîáîðŕ. Ńëĺäóţůčĺ áóęâű áűëč ďðîďóůĺíű čńńëĺäîâŕňĺë˙ěč.
27 Áóęâű íĺ ďðîńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙; ďî ęîíňĺęńňó ěîăóň áűňü âîńńňŕíîâëĺíű ęŕę pr.
28 Áóęâŕ s ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ âűáîčíîé â íčćíĺé ÷ŕńňč.
29 Áóęâŕ t ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ âűáîčíŕěč č öŕðŕďčíŕěč. Őîðîřî çŕěĺňíŕ
ďŕðŕëëĺëüíŕ˙ ěŕ÷ňĺ âĺðňčęŕëüíŕ˙ ÷ĺðňŕ ńëĺâŕ, íŕďîěčíŕţůŕ˙ ńëčřęîě
äëčííóţ çŕńĺ÷ęó. Ďîäîáíűé řňðčő, óőîä˙ůčé â âűáîčíó, çŕěĺňĺí č ńďðŕâŕ.
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ôîðěŕ áóęâű ěîćĺň áűňü âîńńňŕíîâëĺíŕ â âčäĺ t, ó ęîňîðîé
çŕěűęŕţůčĺ ďĺðĺęëŕäčíó çŕńĺ÷ęč ńďóńęŕţňń˙ ďî÷ňč äî îńíîâŕíč˙ ěŕ÷ňű, âíčçó
çŕęŕí÷čâŕţůĺéń˙ ăîðčçîíňŕëüíîé çŕńĺ÷ęîé, áîëĺĺ äëčííîé ń ďðŕâîé ńňîðîíű.
Ňŕęîĺ íŕďčńŕíčĺ âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ â ðŕííĺě ŐI â., â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, â čěĺíč «petros», îäíîě
čç ńîńňŕâë˙ţůčő ëĺăĺíäű «ogeos petros» íŕ âňîðîě ňčďĺ ěîíĺň Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ I
(1018 ă.) [Ě. Ď. ŃÎŇÍČĘÎÂŔ – Č. Ă. ŃĎŔŃŃĘČÉ, Ňűń˙÷ĺëĺňčĺ äðĺâíĺéřčő ěîíĺň
Ðîńńčč: Ńâîäíűé ęŕňŕëîă ðóńńęčő ěîíĺň X-XI âĺęîâ, Ëĺíčíăðŕä 1983, 86]. Ýňîň
ďŕëĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčé ďðčçíŕę ˙âë˙ĺňń˙, â ńâîţ î÷ĺðĺäü, âŕćíűě äŕňčðóţůčě
ôŕęňîðîě. Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, ńňîčň ďðčí˙ňü âî âíčěŕíčĺ ńčěâîëč÷ĺńęčé ŕńďĺęň: ňŕęŕ˙
t, îáðŕçîâŕííŕ˙ ňðĺě˙ áóęâŕěč g 9ăŕěěŕ), îçíŕ÷ŕĺň 9, ďîńęîëüęó g čěĺĺň
÷čńëîâîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ 3. ×čńëî 9 îçíŕ÷ŕĺň ęîíĺö, ďðĺäĺë öčôðîâîé ńĺðčč äî ĺĺ
âîçâðŕůĺíč˙ ę ĺäčíčöĺ – ńčěâîëó Áîăŕ [Ő. Ý. ĘĹÐËÎŇ, Ńëîâŕðü ńčěâîëîâ, Ěîńęâŕ
1994, 576, 579]. Ňî ĺńňü ďðčěĺíĺíčĺ ňŕęîé áóęâű ěîćĺň îçíŕ÷ŕňü ęîíĺö âðĺěĺí,
Âňîðîĺ Ďðčřĺńňâčĺ č ăð˙äóůĺĺ âîńęðĺńĺíčĺ ďðŕâĺäíűő. Íŕâĺðíîĺ, ňŕęîĺ
çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ďðčäŕíî ýňîé áóęâĺ č íŕ ěîíĺňĺ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ, ďîńęîëüęó ĺăî ďŕňðîí
ŕďîńňîë Ďĺňð, â ÷üĺ čě˙ âďčńŕíŕ ďîäîáíŕ˙ t, âîçâĺůŕĺň ńęîðűé ďðčőîä äí˙
Ăîńďîäíĺăî č ńîçäŕíčĺ «íîâîăî íĺáŕ č íîâîé çĺěëč, íŕ ęîňîðűő îáčňŕĺň ďðŕâäŕ»
(2 Ďĺň. 3: 10-13). 209
Ăðŕôôčňč íŕ÷číŕĺňń˙ ń äŕňű 6530 (1022) ń âűíĺńĺííîé â âĺðőíţţ

ńňðîęó l (30), ÷ňî ďîçâîëčëî ŕâňîðó íŕäďčńč îáúĺäčíčňü îáĺ ńňðîęč.
Ďîâðĺćäĺííŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü âĺðőíĺé ńňðîęč ăðŕôôčňč âîńńňŕíŕâëčâŕĺňń˙ ęŕę
ńëîâîńî÷ĺňŕíčĺ o pasc5 («íŕ Ďŕńőó» čëč «Ďŕńőč»). Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, â
âĺðőíĺé ńňðîęĺ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î Ďŕńőĺ 6530 (1022) ăîäŕ. Â íčćíĺé ŕâňîð
óęŕçűâŕĺň őŕðŕęňĺðíűĺ ďðčçíŕęč ńŕěîé Ďŕńőč: çëŕňîé (z[l]atoi), ň. ĺ.
îńîáĺííîé; ăîńďîäńňâĺííîé (g(ospod6stveno)i) äíč (d(6n)i). Čç ďîäîáíűő
őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčę âčäíî, ÷ňî ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î Ęčðčîďŕńőĺ, Ďŕńőĺ ăîńďîäńňâĺííîé,
ęîăäŕ îíŕ ńîâďŕäŕĺň ń ďðŕçäíčęîě Áëŕăîâĺůĺíü˙. Čěĺííî ďîýňîěó, ďî
íŕřĺěó ěíĺíčţ, ńëîâŕ z[l]atoi č g(ospod6stveno)i, ęîňîðűĺ őŕðŕęňĺ-
ðčçóţň Ęčðčîďŕńőó, íŕďčńŕíű â îäíîé ńňðîęĺ ďî îáĺ ńňîðîíű îň äŕňű,
ńëîâíî «îęŕéěë˙˙» ĺĺ.
Áîăîńëîâű ďĺðĺâîä˙ň ńëîâî «kUrYopasha» ęŕę «Ďŕńőŕ ăîńďîäńňâĺí-
íŕ˙», ň. ĺ. ăëŕâíŕ˙, čńňčííŕ˙, íŕńňî˙ůŕ˙, čáî ďî öĺðęîâíîěó ďðĺäŕíčţ
Âîńęðĺńĺíčĺ Őðčńňŕ ďðîčçîřëî 25 ěŕðňŕ, â äĺíü Áëŕăîâĺůĺíč˙. Öĺðęîâü
ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺň Áëŕăîâĺůĺíčĺ č Ďŕńőó ęŕę íŕ÷ŕëî č çŕâĺðřĺíčĺ čńňîðčč
Ńďŕńĺíč˙, ďîýňîěó âĺńüěŕ ðĺäęîěó ńîâďŕäĺíčţ ýňčő ďðŕçäíčęîâ (â XI â.
ňŕęîĺ ńîâďŕäĺíčĺ ńëó÷čëîńü ëčřü â 1011, 1022 č 1095 ăă.) ďðčäŕâŕëîńü
îăðîěíîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ. Â XI â. Ęčðčîďŕńőŕ äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî ďðčřëŕńü íŕ 1022
ă., ďîâňîðčâ ňĺě ńŕěűě ďĺðâóţ Ďŕńőó. Čěĺííî íŕ Ęčðčîďŕńőó 1022 ă.,
ńîăëŕńíî čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ě Í. Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ, ďĺðâűé Ęčĺâńęčé ěčňðî-
ďîëčň-«ðóńčí» Čëŕðčîí, ńîâðĺěĺííčę ńîçäŕíč˙ Ńîôčč, ďðîčçíĺń ńâîĺ
çíŕěĺíčňîĺ «Ńëîâî î Çŕęîíĺ č Áëŕăîäŕňč», â ęîňîðîě Ńîôč˙ óďî-
ěčíŕĺňń˙ ęŕę óćĺ őîðîřî čçâĺńňíŕ˙ «âńĺěú îęðóăúíččěú ńňðŕíŕěú».31
Ďîńęîëüęó ń÷čňŕëîńü, ÷ňî Âňîðîĺ Ďðčřĺńňâčĺ Őðčńňŕ (čëč ęîíĺö ńâĺňŕ),
ęîăäŕ Îí ďðčäĺň ńóäčňü ćčâűő č ěĺðňâűő, ďðîčçîéäĺň íŕ Ęčðčîďŕńőó,
ëţäč îćčäŕëč ĺĺ íŕńňóďëĺíč˙ ń äóřĺâíűě ňðĺďĺňîě. Âčäčěî, ýňčě č
îáú˙ńí˙ĺňń˙ ďî˙âëĺíčĺ íŕ ńňĺíĺ Ńîôčč ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕĺěîé íŕäďčńč.
Ďîńëĺäíĺĺ ńëîâî ăðŕôôčňč ńčëüíî ďîâðĺćäĺíî, îäíŕęî ńîőðŕ-
íčâřŕ˙ń˙ ÷ŕńňü ďîçâîë˙ĺň ðĺęîíńňðóčðîâŕňü ĺăî ęŕę ńëîâî prosti –
âńňŕâřč, ńňî˙ ďð˙ěî.
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ďîëíűé ňĺęńň íŕäďčńč ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ č
âîńńňŕíîâëĺíčĺě óňðŕ÷ĺííűő ôðŕăěĺíňîâ ěîćíî ďðĺäńňŕâčňü ńëĺäó-
ţůčě îáðŕçîě:
(v7 l5to) xfl o pas[c5] z[l]atoi g(ospod6stveno)i d(6n)i. [pr]osti.
Ďĺðĺâîä: (Â ëĺňî) 6530 (1022) íŕ Ďŕńőó çëŕňóţ
ăîńďîäńňâĺííóţ äíč. Ďðóńňč.
Óďîňðĺáëĺíčĺ ńëîâŕ «ďðóńňč» ďîçâîë˙ĺň äîďóńňčňü, ÷ňî íŕäďčńü
ńäĺëŕíŕ íĺńęîëüęî ðŕíĺĺ óęŕçŕííîé äŕňű, ęîňîðóţ íóćíî âńňðĺňčňü
äîńňîéíî. Ýňî ńëîâî – ńîńňŕâíŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü ëčňóðăč÷ĺńęîăî âîçăëŕřĺíč˙
«Ďðĺěóäðîńňü, ďðóńňč!», ęîňîðűě ďĺðĺä ÷ňĺíčĺě Ďčńŕíč˙ íŕőîä˙ůčěń˙ â
30 Áóęâŕ i ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ ěĺëęčěč öŕðŕďčíŕěč č âűáîčíŕěč. Íĺáîëüřŕ˙

öŕðŕďčíŕ, âĺðő ęîňîðîé óőîäčň â âűáîčíó, ďðîőîä˙ůŕ˙ îň âĺðőíĺé ÷ŕńňč ëĺâîé
ěŕ÷ňű ę íčćíĺé ÷ŕńňč ďðŕâîé, äĺëŕĺň i áîëĺĺ ďîőîćĺé íŕ n. Îäíŕęî, ďðč
âíčěŕňĺëüíîě čçó÷ĺíčč ďðîðĺçĺé âčäĺí âňîðč÷íűé őŕðŕęňĺð ýňîé öŕðŕďčíű.
210 31 Í. Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ, Ðóńü č Âčçŕíňč˙.., 206-208.
őðŕěĺ âíóřŕĺňń˙ íĺîáőîäčěîńňü äóőîâíîé ďðĺäóńěîňðčňĺëüíîńňč č

áäčňĺëüíîńňč (ďðóńňč) äë˙ ňîăî, ÷ňîáű ńëîâî Áîćüĺ (Ďðĺěóäðîńňü) áűëî
óńâîĺíî óěîě č ńĺðäöĺě. Âĺðî˙ňíî, ŕâňîð ăðŕôôčňč íŕęŕíóíĺ ăð˙äóůĺé
Ęčðčîďŕńőč îńňŕâčë çŕďčńü íŕ ńňĺíĺ Ăĺîðăčĺâńęîăî ďðčäĺëŕ – íĺîáőîäčěî
áűňü âíčěŕňĺëüíűě, äóőîâíî î÷čńňčňüń˙, âĺäü ěîăóň íŕńňóďčňü ďîńëĺäíčĺ
äíč. Ďðčńóňńňâčĺ ńëîâŕ ďðóńňč âĺńüěŕ ńčěďňîěŕňč÷íî č ěíîăîçíŕ÷čňĺëü-
íî. Ęŕę ďîęŕçűâŕţň čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő ňĺęńňîâ, ýńőŕňîëîăč÷ĺń-
ęčĺ çŕďčńč â íčő óíč÷ňîćŕëčńü ďóňĺě âűěŕðűâŕíč˙ ëčáî âűðűâŕíč˙
ëčńňîâ ðóęîďčńč.32 Äĺëî â ňîě, ÷ňî Öĺðęîâü íĺ ďîîůð˙ëŕ (č íĺ ďîîůð˙ĺň)
ďðîðî÷ĺńňâ î âðĺěĺíč ęîíöŕ ńâĺňŕ, čáî îíî čçâĺńňíî ëčřü Áîăó. Íî
ýńőŕňîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ îćčäŕíč˙ ńóůĺńňâîâŕëč âńĺăäŕ, č â äŕííîě ńëó÷ŕĺ
äîńňŕňî÷íî áűëî íŕďîěíčňü î Âňîðîě Ďðčřĺńňâčč ńëîâîě «ďðóńňč».
Ďðčěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíî, ÷ňî čěĺííî â ýňîě ńëîâĺ óďîňðĺáëĺíŕ áóęâŕ ň â
íĺîðäčíŕðíîě íŕďčńŕíčč, ÷ňî ŕęöĺíňčðóĺň ńęîðűé ďðčőîä Ńóäíîăî äí˙
(ńě. ďðčěĺ÷. 27).
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ăðŕôôčňč ą1 íŕ ńĺăîäí˙říčé äĺíü ˙âë˙ĺňń˙
äðĺâíĺéřčě äðĺâíĺðóńńęčě äŕňčðîâŕííűě ňĺęńňîě, äŕňŕ ęîňîðîăî – 1022 ă.
íŕäĺćíî ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺňń˙ óíčęŕëüíîńňüţ ĺăî ńîäĺðćŕíč˙ č ďŕëĺîăðŕôčč.
Íŕä ńëîâîě z[l]atoi č íŕ÷ŕëîě äŕňű ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ ĺůĺ îäíŕ
íŕäďčńü ą 1 (ŕ) (ðčń. 1), óďóůĺííŕ˙ Ń. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČĚ, íî ÷ŕńňč÷íî âîńńňŕíî-
âëĺííŕ˙ Â. ÎÐËÎĚ č Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘÎĚ:
gi33pom34o35zi36
Ăðŕôôčňč ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íŕ÷ŕëîě ňðŕäčöčîííîé ôîðěóëű íŕäďčńč
g(ospod)i pomozi, ŕâňîð ęîňîðîé ńňðĺěčëń˙ ðŕńďîëîćčňü ĺĺ ęŕę ěîćíî
áëčćĺ ę çŕďčńč î Ęčðčîďŕńőĺ.
ą 2 (ðčń. 2). Íĺďîäŕëĺęó îň ďðĺäűäóůĺăî äŕňčðîâŕííîăî ăðŕôôčňč
Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ îáíŕðóćčë ĺůĺ îäíó äŕňó, áĺç ńîďðîâîäčňĺëüíîăî
ňĺęńňŕ. Ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíî îíŕ áűëŕ ďðî÷čňŕíŕ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺě ęŕę xfmYd –
655374 (1046) ă.38 Â äŕëüíĺéřĺě ÷ňĺíčĺ íŕäďčńč áűëî čě čçěĺíĺíî:
ďĺðâűĺ ňðč áóęâű ďî-ďðĺćíĺěó ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕëčńü ęŕę óęŕçŕíčĺ öčôð â
äŕňĺ, íî óćĺ ęŕę 6540 (1031-1032) ă., ŕ áóęâű Yd – ęŕę óęŕçŕíčĺ 14 číäčęňŕ
ýňîăî ăîäŕ39. Â ďðŕâčëüíîńňč ďîäîáíîăî ďðî÷ňĺíč˙ óńîěíčëčńü Â. ÎÐĹË č
32 Ŕ. Ŕ. ÐÎĚŔÍÎÂŔ, Ýńőŕňîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ çŕďčńč XV â. č çŕďčńč â ďŕńőŕëč˙ő, â:
Ðîńńčéńęîĺ ăîńóäŕðńňâî â XIV-XVII ââ. Ńáîðíčę ńňŕňĺé, ďîńâ˙ůĺííűő 75-ëĺňčţ
ńî äí˙ ðîćäĺíč˙ Ţ. Ă. Ŕëĺęńĺĺâŕ, îňâ. ðĺä. Ŕ. Ď. Ďŕâëîâ, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2002,
235-236.
33 Ňčňëî íŕä áóęâŕěč ăč íĺ ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙.
34 Áóęâŕ m ÷ŕńňč÷íî ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ.
35 Áóęâŕ o ńčëüíî îďóńęŕĺňń˙ ďîä ńňðîęó. Ýňî îáóńëîâëĺíî ňĺě, ÷ňî ŕâňîð
íŕěĺðĺâŕëń˙ âňčńíóňü áóęâó â óçęîĺ ďðîńňðŕíńňâî ěĺćäó âĺðőíĺé ÷ŕńňüţ áóęâű x
íŕäďčńč ą 1 č ňčňëîě íŕä ýňîé áóęâîé.
36 Ëĺâŕ˙ ěŕ÷ňŕ áóęâű i ńîâďŕäŕĺň ń ěŕ÷ňîé áóęâű f ăðŕôôčňč ą 1.
37 ×čńëčňĺëüíîĺ 50, ďî ěíĺíčţ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺë˙, áűëî ńîńňŕâëĺíî čç áóęâ m (40)
.
č y (10).
38 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ.., 16, ňŕáë. ˛, 2; ˛˛, 2.
39 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűĺ íŕäďčńč Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé (ďî ěŕňĺðčŕëŕě
ăðŕôôčňč XI-XVII ââ.), Ęčĺâ 1976, 198-201, ðčń. 10; 251. 211
Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘ, ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕ˙ ĺĺ ęŕę óęŕçŕíčĺ 6540 (1031-1032) ă., ŕ áóęâű Yd

îíč îňíîńčëč ę íčćíĺé ńňðîęĺ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé äâóőńňðî÷íîé íŕäďčńč.40
Ďðîâĺäĺííűĺ íŕěč čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ îðčăčíŕëŕ íŕäďčńč ďîçâîëčëč
óńňŕíîâčňü, ÷ňî íŕäďčńü ÷čňŕĺňń˙ ęŕę áóęâű xfm41d42 ń ňčňëîě íŕä
ęŕćäîé – 6544 (1036) ă.
×ňî ęŕńŕĺňń˙ ðŕńďîëîćĺííîé íŕä äŕňîé ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé íŕäďčńč,
îáíŕðóćĺííîé Ń. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČĚ č ďîěĺůĺííîé íŕěč ďîä ą 725 (ðčń. 3), ňî ĺĺ
ńîőðŕííîńňü ÷ðĺçâű÷ŕéíî íĺóäîâëĺňâîðčňĺëüíŕ, âńëĺäńňâčĺ ÷ĺăî îíŕ
ëčřü ÷ŕńňč÷íî ďîääŕĺňń˙ ďðî÷ňĺíčţ. Íŕäďčńü ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕëŕńü Ń.
ÂŰŃÎÖĘČĚ43 ęŕę
--- ü Rãéïò Êå
Ďĺðâŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü číňĺðďðĺňčðîâŕëŕńü ęŕę ôðŕăěĺíň ďîäďčńč ę
ôðĺńęîâîěó čçîáðŕćĺíčţ ńâ˙ňîăî (ü Rãéïò), čě˙ ęîňîðîăî íĺ ńîőðŕ-
íčëîńü. Âňîðŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕëŕńü ęŕę ńîęðŕůĺííűé âŕðčŕíň ńëîâŕ
Ê(ýñé)å. Â. ÎÐĹË č Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘ44 â öĺëîě ďîääĺðćŕëč ďðî÷ňĺíčĺ íŕäďčńč
Ń. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČĚ, îäíŕęî áóęâű Êå ďðĺäëîćčëč ÷čňŕňü ęŕę ôîðěóëó Ê(õñé)å
dëÝçóüí (Ăîńďîäč, ďîěčëóé).
Ń. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ ń÷čňŕë íŕäďčńč ą 2 č ą 726 îäíčě ăðŕôôčňč. Őîň˙ ĺăî
ďîëíűé ňĺęńň čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëĺě íčăäĺ íĺ ďðčâîäčëń˙, ďî ďóáëčęŕöč˙ě Ń.
ÂŰŃÎÖĘÎĂÎ ěîćíî ďðîńëĺäčňü, ÷ňî íŕäďčńü äîëćíŕ áűëŕ âűăë˙äĺňü ňŕę:
Âáóßëåéïò ü Rãéïò, Ê(ýñé)å. (eí iôåé) õöç, (níäéêôïò) éä.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Âŕńčëčé ńâ˙ňîé, Ăîńďîäč. (Â ëĺňî) 6540 (1032),
(číäčęň) 14. 45
Čńńëĺäîâŕíčĺ íŕäďčńč ďîçâîëčëî âíĺńňč ńóůĺńňâĺííűĺ ęîððĺęňčâű
â ĺĺ ďðî÷ňĺíčĺ:
---ë---46áóïáãéïòÊ47å
Ðĺęîíńňðóęöč˙ ňĺęńňŕ âűăë˙äčň ńëĺäóţůčě îáðŕçîě:
[d]ë[Ýçóüí Þì]áò ï Rãéïò Ê(ýñé)å.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ďîěčëóé íŕń, Ńâ˙ňîé Ăîńďîäü.
Ó÷čňűâŕ˙, ÷ňî áóęâŕ ë íŕďčńŕíŕ âáëčçč îň ńëîâŕ Þìáò, ěîćíî
äîďóńňčňü ńîęðŕůĺííűé âŕðčŕíň íŕďčńŕíč˙ ńëîâŕ dëÝçóüí.
Â íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííîé áëčçîńňč îň ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé íŕäďčńč č äŕňű
ðŕńďîëîćĺíű ĺůĺ äâŕ ăðŕôôčňč, íŕďčńŕííűĺ ęčðčëëčöĺé.
40 Â. ÎÐĹË – Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘ, Çŕěĺňęč.., 125.

41 .
Áóęâŕ «y» îęŕçŕëŕńü ďðîńňîé öŕðŕďčíîé, ÷ňî îńîáĺííî ÷ĺňęî ďðîńëĺćčâŕĺňń˙
ďî ńîîňíîřĺíčţ ňčňëŕ č áóęâű – âî âńĺő ÷ĺňűðĺő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő ëĺâűé ęðŕé ňčňëŕ
íĺńęîëüęî âűńňóďŕĺň âďĺðĺä.
42 Â. Îðĺë č Ŕ. Ęóëčę ÷čňŕëč ýňó áóęâó ęŕę ăðĺ÷ĺńęóţ Ä, îäíŕęî ĺĺ íčćí˙˙
÷ŕńňü, őîň˙ č ńîőðŕíčëŕńü ďëîőî, ďîçâîë˙ĺň čäĺíňčôčöčðîâŕňü áóęâó ęŕę
ęčðčëëč÷íóţ d.
43 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűĺ.., 250-251.
44 Â. ÎÐĹË – Ŕ. ĘÓËČĘ, Çŕěĺňęč.., 125.
45 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Ńâĺňńęčĺ ôðĺńęč Ńîôčéńęîăî ńîáîðŕ â Ęčĺâĺ, Ęčĺâ 1989, 17.
46 Áóęâű ďîâðĺćäĺíű, ďðîńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙ ňîëüęî îňäĺëüíűĺ ôðŕăěĺíňű, íĺ
ďîçâîë˙ţůčĺ ňî÷íî čäĺíňčôčöčðîâŕňü čő.
47 Áóęâŕ k â äâŕ ðŕçŕ áîëüřĺ îńňŕëüíűő.
212
ą 723 (ðčń. 4):

gi48pomozir49abou | sv50oe51moupetrov52vi
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: g(ospod)i pomozi rabou svoemou petrovvi.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáó ńâîĺěó Ďĺňðó.
ą 724 (ðčń. 5). Íŕäďčńü ðŕńďîëîćĺíŕ ďðŕâĺĺ îň çŕďčńč Ďĺňðŕ:
gi53pomo|zira54bou|svoemou|ni55koli56
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: g(ospod)i pomozi rabou svoemou nikoli.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáó ńâîĺěó Íčęîëĺ.
Ěîëčňâű Ďĺňðŕ, Íčęîëű č ŕâňîðŕ ăðĺ÷ĺńęîé íŕäďčńč ăðóďďčðóţňń˙
âîęðóă çŕďčńč 1036 ă., őîň˙ ńîîňíîřĺíčĺ čő íŕ ńĺăîäí˙říčé äĺíü îńňŕĺňń˙
íĺ˙ńíűě. Âîçěîćíî, ÷ňî â ýňîě ăîäó ďðîčçîřëî ńîáűňčĺ, îďðĺäĺëĺííűě
îáðŕçîě ďîâëč˙âřĺĺ íŕ ńóäüáű ŕâňîðîâ íŕäďčńĺé č ňðĺáîâŕâřĺĺ
Ăîńďîäíĺé ďîěîůč ń öĺëüţ áëŕăîďðč˙ňíîăî äë˙ íčő ńňĺ÷ĺíč˙ îáńňî-
˙ňĺëüńňâ. Íĺ čńęëţ÷ĺíŕ ňŕęćĺ ęŕęŕ˙-ňî őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęŕ˙ âçŕčěîńâ˙çü (â
ęîíňĺęńňĺ Ńâ˙ůĺííîé ëčáî «çĺěíîé» čńňîðčč) ðŕńďîëîćĺííűő ð˙äîě
ăðŕôôčňč 1022 č 1036 ăă.
Ń ýňîé ćĺ ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ íĺîáőîäčěî ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕňü ðŕńďîëîćĺííűĺ
â íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííîé áëčçîńňč îň äŕňű 1022 ă. ď˙ňü íŕäďčńĺé, ęîňîðűĺ,
áóäó÷č íŕďčńŕííűěč ðŕçíűěč ŕâňîðŕěč, ńîńňŕâë˙ţň ń íĺé ĺäčíűé
ęîěďëĺęń.
ą 726 (ðčń. 6): gi57pomo58zi59ra60bou561svo¨mou62|—63a64i63o—65
48 Íŕä áóęâŕěč gi ďðî÷ĺð÷ĺíî ăîðčçîíňŕëüíîĺ ňčňëî.

49 Áóęâŕ ÷ŕńňč÷íî ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ.
52 Ďðčńóňńňâčĺ âňîðîé áóęâű v â ńëîâĺ petrovi ěîćíî îáú˙ńíčňü ňĺě, ÷ňî,
âűöŕðŕďűâŕ˙ ýňó áóęâó, ŕâňîð ăðŕôôčňč ďîâðĺäčë řňóęŕňóðęó, ęîňîðŕ˙
îńűďŕëŕńü. Ďîýňîěó îí áűë âűíóćäĺí ďðî÷ĺðňčňü ýňó áóęâó ńíîâŕ, óćĺ
íĺńęîëüęî ďðŕâĺĺ.
55 Řňóęŕňóðęŕ â ěĺńňĺ ðŕńďîëîćĺíč˙ áóęâ ni ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ; ńîçäŕĺňń˙
âďĺ÷ŕňëĺíčĺ, ÷ňî áóęâű áűëč ďðî÷ĺð÷ĺíű â âčäĺ ëčăŕňóðű, őîň˙ ń óâĺðĺííîńňüţ
ńęŕçŕňü ýňîăî íĺëüç˙.
56 Čç-çŕ ďîâðĺćäĺíčé řňóęŕňóðęč ďîńëĺäí˙˙ áóęâŕ ěîćĺň ÷čňŕňüń˙ ęŕę i čëč ¨.
60 Áóęâŕ a íŕďčńŕíŕ íŕä ńňðîęîé; ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, ŕâňîð ďðîďóńňčë ýňó áóęâó č
âűíóćäĺí áűë íŕďčńŕňü ĺĺ âűřĺ.
61 Áóęâŕ u íŕďčńŕíŕ â âčäĺ ÷ŕřč íŕ ęîðîňęîé íîćęĺ.
62 Â äčăðŕôĺ ou ďĺðâŕ˙ ńîńňŕâë˙ţůŕ˙ o âűęðîřčëŕńü, îäíŕęî ĺĺ ęîíňóðű
ďðîńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙; îň íŕďčńŕííîé â âčäĺ ÷ŕřč áóęâű u ńîőðŕíčëŕńü ňîëüęî
âĺðőí˙˙ ÷ŕńňü.
63 Áóęâű óíč÷ňîćĺíű âűáîčíŕěč.
64 Ńîőðŕíčëŕńü ëčřü ďĺňë˙ áóęâű a.
65 Áóęâŕ ÷ŕńňč÷íî ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ, íî ďî ęîíňóðŕě âîńńňŕíŕâëčâŕĺňń˙. 213
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ č âîńńňŕíîâëĺíčĺě óňðŕ÷ĺííűő ôðŕăěĺíňîâ:

g(ospod)i pomozi rabou svo¨mou [io]ano[vi].
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáó ńâîĺěó Čîŕííó.
ą 727 (ðčń. 7). Íĺńęîëüęî íčćĺ ďðîńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙ áóęâű —bou,
î÷ĺâčäíî, ńëîâŕ [ra]bou (ðŕáó).
ą 728 (ðčń. 8). Âűřĺ çŕďčńč Čîŕííŕ íŕőîäčňń˙ ńëîâî pomoz67i
(ďîěîăč).
ą 729 (ðčń. 9). Çíŕ÷čňĺëüíî ďîâðĺćäĺííîĺ âűáîčíŕěč řňóęŕňóðęč
ăðŕôôčňč íŕőîäčňń˙ íĺńęîëüęî íčćĺ íŕäďčńĺé 726-728, íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî
íŕä äŕňîé 1022 ă.:
go68pomo69zirabou70
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: go(ospodi) pomozi rabou.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáó.
Ńóä˙ ďî âńĺěó, íŕäďčńü ńîńňî˙ëŕ ňîëüęî čç ýňîé ńňðî÷ęč.
ą 730 (ðčń. 10). Ďîä çŕďčńüţ 1022 ă. ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ ńčëüíî
ďîâðĺćäĺííîĺ ăðŕôôčňč:
g71--------72r73abousv----74
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ č âîńńňŕíîâëĺíčĺě óňðŕ÷ĺííűő ôðŕăěĺíňîâ:
g[(spod)i pomozi] rabou sv[oemou].
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáó ńâîĺěó.
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, îďóáëčęîâŕííűĺ ďîä íîěĺðŕěč 1 č 2 ăðŕôôčňč
ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ţň ńîáîé íĺ ďðîńňî äŕňű áĺç ńîďðîâîäčňĺëüíîăî ňĺęńňŕ, ŕ
ęîěďëĺęńű, ńîńňî˙ůčĺ čç 7-ěč (ą 1) č 4-ő (ą 2) íŕäďčńĺé. Â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ,
ěű ďîëó÷čëč ð˙ä äŕňčðîâŕííűő ďĺðâîé ňðĺňüţ Ő˛ â. íŕäďčńĺé, ÷ňî â
äŕëüíĺéřĺě ďîçâîëčň ńîńňŕâčňü ńâîäíűĺ ďŕëĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčĺ ňŕáëčöű äë˙
îáúĺęňčâíîăî îďðĺäĺëĺíč˙ őðîíîëîăčč ńîôčéńęîé ýďčăðŕôčęč.
Ęðîěĺ óďîě˙íóňűő ęîěďëĺęńîâ íŕäďčńĺé âîęðóă ăðŕôôčňč ą 1 č ą
2, â ďðîöĺńńĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ áűëč îáíŕðóćĺíű äâĺ íŕ÷ĺðňŕííűĺ íŕ ńňĺíĺ
ðŕííčĺ äŕňű, ęîňîðűĺ íĺ ńîäĺðćŕň ńîďðîâîäčňĺëüíîăî ňĺęńňŕ. Îäíŕ čç
íčő íŕőîäčňń˙ â Ăĺîðăčĺâńęîě ďðčäĺëĺ íŕ ňîé ćĺ ôðĺńęĺ ń čçîáðŕćĺíčĺě
ńâ. Âŕńčëč˙ Âĺëčęîăî.
ą 720 (ðčń. 11): õ75öìá
66 Áóęâű óíč÷ňîćĺíű âűáîčíŕěč.
68 Íŕä go ďðî÷ĺð÷ĺíî âîëíîîáðŕçíîĺ ňčňëî.
69 Áóęâű mo ńčëüíî ďîâðĺćäĺíű, îäíŕęî ďî ęîíňĺęńňó âîńńňŕíŕâëčâŕţňń˙.
70 Âńĺ áóęâű â ńëîâĺ rabou ďîâðĺćäĺíű.
71 Íŕä áóęâîé g ďðîńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙ ôðŕăěĺíňű ďð˙ěîăî ňčňëŕ.
72 Áóęâű óíč÷ňîćĺíű âűáîčíŕěč, ďðîńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙ ëčřü čő îňäĺëüíűĺ
ôðŕăěĺíňű.
73 Îň áóęâű ńîőðŕíčëŕńü ňîëüęî ěŕ÷ňŕ.
74 Áóęâű óíč÷ňîćĺíű âűáîčíŕěč, ďðîńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙ ëčřü čő îňäĺëüíűĺ
ôðŕăěĺíňű.
75 Ďĺðâŕ˙ áóęâŕ íŕďčńŕíŕ â âčäĺ ëĺćŕůĺé âîńüěĺðęč. Ňŕęŕ˙ ôîðěŕ íŕďčńŕíč˙ x
âńňðĺ÷ŕĺňń˙ ďðč íŕďčńŕíčč ăîäŕ ĺůĺ â äâóő äŕňčðîâŕííűő ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő ăðŕôôčňč ŐI
214 â., îäíî čç ęîňîðűő, ń äŕňîé 1038/39 ă., îáíŕðóćĺíî Ŕ. Ĺâäîęčěîâîé â ţćíîé
Íŕäďčńü ďðĺäńňŕâë˙ĺň ńîáîé äŕňó 6541 (1033) ă. Ńîďðîâîäčňĺëüíîăî

ňĺęńňŕ ăðŕôôčňč íĺ čěĺĺň, őîň˙ íĺńęîëüęî íčćĺ ńîőðŕíčëń˙ ôðŕăěĺíň
íŕäďčńč, â ďðîöĺńńĺ čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ ďîëó÷čâřčé ą 721 (ðčń. 12): ïè76ç
Ăðŕôôčňč ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ôðŕăěĺíňîě ěîëčňâĺííîé ôîðěóëű [Ê(ýñé)å
â]ï(Þ)è(å)é (Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč).
Íĺ čńęëţ÷ĺíî, ÷ňî ýňč íŕäďčńč â őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęîě č ńěűńëîâîě
ŕńďĺęňŕő ęŕę-ňî ńâ˙çŕíű ń ăðŕôôčňč 1022 č 1036 ăă.
Ĺůĺ îäíŕ íŕäďčńü, ńîäĺðćŕůŕ˙ äŕňó, áűëŕ îáíŕðóćĺíŕ âî âňîðîě
˙ðóńĺ ŕðęč âčěű (íŕ óðîâíĺ őîð) ěĺćäó ăëŕâíűě ŕëňŕðĺě č äčŕęîííčęîě,
íŕ ôðĺńęĺ ń čçîáðŕćĺíčĺě ńâ. Ĺâńňŕôč˙ Ďëŕęčäű.
ą 653 (ðčń. 13): x77fma
Ęŕę č â ďðĺäűäóůĺě ńëó÷ŕĺ, â íŕäďčńč óęŕçŕí 1033 (6541) ăîä, âč-
äčěî, ěŕðęčðóţůčé ęŕęîĺ-ňî çíŕěĺíŕňĺëüíîĺ äë˙ ŕâňîðîâ ăðŕôôčňč
ńîáűňčĺ.
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, íŕ ńĺăîäí˙říčé äĺíü â Ńîôčéńęîě ńîáîðĺ âű˙âëĺíű
ńĺěü äðĺâíĺéřčő äŕňčðîâŕííűő íŕäďčńĺé: 1018/1021, 1022, 1028, 1033 (ňðč
ăðŕôôčňč) č 1036 ăă. Ýňč íŕäďčńč îäíîçíŕ÷íî îďðîâĺðăŕţň 1037 ă. ęŕę
äŕňó îńíîâŕíč˙ Ńîôčéńęîăî ńîáîðŕ. Ăðŕôôčňč ą 1 ń çŕďčńüţ î Ęčðčî-
ďŕńőĺ çŕńňŕâë˙ţň ďîńňŕâčňü ďîä ńĺðüĺçíîĺ ńîěíĺíčĺ č 1017 ă.
Ďðĺäďîëîćčě, â 1017 ă. ńîáîð Ńâ˙ňîé Ńîôčč áűë äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî
îńíîâŕí ßðîńëŕâîě Âëŕäčěčðîâč÷ĺě. Äî âðĺěĺíč íŕíĺńĺíč˙ ăðŕôôčňč
1018/21 č 1022 ă. íŕ ôðĺńęó čěĺĺě ďðîěĺćóňîę âðĺěĺíč ďðčěĺðíî â ď˙ňü
ëĺň. Ěĺíüřŕ˙ ďî ðŕçěĺðŕě Äĺń˙ňčííŕ˙ öĺðęîâü ńňðîčëŕńü 7 ëĺň (989-996).
Ďî ěíĺíčţ Ţ. Ń. ŔŃĹĹÂŔ, ðŕńń÷ĺňíîĺ âðĺě˙ âîçâĺäĺíč˙ Ńîôčč íĺ ďðĺâű-
řŕëî ňðĺő ń ďîëîâčíîé, ěŕęńčěóě, ÷ĺňűðĺő ńĺçîíîâ; ðŕáîňű ďî
äĺęîðŕňčâíîěó îôîðěëĺíčţ ěîăëč çŕí˙ňü íĺ áîëĺĺ äâóő-ňðĺő ńĺçîíîâ.78
Ĺńëč ðŕáîňű äĺéńňâčňĺëüíî áűëč íŕ÷ŕňű â 1017 ă., ďî˙âëĺíčĺ íŕ ôðĺńęĺ
Ńîôčč íŕäďčńč ń äŕňŕěč 1018/21 č 1022 ă., őîň˙ č ń ˙âíűěč íŕň˙ćęŕěč,
äîďóńňčěî, íî ëčřü ÷čńňî óńëîâíî č íĺ áîëĺĺ ňîăî, ďîńęîëüęó ýňî
ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čň čńňîðč÷ĺńęčě ðĺŕëč˙ě ňîăî âðĺěĺíč. Ďðîňčâíčęč ðŕííĺé
äŕňű îńíîâŕíč˙ őðŕěŕ âďîëíĺ ŕðăóěĺíňčðîâŕííî äîęŕçŕëč, ÷ňî ýňî âðĺě˙
äë˙ ńňðîčňĺëüńňâŕ «ěčňðîďîëčč ðóńńęîé» íĺ áűëî áëŕăîďðč˙ňíűě.
Áîðüáŕ çŕ ęčĺâńęčé ďðĺńňîë ěĺćäó Ńâ˙ňîďîëęîě č ßðîńëŕâîě
ëĺńňíč÷íîé áŕříĺ, ŕ âňîðîĺ (ą 803) – íŕ ţćíîé ńňĺíĺ ŕďńčäű Ăĺîðăčĺâńęîăî

ŕëňŕð˙ ń äŕňîé îň 1062/1063-1071/1072 ăă. (ďîńëĺäí˙˙ áóęâŕ ăîäŕ óíč÷ňîćĺíŕ
âűáîčíîé, ďîýňîěó ÷ĺňęî âčäíű ëčřü ňðč: õöï – 657…) Âî âńĺő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő ňčňëŕ íŕä
áóęâŕěč îňńóňńňâóţň. Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ëĺćŕůĺĺ ďîëîćĺíčĺ áóęâű îçíŕ÷ŕĺň ĺĺ
öčôðîâîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ. Ňŕęîăî ěíĺíč˙ ďðčäĺðćčâŕëń˙ Ń. Âűńîöęčé, îáú˙ńí˙˙
öčôðó 9 â âčäĺ ëĺćŕůĺé q â çŕďčńč XI â. î ďîńňŕâëĺíčč âëŕäűęč [Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖ-
ĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ.., 37]. Î÷ĺâčäíî, ďĺðâŕ˙ «ëĺćŕůŕ˙» áóęâŕ ěŕðęčðîâŕëŕ äŕňó
č, ńîîňâĺňńňâĺííî, – öčôðîâîĺ çíŕ÷ĺíčĺ ńëĺäóţůčő áóęâ. Ó÷čňűâŕ˙ íŕëč÷čĺ ňðĺő
ăðĺ÷ĺńęčő íŕäďčńĺé ń ďîäîáíűě íŕďčńŕíčĺě ÷čńëčňĺëüíűő, ěîćĺě ęîíńňŕňčðî-
âŕňü ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčĺ ňŕęîé ňðŕäčöčč, őŕðŕęňĺðíîé äë˙ ďčńüěĺííîé ęóëüňóðű XI â.
76 Íŕä áóęâîé ďðî÷ĺð÷ĺíî ňčňëî â âčäĺ ęîńîé ëčíčč.
77 Áóęâŕ x âäâîĺ áîëüřĺ ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń îńňŕëüíűěč, íŕä íĺé ďðîńěŕňðčâŕţňń˙
îńňŕňęč ďð˙ěîăî ňčňëŕ.
78 Ţ. Ń. ŔŃĹĹÂ, Ďðî äŕňó.., 9. 215
ďðîäîëćŕëŕńü äî 1019 ă., ďîęŕ ďîńëĺäíčé íĺ óňâĺðäčëń˙ â Ęčĺâĺ. Ďîýňîěó

ďëŕíîěĺðíűĺ ðŕáîňű ďî ńňðîčňĺëüńňâó ńîáîðŕ âð˙ä ëč ěîăëč íŕ÷ŕňüń˙
ðŕíĺĺ ýňîăî ńðîęŕ. Ó÷čňűâŕ˙ íĺîáőîäčěîńňü îďëŕňű mno'6stva voĭ,
ńîáðŕííűő ßðîńëŕâîě äë˙ ďîőîäŕ íŕ Ęčĺâ, ôčíŕíńîâîĺ ďîëîćĺíčĺ ęí˙ç˙
íĺ ďîçâîë˙ëî ĺěó ńðŕçó ďðčńňóďčňü ę ďðîâĺäĺíčţ řčðîęîěŕńřňŕáíűő
ńňðîčňĺëüíűő ðŕáîň.
Â ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ, őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęčé äčŕďŕçîí ěĺćäó íŕ÷ŕëîě
ńňðîčňĺëüńňâŕ Ńîôčč č ďî˙âëĺíčĺě íŕ ĺĺ ńňĺíĺ äŕňű 1018/21 č 1022 ă.
ńóćčâŕĺňń˙ äî äâóő, ěŕęńčěóě ňðĺő, ëĺň. Âîçâĺńňč č äĺęîðčðîâŕňü
ăðŕíäčîçíűé Ńîôčéńęčé ńîáîð ěîçŕčęŕěč (640 ęâ. ě) č ôðĺńęŕěč (6000
ęâ. ě) çŕ ńňîëü ęðŕňęčé ńðîę áűëî íĺðĺŕëüíî. Ę ňîěó ćĺ íĺëüç˙ óďóńęŕňü
čç âčäŕ íĺîáőîäčěîńňü çŕăîňîâęč ęîëîńńŕëüíîăî ęîëč÷ĺńňâŕ
ńňðîčňĺëüíîăî ěŕňĺðčŕëŕ, íŕ ÷ňî, ó÷čňűâŕ˙ ńëîćíűé ňĺőíîëîăč÷ĺńęčé
ďðîöĺńń ĺăî ďðčăîňîâëĺíč˙, óřëî áű íĺńęîëüęî ëĺň. Ä. Â. ŔÉÍŔËÎÂ
ń÷čňŕë, ÷ňî â ńîçäŕíčč Ńîôčč ßðîńëŕâ âîńďîëüçîâŕëń˙ ďëîäŕěč
çŕăîňîâčňĺëüíîé äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč ńâîĺăî îňöŕ č ĺăî ěŕńňĺðŕěč.79 Ěűńëü îá
ó÷ŕńňčč â ńîçäŕíčč Ńîôčč ŕðňĺëč ěŕńňĺðîâ Äĺń˙ňčííîé öĺðęâč âďîëíĺ
ęîíńňðóęňčâíŕ, íî ðŕáîňŕňü ďî çŕńňðîéęĺ Ęčĺâŕ îíč äîëćíű áűëč
áĺńďðĺðűâíî: âî-ďĺðâűő, ýňî îňâĺ÷ŕĺň ŕðňĺëüíűě ňðŕäčöč˙ě ńðĺäíĺ-
âĺęîâü˙, ŕ âî-âňîðűő, ńňðîčňĺëüíűé ěŕňĺðčŕë äŕćĺ ďðč ńîâðĺěĺííűő
ňĺőíîëîăč˙ő íóćíî čńďîëüçîâŕňü ęŕę ěîćíî áűńňðĺĺ, ÷ňîáű îí íĺ
ďðčřĺë â íĺăîäíîńňü.80 Ŕ âĺäü ďîńëĺ ńěĺðňč Âëŕäčěčðŕ äî 1019 ă. ďðîřëî
79 Ä. Â. ŔÉÍŔËÎÂ, Ę âîďðîńó î ńňðîčňĺëüíîé äĺ˙ňĺëüíîńňč ńâ. Âëŕäčěčðŕ, â:
Ńáîðíčę â ďŕě˙ňü ńâ˙ňîăî č ðŕâíîŕďîńňîëüíîăî ęí˙ç˙ Âëŕäčěčðŕ, Ďĺňðîăðŕä
1917, 21-39.
80 Ęîěďëĺęńíűé ŕíŕëčç ďčńüěĺííűő čńňî÷íčęîâ č ðĺçóëüňŕňîâ íŕňóðíűő
čńńëĺäîâŕíčé ďðčâîäčň ę âűâîäó, ÷ňî ęðîěĺ Äĺń˙ňčííîé öĺðęâč č Ńîôčč
âčçŕíňčéńęčĺ ěŕńňĺðŕ ń 989 ďî 1022 ă. âîçâĺëč â Ęčĺâĺ ð˙ä ęŕěĺííűő äâîðöîâ č
óęðĺďëĺíč˙ „ ăîðîäŕ Âëŕäčěčðŕ” č ăîðîäŕ ßðîńëŕâŕ” ń Çîëîňűěč âîðîňŕěč č
íŕäâðŕňíîé Áëŕăîâĺůĺíńęîé öĺðęîâüţ [Í. Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ, Ðóńü č Âčçŕíňč˙..,
199-241, 253-254]. Íŕ ńĺăîäí˙říčé äĺíü íŕóęŕ ðŕńďîëŕăŕĺň çíŕ÷čňĺëüíűě
ęîëč÷ĺńňâîě ôŕęňîâ, ďîëó÷ĺííűő ďðč íŕňóðíűő (â ňîě ÷čńëĺ – ëŕáîðŕňîðíűő)
čńńëĺäîâŕíč˙ő, ďîäňâĺðćäŕţůčő őðîíîëîăč÷ĺńęóţ áëčçîńňü Äĺń˙ňčííîé öĺðęâč
č Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé; ýňč ôŕęňű íĺëüç˙ čăíîðčðîâŕňü, îăðŕíč÷čâŕ˙ńü ëčřü
óěîçðčňĺëüíűěč ďîńňðîĺíč˙ěč. Čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč äŕâíî îáðŕůŕëč âíčěŕíčĺ íŕ
ŕíŕëîăč÷íîĺ ðĺřĺíčĺ ďëŕíîâî-ďðîńňðŕíńňâĺííîé ńňðóęňóðű, ôóíäŕěĺíňîâ č
ŕðőčňĺęňóðíűő ôîðě Äĺń˙ňčííîé öĺðęâč č Ńîôčč [Ě. Ę. ĘŔÐĂĹÐ, Äðĺâíčé Ęčĺâ,
Ęčĺâ 1961, 31-33, 49, 178-179, 180-181; Ă. Í. ËÎÂĂČÍ, Ńîáîð Ńâ˙ňîż Ńîôłż â Ęčşâł,
Ęčżâ 2001, 28]. Ðĺçóëüňŕňű ďĺęňîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîăî č ńďĺęňðŕëüíîăî ŕíŕëčçîâ ăëčíű č
ďîëčâű ďëčň ďîëŕ îáîčő őðŕěîâ ďîęŕçŕëč čő ďîëíóţ čäĺíňč÷íîńňü ěĺćäó ńîáîé
[Ň. Č. ĚŔĘŔÐÎÂŔ, Ďîëčâíŕ˙ ďîńóäŕ. Čç čńňîðčč ęĺðŕěč÷ĺńęîăî čěďîðňŕ č
ďðîčçâîäńňâŕ Äðĺâíĺé Ðóńč, Ěîńęâŕ 1967, 36-38]. Íĺîäíîęðŕňíî îňěĺ÷ŕëŕńü
ňŕęćĺ ńňčëčńňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ áëčçîńňü ěîçŕčę č ôðĺńîę Ńîôčč ę ďŕě˙ňíčęŕě Ő –
ðŕííĺăî Ő˛ â. [Â. Í. ËŔÇŔÐĹÂ, Ěîçŕčęč Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé, Ěîńęâŕ 1960, 74, 80, 101,
111, 157; Â. Í. ËŔÇŔÐĹÂ, Ôðĺńęč Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé, â: Â. Í. Ëŕçŕðĺâ, Âčçŕíňčéńęîĺ
č äðĺâíĺðóńńęîĺ čńęóńńňâî. Ńňŕňüč č ěŕňĺðčŕëű, Ěîńęâŕ 1978, 79-80] č čő
ďîðŕçčňĺëüíîĺ ńőîäńňâî ń ěîíóěĺíňŕëüíîé ćčâîďčńüţ Äĺń˙ňčííîé öĺðęâč [Ă. Í.
ËÎÂĂČÍ, Ę čńňîðčč ńîîðóćĺíč˙ Ńîôčéńęîăî ńîáîðŕ â Ęčĺâĺ, â: Ďŕě˙ňíčęč
ęóëüňóðű: Íîâűĺ îňęðűňč˙. Ĺćĺăîäíčę, Ěîńęâŕ 1977, 181]. Âńĺńňîðîííčé ŕíŕëčç
ôðŕăěĺíňîâ ěîçŕč÷íîé č ôðĺńęîâîé řňóęŕňóðęč Äĺń˙ňčííîé öĺðęâč ďîęŕçŕë,
÷ňî ďî ňĺőíčęî-ňĺőíîëîăč÷ĺńęčě ďðčçíŕęŕě č ńňčëčńňčęĺ ćčâîďčńč îíŕ
216 ďîëíîńňüţ čäĺíňč÷íŕ ëčřü řňóęŕňóðęĺ Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé, ÷ňî ďîçâîë˙ĺň
óćĺ öĺëűő 4 ăîäŕ. Ňî ĺńňü äðĺâíĺéřčĺ äŕňčðîâŕííűĺ ńîôčéńęčĺ ăðŕô-

ôčňč ďĺðĺ÷ĺðęčâŕţň âîçěîćíîńňü îńíîâŕíč˙ Ńîôčč íĺ ňîëüęî â 1037, íî
č â 1017 ă.
Â ňî ćĺ âðĺě˙ äŕííűĺ ýňčő ăðŕôôčňč őîðîřî ńîăëŕńóţňń˙ ńî
ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâŕěč číűő ďčńüěĺííűő čńňî÷íčęîâ î ďî˙âëĺíčč Ńîôčč
Ęčĺâńęîé íŕ ðóáĺćĺ ďðŕâëĺíč˙ Âëŕäčěčðŕ č ßðîńëŕâŕ. Ňŕę, ęčĺâńęčé
ěčňðîďîëčň Čëŕðčîí, ńîâðĺěĺííčę ńîçäŕíč˙ Ńîôčč, ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâóĺň,
÷ňî ßðîńëŕâ â ýňîě äĺëĺ çŕâĺðřčë íŕ÷číŕíčĺ Âëŕäčěčðŕ, ęŕę Ńîëîěîí –
Äŕâčäŕ â ńîçäŕíčč Čĺðóńŕëčěńęîăî őðŕěŕ: «íĺäîęîíü÷ŕíŕ˙ ňâîŕ
(Âëŕäčěčðŕ. – Ŕâň.) íŕęîíü÷ŕ, ŕęű Ńîëîěîíú Äŕâűäîâŕ».81
Öĺííűě ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ č ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî ĺůĺ îäíîăî ńîâðĺěĺííčęŕ
Âëŕäčěčðŕ č ßðîńëŕâŕ – íĺěĺöęîăî őðîíčńňŕ Ňčňěŕðŕ Ěĺðçĺáóðăńęîăî î
ńóůĺńňâîâŕíčč â Ęčĺâĺ â 1017/18 ăă. ęŕôĺäðŕëüíîăî ěčňðîďîëč÷üĺăî
ěîíŕńňűð˙ Ńâ. Ńîôčč. Ńîîáůŕ˙ î âç˙ňčč ăîðîäŕ ďîëüńęčě ęí˙çĺě
Áîëĺńëŕâîě Őðŕáðűě č ĺăî ç˙ňĺě Ńâ˙ňîďîëęîě Âëŕäčěčðîâč÷ĺě 14
ŕâăóńňŕ 1018 ă., Ňčňěŕð ăîâîðčň: «Ŕðőčĺďčńęîď ýňîăî ăîðîäŕ (ňî ĺńňü
ęčĺâńęčé ěčňðîďîëčň. – Ŕâň.) ń ěîůŕěč ńâ˙ňűő č äðóăčěč öĺðęîâíűěč
ðĺëčęâč˙ěč óńňðîčë Áîëĺńëŕâó č Ńâ˙ňîďîëęó ďî÷ĺňíóţ âńňðĺ÷ó â
ěîíŕńňűðĺ Ńâ. Ńîôčč («in sancte monasterio Sophiae»), ęîňîðűé, ę
ńîćŕëĺíčţ, â ďðĺäűäóůĺě ăîäó ďîäâĺðăń˙ ďîćŕðó».82
Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě, ÷ĺňűðĺ äðĺâíĺéřčĺ äŕňčðîâŕííűĺ ăðŕôôčňč Ńîôčč
Ęčĺâńęîé óęŕçűâŕţň íŕ íĺäîńňîâĺðíîńňü č ňĺíäĺíöčîçíîńňü ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâ
ďðî˙ðîńëŕâîâîăî ëĺňîďčńŕíč˙ îá îńíîâŕíčč Ńîôčč ßðîńëŕâîě â 1017 čëč,
ňĺě áîëĺĺ, â 1037 ă., ďîäňâĺðćäŕ˙ ďðŕâčëüíîńňü âűâîäŕ î áîëĺĺ ðŕííĺé
äŕňčðîâęĺ őðŕěŕ. Çŕôčęńčðîâŕííűé ăðŕôôčňč ôŕęň ńóůĺńňâîâŕíč˙
Ńîôčč â óćĺ ðŕńďčńŕííîě âčäĺ â 1022 ă. ďîçâîë˙ĺň äîńňŕňî÷íî ňî÷íî
äŕňčðîâŕňü őðŕě. Â čńňî÷íčęŕő óďîěčíŕţňń˙ äâĺ äŕňű îńâ˙ůĺíč˙ Ńîôčč
– 4 íî˙áð˙ č 11 ěŕ˙.83 Ďîńęîëüęó îńâ˙ůĺíčĺ őðŕěŕ Ńâ˙ňîé Ńîôčč
Ďðĺěóäðîńňč Áîćüĺé (Äîěŕ Ăîńďîäíĺăî) ěîăëî ńîńňî˙ňüń˙ ëčřü â
âîńęðĺńĺíüĺ (äĺíü Ăîńďîäĺíü), ŕ âî âňîðîě äĺń˙ňčëĺňčč XI â. (äî 1022 ă.)
íŕ âîńęðĺńĺíüĺ ďðčőîä˙ňń˙ 4 íî˙áð˙ 1011 ă. č 11 ěŕ˙ 1018 ă., ďĺðâŕ˙ äŕňŕ
óńěŕňðčâŕňü íĺńîěíĺííóţ ăĺíĺňč÷ĺńęóţ ńâ˙çü ěĺćäó îáîčěč őðŕěŕěč [Ţ. Î.

ĘÎÐĹÍŢĘ, Ôðĺńęč Ńîôłéńüęîăî ńîáîðó â Ęčşâł (ňĺőíîëîăł˙, ňĺőíłęŕ, äĺ˙ęł
ďčňŕíí˙ ńňčëţ, ďðîáëĺěŕ ěŕéńňðłâ), ŕâňîðĺôĺðŕň… äčń. ęŕíä.
ěčńňĺöňâîçíŕâńňâŕ, Ęčżâ 1995; Ë. ĂŔÍÇĹÍĘÎ – Ţ. ĘÎÐĹÍŢĘ – Ţ. ĚĹÄÍłĘÎÂŔ, Íîâł
äîńëłäćĺíí˙ ŕðőĺîëîăł÷íčő ęîëĺęöłé ńňłíîďčńó Äĺń˙ňčííîż öĺðęâč ňŕ ďðčëĺăëčő
ńďîðóä, â: Öĺðęâŕ Áîăîðîäčöł Äĺń˙ňčííŕ â Ęčşâł. Äî 1000-ëłňň˙ îńâ˙÷ĺíí˙, Ęčżâ
1996, 73].
81 Ŕ. Ě. ĚÎËÄÎÂŔÍ, Ńëîâî î çŕęîíĺ č áëŕăîäŕňč Čëŕðčîíŕ, Ęčĺâ 1984, 94.
82 Ňčňěŕð Ěĺðçĺáóðăńęčé, Őðîíčęŕ â 8 ęíčăŕő, Ěîńęâŕ 2005, 94; Ńáîðíčę
ěŕňĺðčŕëîâ äë˙ čńňîðč÷ĺńęîé ňîďîăðŕôčč Ęčĺâŕ č ĺăî îęðĺńňíîńňĺé, Ęčĺâ
1874, 1. Čńňîðčęč ďî-ðŕçíîěó číňĺðďðĺňčðóţň ýňîň ďŕńńŕć Ňčňěŕðŕ, ďűňŕ˙ńü
ńîăëŕńîâŕňü ĺăî, íĺńîěíĺííî, îáúĺęňčâíîĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâî ń ëĺňîďčńíűěč
äŕííűěč, íî âűńęŕçŕííűĺ čěč ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ âűçűâŕţň öĺëűé ð˙ä ńĺðüĺçíűő
âîçðŕćĺíčé. Ðŕçðĺřčňü ďðîňčâîðĺ÷č˙ ěîćíî, ëčřü ďðčçíŕâ ňîň ôŕęň, ÷ňî ó
Ňčňěŕðŕ ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î ńîőðŕíčâřĺéń˙ äîíűíĺ ęŕěĺííîé Ńîôčč [Í. Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ,
Ðóńü č Âčçŕíňč˙.., 215 - 220].
83 Ĺ. ĂÎËÓÁČÍŃĘČÉ, Čńňîðč˙ Ðóńńęîé öĺðęâč, Ěîńęâŕ 1904, 408. 217
ěŕðęčðóĺň îńíîâŕíčĺ Ńîôčč (îńâ˙ůĺíčĺ ěĺńňŕ), ŕ âňîðŕ˙ – ĺĺ çŕâĺðřĺíčĺ

(îńâ˙ůĺíčĺ ďðĺńňîëŕ).84 Â öĺëîě îíč ńîńňŕâë˙ţň ďîëíűé ÷čí îńâ˙ůĺíč˙
őðŕěŕ.
Â ńâĺňĺ čěĺţůčőń˙ íŕ ńĺăîäí˙říčé äĺíü äŕííűő ðĺęîíńňðóčðîâŕňü
őîä ńňðîčňĺëüńňâŕ ăëŕâíîăî őðŕěŕ Ðóńč ěîćíî ńëĺäóţůčě îáðŕçîě.
Ńîôčéńęčé ńîáîð áűë âîçâĺäĺí â ďðŕâëĺíčĺ Âëŕäčěčðŕ, ňîăäŕ ćĺ
îęðóćĺí äĺðĺâ˙ííűěč ěîíŕńňűðńęčěč ńîîðóćĺíč˙ěč. Ďðč ýňîě ćĺ
ęí˙çĺ áűëî íŕ÷ŕňî äĺęîðŕňčâíîĺ îôîðěëĺíčĺ ńîáîðŕ.85 Ďîęŕ ěîçŕčńňű
äĺęîðčðîâŕëč öĺíňð ńîáîðŕ, ôðĺńęčńňű ðŕáîňŕëč íŕ ĺăî ďĺðčôĺðčč,
ďîńňĺďĺííî ďðčáëčćŕ˙ńü ę öĺíňðó, ăäĺ ďîä ęóďîëîě ńňî˙ëč ëĺńŕ; ďîýňîěó
â ďîńëĺäíţţ î÷ĺðĺäü ěîăëč âîçíčęíóňü ôðĺńęč ďîäęóďîëüíîăî ęðĺńňŕ. Ă.
Í. ËÎĂÂČÍ, čńńëĺäîâŕâřčé ńňűęč ôðĺńęîâîé řňóęŕňóðęč îďðĺäĺëčë, ÷ňî
ńîáîð ðŕńďčńűâŕëč îň ďĺðčôĺðčč ę öĺíňðó. Íŕőëĺńňű ńňűęîâ řňó-
ęŕňóðęč óęŕçűâŕţň, ÷ňî ěŕńňĺðŕ ďðĺćäĺ âńĺăî ðŕńďčńŕëč ŕëňŕðč, őîðű,
ăŕëĺðĺč č áŕříč, ŕ çŕňĺě ďðčńňóďčëč ę ðîńďčńč öĺíňðŕëüíîé ÷ŕńňč
őðŕěŕ.86 Ńěĺðňü Âëŕäčěčðŕ ďðčîńňŕíîâčëŕ ðŕáîňű íŕ ńňŕäčč ðîńďčńč
ôðĺńęŕěč çŕďŕäíîé ÷ŕńňč öĺíňðŕëüíîăî íĺôŕ, ăäĺ íŕ çŕďŕäíîé ďîäęó-
ďîëüíîé ŕðęĺ ňŕęćĺ íĺ áűëŕ çŕâĺðřĺíŕ ěîçŕč÷íŕ˙ ęîěďîçčöč˙ «Ńîðîę
ńĺâŕńňčéńęčő ěó÷ĺíčęîâ» (çäĺńü ôðĺńęŕ íĺîćčäŕííî âňîðăŕĺňń˙ â çîíó
ěîçŕč÷íîăî äĺęîðŕ).
Ðŕáîňű çŕęŕí÷čâŕëč â ńŕěîě íŕ÷ŕëĺ ďðŕâëĺíč˙ ßðîńëŕâŕ, ďðč÷ĺě
ðŕńďčńűâŕëč ńîáîð óćĺ ňîëüęî ôðĺńęîé, äŕćĺ â ěĺńňĺ ěîçŕčęč, ňŕę ęŕę â
ďĺðčîä óńîáčöű 1015-1019 ăă. áűëî ňðóäíî íŕëŕäčňü ńëîćíîĺ ďðîčç-
âîäńňâî ěîçŕč÷íîé ńěŕëüňű. Čěĺííî ňîăäŕ â çŕďŕäíîé ÷ŕńňč öĺíňðŕëüíî-
ăî íĺôŕ áűë íŕďčńŕí ăðóďďîâîé ďîðňðĺň ńĺěüč Âëŕäčěčðŕ, ńčěâî-
ëčçčðîâŕâřčé ęðĺůĺíčĺ Ðóńč. ßðîńëŕâ âűńňóďŕë íŕ ďîðňðĺňĺ çŕęîííűě
ďðĺĺěíčęîě îňöŕ č çŕâĺðřčňĺëĺě ĺăî äĺëŕ ďî ńîçäŕíčţ Ńîôčč.87
Îäíîâðĺěĺííî â ńĺâĺðíóţ ăŕëĺðĺţ óćĺ âîçâĺäĺííîăî č äŕćĺ óęðŕ-
řĺííîăî ěîíóěĺíňŕëüíîé ćčâîďčńüţ ńîáîðŕ ďî çŕęŕçó ßðîńëŕâŕ áűëŕ
âńňðîĺíŕ ĺăî óńűďŕëüíčöŕ, ÷ňî őîðîřî ďðîńëĺćčâŕĺňń˙ â ŕðőčňĺęňóðĺ č
84 Í. Í. ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ, Ðóńü č Âčçŕíňč˙.., 49.

85 Ńîâńĺě íĺ ńëó÷ŕéíî â ěîçŕčęŕő č ôðĺńęŕő Ńîôčč ďðîńëĺćčâŕĺňń˙ řčðîęîĺ
ďîńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíîĺ ďðîńëŕâëĺíčĺ ęí˙ćĺńęîé ÷ĺňű ęðĺńňčňĺëĺé Ðóńč – Âëŕäčěčðŕ
č Ŕííű. Îńîáĺííî ˙âńňâĺííî ýňîň ěîňčâ çâó÷čň â ńâĺňńęčő ôðĺńęŕő – ęí˙ćĺńęîě
ăðóďďîâîě ďîðňðĺňĺ öĺíňðŕëüíîăî íĺôŕ č ðîńďčńč äâîðöîâîăî őŕðŕęňĺðŕ äâóő
ëĺńňíč÷íűő áŕřĺí. Íŕ ďîðňðĺňĺ čçîáðŕćĺíŕ ńĺěü˙ Âëŕäčěčðŕ č Ŕííű, â ńîńňŕâ
ęîňîðîé ďî çŕęŕçó ßðîńëŕâŕ áűë ââĺäĺí ĺăî îáðŕç, ďðč÷ĺě ßðîńëŕâ, ęŕę ńňŕðřčé
ďî âîçðŕńňó, âîçăëŕâë˙ë řĺńňâčĺ ęí˙ćč÷ĺé. Ďîðňðĺň, âďčńŕííűé â ďîäęóďîëüíűé
őðčńňîëîăč÷ĺńęčé öčęë, ńčěâîëčçčðîâŕë ęðĺůĺíčĺ Ðóńč č óňâĺðćäŕë
ðŕâíîŕďîńňîëüíîńňü Âëŕäčěčðŕ. Íŕ ôðĺńęŕő áŕřĺí čçîáðŕćĺíî çŕęëţ÷ĺíčĺ
äčíŕńňč÷ĺńęîăî áðŕęŕ Âëŕäčěčðŕ č Ŕííű, ďîëîćčâřĺăî íŕ÷ŕëî ęðĺůĺíčţ [Í. Í.
ÍČĘČŇĹÍĘÎ, Ðóńü č Âčçŕíňč˙..,].
86 Ă. Í. ËÎÂĂČÍ, Íîâűĺ íŕáëţäĺíč˙ â Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé, â: Ęóëüňóðŕ
ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâîé Ðóńč, Ëĺíčíăðŕä 1974, 154-160.
87 Äĺňč ęí˙ç˙ íŕ ďîðňðĺňĺ čçîáðŕćĺíű ţíîřŕěč č ďîäðîńňęŕěč, ŕ ńňŕðřŕ˙
äî÷ü ôčăóðčðîâŕëŕ â ăîëîâíîě óáîðĺ çŕěóćíĺé ćĺíůčíű. Ďîńęîëüęó ďîðňðĺň
âîçíčę íĺ ďîçćĺ 1022 ă., ŕ äĺňč ßðîńëŕâŕ ðîäčëčńü â 1020-1030 ăă., ˙ńíî, ÷ňî íŕ
218 ôðĺńęĺ čçîáðŕćĺíŕ íĺ ĺăî ńĺěü˙, ŕ ńĺěü˙ ĺăî îňöŕ.
ńňĺíîďčńč ńîáîðŕ. ßðîńëŕâó ďðčíŕäëĺćčň ňŕęćĺ çŕńëóăŕ ðĺěîíňíűő

ðŕáîň č îáóńňðîéńňâî ďîäâîðü˙ ďîńëĺ îęîí÷ŕíč˙ ńňðîčňĺëüńňâŕ č ďîćŕðŕ
1017 ă.
Âŕćíűě ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâîě ńňîëü ðŕííĺăî ńîîðóćĺíč˙ Ńîôčéńęîăî
ńîáîðŕ ˙âë˙ţňń˙ ŕðőĺîëîăč÷ĺńęčĺ ěŕňĺðčŕëű, âű˙âëĺííűĺ íŕ ĺăî
ďîäâîðüĺ â 1995 ă. ďðč íŕáëţäĺíčč çŕ ńňðîčňĺëüíűěč ðŕáîňŕěč č â 2002/3
ăă. ďðč äŕëüíĺéřĺě čńńëĺäîâŕíčč ýňîăî ó÷ŕńňęŕ. Â äðĺâíĺé ďðîěîčíĺ, â
13 ě îň ţăî-çŕďŕäíîăî óăëŕ ńîáîðŕ áűëč íŕéäĺíű îńňŕňęč äðĺâíčő
ńňðîčňĺëüíűő ěŕňĺðčŕëîâ – ěíîăî÷čńëĺííűĺ ôðŕăěĺíňű ďëčíôű,
öĺě˙íî÷íîăî ðŕńňâîðŕ, ôðĺńęîâîé řňóęŕňóðęč, ăîëîńíčęîâ-ðĺçîíŕňîðîâ,
ďðč÷ĺě íŕ íĺęîňîðűő čç íŕéäĺííűő ěŕňĺðčŕëîâ ńîőðŕíčëčńü ńëĺäű îăí˙.
Ďî äŕííűě ńňðŕňčăðŕôčč, ěŕňĺðčŕëű ďîďŕëč â ďðîěîčíó â Ő˛ â. ďðč
ńňðîčňĺëüńňâĺ ńîáîðŕ, ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî – âî âðĺě˙ ðĺěîíňíűő ðŕáîň âńęîðĺ
ďîńëĺ ďîćŕðŕ 1017 ă., ęîăäŕ ďîńëĺ çŕâĺðřĺíč˙ ńňðîčňĺëüńňâŕ Ńîôčč
ďëŕíčðîâŕëŕńü č óďîð˙äî÷čâŕëŕńü ĺĺ ňĺððčňîðč˙.88 Íŕ ôðŕăěĺíňŕő
řňóęŕňóðęč ńîőðŕíčëčńü îńňŕňęč ðîńďčńč, ńóä˙ ďî čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîé
ńďĺöčôčęĺ – ńâĺňńęčő ôðĺńîę ţćíîé áŕříč, â ęîňîðîé, ęńňŕňč, őîðîřî
âčäíű ńëĺäű äðĺâíĺăî ðĺěîíňŕ, âűďîëíĺííîăî âńęîðĺ ďîńëĺ
ďĺðâîíŕ÷ŕëüíîé ðîńďčńč. Íŕ ýňčő ćĺ ôðŕăěĺíňŕő ÷čňŕţňń˙ î÷ĺíü
äðĺâíčĺ ďî ďŕëĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčě îńîáĺííîńň˙ě ăðŕôôčňč, ň. ĺ. ńîáîð äî
ďîćŕðŕ 1017 ă. óćĺ áűë ðŕńďčńŕí, č íŕ ôðĺńęŕő äŕćĺ ďî˙âčëčńü
íĺîôčöčŕëüíűĺ íŕäďčńč.
Ňŕęóţ äŕňčðîâęó ďîäňâĺðćäŕţň č ăðŕôôčňč íŕ ńňĺíŕő őðŕěŕ. Ęðîěĺ
ðŕńńěîňðĺííűő âűřĺ, ęîňîðűĺ ńîäĺðćŕň äŕňű, â Ńîôčč ńîőðŕíčëčńü
íŕäďčńč áĺç äŕň, íî îíč ěîăóň áűňü äîńňŕňî÷íî ňî÷íî äŕňčðîâŕíű
áëŕăîäŕð˙ óďîěčíŕíčţ â íčő čçâĺńňíűő čńňîðč÷ĺńęčő ëčö. Ðĺ÷ü čäĺň î
ăðóďďĺ čç ńĺěč íŕäďčńĺé íŕ ńĺâĺðíűő «ćĺíńęčő» őîðŕő, ăäĺ â äðĺâíîńňč
íŕőîäčëŕńü âî âðĺě˙ ńëóćá ęčĺâńęŕ˙ ęí˙ăčí˙ ńî ńâîĺé ńâčňîé. Ďîńęîëüęó
ăëŕâíîé č ęëţ÷ĺâîé â äŕííîé ăðóďďĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ íŕäďčńü ń čěĺíĺě ęčĺâńęîé
ęí˙ăčíč Îëčńŕâű, âĺńü ýňîň ęîěďëĺęń íŕäďčńĺé ěîćíî óńëîâíî íŕçâŕňü
ăðŕôôčňč «ăðóďďű Îëčńŕâű».
Çŕďčńü Îëčńŕâű őîðîřî čçâĺńňíŕ â íŕóęĺ, íî čç-çŕ ňîăî, ÷ňî ńîáîð
äŕňčðîâŕëč ëčřü âðĺěĺíĺě ßðîńëŕâŕ, îíŕ, ęŕę ďîëŕăŕĺě, íĺâĺðíî
ŕňðčáóňčðîâŕíŕ č ńîîňíĺńĺíŕ ëčřü ń îäíîé čç îńňŕëüíűő íŕäďčńĺé, ńðĺäč
ęîňîðűő Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČĚ áűëî îďóáëčęîâŕíî ÷ĺňűðĺ. Íŕě óäŕëîńü
ďðî÷čňŕňü âńĺ íŕäďčńč ęîěďëĺęńŕ č âű˙âčňü íĺęîňîðűĺ íĺňî÷íîńňč,
äîďóůĺííűĺ ðŕíĺĺ ďðč čńńëĺäîâŕíčč ăðŕôôčňč č îňðŕćĺííűĺ â ďðĺäűäó-
ůčő ďóáëčęŕöč˙ő.
88 Í. Ě. ÍłĘłŇĹÍĘÎ – Ě. Ě. ÍłĘłŇĹÍĘÎ, ×ŕń âčíčęíĺíí˙ Ńîôłż Ęčżâńüęîż: äŕíł
äćĺðĺë ó ńâłňëł íîâłňíłő äîńëłäćĺíü, â: Ŕðőłňĺęňóðíŕ ńďŕäůčíŕ Óęðŕżíč, Ęčżâ
1996, âčďóńę 3, ÷ŕńňčíŕ 1.; Ě. Ě. ÍłĘłŇĹÍĘÎ, Ŕðőĺîëîăł÷íł äîńëłäćĺíí˙ íŕ ďîäâłð’ż
Ńîôłż Ęčżâńüęîż ó 2002 ðîöł, â: Ďðîáëĺěč ňŕ äîńâłä âčâ÷ĺíí˙, çŕőčńňó, çáĺðĺćĺíí˙
ł âčęîðčńňŕíí˙ ŕðőłňĺęňóðíîż ńďŕäůčíč. Ěŕňĺðłŕëč Ďĺðřčő íŕóęîâî-ďðŕęňč÷íčő
Ńîôłéńüęčő ÷čňŕíü (Ęčżâ, 27-28 ëčńňîďŕäŕ 2002 ð.), Ęčżâ 2003; Ě. Ě. ÍłĘłŇĹÍĘÎ,
Ðîçęîďęč íŕ ďîäâłð’ż Ńîôłéńüęîăî ńîáîðó â 2003 ð. â: Ńŕęðŕëüíł ńďîðóäč ó ćčňňł
ńóńďłëüńňâŕ: łńňîðł˙ ł ńüîăîäĺíí˙. Ěŕňĺðłŕëč Äðóăîż ěłćíŕðîäíîż íŕóęîâî-
ďðŕęňč÷íîż ęîíôĺðĺíöłż „Ńîôłéńüęł ÷čňŕíí˙” (Ęčżâ, 27-28 ëčńňîďŕäŕ 2003 ð.), Ęčżâ
2004. 219
Íŕäďčńč «ăðóďďű Îëčńŕâű» âűöŕðŕďŕíű â XI â. íŕ çŕďŕäíîě

ďó÷ęîâîě ńňîëáĺ ňðîéíîé ŕðęŕäű, îňęðűâŕţůĺé őîðű â öĺíňð ńîáîðŕ:
ď˙ňü íŕäďčńĺé íŕ çŕďŕäíîě ðĺáðĺ č äâĺ – íŕ ńĺâĺðíîě. Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, íŕ
ńĺâĺðíîě ðĺáðĺ íŕőîäčňń˙ ĺůĺ îäíî ăðŕôôčňč, ęîňîðîĺ íĺ âőîäčň â
«ăðóďďó Îëčńŕâű», íî íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî ńâ˙çŕíî ń íĺé.
Ăðŕôôčňč, äŕâřĺĺ óńëîâíîĺ íŕçâŕíčĺ âńĺé ăðóďďĺ, íŕďčńŕíî
ęðóďíűěč áóęâŕěč, íŕ óðîâíĺ 180-ňč ńě îň ďîëŕ. Ňŕęčĺ őŕðŕęňĺðčńňčęč
óęŕçűâŕţň íŕ ňî, ÷ňî íŕäďčńü (ńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíî, č îńňŕëüíűĺ ăðŕôôčňč
ăðóďďű) čçíŕ÷ŕëüíî áűëŕ ðŕńń÷čňŕíŕ íŕ âńĺîáůĺĺ îáîçðĺíčĺ.
ą 27 (ðčń. 14):89
gi90pomozira | b5svoeiolisav5 | st91opl7=imat92eri |
rus693sk5i94k7n3g7yni | aaz7dopsl95796s7yn7ys7=ii97
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: g(ospod)i pomozi rab5 svoei olisav5
s(v3)topl7=i materi rus6sk5i k7n3g7yni a az7 dop(i)s(a)l7 s7yn7y
s(v3topl)7=ii.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáĺ ńâîĺé Îëčńŕâĺ, Ńâ˙ňîďîë÷ĺé ěŕňĺðč,
ðóńńęîé ęí˙ăčíĺ. Č ˙ äîďčńŕë ńűíîâ Ńâ˙ňîďîë÷čő.
Çŕďčńü ńäĺëŕíŕ ďî çŕęŕçó íĺčçâĺńňíîé ďî čńňî÷íčęŕě ðóńńęîé, ň.ĺ.
ęčĺâńęîé, ęí˙ăčíč Ĺëčçŕâĺňű, íŕçâŕííîé ďðîńňîðĺ÷íűě čěĺíĺě Îëčńŕâŕ,
âńňðĺ÷ŕţůčěń˙ â äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő č ńęŕíäčíŕâńęčő čńňî÷íčęŕő (íŕďðčěĺð,
äî÷ü ßðîńëŕâŕ Ěóäðîăî Ĺëčçŕâĺňŕ íŕçűâŕĺňń˙ â ńŕăŕő Ýëëčńčâ). Îëčńŕâŕ,
ńóä˙ ďî ňîěó, ÷ňî íŕçűâŕĺň ńĺá˙ íĺ ďî ěóćó, ŕ ďî ńűíó, – âäîâŕ˙ č ę ňîěó
ćĺ ďðŕâ˙ůŕ˙ ęí˙ăčí˙, ěŕňü, ďî âńĺé âĺðî˙ňíîńňč, óěĺðřĺăî âĺëčęîăî
ęí˙ç˙ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ, ďîńęîëüęó čěĺĺň ňčňóë „ðóńńęîé ęí˙ăčíč”. Óćĺ ńŕěî
čěĺíîâŕíčĺ ęí˙ăčíč „Ńâ˙ňîďîë÷ĺé ěŕňĺðüţ” îçíŕ÷ŕĺň ďî ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűě
ěĺðęŕě ŕďĺëë˙öčţ ę ďðŕâŕě óěĺðřĺăî ńűíŕ. Čńőîä˙ čç ęîíňĺęńňŕ
ăðŕôôčňč, ěîćíî äîďóńęŕňü, ÷ňî Îëčńŕâŕ áűëŕ ðĺăĺíňřĺé ďðč
ěŕëîëĺňíĺě íŕńëĺäíčęĺ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ (ęŕę ýňî áűëî çŕâĺäĺíî â ńðĺäíĺ-
89 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ.., 79-80; ňŕáë. ŐŐ˛Ő; ŐŐŐ

90 Íŕä áóęâŕěč gi ňčňëî âîëíîîáðŕçíîĺ, ŕ íĺ ęðĺńňîâčäíîĺ, ęŕę ó Ń. Âűńîöęîăî.
81 Íŕä áóęâîé t ňčňëî âîëíîîáðŕçíîĺ.
92 Íŕ ďðîðčńč Ń. Âűńîöęîăî áóęâŕ ďîęŕçŕíŕ ęŕę óňðŕ÷ĺííŕ˙, îäíŕęî ĺĺ ďðŕâŕ˙
÷ŕńňü ÷ĺňęî ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙.
93 Á. Ðűáŕęîâ ÷čňŕë ýňó áóęâó ęŕę 7: [Á. Ŕ. ÐŰÁŔĘÎÂ, Ðóńńęčĺ äŕňčðîâŕííűĺ
íŕäďčńč XI-XIV âĺęîâ, Ěîńęâŕ 1964, 16].
94 Áóęâű 5i Ń. Âűńîöęčé ÷čňŕë ęŕę 7yy., ŕ Á. Ðűáŕęîâ č Â. Íčě÷óę [Â. Â. ÍłĚ÷ÓĘ
[ðĺöĺíçł˙] Ń. Ŕ. Âűńîöęčé, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ íŕäďčńč Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé XI-XIV ââ.,
Âűď. ˛., Ęčĺâ 1966, â: Ěîâîçíŕâńňâî (1967) ą 2, 89] – ęŕę 7i; ëčřü Ŕ. Çŕëčçí˙ę
ďðŕâčëüíî îďðĺäĺëčë áóęâîńî÷ĺňŕíčĺ ęŕę 5i [Ŕ. Ŕ. ÇŔËČÇÍźĘ, Ę čçó÷ĺíčţ
äðĺâíĺðóńńęčő íŕäďčńĺé â: Â. Ë. ßíčí – Ŕ. Ŕ. Çŕëčçí˙ę – Ŕ. Ŕ. Ăčďďčóń,
Íîâăîðîäńęčĺ ăðŕěîňű íŕ áĺðĺńňĺ (Čç ðŕńęîďîę 1997-2000 ăîäîâ), Ěîńęâŕ 2004,
282].
95 Áóęâŕ l ďðî÷ĺð÷ĺíŕ íŕä ńňðîęîé.
96 Íŕä áóęâŕěč psl7 ďðî÷ĺð÷ĺíî óăëîâîĺ ňčňëî ń âďčńŕííűě â íĺăî
íŕäńňðî÷íűě l.
97 Áóęâű â ńëîâŕő s7yn7ys7=ii ďðčěĺðíî âäâîĺ áîëüřĺ ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń
220 îńňŕëüíűěč.
âĺęîâűő äčíŕńňč˙ő ďðč ďîäîáíűő îáńňî˙ňĺëüńňâŕő). Ńóä˙ ďî ńîäĺðćŕíčţ,

íŕäďčńü ńäĺëŕíŕ íĺ ńîáńňâĺííîðó÷íî ęí˙ăčíĺé, ŕ îň ĺĺ čěĺíč. Č ýňî
ëîăč÷íî, ňŕę ęŕę ňðóäíî ďðĺäńňŕâčňü ńĺáĺ ďîćčëóţ ęčĺâńęóţ ęí˙ăčíţ,
âűöŕðŕďűâŕţůóţ íŕ ńňîëü âčäíîě ěĺńňĺ çíŕěĺíčňîăî őðŕěŕ íŕäďčńü.
Ęŕę ďîęŕçűâŕţň íŕáëţäĺíč˙ íŕä ńîôčéńęčěč ăðŕôôčňč, íŕäďčńč îň
čěĺíč âëŕńňíűő ëčö, îńîáĺííî ćĺíůčí, ěîăëč äĺëŕňü ęëčðčęč ńîáîðŕ.
×ĺëîâĺę, ńäĺëŕâřčé çŕďčńü, ńîîáůŕĺň, ÷ňî îí äîďčńŕë ę íĺé ńűíîâĺé
Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ, ďðč÷ĺě ńëîâŕ «s7yn7y s7=ii» íŕěĺðĺííî âűäĺëĺíű áîëü-
řčěč áóęâŕěč.
Íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííî ďîä ăðŕôôčňč ą 27 íŕőîä˙ňń˙ ĺůĺ äâĺ íŕäďčńč,
ńîńňŕâë˙˙ ń íčě ęŕę áű îäčí ńďëîříîé ňĺęńň. Ďî őŕðŕęňĺðó ďðîðĺçĺé č
âíĺříĺěó âčäó áóęâ íŕäďčńč î÷ĺíü ďîőîćč, ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî, čő âűďîëíčë
îäčí č ňîň ćĺ ÷ĺëîâĺę. Ýňč çŕďčńč őîðîřî âčäíű íŕ ôîňîăðŕôčč
Ń. ÂŰŃÎÖĘÎĂÎ, îäíŕęî îďóáëčęîâŕíŕ áűëŕ ňîëüęî îäíŕ čç íčő ďîä ą 3096
(ðčń. 15):
gi99pomozirabousvoemou | mere100kuri©ivan7vi
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: g(ospod)i pomozi rabou svoemou merekuri©
ivan7vi.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáó ńâîĺěó Ěĺðęóðčţ-Čâŕíó.101
Ďóáëčęó˙ ăðŕôôčňč, Ń. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ íĺ ńâ˙çűâŕë ĺăî ń çŕďčńüţ
Îëčńŕâű.
Íčćĺ íŕőîäčňń˙ ðŕíĺĺ íĺ îďóáëčęîâŕííŕ˙ íŕäďčńü ą 451 (ðčń. 16):
98 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ.., 82, ňŕáë. ŐŐ˛Ő.

99 Íŕä áóęâŕěč gi ňčňëî âîëíîîáðŕçíîĺ.
100 Íŕ ďðîðčńč Ń. Âűńîöęîăî ðŕńńňî˙íčĺ ěĺćäó áóęâŕěč r č k čńęóńńňâĺííî
ńóćĺíî; íŕ ńŕěîě äĺëĺ ěĺćäó íčěč ðŕçěĺůŕëŕńü ĺůĺ îäíŕ áóęâŕ, îň ęîňîðîé
ńîőðŕíčëčńü ňîëüęî ęîíňóðű, ďîçâîë˙ţůčĺ čäĺíňčôčöčðîâŕňü ĺĺ ęŕę s čëč e.
Ďîńëĺäíčé âŕðčŕíň áîëĺĺ ďðčĺěëĺěűé.
101 Őðčńňčŕíńęŕ˙ äâóčěĺííîńňü, íŕőîä˙ůŕ˙ ěíîăî÷čńëĺííűĺ ďðčěĺðű ó ďîçäíčő
Ðţðčęîâč÷ĺé [Ŕ. Ô. ËČŇÂČÍŔ – Ô. Á. ÓŃĎĹÍŃĘČÉ, Âűáîð čěĺíč ó ðóńńęčő ęí˙çĺé
â X- XVI â. Äčíŕńňč÷ĺńęŕ˙ čńňîðč˙ ńęâîçü ďðčçěó ŕíňðîďîíčěčęč, Ěîńęâŕ
2006, 382-390], ńóä˙ ďî âńĺěó, čěĺëŕ äðĺâíţţ ňðŕäčöčţ, ďîńęîëüęó, íŕďðčěĺð, čç
čńňî÷íčęîâ čçâĺńňíî, ÷ňî ćĺíŕ Âëŕäčěčðŕ Ńâ˙ňîńëŕâč÷ŕ Ŕííŕ čěĺëŕ âňîðîĺ čě˙
Ĺëĺíŕ, ćĺíŕ ßðîńëŕâŕ Ěóäðîăî Čðčíŕ čěĺíîâŕëŕńü ňŕęćĺ Ŕííîé, ŕ ĺăî âíóę
ßðîďîëę Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ íîńčë őðčńňčŕíńęčĺ čěĺíŕ Ďĺňð č Ăŕâðččë. Ýňîň äðĺâíĺ-
ðóńńęčé îáű÷ŕé, ďðŕęňčęîâŕâřčéń˙, ęńňŕňč, â Âčçŕíňčč č â ńňðŕíŕő âčçŕí-
ňčéńęîăî ęóëüňóðíîăî ŕðĺŕëŕ, îáú˙ńí˙ĺňń˙ ňĺě, ÷ňî ěëŕäĺíöŕ ńíŕ÷ŕëŕ íŕçűâŕëč
íŕ 8-é äĺíü ďîńëĺ ðîćäĺíč˙ ňŕéíűě ěîëčňâĺííűě čěĺíĺě, ŕ íŕ 40-é – čçâĺńňíűě
âńĺě ęðĺńňčëüíűě [Theophanis Chronographia, rec. I. Classen, CSHB, Bonnae 1839,
vol. 1, 626-627; Ŕ. ÄĚČŇÐČĹÂŃĘČÉ, Áîăîńëóćĺíčĺ â Ðóńńęîé öĺðęâč â XVI âĺęĺ,
Ęŕçŕíü 1884, ÷. 1, 262-263; Ĺ. ĂÎËÓÁČÍŃĘČÉ, Čńňîðč˙ Ðóńńęîé öĺðęâč, Ěîńęâŕ
1911, ň. 2, ÷. 2, 517]. Ďîňŕĺííîńňü ďĺðâűő čěĺí, ńâĺäĺíč˙ î ęîňîðűő ðŕńńĺ˙íű â
ďčńüěĺííűő čńňî÷íčęŕő, őðŕěîńňðîčňĺëüńňâĺ, čçîáðŕçčňĺëüíîě čńęóńńňâĺ, íĺ
ďîçâîë˙ĺň ÷ĺňęî ďðîńëĺäčňü óęŕçŕííóţ ňðŕäčöčţ. Ŕ. Ô. Ëčňâčíŕ č Ô. Á.
Óńďĺíńęčé â ýňîé ńâ˙çč îňěĺ÷ŕţň: «Ęŕę ęŕćĺňń˙, ďîäîáíŕ˙ «íĺóëîâčěîńňü»
äîďîëíčňĺëüíűő őðčńňčŕíńęčő čěĺí ęí˙ç˙ ńâ˙çŕíŕ ń ńŕěčě őŕðŕęňĺðîě čő
ôóíęöčîíčðîâŕíč˙ č čő îńîáűě ńňŕňóńîě – čěĺíŕ ýňč íîńčëč ďðčíöčďčŕëüíî
íĺďóáëč÷íűé őŕðŕęňĺð, ŕ ńŕě ôĺíîěĺí äâóčěĺííîńňč íĺ ďðčíŕäëĺćŕë ę ÷čńëó
˙âíűě îáðŕçîě äĺęëŕðčðóĺěűő ˙âëĺíčé» [Ŕ. Ô. ËČŇÂČÍŔ – Ô. Á. ÓŃĎĹÍŃĘČÉ,
Âűáîð čěĺíč.., 382]. 221
gi102pom103ozist104ef105a106nougre[e | na107mou.
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: g(ospod)i pomozi stefanou gre[enamou.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč Ńňĺôŕíó ăðĺříîěó.
Îńîáĺííîńňüţ ýňîăî ăðŕôôčňč ˙âë˙ţňń˙ áóęâű a, íŕďčńŕííűĺ â
çĺðęŕëüíîě îňîáðŕćĺíčč. Ňŕęćĺ íĺńęîëüęî čçěĺíĺíŕ ńňŕíäŕðňíŕ˙
ôîðěóëŕ ěîëčňâĺííűő çŕďčńĺé ďî ńðŕâíĺíčţ ń ďðĺäűäóůčěč ăðŕôôčňč –
îďóůĺíű ńëîâŕ «rabou svoemou». Ýňî ěîćĺň ďîńňŕâčňü ďîä ńîěíĺíčĺ
íŕďčńŕíčĺ âńĺő ňðĺő ăðŕôôčňč îäíčě ÷ĺëîâĺęîě. Îäíŕęî ďðč íŕďčńŕíčč
ńëîâ merekuri© â ăðŕôôčňč ą 30 č gre[enamou â ą 451 ďðîńëĺćčâŕĺňń˙
îďðĺäĺëĺííŕ˙ çŕęîíîěĺðíîńňü. Â îáîčő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő âěĺńňî 7 ńňîčň e.
Î÷ĺâčäíî, ďðč íŕďčńŕíčč ăðŕôôčňč ŕâňîð čńőîäčë čç îďðĺäĺëĺííîé
íîðěű. Íŕð˙äó ń âíĺříčěč ďðčçíŕęŕěč (ôîðěŕ ďðîðĺçĺé č âíĺříčé âčä
áóęâ), ĺäčíŕ˙ íîðěŕ íŕďčńŕíč˙ e ňŕě ăäĺ áîëĺĺ âĺðî˙ňíűě áűëî áű
îćčäŕňü 7 čëč 6, ó÷čňűâŕ˙ çíŕ÷čňĺëüíóţ ńňĺďĺíü âŕðčŕňčâíîńňč ňĺęńňîâ
â ńňŕðîńëŕâ˙íńęčő ðóęîďčń˙ő,108 ěîćĺň ńëóćčňü äîďîëíčňĺëüíűě
ŕðăóěĺíňîě äë˙ ďðčçíŕíč˙ íŕďčńŕíč˙ ýňčő ăðŕôôčňč îäíčě ÷ĺëîâĺęîě.
Íčćĺ, íŕ íĺęîňîðîě ðŕńńňî˙íčč îň ňðĺő ăðŕôôčňč, íŕőîäčňń˙ ĺůĺ
îäíŕ íĺ ďóáëčęîâŕâřŕ˙ń˙ ðŕíĺĺ íŕäďčńü.
ą 452 (ðčń. 17):
g109i110pomozira--111u | svoemouioanou
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: g(ospod)i pomozi ra[bo]u svoemou ioanou.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáó ńâîĺěó Čîŕííó.
Âíĺříčé âčä áóęâ ďîçâîë˙ĺň ńîîňíĺńňč íŕäďčńü ń ďðĺäűäóůčěč
ăðŕôôčňč. Îíč, ęŕę ń÷čňŕĺě, ďðîðĺçŕíű îäíčě ÷ĺëîâĺęîě.
Íŕ ýňîé ćĺ ńňîðîíĺ ńňîëáŕ íŕőîäčňń˙ ĺůĺ îäíî íĺîďóáëčęîâŕííîĺ
ăðŕôôčňč. Íŕäďčńü ńčëüíî ďîâðĺćäĺíŕ ňðĺůčíŕěč, îńîáĺííî äâĺ íčćíčĺ
ńňðîęč. Îäíŕęî, îďðĺäĺëčâ ďðč ďðîðčńîâęĺ ęîíňóðű ňðĺůčí č óáðŕâ čő,
íŕě óäŕëîńü âîńńňŕíîâčňü ňĺęńň íŕäďčńč:
ą 453 (ðčń. 18):
gipo | mozi | rabusvo | emusta112 | vronu

104 Áóęâŕ t ďðčďîäí˙ňŕ íŕä ńňðîęîé.
105 Îň áóęâű f ńîőðŕíčëčńü ňîëüęî ęîíňóðű, ĺĺ ńðĺäí˙˙ ÷ŕńňü âűęðîřčëŕńü.
106 Áóęâŕ a çĺðęŕëüíŕ˙.
107 Áóęâŕ a çĺðęŕëüíŕ˙, îň íĺĺ ńîőðŕíčëčńü ňîëüęî ęîíňóðű, ĺĺ ńðĺäí˙˙ ÷ŕńňü
âűęðîřčëŕńü.
108 Â. Ě. ĆČÂÎÂ, Âîńňî÷íîńëŕâ˙íńęîĺ ďðŕâîďčńŕíčĺ Ő˛-Ő˛˛˛ âĺęŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 2006,
9.
109 Îň áóęâű g ńîőðŕíčëŕńü ňîëüęî ďĺðĺęëŕäčíŕ.
111 Áóęâű óíč÷ňîćĺíű âűáîčíîé; ďî ęîíňĺęńňó ďîâðĺćäĺííŕ˙ ÷ŕńňü âîńńňŕíŕ-
âëčâŕĺňń˙ ęŕę bo.
112 Îň áóęâű a ńîőðŕíčëčńü ňîëüęî ęîíňóðű, ňŕę ęŕę ĺĺ ńðĺäí˙˙ ÷ŕńňü âűęðî-
222 řčëŕńü.
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: g(ospod)i pomozi rabu svoemu stavronu.

Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáó ńâîĺěó Ńňŕâðîíó.
Çŕďčńü ńäĺëŕíŕ çŕěĺňíî íčćĺ íŕäďčńč Čîŕííŕ č ń ňðĺő ńňîðîí âç˙ňŕ
â ęâŕäðŕňíóţ ńęîáęó, îňęðűňóţ ę óăëó ńňîëáŕ. Âíĺříčé âčä áóęâ
îňëč÷ŕĺňń˙ îň ăðŕôôčňč ą 28, 30, 451, 452.
Íĺ čńęëţ÷ĺíî, ÷ňî ďĺðâűĺ ňðč çŕďčńč ńäĺëŕíű îň čěĺíč óďîě˙íóňűő
â ăðŕôôčňč Îëčńŕâű ńűíîâĺé Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ: Ěĺðęóðč˙-Čâŕíŕ, Ńňĺôŕíŕ č
Čîŕííŕ. Ďîâňîðĺíčĺ čěĺíč Čâŕí íĺ äîëćíî óäčâë˙ňü, ďîńęîëüęó ńűíîâü˙
Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ Ěĺðęóðčé-Čâŕí č Čîŕíí ěîăëč áűňü ðîćäĺíű îň ðŕçíűő
ćĺí (íĺ ńëó÷ŕéíî ćĺ ó ďĺðâîăî íŕçâŕíî äâîéíîĺ čě˙, ŕ ó âňîðîăî, â
îňëč÷čĺ îň ďĺðâîăî, čě˙ íŕďčńŕíî â ďîëíîé ôîðěĺ). Ó Ðţðčęîâč÷ĺé
čçâĺńňíî äîâîëüíî ěíîăî ńëó÷ŕĺâ ńîâďŕäĺíč˙ čěĺí ðîäíűő áðŕňüĺâ,
ďðč÷ĺě č â ńëó÷ŕ˙ő ðîćäĺíč˙ čő îň ðŕçíűő ćĺí.113 Íĺäŕðîě ăðŕôôčňč ń
čěĺíĺě Čîŕííŕ íĺńęîëüęî ńěĺůĺíî âíčç ďî îňíîřĺíčţ ę ăðóďďĺ
ăðŕôôčňč Îëčńŕâű, Ěĺðęóðč˙-Čâŕíŕ č Ńňĺôŕíŕ. Îňëč÷čĺ çŕďčńč
Ńňĺôŕíŕ îň íŕäďčńĺé Îëčńŕâű č Ěĺðęóðč˙-Čâŕíŕ ěîćĺň áűňü îáú˙ńíĺíî
ćĺëŕíčĺě çŕęŕç÷čęŕ ďîä÷ĺðęíóňü ńâîţ ďðčíŕäëĺćíîńňü ę íčě č â ňî ćĺ
âðĺě˙ âűäĺëčňüń˙ ńðĺäč îáůĺé ăðóďďű ăðŕôôčňč. Ďîńęîëüęó çŕďčńü
Ńňŕâðîíŕ ńäĺëŕíŕ ďîä÷ĺðęíóňî íčćĺ č âűäĺëĺíŕ čç äŕííîé ăðóďďű
ðŕěęîé, îíŕ, âĺðî˙ňíî, íŕçűâŕĺň ÷ĺëîâĺęŕ, áëčçęîăî ę ńűíîâü˙ě
Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ, íî čěĺţůĺăî ˙âíî íčçřčé ńňŕňóń.
Íŕ ńěĺćíîě, ńĺâĺðíîě, ðĺáðĺ ńňîëáŕ ę óęŕçŕííűě íŕäďčń˙ě
ďðčěűęŕţň ĺůĺ äâĺ, ńäĺëŕííűĺ íŕ çíŕ÷čňĺëüíîě ðŕńńňî˙íčč îäíŕ ďîä
äðóăîé, ďðč ýňîě íčćí˙˙ íŕőîäčňń˙ íŕ óðîâíĺ çŕďčńč Ńňŕâðîíŕ č ňŕęćĺ
îáâĺäĺíŕ ęâŕäðŕňíîé ńęîáęîé, îňęðűňîé ę óăëó ńňîëáŕ. Ňŕęčě îáðŕçîě,
îáŕ íčćíčő ăðŕôôčňč íŕ ńěĺćíűő ðĺáðŕő ńňîëáŕ îęŕçűâŕţňń˙
îáâĺäĺííűěč ĺäčíîé ďð˙ěîóăîëüíîé ðŕěęîé. Ńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíî, äâĺ íŕäďčńč
íŕ ńĺâĺðíîě ðĺáðĺ ňŕęćĺ ńâ˙çŕíű ń ńĺěüĺé ęí˙ç˙ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ. Ýňî
ďîäňâĺðćäŕĺň ðčńóíîę âĺńëŕ, îáðŕůĺííîăî ëîďŕńňüţ ââĺðő, ďðîöŕðŕďŕí-
íűé îň íčćíĺé ę âĺðőíĺé çŕďčńč. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, îřčáî÷íî číňĺðďðĺňčðîâŕâ
ýňîň ðčńóíîę ęŕę čçîáðŕćĺíčĺ ńňðĺëű ń îďĺðĺíčĺě, ďðčâîäčë â ńâîčő
ęíčăŕő ďðîðčńîâęč âĺńëŕ áĺç îâŕëüíîăî çŕâĺðřĺíč˙ ĺăî ëîďŕńňč, â
ðĺçóëüňŕňĺ ÷ĺăî ďîëó÷čëń˙ îáðŕůĺííűé çóáü˙ěč ââĺðő ňðĺçóáĺö.114 Íî
113 Íŕďðčěĺð ó Âëŕäčěčðŕ Ŕíäðĺĺâč÷ŕ Őðŕáðîăî (1353-1410) áűëî äâŕ ńűíŕ ďî

čěĺíč Ŕíäðĺé; ó âíóęŕ Âëŕäčěčðŕ Ŕíäðĺĺâč÷ŕ, Âŕńčëč˙ ßðîńëŕâč÷ŕ, îň ðŕçíűő
áðŕęîâ áűëî äâŕ ńűíŕ ďî čěĺíč Čîŕíí; ó Ěčőŕčëŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ŕ Ňâĺðńęîăî
(1364-1399) áűëî äâŕ ńűíŕ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðŕ; ó Ŕíäðĺ˙ Ŕëĺęńŕíäðîâč÷ŕ Ðîńňîâńęîăî
(óě. ďîńëĺ 1417) – äâŕ Čîŕííŕ; ó Ôĺäîðŕ Ŕíäðĺĺâč÷ŕ Ðîńňîâńęîăî (ęîí. XIV – íŕ÷.
XV ââ.) – ňîćĺ äâŕ Čîŕííŕ č ň. ä. Čçâĺńňíî, ÷ňî číîăäŕ ěëŕäřĺěó ðĺáĺíęó äŕâŕëč
čě˙ ńňŕðřĺăî áðŕňŕ ďðč ćčçíč ďîńëĺäíĺăî (íŕďð. â ńĺěüĺ Âŕńčëč˙ ßðîńëŕâč÷ŕ, ó
ęîňîðîăî ńňŕðřčé č ěëŕäřčé Čâŕí ðîäčëčńü îň ðŕçíűő ćĺí). Ďîëŕăŕţň, ÷ňî
íŕëč÷čĺ áðŕňüĺâ-ňĺçîę îň ðŕçíűő ćĺí ěîćĺň îáú˙ńí˙ňüń˙ ňĺě, ÷ňî íîâűé áðŕę
îçíŕ÷ŕë íĺęóţ íîâóţ ňî÷ęó îňń÷ĺňŕ â ńĺěĺéíîě čěĺíîńëîâĺ [Ŕ. Ô. ËČŇÂČÍŔ – Ô.
Á. ÓŃĎĹÍŃĘČÉ, Âűáîð čěĺíč.., 232-233]. Ďîí˙ňíî, ÷ňî ňŕęîĺ ˙âëĺíčĺ íĺ áűëî
íîâřĺńňâîě ďîçäíčő Ðţðčęîâč÷ĺé, ŕ ńëĺäîâŕëî áîëĺĺ äðĺâíĺé ňðŕäčöčč, ÷ňî
ďîäňâĺðćäŕţň çŕďčńč «ńűíîâ Ńâ˙ňîďîë÷čő» Ěĺðęóðč˙-Čâŕíŕ č Čîŕííŕ.
114 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ.., ňŕáë. ŐŐŐ˛˛, 1, 3; Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ,
Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűĺ.., ňŕáë. Ő˛. 223
íŕ ńňĺíĺ ÷ĺňęî ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ îâŕëüíŕ˙ ëîďŕńňü âĺńëŕ ń ďðîäîëüíűě

ðĺáðîě ďîńĺðĺäčíĺ. Ďîńęîëüęó âĺńëî – čçâĺńňíűé ńčěâîë ęîðě÷ĺăî
(íŕďðčěĺð â Ńîôčč ńâ. Ôîęŕ, ďîęðîâčňĺëü ęîðě÷čő, čçîáðŕćĺí ń âĺńëîě
â ðóęĺ), îáĺ íčćíčĺ íŕäďčńč ěîăóň ďðčíŕäëĺćŕňü ęîðěčëüöŕě ęí˙ćč÷ĺé
(«ďĺńňóíŕě», ä˙äü˙ě-«âó˙ě», íŕńňŕâíčęŕě). Âĺðňčęŕëü îáðŕůĺííîăî
ââĺðő âĺńëŕ ďðčíóćäŕĺň âńďîěíčňü ńčěâîëčęó âĺðňčęŕëüíîé ëčíčč,
ęîňîðŕ˙ čäĺň ńíčçó-ââĺðő – ýňî îáðŕç ďîäúĺěŕ, ðîńňŕ, ďðîăðĺńńŕ, äîńňč-
ćĺíč˙ ďîáĺäű, íîâűő âîçěîćíîńňĺé, č ýňîň çíŕę óęŕçűâŕĺň íŕ ëč÷íîńňü,
óďîě˙íóňóţ â âĺðőíĺě ăðŕôôčňč.
Âĺðőí˙˙ çŕďčńü, ńäĺëŕííŕ˙ íŕ óðîâíĺ çŕďčńč ń čěĺíĺě Îëčńŕâű, áűëŕ
îďóáëčęîâŕíŕ Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČĚ ďîä ą 28.115 Ďðč ďîâňîðíîě
čńńëĺäîâŕíčč ÷ĺňęî ÷čňŕĺěîé íŕäďčńč ĺäčíńňâĺííîĺ îňëč÷čĺ îň
îďóáëčęîâŕííîé – ýňî íŕďčńŕíčĺ u âěĺńňî ou â ńëîâĺ svoemu (ðčń. 19):
gi116po | mozi | rabus | voemu117 | miha | ilu.
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: g(ospod)i pomozi rabu svoemu mihailu.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ăîńďîäč, ďîěîăč ðŕáó ńâîĺěó Ěčőŕčëó.
Íčćĺ íŕőîäčňń˙ ăðŕôôčňč, ďîëó÷čâřĺĺ ó ÂŰŃÎÖĘÎĂÎ íîěĺð 29.118
Ďðč íŕřĺě čńńëĺäîâŕíčč ðŕçëč÷čé ń îďóáëčęîâŕííîé íŕäďčńüţ íĺ
îáíŕðóćĺíî (ðčń. 20):
p119 omo | zi120ra121 | buoso122e | mu123 o3k | uonuo.
Ń ðŕçáčâęîé íŕ ńëîâŕ: pomozi rabuo s(v)oemuo 3kuonuo.
Ďĺðĺâîä: Ďîěîăč ðŕáó ńâîĺěó ßęóíó.
Ŕâňîð íčćíĺé íŕäďčńč, ďðîöŕðŕďŕííîé íŕ óðîâíĺ çŕďčńč Ńňŕâðîíŕ,
ßęóí, ďðčńîĺäčí˙ĺňń˙ ę ďðîńüáĺ Ěčőŕčëŕ č ďîňîěó îďóńęŕĺň ńëîâî
«Ăîńďîäč». Â íŕäďčńč ßęóíŕ áðîńŕĺňń˙ â ăëŕçŕ öĺëűé ð˙ä îřčáîę: â ńëîâĺ
«ńâîĺěó» ďðîďóůĺíŕ áóęâŕ v, â îęîí÷ŕíč˙ő âěĺńňî ou ďîńňŕâëĺíî uo.
Ęðîěĺ ňîăî, áóęâŕ a íŕďčńŕíŕ â çĺðęŕëüíîě îňîáðŕćĺíčč.
Âčä áóęâ ăðŕôôčňč, îáâĺäĺííűő ðŕěęîé (ą 20 ňŕ ą 453), ðŕçëč÷íűé,
îäíŕęî ˙âíî çŕěĺňíî ńňðĺěëĺíčĺ čő ŕâňîðîâ čńďîëüçîâŕňü ęŕę ďðčěĺð
çŕďčńü Ěčőŕčëŕ (ą 28). Ńóä˙ ďî ðŕçëč÷č˙ě ďî÷ĺðęîâ, ńęîðĺĺ âńĺăî ýňč
ăðŕôôčňč áűëč ďðîöŕðŕďŕíű ńŕěčěč ßęóíîě č Ńňŕâðîíîě.
Âń˙ ýňŕ ęîěďŕęňíî ðŕçěĺůĺííŕ˙ ăðóďďŕ íŕäďčńĺé, âíĺ âń˙ęîăî
ńîěíĺíč˙, îňíîńčňń˙ ę ęðóăó áëčçęčő äðóă äðóăó ëţäĺé, čěĺâřčő
115 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ.., 80-81; ŐŐŐ˛, 1; ŐŐŐ˛˛, 1; Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ,

Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűĺ.., ňŕáë. Ő, Ő˛.
116 Íŕä áóęâŕěč ăč ęðĺńňîâčäíîĺ ňčňëî.
117 Ń. Âűńîöęčé ÷čňŕë áóęâó ęŕę äčăðŕô ou.
118 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ.., 81-82; ŐŐŐ˛, 2; ŐŐŐ˛˛, 2; Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ,
Ńðĺäíĺâĺęîâűĺ.., ňŕáë. Ő, Ő˛.
119 Ďðŕâŕ˙ ěŕ÷ňŕ áóęâű p íĺ ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙, ÷ňî äĺëŕĺň ĺĺ ďîőîćĺé íŕ g.
120 Ěĺćäó áóęâŕěč zi íŕőîäčňń˙ ďðîěĺćóňîę, ďðčěĺðíî íŕ ðŕçěĺð ĺůĺ îäíîé
áóęâű.
121 Áóęâŕ a çĺðęŕëüíŕ˙.
122 Áóęâŕ o ââĺðőó č âíčçó îăðŕíč÷ĺíŕ çŕńĺ÷ęŕěč.
123 Ńîńňŕâë˙ţůŕ˙ äčăðŕô ou áóęâŕ u ďðîńěŕňðčâŕĺňń˙ ńëŕáî.
224
Ðčń. 1 Ăðŕôôčňč ń çŕďčńüţ

î Ęčðčîďŕńőĺ 1022 ă. (ą 1)
Ðčń. 2 Ăðŕôôčňč
1036 ă. (ą 2)
Ðčń. 3 Ăðĺęî-
˙çű÷íŕ˙ ěîëčňâŕ
«Ďîěčëóé íŕń,
Ńâ˙ňîé Ăîńďîäü»
(ą 725) 225
Ðčń. 4 Íŕäďčńü-ěîëčňâŕ
Ďĺňðŕ (ą 723)
Ðčń. 5 Íŕäďčńü-ěîëčňâŕ Íčęîëű

(ą 724)
Ðčń. 6 Íŕäďčńü-ěîëčňâŕ Čîŕííŕ

226 â Ăĺîðăčĺâńęîě ďðčäĺëĺ (ą 726)
Ðčń. 7 Ôðŕăěĺíň ěîëčňâű

(ą 727)

(ą 728)

(ą 729)
227
Ðčń. 10 Ôðŕăěĺíň
ěîëčňâű (ą 730)
Ðčń. 11 Ăðŕôôčňč 1033 ă.

â Ăĺîðăčĺâńęîě ďðčäĺëĺ
(ą 720)
Ðčń. 12 Ôðŕăěĺíň ăðĺęî-

228 ˙çű÷íîé ěîëčňâű (ą 721)
Ðčń. 13 Ăðŕôôčňč 1033 ă.

â ŕðęĺ-ďĺðĺőîäĺ ěĺćäó
ăëŕâíűě ŕëňŕðĺě č äčŕ-
ęîííčęîě. (ą 653)
Ðčń. 14 Íŕäďčńü-ěîëčňâŕ ěŕňĺðč

Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ Îëčńŕâű (ą 27)
229
Ðčń. 15 Íŕä-
ďčńü-ěîëčňâŕ
ńűíŕ Ńâ˙ňî-
ďîëęŕ Ěĺð-
ęóðč˙-Čâŕíŕ
ą 30)
Ðčń. 16 Íŕäďčńü-ěîëčňâŕ ńűíŕ

Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ Ńňĺôŕíŕ (ą 451)
Ðčń. 17 Íŕä-
ďîëęŕ Čîŕííŕ
230 (ą 452)
Ðčń. 18 Íŕäďčńü-
-ěîëčňâŕ Ńňŕâ-
ðîíŕ (ą 453)
Ðčń. 19 Íŕä-
ďîëęŕ Ěčőŕ-
čëŕ (ą 28) 231
Ðčń. 20 Íŕäďčńü-
ěîëčňâŕ ßęóíŕ č
ðčńóíîę âĺńëŕ
(ą 29)
Ðčń. 21 Íŕäďčńü-ěîëčňâŕ ęčĺâńęîăî

232 ěčňðîďîëčňŕ Čîŕííŕ ˛ (ą 105)
íĺďîńðĺäńňâĺííîĺ îňíîřĺíčĺ ę âĺëčęîěó ęí˙çţ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęó. Čçâĺńňíî

ëčřü äâŕ ęčĺâńęčő ęí˙ç˙, íîńčâřčő čě˙ Ńâ˙ňîďîëę, – Ńâ˙ňîďîëę I
Âëŕäčěčðîâč÷ (1018-1019) č Ńâ˙ňîďîëę II Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ (1093-1113). Ń. Ŕ.
ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ ń÷čňŕë, ÷ňî íŕäďčńü ńäĺëŕíŕ äî 1107 ă. ěŕňĺðüţ ęčĺâńęîăî
ęí˙ç˙ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ŕ, ďîńęîëüęó Ńâ˙ňîďîëę Âëŕäčěčðîâč÷,
čěĺíóĺěűé â ďčńüěĺííîé ňðŕäčöčč «Îęŕ˙ííűě», óěĺð â 1019 ă., ďî
ěíĺíčţ ÂŰŃÎÖĘÎĂÎ, çŕ 18 ëĺň äî ďîńňðîéęč Ńîôčéńęîăî ńîáîðŕ. Ňĺě íĺ
ěĺíĺĺ, ó÷ĺíűé îňěĺ÷ŕë ŕðőŕč÷íîńňü íŕďčńŕíč˙ ăðŕôôčňč, â ÷ŕńňíîńňč
ńëîâŕ k7n3g7yni ÷ĺðĺç ňâĺðäűé çíŕę ďîńëĺ áóęâű k â ďĺðâîě áĺçóäŕðíîě
ńëîăĺ. Óćĺ íŕ Ňěóňŕðŕęŕíńęîě ęŕěíĺ 1068 ă. ńëîâî kn3z6 íŕďčńŕíî áĺç 7
ďîńëĺ k. Ďŕëĺîăðŕôč˙ íŕäďčńč ń čěĺíĺě Îëčńŕâű ďĺðĺęëčęŕĺňń˙ ń îäíčěč
čç äðĺâíĺéřčő äŕňčðîâŕííűő íŕäďčńĺé Ńîôčč – 1052 č 1054 ăă. Îńîáĺííî
ďðčěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíî î÷ĺíü äðĺâíĺĺ íŕďčńŕíčĺ áóęâű = â âčäĺ ÷ŕřč ń
îňîăíóňűěč ęðŕ˙ěč. Ňŕęîé ćĺ âŕðčŕíň íŕďčńŕíč˙ áóęâű = âńňðĺ÷ĺí íŕěč
ďðč čńńëĺäîâŕíčč ôðŕăěĺíňŕ řňóęŕňóðęč ń ăðŕôôčňč (ą 483) čç
óďîě˙íóňîé âűřĺ ďðîěîčíű Ő˛ â. íŕ ďîäâîðüĺ Ńîôčč Ęčĺâńęîé ńî
ńňðîčňĺëüíűě ěóńîðîě âðĺěĺí ĺĺ âîçâĺäĺíč˙. Č, âńĺ ćĺ, íĺńěîňð˙ íŕ
ďŕëĺîăðŕôč÷ĺńęóţ ŕðőŕč÷íîńňü ăðŕôôčňč, ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ „ďîäň˙ăčâŕë” ĺăî
ęî âðĺěĺíč Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ŕ, čáî âîçěîćíîńňü ńâ˙çč íŕäďčńč ńî
Ńâ˙ňîďîëęîě Âëŕäčěčðîâč÷ĺě čě äŕćĺ íĺ ðŕńńěŕňðčâŕëŕńü. Ńîîňâĺň-
ńňâĺííî íŕäďčńü Ěčőŕčëŕ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëü ńâ˙çűâŕë ńî Ńâ˙ňîďîëęîě
Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ĺě, čěĺâřčě ęðĺńňčëüíîĺ čě˙ Ěčőŕčë.
Ęŕę ďîëŕăŕţň, ěŕňĺðüţ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ŕ áűëŕ «ë˙őîâčöŕ»
Ăĺðňðóäŕ, äî÷ü ďîëüńęîăî ęîðîë˙ Ěĺřęŕ II č ńĺńňðŕ ęîðîë˙ Ęŕçčěčðŕ I.
Čěĺííî ĺĺ Â. Ë. ßÍČÍ âďĺðâűĺ îňîćäĺńňâčë ń Îëčńŕâîé.124 Ó÷ĺíűĺ,
ďðčí˙âřčĺ âĺðńčţ ßÍČÍŔ, ďîëŕăŕţň, ÷ňî Ăĺðňðóäŕ, âĺðî˙ňíî, ďîëó÷čëŕ
íŕ Ðóńč ăðĺ÷ĺńęîĺ čě˙ Ĺëčçŕâĺňŕ, č íŕçűâŕţň íŕäďčńü «ăðŕôôčňč
Ăĺðňðóäű-Îëčńŕâű».125 Îäíŕęî ńŕě ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ óęŕçűâŕë íŕ řŕňęîńňü
ňŕęîăî îňîćäĺńňâëĺíč˙, ďîńęîëüęó îíî ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čň äŕííűě
ďčńüěĺííűő čńňî÷íčęîâ, â ÷ŕńňíîńňč, Ęîäĺęńó Ăĺðňðóäű (îá ýňîě íčćĺ)
č ëĺňîďčńíîěó ńîîáůĺíčţ ďîä 1085 ă., čç ęîňîðîăî ńëĺäóĺň, ÷ňî îíŕ áűëŕ
ěŕňĺðüţ ëčřü îäíîăî ńűíŕ Čç˙ńëŕâŕ – ßðîďîëęŕ. Ó÷ĺíűé áűë óâĺðĺí,
÷ňî ęŕňîëč÷ęŕ Ăĺðňðóäŕ íĺ ěîăëŕ ďĺðĺéňč â ďðŕâîńëŕâčĺ, ďîýňîěó
ăðŕôôčňč, ďî ĺăî ěíĺíčţ, ńäĺëŕíî äðóăîé, íĺ óďîěčíŕĺěîé â čńňî÷íčęŕő,
ćĺíîé Čç˙ńëŕâŕ ßðîńëŕâč÷ŕ.126 Â îňâĺň íŕ ýňî ĺăî îďďîíĺíňű çŕěĺ÷ŕţň,
÷ňî Ńâ˙ňîďîëę ðîäčëń˙ óćĺ ďîńëĺ ćĺíčňüáű Čç˙ńëŕâŕ íŕ Ăĺðňðóäĺ,127
124 Â. Ë. ßÍČÍ, Ðóńńęŕ˙ ęí˙ăčí˙ Îëčńŕâŕ-Ăĺðňðóäŕ č ĺĺ ńűí ßðîďîëę, â:

Íóěčçěŕňčęŕ č ýďčăðŕôčęŕ, Ěîńęâŕ 1963, âűď. 4, 142-143.
125 Čç íîâĺéřčő ďóáëčęŕöčé ń ňŕęîé ŕňðčáóöčĺé ńě.: Ë. ÂÎÉŇÎÂČ÷, Ęí˙ćŕ äîáŕ
íŕ Ðóńł: ďîðňðĺňč ĺëłňč, Áłëŕ Öĺðęâŕ 2006, 310-311; Ŕ. ĎÎĎĎÝ, Ăĺðňðóäŕ-
Îëčńŕâŕ, ðóńüńęŕ˙ ęí˙ăčí˙: Ďĺðĺńěîňð áčîăðŕôč÷ĺńęčő äŕííűő, â.: Čěĺíîńëîâ.
Čńňîðč÷ĺńęŕ˙ ńĺěŕíňčęŕ čěĺíč. âűď. 2, Ěîńęâŕ 2007, 208-209.
126 Ń. Ŕ. ÂŰŃÎÖĘČÉ, Äðĺâíĺðóńńęčĺ.., 79-80.
127 Ďî ëŕęîíč÷íîěó ńîîáůĺíčţ Íîâăîðîäńęîé ďĺðâîé ëĺňîďčńč – â 1050 ă.
Îňňŕëęčâŕ˙ńü îň ęîńâĺííűő äŕííűő, ń÷čňŕţň, ÷ňî áðŕę Čç˙ńëŕâŕ ń Ăĺðňðóäîé,
âðĺě˙ çŕęëţ÷ĺíč˙ ęîňîðîăî íĺčçâĺńňíî, čěĺë ěĺńňî îęîëî 1043/44 ăă.: Ŕ. ĎÎĎĎÝ,
Ăĺðňðóäŕ-Îëčńŕâŕ …, 212. 233
ęîňîðŕ˙ îńňŕâŕëŕńü ĺăî ćĺíîé äî ńŕěîé ńěĺðňč ęí˙ç˙. Ďîýňîěó ęîĺ-ęňî čç

čńňîðčęîâ ń÷čňŕĺň Îëčńŕâó íŕëîćíčöĺé Čç˙ńëŕâŕ, ŕ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ – ĺăî
âíĺáðŕ÷íűě ńűíîě. Îäíŕęî îňîćäĺńňâëĺíčĺ Îëčńŕâű ń íĺęîé íŕëîć-
íčöĺé ŕáńîëţňíî íĺďðčĺěëĺěî, ďîńęîëüęó íŕëîćíčöŕ íĺ ěîăëŕ ňčňó-
ëîâŕňüń˙ «ðóńńęîé ęí˙ăčíĺé», äŕ ę ňîěó ćĺ â íŕäďčńč íŕ ńňĺíĺ «ěčňðî-
ďîëčč ðóńńęîé».
Â ňî ćĺ âðĺě˙ îňðčöŕíčĺ ÂŰŃÎÖĘČĚ âîçěîćíîńňč îňîćäĺńňâëĺíč˙
Îëčńŕâű ń Ăĺðňðóäîé âďîëíĺ ńďðŕâĺäëčâî. Äĺëî â ňîě, ÷ňî ńóůĺńňâóĺň
ð˙ä äîńňŕňî÷íî ńĺðüĺçíűő ęîíňðŕðăóěĺíňîâ äë˙ ňŕęîăî îňîćäĺńňâëĺíč˙.
Ęŕę čçâĺńňíî, ńîőðŕíčëń˙ ňŕę íŕçűâŕĺěűé Ęîäĺęń Ăĺðňðóäű, čçâĺńňíűé
ňŕęćĺ ďîä íŕçâŕíč˙ěč Ňðčðńęŕ˙ Ďńŕëňűðü čëč Ďńŕëňűðü Ýăáĺðňŕ,
ďîńęîëüęó îíŕ ńîçäŕíŕ â ęîíöĺ Ő â. äë˙ Ňðčðńęîăî ŕðőčĺďčńęîďŕ Ýăáĺðňŕ
(977-993). Ěĺćäó 1078-1086 ăă. ðóęîďčńü ďî çŕęŕçó Ăĺðňðóäű äîďîëíčëč
ďî÷ňč ńîňíĺé ěîëčňâ č ď˙ňüţ ěčíčŕňţðŕěč. Â îäíîé čç ńâîčő ěîëčňâ
Ăĺðňðóäŕ íŕçűâŕĺň ńâîĺăî ńűíŕ ßðîďîëęŕ (Ďĺňðŕ) Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ŕ
«ĺäčíńňâĺííűé ńűí ěîé Ďĺňð» [unicus filius meus Petrus], őîň˙ čçâĺńňíî,
÷ňî Čç˙ńëŕâ čěĺë ĺůĺ äâóő ńűíîâĺé – Ěńňčńëŕâŕ č Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ. Ĺńëč
Ěńňčńëŕâ (ęŕę ďîëŕăŕţň, áŕńňŕðä, ŕäŕďňčðîâŕííűé îňöîě) óěĺð â 1069 ă.,
ňî Ńâ˙ňîďîëę (óě. â 1113 ă.) â ăîäű ńîçäŕíč˙ Ęîäĺęńŕ áűë ćčâ.128 Çíŕ÷čň,
îí íĺ ěîă áűňü ńűíîě Ăĺðňðóäű.
Âňîðîé âĺńîěűé ęîíňðŕðăóěĺíň – ýňî ňî, ÷ňî ěîëčňâű Ăĺðňðóäű
íŕďčńŕíű ëŕňűíüţ, ŕ â ďîěĺůĺííîě ńðĺäč ĺĺ ěîëčňâ Ńčěâîëĺ âĺðű
ďðčńóňńňâóĺň ęŕňîëč÷ĺńęîĺ «ôčëčîęâĺ». Ńëĺäîâŕňĺëüíî, Ăĺðňðóäŕ â
ďðŕâîńëŕâčĺ íĺ ďĺðĺřëŕ, îńňŕâřčńü ęŕňîëč÷ęîé. Íŕęîíĺö, ę ýňîěó ńňîčň
äîáŕâčňü, ÷ňî â ňðĺő čç ńâîčő ěîëčňâ Ăĺðňðóäŕ îáðŕůŕĺňń˙ ę ńâ. Ĺëĺíĺ,
ęîňîðóţ íĺęîňîðűĺ čńńëĺäîâŕňĺëč âďîëíĺ ďðŕâîěĺðíî ń÷čňŕţň
ďîęðîâčňĺëüíčöĺé ęí˙ăčíč, čěĺâřĺé ęðĺńňčëüíîĺ čě˙ Ĺëĺíŕ. Číňĺðĺńíî,
÷ňî â ďîěĺůĺííîě â íŕ÷ŕëĺ Ęîäĺęńŕ ěĺń˙öĺńëîâĺ ďîä 21 ěŕ˙ çíŕ÷čňń˙
ďŕě˙ňü ëčřü ńâ. Ĺëĺíű áĺç ĺĺ ďŕðíîăî ńâ˙ňîăî Ęîíńňŕíňčíŕ, č ýňî ˙âíîĺ
íŕðóřĺíčĺ ňðŕäčöčč ěîćĺň ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâîâŕňü â ďîëüçó îńîáîăî çíŕ÷ĺíč˙
äŕííîé ńâ˙ňîé äë˙ Ăĺðňðóäű. Â ňî ćĺ âðĺě˙ íč îäíŕ čç ěîëčňâ Ăĺðňðóäű
íĺ îáðŕůĺíŕ ę ńâ. Ĺëčçŕâĺňĺ. Ňî ĺńňü, óďîěčíŕĺěŕ˙ â íŕäďčńč íŕ ńňĺíĺ
Ńîôčč Îëčńŕâŕ – âîâńĺ íĺ Ăĺðňðóäŕ.
Íî ěîăëŕ ëč îíŕ áűňü ěŕňĺðüţ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ (Ěčőŕčëŕ) Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ŕ,
÷ĺé ŕâňîăðŕô, ďî ěíĺíčţ ÂŰŃÎÖĘÎĂÎ, ðŕçěĺůĺí ð˙äîě ń çŕďčńüţ
Îëčńŕâű? Îňěĺňčě, ÷ňî ăðŕôôčňč Ěčőŕčëŕ íĺëüç˙ ďðčí˙ňü çŕ ŕâňîăðŕô
Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ŕ óćĺ ďîňîěó, ÷ňî ńęðîěíîĺ čěĺíîâŕíčĺ
ďðŕâ˙ůĺăî âĺëčęîăî ęí˙ç˙ «ðŕáîě Ěčőŕčëîě», öĺëčęîě äîďóńňčěîĺ â
äðóăčő ńëó÷ŕ˙ő ďðč îáðŕůĺíčč ę Áîăó, â äŕííîě ńëó÷ŕĺ áűëî
íĺâîçěîćíűě, ňŕę ęŕę â ńîńĺäíĺě ăðŕôôčňč «Ńâ˙ňîďîë÷ŕ˙ ěŕňü» ăðîěęî
ňčňóëóĺňń˙ «ðóńńęîé ęí˙ăčíĺé». Ńîöčŕëüíűé ńňŕňóń âĺëčęîăî ęí˙ç˙ č ĺăî
128 Ěű íĺ ńęëîííű ďðčäŕâŕňü ďðčâĺäĺííűě ńëîâŕě ěîëčňâű Ăĺðňðóäű ëčřü

ýěîöčîíŕëüíűé ńěűńë (â çíŕ÷ĺíčč «ńŕěűé ëţáčěűé, čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíűé»), ęŕę
ýňî äĺëŕĺň Ŕ. Ďîďďý, ęîňîðűé ňĺě íĺ ěĺíĺĺ ďîä÷ĺðęčâŕĺň, ÷ňî äŕííűé îáîðîň
ďî˙âë˙ĺňń˙ â ýňîé ěîëčňâĺ řĺńňčęðŕňíî [Ŕ. ĎÎĎĎÝ, Ăĺðňðóäŕ-Îëčńŕâŕ.., 207].
Ńňîëü íŕńňîé÷čâűé ŕęöĺíň íŕ ĺäčíńňâĺííîńňč ßðîďîëęŕ ěîćĺň óęŕçűâŕňü íŕ ĺăî
234 čńęëţ÷čňĺëüíîĺ ďðŕâî íŕ Ęčĺâ â ďðîňčâîâĺń áŕńňŕðäó (?) Ńâ˙ňîďîëęó.
ěŕňĺðč, ęîňîðŕ˙, â îňëč÷čĺ îň íĺăî, íĺ ďðŕâčëŕ Ðóńüţ, áűëč, ęîíĺ÷íî ćĺ,

ðŕçíűěč. Ęŕę âčäčě, ńóůĺńňâóĺň ð˙ä íĺðŕçðĺřčěűő ďðîňčâîðĺ÷čé, íĺ
ďîçâîë˙ţůčő ńâ˙çűâŕňü ăðŕôôčňč Îëčńŕâű ń ěŕňĺðüţ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ ˛˛
Čç˙ńëŕâč÷ŕ.
Ĺńëč ćĺ ďðčí˙ňü ďðĺäëŕăŕĺěóţ äŕňčðîâęó âîçíčęíîâĺíč˙ Ńîôčč â
1011-1018 ăă., âńĺ ńňŕíîâčňń˙ íŕ ńâîč ěĺńňŕ. Ëîăč÷íî ďîëŕăŕňü, ÷ňî
óęŕçŕííűĺ ăðŕôôčňč îňíîń˙ňń˙ ę ńĺěüĺ Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ I (Ďĺňðŕ)
Âëŕäčěčðîâč÷ŕ, ęîňîðűé áűë âĺëčęčě ęčĺâńęčě ęí˙çĺě â 1018-1019 ăă. č
äŕćĺ ÷ĺęŕíčë ńîáńňâĺííóţ ńĺðĺáð˙íóţ ěîíĺňó.123 Ýňî áűë ŕâňîðč-
ňĺňíűé č âëč˙ňĺëüíűé ďðŕâčňĺëü, ćĺíŕňűé íŕ äî÷ĺðč çíŕěĺíčňîăî
ďîëüńęîăî ęí˙ç˙ (ń 1025 ă. – ęîðîë˙) Áîëĺńëŕâŕ Őðŕáðîăî. Ńâ˙ňîďîëę
čěĺë äčďëîěŕňč÷ĺńęčĺ č âîĺííűĺ ńâ˙çč ń âčçŕíňčéńęčě čěďĺðŕňîðîě
Âŕńčëčĺě II, ęîňîðűé ďîńëĺ ăčáĺëč ńâîčő ďëĺě˙ííčęîâ Áîðčńŕ č Ăëĺáŕ,
óáčňűő ďî çŕęŕçó ßðîńëŕâŕ,130 ńóä˙ ďî âńĺěó, ďîääĺðćŕë Ńâ˙ňîďîëęŕ.
Çíŕ÷čň, Îëčńŕâŕ – ýňî ňŕ ęðŕńŕâčöŕ «ăðĺęčí˙», ðŕńńňðčćĺííŕ˙
Ńâ˙ňîńëŕâîě Čăîðĺâč÷ĺě ěîíŕőčí˙, ďĺðâűě ěóćĺě ęîňîðîé áűë óáčňűé
Âëŕäčěčðîě â 980 ă. ĺăî ńňŕðřčé áðŕň ßðîďîëę. Ëĺňî�

ByzSlav 68 1-2 (2010) PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ByzSlav 68 1-2 (2010) PDF

Originaltitel:

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

B Y Z A N T I N O S L A V I C A

REVUE INTERNATIONALE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES

Comité international de lecture

Michail V. BIBIKOV (Moscou), Růžena DOSTÁLOVÁ (Prague), Axinia DžUROVA (Sofia),

La revue Byzantinoslavica est citée par ERIH et Scopus

© Slovanský ústav AV ČR, v. v. i., 2010

VladimÌr Vav¯Ìnek Achtziger (R˘ûena D o s t · l o v · / Praha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

résumés des articles

Testament of the Emperor Maurice

The (Purported) Teacher of John of Damascus and Kosmas Melodos

Pottery production and use in Byzantine Constantinople

An unknown source of Constantine Porphyrogenitus

Odalric of Reims and his narration about the translation

Organization and Modus Operandi of the Manufacturing Industry

The ancients inscriptions of Kiev Sophia Cathedral and it’s dating

Goliards in Byzantium, Prodromoi in the West. Parallel Reading

Western influences on 17th-century post-Byzantine wall paintings in the

Quid multis opus est verbis, ubi facta loquntur!

R˘ûena Dost·lov· (Praha)

Quid multis opus est verbis, ubi facta loquntur!

R˘ûena Dost·lov· (Praha)

Ěŕðčíŕ ËÓĎŇŔĘÎÂŔ (Ďðŕăŕ)

Čęîíŕ íĺ čçîáðŕćŕĺň Áîćĺńňâî.

Ăðĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ńëîâî «čęîíŕ» (eijkwvn), ęŕę č ĺăî ńëŕâ˙íńęčé âčçŕâč

1 Â. ËĹĎŔŐČÍ, Čęîíŕ č čęîíč÷íîńňü, Ńŕíęň-Ďĺňĺðáóðă 2002, 14.

äðĺâíîńňč, íĺ čńňîðč˙ čęîíîăðŕôč÷ĺńęîăî čçâîäŕ,4 ŕ ńŕě îáðŕç, ń ĺăî

çíŕ÷čňĺëüíî ďîçćĺ, â ďĺðčîä čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ VIII-IX ââ. (726-843

ëčŕíńňâŕ – ďðčřĺë ę âűâîäó, ÷ňî â Áîćĺńňâĺííűő Ëčöŕő íĺîáőîäčěî

10 Î ńëîâĺ «čďîńňŕńü» (uJpovstasi~) ńě.: H. DORRIE, ÑHypostasisî. Wort und

12 16 Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Die Christus-Ikone, 11.

Ďîëíîńňüţ îňîðâŕâ Áîăŕ îň ěčðŕ, Ŕðčé «äîăîâîðčëń˙» äî ňîăî, ÷ňî

Áîćĺńňâó, čáî ńŕě îáëŕäŕ˙ ëčřü äîëĺé Áîćĺńňâŕ, Ńűí íĺ ěîă áű

14 23 Ňŕě ćĺ, 20.

Č çíŕ÷čň čęîíŕ Őðčńňŕ – ýňî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęčé ëčę Áîăŕ.

24 «Ĺðĺńü-ýňî ŕáńîëţňčçŕöč˙ ÷ŕńňíűő čńňčí, č îíŕ íĺčçáĺćíî ńîďðîâîćäŕĺňń˙

âîęðóă íĺďîńňčćčěîé ňŕéíű; ďðčçűâ ę ńîáëţäĺíčţ ěĺðű č âęóńŕ – ýňîěó

26 Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Die Christus-Ikone, 136.

äâóě ëčíč˙ě: áîðüáŕ ń čęîíŕěč ňðŕęňóĺňń˙, âî-ďĺðâűő, ęŕę ðĺçóëüňŕň

30 Â ďîäĺðćęó ýňîé ňî÷ęč çðĺíč˙ îáű÷íî ďðčâîäčňń˙ â ďðčěĺð čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčé

ęîňîðűĺ ńâčäĺňĺëüńňâîâŕëč áű îá čő ńäĺðćŕííîě îňíîřĺíčč ę čęîíŕě,35

35 Í. ŃŔŐŔÐÎÂ, Î ďðč÷číŕő čęîíîáîð÷ĺńęčő ńďîðîâ..., 107.

18 40 Ch. SCH÷NBORN, Die Christus-Ikone, 138.

Ďîčńę âíóňðčâčçŕíňčéńęčő čńňîęîâ čęîíîáîð÷ĺńňâŕ őîň˙ č

Ýňó ěűńëü çŕěĺ÷ŕňĺëüíî âűðŕçčë î. Ăĺîðăčé: «Ŕďîńňîëüńęŕ˙ ďðîďîâĺäü č

ďĺðâóţ î÷ĺðĺäü ðĺ÷ü řëŕ î ďðîáëĺěĺ, ęîňîðóţ čěĺë â âčäó Îðčăĺí, ŕ

Čňŕę, íŕčáîëüřčě ńîáëŕçíîě äë˙ čęîíîáîðöĺâ áűëŕ čěĺííî

53 Ďîäðîáíîĺ čçëîćĺíčĺ ýňîăî âîďðîńŕ â ńâĺňĺ íîâĺéřčő čńńëĺäîâŕíčé ńě. Í.

Ěŕňĺðč˙ áîëüřĺ íĺ ˙âë˙ĺňń˙ ďðĺď˙ňńňâčĺě íŕ ďóňč ę Áîăó, íŕďðîňčâ,

55 Cëîâŕðü Ŕ. Ä. Âĺéńěŕíŕ ďðčâîäčň, ęðîěĺ çíŕ÷ĺíč˙ ńëóćĺíčĺ, ńëóćáŕ, ňŕęćĺ č

Őðčńňčŕíńęîĺ áîăîńëîâčĺ čęîíű čäĺň âðŕçðĺç ń ó÷ĺíčĺě íĺîďëŕ-

ďðŕâîńëŕâč˙».61 Íŕ Ęîíńňŕíňčíîďîëüńęîě ńîáîðĺ 843 ă., ńîçâŕííîăî

61 Ŕ. Â. ĘŔÐŇŔŘĹÂ, Âńĺëĺíńęčĺ ńîáîðű, Ěîńęâŕ 1994, 507.

îáðŕç «ëčęŕ-ëčöŕ».66 Ďðîáëĺěŕ áűëŕ, îäíŕęî, â ňîě – č ýňî íĺ ðŕńďîçíŕëč

66 Ďîäðîáíĺĺ ńě. ôóíäŕěĺíňŕëüíóţ ðŕáîňó S. GERO, Byzantine Iconoclasm during

čęîíó ęŕę ďîäðŕćŕíčĺ ďĺðâîîáðŕçó, ĺăî îňďĺ÷ŕňîę; áëŕăîäŕð˙ ńőîäńňâó ń

76 Â. ÁŰ÷ĘÎÂ, Ěŕëŕ˙ čńňîðč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ýńňĺňčęč, 195.

Őðčńňŕ, ďîňîěó ÷ňî Ĺăî ÷ĺëîâĺ÷ĺńęîĺ ĺńňĺńňâî ďîëíîńňüţ ďðîńëŕâëĺíî č

28 84 Ňŕě ćĺ, 203.

Â ýňîě č ńîńňîčň č ŕíňčíîěč˙ íŕřĺăî ńďŕńĺíč˙, č ŕíňčíîěč˙ čęîíű: âî

îňðŕćŕĺň íĺ ęŕęîĺ-ňî ńčţěčíóňíîĺ ńîńňî˙íčĺ âíĺříĺăî âčäŕ îðčăčíŕëŕ,

87 Â. Â. ÁŰ÷ĘÎÂ, Ěŕëŕ˙ čńňîðč˙ âčçŕíňčéńęîé ýńňĺňčęč, 189.

ďĺðâîîáðŕç».90 Čěĺííî ďîňîěó Ăîńďîäü č ńęŕçŕë Ôčëčďďó: «Âčäĺâřčé