Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
The Boyana Church Portraits. A
Contribution to the Prosopography of
Sebastokrator Kaloyan
Srdjan Pirivatrić, Belgrade
The Church of St. Nicholas, together with the annexed paraklis of St.
Panteleimon, completed the Boyana church complex, the reconstruction, ex-
tension and painting of which were finished, according to the interpretation
of contradictory chronological data from the donor’s inscription, in 1258/9.
The walls bear extraordinary examples of the fresco portraiture of the time.
In question are two pairs of portraits of contemporary historical figures, the
ktetors and the ruling couple – sebastokrator Kaloyan with sebastokratorissa
Desislava, and emperor Constantine Asen with Empress Eirene. With the ex-
ception of the Empress Eirene (a descendant of the Asens and the Laskarids,
whose genealogy is well-known), the origins of these figures are mysterious,
and many attempts have been made to elucidate them. One such extensive
prosopographic attempt was made by Professor Ivan Božilov in an article
published in a volume dedicated to the problems connected with the Boyana
church, and we have ourselves recently proposed a theory on the ancestry
of emperor Constantine1. We believe that an addendum can also be made to
the prosopography of sebastokrator Kaloyan, although, due to the nature of
the original sources, it must remain largely speculative, as are many other
contributions on the subject. The origins of sebastokrator Kaloyan cannot be
viewed separately from the question of the origins of emperor Constantine, so
these will also be addressed. Our most important sources are the works of con-
temporary Byzantine historians George Akropolites and George Pachymeres,
emperor Constantine Asen‘s charter for the Monastery of St. George (or Gorg)
near Skopje – the so-called Virgino Charter – and the well-known ktetor‘s
inscription from the Boyana portrait of Kaloyan and Desislava2.
1  Божилов, И. Портретите в Боянската църква: легенди и факти. – Проблеми на
изкуството, 1, 1995, 3-9 (further: Божилов, 1995); idem, Фамилията на Асеневци (1186-
1460). С., 1985, н. 24, 115-118 (f: Божилов, 1985); Пириватрић, С. Једна претпоставка
о пореклу бугарског цара Константина Асена „Тиха“. – ЗРВИ, 46, 2009, 313-331 (f:
Пириватрић, 2009). For older opinions and literature see Пурковић, М. Принцезе из куће
Немањића. Виндзор, 1956, 14-15, 21-22 (f: Пурковић, 1956).
2  Georgius Acropolites, I, ed. Heisenberg, A. Studgardiae, 1903 (=19782), 152.1-153.3,
154.3, 176.1 (f: Acropolites); George Pachymérès relations historiques, I-V, ed. Failler, A.,
Paris, 1984-2000, II, 449.20-451.6 (f: Pachymérès); Nicephori Gregorae byzantina historia,
vol. 1, ed. Schopenus, L. Bonnae 1829, 60.3-61.18; Грамоти на българските царе, прир.
Даскалова, А., Райова, М., С., 2005, 31-36, л. 12 (f: Грамоти на българските царе);
Грамоти на манастирот Св. Георги – Горг Скопски, Ι. Грамота на цар Константин Асен,
The first question regarding the origin of these figures, which in many ways
determines the direction of further research, is whether or not they belonged
to Asen‘s family tree. The writings of the somewhat later Byzantine historian
Nicephorus Gregoras, as well as those of their contemporaries, Akropolites and
Pachymeres, and their descriptions of the crisis over the rights to the throne
in Bulgaria after the assassination of emperor Michael Asen in 1256 and the
murder of his assassin Kaliman in 1257, suggest a negative answer. These re-
ports show that there was no legitimate heir to the throne, meaning that, at
the time, there were no males left in Asen‘s family. During the crisis there
were two pretenders to the throne: despot Mitso, son-in-law of Ivan Asen II,
who proclaimed himself emperor, and Constantine, son of a certain Tih (τοῦ
Τοίχου), who was supported by the Tarnovo nobility and eventually gained the
Bulgarian throne. The new emperor then dismissed his wife and – probably
in the autumn of 1258 – married Eirene Laskaris, daughter of the Nicaean
emperor Theodore II Laskaris and granddaughter of Ivan Asen II. In this way
he secured blood relations to rival those of his opponent Mitso3. From the time
of Peter and Asen to Michael Asen the principle of government in Bulgaria
had transformed from a patrimonial to a dynastic one, which was undergoing
a crisis at that very time, enabling the emperor‘s close and distant relatives –
both his blood relatives and those married into his family – to gain the highest
titles and even supreme power. To translate this into a model, the right of blood
of the emperor’s sons (Kaliman Asen and Michael Asen) was jeopardized by
rebellious relatives (Kaliman), and when there were no relatives, there were
newcomers, who used marriage to obtain rights to the throne or to strengthen
their title to what they had already taken (Mitso, Constantine Tih’s)4.
According to Pachymeres, emperor Constantine was „half-Serbian”, and ac-
cording to the Virgino Charter St. Simeon Nemanya was „the grandfather of
[Constantine’s] empire”. This information usually leads to the assumption that
II. Грамота на крал Милутин. – В: Споменици за средновековната и поновата историја
на Македонија, том Ι, подг. Мошин, В., Л. Славева, К. Илиевска, Скопје, 1977, 181-204,
185, 205-238 (f: Грамоти на манастирот Св. Георги, Ι, II); Гълъбов, И. Надписите към
Боянските стенописи. С., 1963, 24-25 (f: Надписите към Боянските стенописи); for
previous bibliography s. Смядовски, С. Българска кирилска епиграфика. С., 1993, 191.
3  More details in: Златарски, В. История на българската държава през средните векове. т.
3, С., 1940 (= 1994) 465 sq (f: Златарски, 1940); Божилов, И. България при наследниците
на Иван II Асен: 1241-1280 г. – В: Божилов, И., В. Гюзелев. История на средновековна
България, С., 1999, 501-526, 507-510 (f: Божилов, 1999). For a general framework of
the events s. Nicol, D. The Despotate of Epiros. Oxford, 1957, 157-168 (f: Nicol, 1957).
The latest on the subject: Господинов, К. Г. Известията на Акрополит и Пахимер за
българската история от 1256-1257: анализ и съпоставка. – В: ТАНГРА. Сборник в чест
на 70-годишнината на акад. Васил Гюзелев. ed. Каймакамова M. et al. С., 2006, 105-123;
George Akropolites, The History. Introduction, translation and commentary Macrides, R.
Oxford, 2007 (f: Macrides 2007).
4 The principles of inheritance in Bulgaria are exposed shortly by Божилов, И. Иван I Асен
и Стефан Немања – родоначелници две породице. – В: Стефан Немања – Свети Симеон
Мироточиви. Историја и предање. ed. Калић, Ј. Београд, 2000, 47-54.
13
The Boyana Church between the East and the West
some unknown daughter of Stefan Nemanya was Constantine‘s mother5.
However, there is no reason to interpret Pachymeres‘s information about the
emperor‘s ancestry in one way only, as it is, in fact, commonly understood,
as following the female line. Konstantin Jireček expressed his dilemmas re-
garding this presumption decades ago in a forgotten parenthetical remark6.
On the contrary, it is quite possible, and even more likely, that Pachymeres
was referring to the male line. At least that is what his description of events
suggests – the fact that Constantine was half-Serbian – unlike Mitso, who was
Bulgarian – was an obstacle to his candidacy for the throne. The Constantine/
Mitso dilemma contained a strong component of legitimacy. It is highly un-
likely that Constantine‘s Serbian roots through his mother would have been
an obstacle in those circumstances, but a Serbian origine through his father
certainly would. On the whole it seems that, so far as we can gather from
his treatment of cases of mixed ethnic origin, descent along the male line
went without saying for Pachymeres, whereas he explicitly mentioned descent
along the female line when he deemed it important for one reason or another.
So, for instance, he wrote that emperor Theodore Svetoslav was Bulgarian on
his mother‘s side, because his father Terter was Cuman7. It is also worth not-
ing that in a charter of king Uroš, the king calls Nemanya’s brother Miroslav
his grandfather8. This example of referring to one‘s indirect lineage is of sig-
nificance for our case.
It follows from this that emperor Constantine could have been Nemanya‘s
grandson along an indirect male line through one of Nemanya‘s brothers.
According to reliable sources, Nemanya had three brothers. The first, whose
name is believed to have been Tihomir, was a grand župan of Serbia9. The
second, Miroslav, was a knez, the third, Stracimir, was also a knez. Miroslav
and his descendants ruled over the Hum region (nowadays Herzegowina),
while Stracimir was connected to the (West) Morava region and the city of
Gradac (modern Čačak), but we know nothing about his descendants, so any
connection between him and the future Bulgarian emperor would be pure
guesswork. On the other hand, we can assume that Constantine’s father was a
son of (Stefan) Tihomir, the overthrown Serbian grand župan, who spent the
time between his overthrow and his death exiled in the Byzantine Empire, and
probably dwelt in Skopje between 1166 and 1168. The similarity in the name
5  More details, with sources in: Пириватрић, 2009, 315-317.
6  Иречек, К. История на Българите. С поправки и добавки от самия автор. С., 1939, 184.
7  Pachymérès, III, 291.28-29. A contrary opinion: Божилов, 1995, 6.
8  Споменик Српске краљевске академије (f: СКА) III (1890) 8. I am thankful to acad.
Miloš Blagojević who kindly passed me this information.
9 The name Tihomir is a convincing hypothesis, made after study of a spoiled inscription, see
Ковачевић, Љ. Неколика питања о Стефану Немањи. – Глас СКА, LVIII, 1900, 1-108, 54-
57; Пириватрић, 2009, 318. The name of the eldest brother of Nemanya had been put under
the damnatio memorii, for dynastic reasons.
14
Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
of Constantine’s father, Tih, and Nemanya’s brother, Tihomir, is one of the
arguments in favour of this hypothesis10.
Tihomir ↔ Nemanja
↕
♂ Tih ∞ n.n. ♀
↕
Constantine
A certain archon John (Ivan) Tihomir, or Tihomir`s, mentioned in a 1220 judi-
cial act issued by Demetrios Chomatenos, was the de facto ruler of Skopje in
the late twelfth century. Based on the similarity in the names and his high so-
cial status we can assume that he was related to emperor Constantine. Modern
scholarship often claims or assumes that Constantine was from Skopje by
origin11. We can also assume that John (Ivan) Tihomir, or Tihomir`s, was
Constantine‘s uncle or father, or that he was a son of the overthrown great
prince Tihomir.
Another possibility is that one of Nemanya‘s daughters or nieces was married
to a man named Tih. Altough we consider it less likely that Constantine‘s con-
nection to Nemanya was along the female line, it should be kept in mind that
Nemanya ruled Skopje for a while during the late 1180s, when he produced
his charter for the Monastery of St. George, prior to the Battle of the Morava
in 119012. It should be added that the sources mention an unnamed daughter of
Nemanya, who is said to have been married around 1216 to Manuel Angelos,
brother of Michael Angelos and despot (subsequently emperor) Theodore
Angelos, rulers of Epirus13. We can only assume that they were married be-
tween 1205 and 1210. It would have to be her second marriage, so we can
assume that she had been married for the first time during her father‘s rule14.
10  For more details s. Пириватрић, 2009.
11  Chomatenus, no. 59, 209-213. On the name of this archon of Skopje, problem of his
patronymic, surname and so-called „double name“ s. Џелебџић, Д. Словенски антропоними
у судским актима Димитрија Хоматина. – ЗРВИ, 43, 2006, 483-498; see also Илиев, И.
Охридският архиепископ Димитър Хоматиан и Българите. С., 2010, 184, 211, 238, 263.
On the relation of emperor Constantin with Skopje s. Златарски, 1940, 474-475 (governer of
the Skopje region); Nicol, 1957, 183 n. 2 (his father had been given a Principality, possibly
Skopje, with the hand of one of Nemanja II daughters); Божилов, 1995, 6; Божилов, 1999,
509 (he originated probably from a noble Bulgarian family from Skopje); Dimitrov, B. – In:
Popkonstantinov, K. Zograf Vasilie and the Boyana Church 750 years later. Sofia, 2009, 5 (f:
Dimitrov, 2009) (governer of Skopje).
12  For sources and previous secondary litterature s. Калић, Ј. Борбе и тековине великог
жупана Стефана Немање. – В: Историја српског народа. I. Београд, 1981 (f: ИСН), 251-
272, 258. Грамоти на манастирот Св. Георги, Ι, 185; II, 210.
13  Demetrii Chomateni ponemata diaphora. rec. Prinzing, G. Berlin-New York, 2002, no. 10,
55-56 (f: Chomatenus).
14  Пурковић, 1956, 12-13; Polemis, D. The Doukai. A Contribution to the Byzantine
Prosopography, London, 1968, no. 43, 90 (Polemis, 1968).
15
The Boyana Church between the East and the West
Therefore, we can assume that Constantine, subsequent emperor of Bulgaria,
may have been born of her first marriage. (Quite feeble it looks the possibility
that he was born by a so far unknown daughter of Tihomir.) The celebration
of Stefan Nemanya as Saint Simeon in the Church, contributed to the birth of
a local tradition in Skopje which credits Saint Simeon Nemanya as one of the
monastery‘s donors and contributors.
Nemanja (or Tihomir)
↕
n.n. ♀ ∞ Tih
↕
Constantine
The ktetor’s inscription in the Boyana church is in fact the only surviving
source which mentions sebastokrator Kaloyan. In king Milutin’s charter for
the monastery of St. George near Skopje from 1299/1300 there is mention of
a certain sebastokrator Kaloyan Sinadin15. However, it is impossible to deter-
mine whether he had anything to do with ktetor of the Boyana church. Any
attempts to learn more about him are limited to the information in the inscrip-
tion. Before we begin to analyze it, we should consider the wider historical
context which brought about Kaloyan‘s endowment project. Our colleague
Hristo Matanov has stated his view of the first years of Constantine Asen‘s
reign, and we would like to take a look back at the history of Sofia and the
surrounding region in the decades preceding his reign.
Little is in fact known about Sofia in the mid thirteenth century16. The city
was not mentioned as one of the regions under the rule of Ivan Asen II listed
in the charter for Dubrovnik produced shortly after the battle of Klokotnitsa
in 1230. The question is why. According to a charter for the Rila Monastery,
issued by emperor Ivan Shishman in 1378, which mentions the emperors Asen
and Kaliman, we can assume that Sofia had been under the rule of Ivan Asen
II and Kaliman, though other assumptions also may be valid17. The Boyana
pomenik should not be taken for granted as a source for the history of Sofia
in this period, but it could be taken to imply that the city’s rulers included
Ivan Asen II, Kaliman and Michael Asen18. Sofia was definitely not among
15  Грамоти на манастирот Св. Георги, II. Грамота на крал Милутин, 205-238, 221.
16 The latest survey see in: Dantschéva-Vassiléva, A. Histoire politique-militaire de Sredetz
(Sofia) depuis la fin du 12ème siècle jusque la fin du 14ème siècle. – Bulgarian Historical
Review, 1-2, 2008, 3-25, 12-16.
17  Грамоти на българските царе, 44-46, l.85.
18 The pomenik (brebion, psychohartion, memorial list of rulers, benefactors and other
persons) known as the Boyana pomenik, was certainly made on the basis of an older one,
which may have originated from Dragalevtsi monastery, see the contribution of Ivanka
Gergova in this volume. A local origin of the older pomenik could be interpreted as an
16
Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
the Bulgarian cities which gave themselves up to the Nicaean emperor John
III Vatatzes after Kaliman‘s death in 1246. This we know from the writings
of George Akropolites, a direct witness of Vatatzes‘s conquests in the West –
Akropolites was in charge of composing the emperor‘s letters to inform the
capital and the provinces about the conquest of each new town or region.19
Sofia was mentioned in a letter from emperor Theodore II Laskaris written in
the summer of 1256, which refers to the peace and the settling of borders after
the war between Nicaea and Bulgaria in 1255-56. Although it is otherwise
ambiguous, the information in the letter becomes clear when we take into ac-
count that, according to Akropolites, the peace treaty stipulated a status quo
ante for the borders. The city was not part of the Nicaean Empire before or
after the war. In Skopje and Vranje „the pre-war state“, i.e. Nicaean rule – was
„re-established“, and the Nicaeans still held the nearby town of Velbužd20. It
should be pointed out that neither Akropolites nor any other source mentions
that the Nicaean army came near Sofia during the war – the points of battle
furthest to the Northwest were along the Veles – Serres line. The next infor-
mation significant for the history of Sofia comes from the donor‘s inscription
of 1258/9:
„This immaculate temple of Christ‘s holy hierarch Nicholas and of the holy
and illustrious martyr of Christ Panteleimon, was erected with expense, care
and great love by Kaloyan, sebastokrator, bratučed of the emperor, grandson
of Saint Stefan the Serbian king; painted in the time of the Bulgarian Empire
during the reign of the pious and devout emperor Constantine Asen, indiction
7, in the year 6767“21.
We have focussed our attention on the following elements of the inscription:
the first name and title of the donor; family lines; topographical and chrono-
logical data.
Name and title
The name Kaloyan is derived from John (Ivan), and therefore was not a name
given at christening but rather an adjectival prefix was added to the name John
to highlight a personal quality or ensure good fame for the bearer. Several
indication of the actual rule of the mentioned Bulgarian emperors over the region of Sofia, cf.
Станчева, М., Станчев, Ст. Боянският поменик. С., 1963, 27. We can also see the name of
Alexander in the list of emperors; this very interesting fact may lead to the uncorroborated
hypothesis that he, as sebastokrator, had ruled over a separate region, including the city of
Sofia. This was taken for granted by Dimitrov, 2009, 5.
19 Acropolites, I, 79,1-3; Macrides, 2007, 21.
20 Acropolites, I, 127,15-16; Theodori Ducae Lascaris Epistulae. Еd. N. Festa. Firenze,
1898, app. I, 279-282, 281.68-73. See Gjuzelev, V. Bulgarien und das Kaiserreich von Nikaia
(1204-1261). – JÖB, 26, 1977, 143-154, 153; cf. also Macrides, 2007, 304-305. A. Ducellier
reached the invalid conclusion that emperor Theodoros in the letter boasted of controlling
Sofia, Philippopolis, Veles, Skopje and even Serbia, s. Ducellier, A. Balkan Powers: Albania,
Serbia and Bulgaria (1200-1300). – In: The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c.
500-1492. Еd. Shepard J. Cambridge, 2008, 779-802, 794.
21  Надписите към Боянските стенописи, 24-25.
17
The Boyana Church between the East and the West
Bulgarian emperors were named John, and one important Bulgarian emperor
was named Kaloyan, but on the whole this name is unusual for Bulgaria and
for its royal family. On the other hand, the names John and Kaloyan were
common in Grecophone communities in the Byzantine Empire. In Serbian
communities there are no contemporary examples of the name, among the
aristocracy or elsewhere, except for king Stefan Radoslav who took the name
John when he became a monk, and a certain Kaloyan whose name was re-
corded in one pomenik22. It has already been pointed out in the literature that
the name Kaloyan is a reflection of the undeniable influence of Byzantine
tradition and customs, which suggests the family‘s proximity to a Byzantine
environment23. It should be noted that the term „Byzantine environment“ in
the first half of the thirteenth century is inconsistent, complex and occasion-
ally linguistically heterogeneous.
Contemporary legal theory and practice generally indicate that the title of se-
bastokrator could have been awarded by the emperors of Nicaea or Tarnovo,
while the emperors of Thessaloniki do not seem to have awarded court titles at
all, after the fall of Theodore Angelos, subsequent to the battle of Klokotnitsa
in 1230. The awarded titles were generally held for life and were non-hered-
itary. The existing evidence indicates that the emperors of Tarnovo awarded
this title to their brothers or influential close relations, both by blood and by
marriage. It is evident that some holders of this distinguished title in Bulgaria
were de facto if not de iure regional governors, sometimes even practically
independent lords24.
Family relations
Immediately after his title, the donor mentions his relation to an unnamed em-
peror (bratučed) and the Serbian king Saint Stefan („grandson“). The aim of
emphasising these family relations can be explained by the need to state and
22  Српски поменици XV-XVIII века. Еd. Новаковић, С. – Гласник Српског ученог
друштва, XLII, 1875, 1-152, 30, 69; „Требник“ манастира св. Тројице код Пљеваља. Еd.
Стојановић, Љ. – Споменик СКА, LVI, 1922, 22-30, 25.
23  Божилов, 1995, 8, with detailed observations on the name Kaloyan.
24  See Ферјанчић, Б. Севастократори у Византији – ЗРВИ, 11 (1968), 141-192, 141-148,
169-170, 174-175 (f: Ферјанчић, 1968); Билярски, И. Институциите на средновековна
България. С., 1998, 85-99. Dignity of sebastokrator was not neccesary connected with
the function of a regional governer, s. the problem as explored by Билярски, 1998, 87-90.
On the other hand, sebastokrator Strez obviously had a de facto autocratic status, achieved
perhaps before the very obtaining of the title; for the case of sebastokrator Alexander we
can only make assumptions if he was a regional governer or not, see note 17; sebastokrater
Peter evidently had a region („land“) under his rule; sebastokrator Kaloyan is known only
as ktetor of Boyana church (there is also an archaeological arthefact of a ring excavated in
an aristocratic grave in Tarnovo and attributed to certain Kaloyan, s. cautious objections of
Атанасов, Г. Инсигниите на средновековните български владатели. Плевен, 1999, 21
сл; and Тотев, К. Златни пръстени-печати от времето на Второто българско царство
1185-1396. Велико Търново, 2010, 113-114). Therefore, it seems very hard to make firm
conclusions on the possible administrative function of sebastokrator in Bulgaria. In a fresh
contribution, Kaloyan is seen as governer of Sredets (Sofiya), s. Dimitrov, 2009, 5.
18
Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
emphasise the social and legal status of the ktetor, his place in the genealogy,
and, finally, by the need to immortalize all this as a part of the public memory.
The most important relations are those which have legal consequences (a high
or ruling position, title or service), while being related to a distinguished an-
cestor in itself need not be reason enough for an inscribed record. In the spirit
and beliefs of the time, being related to a saint must have been of particular
importance, but all known cases are connected to Saint Simeon Nemanya and
his descendants.
It would seem that the inscription should be looked at from the angle of the
argumentum ex silentio also. We can see that there is no mention of relation
to the Asens, the Doukai or the Komnenoi, neither to any other person from
the reigning dynasty of Serbia, except king Saint Stefan. Kaloyan did not refer
to the Asens, whereas Constantine did, shortly after his marriage to Eirene
Laskaris25. It is also rightfully noted that the terms for family relations – in this
case bratučed and grandson – are conditional in nature. Let us cite a general
remark by Professor Sima Ćirković, based on study of the Serbian diplomatic
sources: „If a ruler honours a person by calling them „father“ or „mother“ or
„brother“ or „sister“, this only means that the person is his cousin. We may
perhaps infer the generation, since it is unlikely one would use „mother“ or
„father“ to refer to someone of their own age or younger“26.
„Bratučed of the emperor“
This is the first family relation mentioned in the inscription, and it is supposed
to testify to the legitimacy of Kaloyan’s person and status. In Slavic linguistic
heritage, the family term bratučed, bratučeda, etc. can be traced to the Serbo-
Croat, Bulgarian and Russian linguistic areas. This term is used in all the
modern varieties of these languages, except for Russian. The oldest example
is from the eleventh century (the Codex Suprasliensis), meaning „son of one‘s
brother“27. There are few examples of the word bratučed contemporary to
the one in the Boyana inscription. Chronologically and territorially proximate
examples are the one in king Radoslav’s charter for Dubrovnik (1234) where
bratučed denotes the relation between the male children of two brothers, as
well as the other in king Vladislav`s charter for the monastery of Bogorodica
on Lim (1234), with the same meaning28. Examples from Russia indicate two
25  Божилов, 1995, 5. Since Kaloyan was not an Asen, that fact, taken together with some
other, allows us to exclude emperor Boril, sebastokrator Strez and despot Alexius Slav as his
possible ancestors, i.e. parents. Cf. ibidem, 7.
26  Божилов, 1995, 5; Ћирковић, С. Област кесара Војихне. – ЗРВИ, 34, 1995, 175-184,
177-178.
27  Супрасалская рукопись, ed. Северьянов, С. СПб., 1904, 281.6, 297.30; Slovník jazyka
staroslověnského. 4, Praha, 1961, 143; Słownik prasłowiański. Tom I, A-B. Wrocław,
Warsyawa, Kraków, Gdańsk, 1974, 360-361.
28 Monumenta Serbica. ed. Miklosich, F. Београд, 20063 (reprinted 1858 version), XXIII, 19-
20; cf. Рјечник из књижевних старина српских. I. ed. Даничић, Ђ. Биоград, 1863, 75; Ода-
брани споменици српскога права од XII до краја XV века. пр. Соловјев, А. Београд, 1926,
19
The Boyana Church between the East and the West
meanings – „son or daughter of one‘s brother“ (1280, 1251) and „son of one‘s
uncle or aunt“29. Over time, derivatives of the term bratučed or bratučeda
appeared – prvobratučed, drugobratučed (first and second bratučed, respec-
tively), etc. According to the modern General Slavic Linguistic Atlas, this
term was confirmed as meaning „son of one‘s maternal or fraternal uncle,
daughter of one‘s fraternal uncle“30. In Bulgarian the term bratučed is still
defined as the son of one’s brother or sister in relation to the children of the
other brother or sister31. According to one interpretation, the etymology of this
term is determined as „the children of [two] brothers“. However, there was no
explanation for the etymology of the oldest example, with the meaning “son
of one‘s brother“32.
In Greek there is no identical term. Its meaning is contained in the more gen-
eral term ἐξάδελφος, or πρωτεξάδελφος, etc, which is also of long-standing,
and still in wide usage in Modern Greek. Its meaning refers to the children of
two brothers, two sisters, or a brother and sister, but not to any more distant
blood relations33. The etymology of the word – ἐξάδελφος: ἐκ (τόν) ἀδελφό
– demonstrates that the older meaning was “son of one’s brother“, although
the most frequent terms for such a relation are ἀδελφιδοῦς, ἀνεψιός, etc34. On
the other hand, the handful of contemporary examples from the South Slavic
area, from the country of the Serbian kings of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, also indicate the use of the Greek term „anepsei“ as well as the term
„sinov“ or „sinovac“ in its usual meaning „son of one’s brother“.35
The relationship between the Greek and Slavic meanings is significant as much
for the question of interference of kinship terms in the multilingual Byzantine
world as for the understanding of individual cases related to persons from eth-
nically mixed marriages, who lived in different, “pure“ or “mixed“ linguistic
бр. 19, 27-31, 30. Radoslav`s reference on his „bratučeds” made after the reference on „uncles”
must have referred to his brothers on his uncles` side, i.e. the sons of Vukan, perhaps also the
grandsons of knez Miroslav. Vladislav made no mention of „uncles” but only of „bratučeds“.
29 Материалы для словаря древне-русскаго язика. Том I. А-Κ. ed. Срезневский, И. И. СПб.,
1893, 171; Словарь древнерусскаго языка (XI-XIV вв.). Том I. Москва, 1988, 310-311.
30  I was granted the opportunity to consult the OLA (GSL) material thanks to the kindness of
academician Alexander Loma and Dr Marta Bjeletić.
31  Български етимологически речник. Том I, А-З. ed. Георгиев, В., Ив. Гълъбов, Й.
Заимов, С. Илчев. С., 1971, 75.
32  Этимологический словарь славянских азыков. Праславянский лексический фонд.
Вып. 3. ed. Трубачев, О. Москва, 1976, 8.
33  Some contemporary examples are: πρωτεξάδελφος, πρωτεξαδέλφη, cf. Acropolites, I,
91.14, 93.15, 13.24, 21.1, 36.19-22, 152.4; τρισεξάδελφος, cf. Chomatenus, 520. Cf. A Greek-
English Lexicon. ed. Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. Oxford, 1968, 581 (cousin-germain); Λεξικό της
νέας ελληνικής γλώσσας, ed. Μπαμπινιώτης, Γ. Αθήνα, 1998, 628 (son of uncle or aunt).
34 Λεξικό της νέας ελληνικής γλώσσας, 628; for the older meaning see also Greek Lexicon of
the Roman and Byzantine Periods (From B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100). Vol. 1. ed. Sophocles, E., A.
New York, 18873, 477; A Greek-English Lexicon, 20.
35  В. Стари српски записи и натписи. 1. ed. Стојановић, Љ. Београд, 1902 (=Београд
1982), no. 10, 5-6; Monumenta Serbica, XXXVIII, 31-32; LXXIV, 77-82, 81. Cf. Рјечник из
књижевних старина српских, III, 264, I, 10; Доментијан, 60, 178, 126.
20
Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
environments.
The question arises what the contemporary Slavic equivalent to the term
ἐξάδελφος would be, meaning the children of two sisters or a brother and sis-
ter, or kinship in general? We know that in one particular case (c. 1343-1345)
this kind of kinship was described by the term “brother“, and the kinship in
question is between king Dušan and Jovan Dragušin, whose mothers were
sisters36. In another case (1348), the nobleman Vojihna, a subsequent caesar,
was listed as a relative of the empire and bratučed, but it cannot be determined
whether this was kinship on the father’s or the mother’s side37. Compared
to Dušan‘s kinship to Dragušin and the terms used, the kinship to Vojihna
seems more distant. Translations of legal codes are of great value for the an-
swer to this question. The Serbian translator and the writer of the Nomocanon,
St. Sava, translated the term ἐξάδελφος as bratučed (as testified by the 1261
transcript)38. This suggests that the interpretation of this term in the ktetor‘s
inscription should begin with its widest meaning, which corresponds to the
Greek ἐξάδελφος, meaning blood relation.
We have established, then, that the term bratučed was used very broadly, that
its broadest sense was “blood relation“, that its precise meaning was most
commonly “cousin“ (son of one’s uncle or aunt), and that there are some rare
and solitary examples of it being used to mean „son of one‘s brother“, or
„nephew”39. The dilemma can be narrowed down to the question of whether
Kaloyan and the unnamed emperor belonged to the same generation or not,
and whether they were closely related or not.
As for the case of Kaloyan‘s relation to the unnamed emperor, a long-standing
theory is that the emperor is in fact Michael Asen, i.e. that Kaloyan was the
supposed second son of sebastokrator Alexander and, therefore, the bratučed
of emperor Michael Asen. However, this theory has been rightfully dismissed,
since it was determined that Kaloyan was not a member of Asen’s family. The
widely accepted opinion today is that this kinship to the emperor refers to
Constantine Asen, largely because he is mentioned at the end of the inscrip-
36  Грозданов, Ц., Чорнаков, Д. Историјски портрети у Полошком. I. – Зограф, 14, 1983,
60-66.
37  Одабрани споменици српског права (од XII до краја XV века). Ed. Соловјев, А.
Београд, 1926, 132-135; cf. Ћирковић, idem, 177-178, н. 10.
38  Законоправило светога Саве, 1, Ed. et transl. Петровић, М. М., Штављанин–
Ђорђевић, Љ. Београд, 2005, 451 (can. 54); A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Fasc. 2. Ed.
Lampe, G. W. H. Oxford, 1962, 490, (CTrull. can.54); cf. an example from a Russian
translation (Рјазањска крмчија, 1284) where ἐξάδελφος (ἐξαδέλφη) is translated as bratučed
(bratučeda), s. Словарь древнерусскаго языка (XI-XIV вв.), 310-311.
39  In the serbo-croatian linguistic area at the end of the 19th century the term bratučed was
in use, and synonymous to sinovac, a fact that the modern lexicographer complained of as
a misuse, s. Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika. I. ed. Daničić, Đ. Zagreb, 1881, 609.
It should be noted that the same phenomenon is recently observed in the vicinity of Pirot,
s. Бјелетић, М. Родбинска терминологија у српскохрватском језику, магистарски рад.
Београд, 74, п. 97.
21
The Boyana Church between the East and the West
tion. It is also generally accepted that Kaloyan received his high dignity from
emperor Constantine40. Any possibility of kinship to Michael Asen has been
excluded41. Nevertheless, we will see that Kaloyan‘s close relation to emperor
Constantine, though possible, is a rather complicated hypothesis, and that, on
the other hand, kinship to emperor Michael Asen cannot be completely dis-
missed, even though it is not explicitly stated in the inscription.
“Grandson of Saint Stefan the Serbian king“
It is generally accepted that this refers to the first-crowned Serbian king,
Stefan. Certainly any notion that the king in question is Stefan Nemanya
should be dismissed entirely42.
Kinship between sebastokrator Kaloyan and the unnamed emperor
Constantine Asen. If we interpret the inscription in the way that Kaloyan was
a relative of emperor Constantine, the question is how we should interpret the
information about Kaloyan’s kinship to emperor Constantine and king Stefan
in light of the aforementioned assumption about his kinship to Constantine
and Stefan Nemanya. Could Kaloyan have been related to Constantine as
bratučed through Nemanya’s family? If yes, were they closely related? But
first, how should we interpret the term bratučed? Jireček expressed his di-
lemma about this long ago43. If we interpret the term bratučed in its tradi-
tional and most widespread meaning, then we have an insoluble genealogical
problem: Kaloyan and Constantine would be brothers, and their grandfathers
(king Stefan and Stefan Nemanya) would be son and father. However, if we
interpret the term in its more general sense as blood relation, or marking a
distant nephew, then the family relations from the donor’s inscription and the
Virgino Charter are not contradictory. On the other hand, they may not be
related through Nemanya’s family alone. In that case they may have been
closely related. The main question regards the origin of Kaloyan’s title. If he
owed it to emperor Constantine in the first instance, then it is certain that they
must have been closely related.
Michael Asen. Kaloyan could have referred to a relation with the emperor
Michael Asen if he was the son of a brother or sister of the emperor`s moth-
er Eirine Komnene (daughter of Theodore Angelos Komnenos, emperor of
Thessaloniki). Kaloyan could be considered Michael’s relative on the female
side, which could have been expressed through the term bratučed (ἐξάδελφος).
It is worth noting that this corresponds to the information from Byzantine his-
torians, which indicates that he was not a male Asen.
40  Божилов, 1995, 8; Dimitrov, 2009, 5.
41  For more details see Божилов, 1995, 5.
42  See Божилов, 1995, 5.
43  Jireček considered in 1911 Kaloyan as „Constantine`s nephew or cousin (bratučed)“, s.
Јиречек, К. Историја Срба. I. Београд, 19522, 180 н.202 (f: Јиречек, 1952).
22
Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
Kinship between sebastokrator Kaloyan and the Serbian king, Saint Stefan
As we said, the Saint Stefan mentioned here is the first-crowned Serbian king,
who died as a monk Simon in great (angelikon) schema on September 24,
probably in the year 122744. It is particularly interesting that he is called a
saint. The earliest record of his cult dates back to 1628/9, although he was
revealed as a saint a few decades earlier45. Saint Sava performed an elevatio
on the anniversary of his brother’s death, and then performed a translatio of
his relics from Studenica to Žiča. Describing the funeral of monk Simon in
Studenica, the ecclesiastical writer Domentian mentions his “holy relics“46. He
also testifies that in his time Simon‘s “inviolable body“ lay at Žiča. A younger
ecclesiastical writer, Theodosius, writes in his description of the elevatio that,
“his holy relics were whole and indestructible“. After the depositio, his body
held a prominent place in the sacral context of Žiča, the royal church and the
seat of Serbian archbishops47. His son Uroš mentions him in two his charters48
as the “holy“ king Stefan, in order to demonstrate that he is descended from
a line of saints and to invoke the idea of ancestry from Jesse49. In the court
and ecclesiastical literature of the subsequent decades he is mentioned as the
first-crowned king, but not as a saint, while archbishop Danilo II‘s biography
of king Milutin contains the following general formula: “my holy ancestor the
first-crowned king Stefan“. It should be taken as an expression of the ideol-
ogy of a holy dynasty, which at the time was being reshaped in the archbish-
op‘s circle50. (This included visual representations of the first-crowned king
in vertical genealogies of the Nemanyich family, painted in the fourteenth
century, which is not of immediate importance for this topic.) In an epitaph
at Studenica from the beginning of Uroš’s rule he is mentioned as a saint (the
epitaph refers to a person named “Stefan, the son of king Uroš, grandson of
saint Simon the monk, grand-grandson of saint Simeon“). Another contempo-
44 There are two solutions given in the works of modern historians, 1227 and 1228; good
reasons for 1227 were offered recently by Марковић, М. Прво путовање светог Саве у
Палестину. Београд, 2009, 14-19.
45  Павловић, Л. Култови лица код Срба и Македонаца. Смедерево, 1965, 51-56,
Јовановић, Т. Књижевно дело патријарха Пајсеја. Београд, 2001, 67–82; Марковић, М.
Op. cit., 15 n. 30.
46  Живот светога Симеуна и светога Саве од Доментиана. ed. Даничић, Ђ. Биоград,
1867, 168 (f: Доментијан); Живот светога Саве написао Доментијан. ( = Теодосије) ed.
Даничић, Ђ. Биоград, 1860) (f: Теодосије) 175.
47 The king`s relics were put together with the most revered universal christian relics, s.
Поповић, Д. SACRAE RELIQUIAE Спасове цркве у Жичи. – In: Под окриљем светости.
Култ светих владара и реликвија у средњовековној Србији. Београд, 2006, 207-232,
349-350. Cf. Марјановић–Душанић, С. Свети краљ. Београд, 2007, 103 (f: Марјановић–
Душанић, 2007).
48  Законски споменици српског права. ed. Новаковић, С. Београд, 1912, 593, 600.
49  Марјановић–Душанић, С. Мотив Лозе Јесејеве у доба Уроша. Ι. – Зборник
Филозофског факултета, 18 A, 1994, 119-126; idem, Владарска идеологија Немањића.
Београд, 1997, 111-117, 116, са изворима.
50  Архиепископ Данило и други. Животи краљева и архиепископа српских. Ed.
Даничић, Ђ. Загреб, 1866, 152. See Марјановић–Душанић, 2007, 99.
23
The Boyana Church between the East and the West
rary inscription in Bogdašić near Kotor, on the periphery of the state, mentions
him as the first-crowned king: “in the days... of king Stefan Uroš, son of the
first-crowned king Stefan, grandson of saint Simeon Nemanya“51.
For in Stefan‘s sainthood, in comparison to the celebratory customs in Eastern
Christianity, the stages in the revelation and the shaping of the his cult, and,
especially, the religious celebration of his father Saint Simeon, we can see that
there is no “confirmation“ (ἀναγνώρισης) of his sainthood, neither through
any characteristic saintly epithet or religious service, there was no “proclama-
tion“ (ἀνακήρυξις) by the Synod, i.e. he was not officially “inscribed into the
order of saints“52. Rather, the mention of king Stefan as a saint is part of the
idea of a holy dynasty, established during the reign of king Uroš when Stefan
was added to the established cults of Simeon and Sava – the “holy duo“– for
the sake of “the trifold symbolism of the Nemanyich seed“, from which the
reigning king was descended53. In this sense, the mention of king Stefan in the
Boyana inscription from 1258/9 is an important early example of the horizon-
tal dissemination of the idea of a holy Serbian dynasty.
All of this leads to the conclusion that king Stefan – monk Simon – though
without an established religious cult, was considered a holy king within a cer-
tain limited region, and certainly within the court and his family. This may be
of great significance for the question of Kaloyan‘s origin.
Assuming that kinship with a saint is of crucial importance and that it is com-
pletely understandable why that kind of information would be mentioned in
a ktetor‘s inscription, it is therefore of secondary importance how close and
direct the kinship is. However, bearing in mind what we have said about the
sainthood of king Stefan, we should assume that his kinship with Kaloyan
was direct. It is unlikely that Kaloyan would refer to any indirect kinship
with Stefan as a saint, since, by all accounts, his cult had not gained much
prominence outside the court. (There are contemporary examples of indirect
kinship with saints being referred to, but they all refer to Stefan Nemanya
– Saint Simeon, whose celebration as a saint in the middle of the thirteenth
century was established in all the key elements and widely spread in the re-
gions under the jurisdiction of Žiča and Peć and beyond). It seems, therefore,
that Kaloyan was the son of one of Stefan’s children. Stefan was succeeded on
the throne by each of his sons successively, first by the eldest, Radoslav, then
by Vladislav, and finally by Uroš, the youngest. (Predislav, who became an
archbishop, must be ruled out.) We also know that the first Serbian king also
51 Text of the inscription in Поповић, Д. Српски владарски гроб у средњем веку. Београд,
1992, 45-46; Томовић, Г. Морфологија ћириличких натписа на Балкану. Београд, 1974,
no. 21, 44.
52  For the case of Saint Symeon s. Поповић, Д. О настанку култа светог Симеона. – In:
Поповић, 2006, 53.
53  Марјановић–Душанић, 2007, 119.
24
Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
had a daughter, Komnene.
King Stefan Radoslav (1228-1233). Stefan Radoslav, or Stefan Doukas, as
he often signed documents, was married to Anna, the daughter of the ruler
of Epirus, despot, subsequent emperor of Thessaloniki, Theodore Angelos
Komnenos. It is believed today that they were married in late 1219 or early
122054. We know that Stefan Radoslav and Anna had issue, a son and a daugh-
ter it seems, whose names and ages are unknown55. Kaloyan could be the son
of king Radoslav and, as such, the grandson of king Stefan and bratučed of the
Bulgarian emperor Michael Asen (their mothers, Anna and Eirene Komnene,
were sisters).
Tihomir ↔ Nemanja
↕ ↕
n.n./Tih Stefan Theodore Angelos Doukas Komnenos
↕ ↕ ↕ ↕
Constantine Radoslav ∞ Anna Eirene ∞ John II Asan
↕ ↕
n.n. ♂ (Kaloyan?) Michael Asan
See full genealogical tables of Asens and Komneno-Doukai in: Божилов, 1985; Macrides, 2007
Here another question may be posed, could he also regard himself the bratučed
of Constantine Tih`s, as a distant relative along the male lines of Nemanya’s
relatives and descendants?
If Kaloyan was born to this marriage, he would have to have been born in the
1220s. The child („dete”) that the exiled king Stefan Doukas mentions in the
charter for Dubrovnik in 1234 is understood to be an underage son, less than
14 years old. This chronology is in accordance with Kaloyan‘s presumed age
in 1258/9 based on the Boyana portrait. The relative physical resemblance
between Radoslav and Kaloyan, that is to say of their contemporary portraits
from Mileševa, Studenica and Boyana, is also worth noting (see illustrations).
After king Radoslav „left“ the country he stayed briefly in Dubrovnik. He al-
legedly fled to Dyrrachion, where he separated from queen Anna since she had
an affair with a local Latin governer. King Radoslav is known to have returned
54  Кисас, С. О времену склапања брака Стефана Радослава и Ане Комнине. – ЗРВИ, 18,
1978, 131-179; Максимовић, Љ. „Византинизми“ краља Стефана Радослава. – ЗРВИ, 46,
2009, 139-147.
55  In a pomenik included in the ritual book which belonged to the monastery of the Holy
Trinity near Plevlja, after the names of Radoslav and Anna are mentioned also „their
childrens”, s. Споменик СКА, LVI, 1922, 22-30, 25. A „child” mentioned in the charter of
king Radoslav issued for the city of Dubrovnik must have been a male child, s. Monumenta
Serbica, XIII, 19-20.
25
The Boyana Church between the East and the West
to Serbia, where he was ordained to the priesthood by archbishop Sava and
took the name John. It is believed that Anna had been ordained a monk too.
There is no further information about his children56.
We can only assume that as the nephew of the empress mother Eirene, Kaloyan
could have been awarded the title of sebastokrator in Bulgaria under Micheal
Assen, sometime after 1253, which is when the sources mention for the first
and last time sebastokrator Peter, the emperor‘s son-in-law, and his “land“ –
obviously a separate region within the Bulgarian Empire – the exact location
of which is unknown57. (On the other hand, if Kaloyan was Anna‘s son, he was
also a close relation of the rulers and emperors of Thessaloniki, but it appears
that after 1230 – between 1234-35 and 1241, when Manuel Angelos and John
Angelos ruled as self-proclaimed but uncrowned emperors – there were no
promotions to court titles, so Kaloyan could not have been awarded his title in
Thessaloniki58.) This would make Kaloyan, like Peter, indirectly related to the
Asens, by alliance rather than by blood. The question is – if this is correct, why
would Kaloyan not mention his father in the inscription when he mentioned
his grandfather, and why would he not mention his relation to the Angeloi of
Epirus, i.e. the Doukai and Komnenoi, i.e. Theodore Angelos, his presumed
maternal grandfather? King Stefan Radoslav was banished from the country,
and on his return he immediately had to give up his royal insignia and become
a monk. It is quite possible that during the painting of the Boyana church he
was still alive. Radoslav later remained in inglorious memory as having fallen
under his wife’s influence and suffering from mental illness (making him un-
56  Monumenta Serbica, XXIII, 19-20; Теодосије, 177; sources cited in the n.22. The
Dyrrachion affair of Anna is not accepted as a fact in modern works, since it is not
corroborated with any other source. It is also in contradiction with the source data where Anna
is mentioned as a monk, s. Ласкарис М. Византијске принцезе у средњовековној Србији,
Београд 1926, 48-52. The fresco portrait of Radoslav and Anna in Studenica without his
royal insignia is recently dated in 1234, i.e. just after his ordination, s. Миљковић, Б. Житија
светог Саве као извор за историју средњевековне уметности, Београд 2008, 132 n.436.
Polemis made a wrong identification of Anna Doukas with Anna Dandolo, considering that
she died in Serbia in 1258. s. Polemis, 1968, no. 47, 93 n.11. There is no reference to any
„nephew” in the charter of king Vladislav from 1234, see n. 28.
57  See the Treaty of Dubrovnik with Michael Asen in Monumenta Serbica, XLI, 35-40;
Божилов, И. България и Дубровник. Договорът от 1253 г. С., 2010; Божилов, 1985, n.21,
112-113. In a recent contribution the region belonged to sebastokrator Peter is identified as the
north-east of then Bulgaria, later Dobruja, s. Nikolov, G. Appearance and Initial Development
of Appanages in the Bulgarian Tsardom (late 12th to mid 13th century). – In: Byzantium, New
Peoples, New Powers: The Byzantino-Slav Contact Zone, from the Ninth to the Fifteenth
Century. ed. Kaimakamova, M., M. Salamon, Smorąg Różicka, Cracow, 2007, 259-265, 263.
There is also another assumption whеrе the „land“ of sebastokrator Peter is identified as the
later dominion of Shishman, lord of Vidin in today north-west Bulgaria and probably the son-
in-law of Peter, s. Божилов 2010, 98-99.
58  For more details see Ферјанчић, Б. Солунски цар Манојло Анђео (1230-1237). –
Зборник Филозофског факултета, XIV-1, Београд, 1979, 93-101; Nicol, 1957, 128-140;
Ферјанчић, Б. Деспоти у византији и јужнословенским земљама. Београд, 1960, 62-63.
We have no mention of sebastokrators in the Empire of Thessaloniki, except one who was
active prior to 1230. cf. Ферјанчић, 1998, 175; Chomatenus, no. 76, 257-258.
26
Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
fit to rule)59. Records show no mention of him as a saint, or any traces of his
cult. (The only exception is his place in the later visual representations, espe-
cially in the holy genealogy of Saint Simeon Nemanya.) Theodore Angelos,
blind, deposed and stripped of his imperial insignia, had already died as a
Nicaean prisoner when the Boyana church was being painted. These reasons
may be enough to explain Kaloyan‘s genealogical choice. Neither Radoslav
nor Theodoros were of significance for the legitimacy of Kaloyan`s social
status in 1258/9.
However, following this line of argument we cannot but notice that, as the son
of the exiled king, Kaloyan would have had a claim to the Serbian throne, un-
less he had, for some reason, renounced it. This begs the question of Kaloyan’s
place in the little known relations between Serbia and Bulgaria in the years
leading up to the completion of the Boyana church frescoes. At it’s own re-
quest, on June 15, 1253, Dubrovnik signed a treaty with Michael Asen, the
aims of which included the banishment of Uroš and his entire family from the
kingdom of Serbia (the text of the treaty makes it clear that the letter refers
most of all to Uroš’s brother Vladislav). The treaty generally allows for the
Bulgarian emperor to rule the Serbian lands, or appoint a regent to rule in his
name. Is this just a formula, or was this already aimed at a particular figure,
perhaps even someone with legal pretensions? The sources contain few traces
of the outcome of these events, which leaves space for various assumptions
and speculations. Indeed the army of Bulgarian emperor invaded into Serbia
in the summer of 1254, ravaged the monastery of St. Apostles at the river of
Lim, and retreated to Bulgaria60. That is actually all we know on these impor-
tant events. Whatever were the plans, king Uroš remained on the throne. One
could also see Kaloyan as a his noble, who appeared in the Sofia region after
the war of 1254, or after 1256, during the turbulent circumstances in Bulgaria,
which occurred subsequently to the peace agreement of Region, after Michael
Asen had lost the war with Theodore Laskaris.
Kaloyan’s allusions to his kinship with the Serbian king can also be consid-
ered as a reflection of good relations between Bulgaria and Serbia, which had
improved since 1253-54, a few years before the inscription appeared. Finally,
the following note should be added: if Kaloyan became sebastokrator under
Michael Asen (which we should consider as a hypothesis), for securing of his
position after the changes on the Bulgarian throne (apart from his potential
role in the rise of Constantine Tih`s), his kinship to the new emperor must also
have been of some importance.
59  Теодосије, 177. Уп. Ферјанчић, Б. Одбрана Немањиног наслеђа – Србија постаје
краљевина. – В: ИСН, I, 310 n. 46.
60  See the text of the treaty in Monumenta Serbica, XLI, 35-40; a new edition: Божилов,
2010. There are no source data to explain sufficiently the wider context and the outcome of
these events, see Ћирковић, С. Српске и поморске земље краља Уроша Ι. – В: ИСН, Ι,
341-356, 348; Божилов, 1999, 505; s. also Божилов, 2010, 86.
27
The Boyana Church between the East and the West
King Stefan Vladislav (1233-1243). On a strictly hypothetical level, we should
reconsider the possibility that Kaloyan was the son of king Vladislav and a
daughter of Ivan Asen II (whose name is not known with certainty), i.e. the
grandson of king Stefan and bratučed of emperor Michael Asen, as the son of
his sister. Scholars have already presented arguments against this possibility:
he would have to be a completely unknown son of the king; even if he had
grown up in Serbia, as a descendant of the Asens he would have been entitled
to the throne after the assassination of Michael Asen; and he would certainly
have mentioned in the inscription that he was a member of the ruling family
of Bulgaria61.
Further search among the male descendants of king Stefan is pointless, be-
cause it is clear that Kaloyan could not be a son of king Uroš. Should we look
for his connection to king Stefan in the female line?
Komnene. It is known that Stefan had a daughter named Komnene (Κομνηνή),
who was married twice – both times to Albanian aristocrats – panhyperse-
bastos Demetrios Progonos and pansebastos sebastos Gregorios Kamonas
(they married some time before 1217)62. From one of these marriages she
had a daughter, whom Akropolites mentions as the niece of Empress Eirene
Laskaris, the wife of John III (he calls Komnene the daughter of Eirene‘s first
cousin)63. Could a son of Komnene and one of these Albanian aristocrats also
be the bratučed of one of the Bulgarian emperors? Michael Asen is out of
the question. Tih’s son Constantine was Komnina’s cousin (they were both
Nemanya’s grandchildren), but in that case the connection between Kaloyan
and Constantine is too weak. (As Komnina’s son, Kaloyan would have been
the bratučed of emperor Theodore II Laskaris, but by all accounts the histori-
cal context does not allow the possibility, even hypothetically, that he could
have been awarded the title of sebastokrator or the government of the Sofia
region by the Nicaean emperors.)
The unknown daughter of king Stefan. The possibility that a so far unknown
daughter of king Stefan (from his second marriage to Anna Dandolo) was
Kaloyan’s mother has already been considered64. However, she may also have
been the daughter of his first wife, Eudokia Angelina. Who, in that case, might
have been her husband?
61  See the convincing arguments in Божилов, 1995, 7. King Vladislav is considered as parent
of three children, s. Јиречек, 1952, 176; according to some unpublished research efforts
he actually had two, one of them was a son by name Desa, Маловић–Ђукић, М. Поклад
жупана Десе. – In: Краљ Владислав и Србија. Ed. Живковић, Т. Београд, 2003, 31-39, 32,
n. 3.
62  Chomatenus, no.1, 19-26. Пурковић, 1956, 20-21.
63 Acropolites, I, 91.11-14 (αὐτανεψιὰν πρωτεξαδέλφης αὐτῆς θυγατέρα).
64 This in an old idea of Ljubomir Kovačević, s. Kovačević, L. Жене и деца Стефана
Првовенчаног. – Глас СКА, LX, 1901, 1-64, 31-64; accepted later by Пурковић, 1956, 21-
22.
28
Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
We started with the fact that he could not have been an Asen. We have al-
ready seen that Kaloyan‘s relation to Constantine through Nemanya‘s family
must, by all accounts, have been distant. However, if this presumed daughter
of king Stefan was married to the uncle of the future emperor Constantine,
then Kaloyan could be his bratučed and the grandson of king Stefan, and
Constantine could be Nemanya’s grandson. Their relation would then be
close, through some unknown aristocratic family whose son married the
daughter of king Stefan and whose daughter married the father of the future
emperor Constantine. Hypothetically, it is possible that their other son (Tih)
married Constantine’s mother – she would be Nemanya’s daughter or niece,
although we doubt that his connection to Nemanya went along the female
line65. Kaloyan‘s mother and Constantine‘s father would be in the fifth degree
of affinal kinship. In order to marry, they would have needed a dispensation
from the Church66. The option excluded is that their daughter married any of
king Stefan‘s sons.
Tihomir ↔ Nemanja
↕ Stefan
↕
♂Tih ∞ n.n. ♀ ↔ n.n. ♂ ∞ ♀ n.n.
↕ ↕
Constatine Kaloyan
Tihomir ↔ Nemanja
or Stefan
↕ ↕
n.n. ♀ ∞ Tih ↔ n.n. ♂ ∞ ♀ n.n.
↕ ↕
Constantine Kaloyan
Another, though not very likely possibility, is that they were closely related
through Nemanya’s family. If Tih was the son (or son-in-law) of Tihomir, and
Stefan’s presumed daughter was married to the brother of the future Bulgarian
emperor Constantine, that would make Kaloyan the emperor’s bratučed, but
only in the rare meaning of “nephew“. Kaloyan’s mother and Constantine’s
brother would be in the sixth degree of blood kinship (Zavida would be their
65  Cf. hypothesis of Ковачевић, 1901, 48-49.
66 The Canon 54 of Trullo has no objections to a marriage in this degree of kinship. The
marriage would have been forbidden if tried after the prohibition act issued by patriarch
Sissinius in 998, but it had usually been dispensed before and after the 10th and 11th centuries.
I am thankful to Prof. Zoran Devrnja, who kindly advised me on the matters of Canon Law.
29
The Boyana Church between the East and the West Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада

great-grandfather). In order to marry, they would have needed a dispensation king in the higher circles of Serbia somehow became known and respected in
from the Church. Due to the canonical impediment, the marriage would not her new surroundings.
have been possible if Nemanya were Constantine’s direct grandfather. Desislava. In this regard, we believe that Kaloyan could not have been refer-
ring to kinship with king Stefan through his wife, sebastokratorissa Desislava,
Zavida which excludes the possibility that she was the daughter of king Stefan
↕ Vladislav or any other Serbian king68. It seems to us that marriage, even if
Tihomir ↔ Nemanja one took one‘s spouse‘s family name for dynastic reasons or prestige, could
↕ ↕ not mean that one would refer to kinship with the ancestors of one‘s spouse
Tih (or n.n.♀) Stefan – in short, affinal kinship did not extend to the past in that way69. All that can
↕ ↕ be said about Desislava‘s lineage and the chronology of this marriage is a
Constatine↔n.n. ♂∞ ♀ n.n. mere supposition. Her name, variants of which were found during the twelfth
↕ and thirteenth centuries in the regions of today‘s Western Balkans, suggests
Kaloyan Serbian origin, but there is nothing to prove this70. In the mid fourteenth cen-
tury the daughter of emperor Ivan Alexander Asen was also named Desislava,
perhaps after Kaloyan‘s wife.
The idea that Kaloyan and Constantine were related through an unknown
aristocratic family leads us back to the question of Constantine‘s lineage and Topography and chronology
his family‘s presumed connection with Skopje. The historical context for the The formulation „in the time of the Bulgarian Empire” is unusual, and puts us
chronology of the marriage between Stefan‘s daughter and an unknown aris- in a quandary. It seems to suggest a change of government, perhaps only the
tocrat from Skopje is given by Constantine‘s Virgino Charter and Milutin‘s supreme government, in the Sofia region after 1256. On the other hand, all the
charter for the same monastery, from which we may assume that Skopje be- existing data indicates continuous Bulgarian rule in the Sofia region through-
longed to king Stefan for some time. He could have captured Skopje as early out the previous period.
as after Kaloyan‘s death (†1207), or as late as after the death of Strez (†1214), It has long been noted that the indiction and the year do not match, and the
and some time after 1217, as king, he produced his charter for the monastery reading of the year as 6767 since the creation of the world – i.e. 1258/9 AD –
of St. George. His rule must have been ended before 1219 at the latest, when has been widely accepted71.
the city was already under the rule of despot Theodore Angelos of Epirus67. The inscription data about the construction and painting of the church can be
So, according to her sexual maturity and the regulations of ecclesiastical law, understood in two ways. Firstly, it could be understood as seemingly, or actu-
this presumed daughter of the future Serbian king would have married some- ally, referring to two separate time periods – the construction and the painting.
time at the end of the first or during the second decade of the thirteenth century Regardless of how the inscription is interpreted, certain stylistic differences
to an aristocrat from Skopje, who must have been old and distinguished, from between the paintings in the naos and the narthex, and the unusual re-com-
a family to which the future Bulgarian emperor Constantine had probably position and re-decoration of certain parts in the entrance from the narthex
already been born. This chronology of the marriage of Kaloyan‘s parents is in to the naos, have led to the conclusion that several years passed between the
accordance with his presumed age based on the portrait. We should also pre- painting of the naos and the narthex72. However, the two stages of painting
sume that information on the special posthumous status of her father as a saint may have directly succeeded each other. Anyway, the unusual re-composition

67 The charter of king Stefan is mentioned in the charter of king Milutin for the same
monastery: Грамоти на манастирот Св. Георги. II, 205-238, 211; emperor Constantine
mentioned in his own charter „the charters of former kings”, Грамоти на манастирот Св.
Георги. I, 183, 184, 185. On the installation of Strez, s. Радић, Р. Обласни господари у
Византији крајем XII и у првим деценијама XIII века. – ЗРВИ, 24-25, 1986, 151-289,
223-234, 225 n. 9 (with sources); the city of Skoplje is considered as belonging to the realm
of Strez, s. ibidem, 230 n. 40; on the problem of the year of the death of Strez s. ibidem,
234 (1214), Божилов, 1985, n. 12, 98-100; Skoplje is mentioned as ruled by Theodoros in a
letter of metropolitan John Apokaukos dated in 1219, cf. Aus dem Nachlasse von N. A. Bees.
– Byzantinisch-neuegriechische Jahrbücher, 21, 1971-1974, 55-243, no. 54, 110-111, 203;
Kravari, V. Villes et villages de Macédoine occidentale. Paris, 1989, 161.
68  Божилов, 1995, 8.
69  I am especially grateful to Prof. Ruth Macrides who kindly shared her opinion on the
problem, who also red the whole text gladly and helped me to improve it.
70  Божилов, 1995, 8.
71  Божилов, 1995, 5.
72  Койнова–Арнаудова, Л. История на изписването и реставраторските намеси в
Боянската църква. – Проблеми на изкуството, 1, 1995, 42-44. Regarding the different
phases of fresco-paintings in the narthex of the church see cautious remarks given by
Пенкова, Б. В. Цветков. Старији слојеви зидног сликарства у Бојани. – Саопштења, XL,
2008, 43-59, 44-46.

30 31
The Boyana Church between the East and the West
of the frescoes of Christ and Saint Nicholas on the eastern wall of the narthex
may have been for some ideological reason, connected with the mentioned
portraits of emperors and ktetors on the southern and northern walls of the
narthex. But another explanation is also possible. It should certainly be taken
into account that Kaloyan built the entire narthex, and that some time probably
had to pass between the construction and the painting to allow for the natural
subsidence of the building73.
All this allows us to consider the possibility that Kaloyan had begun the con-
struction of his endowment several years before the painting was finished,
which takes us back to the time before the reign of Constantine Asen. Of
course, this only works if we take the year 1258/9 as the accepted year of
completion of the reconstruction of the Boyana church.
Conclusion
Any attempt to say something new or corroborate what has already been said
about the origin of the historical figures portrayed on the walls of the narthex
of the Church of St. Nicholas at Boyana is simultaneously a contribution of
sorts to the body of Boyana legends, as prof. Ivan Božilov noted recently.
Circumstances have made the origin of the church’s ktetor a mystery, un-
solved even after numerous attempts. This allows some other, perhaps more
important, stories and messages with soteriology meanings, standing on the
walls of the Boyana church complex, to be emphasized. In order to fulfil our
academic obligation and the scientific purpose of this research, we will give
our contribution to the body of observations, dilemmas, assumptions, conclu-
sions and legends about the origin of the donor of the Boyana church.
We cannot say with certainty which Bulgarian emperor made Kaloyan sebas-
tokrator, Michael Asen or Constantine (Tih`s) Asen. It is impossible to draw
with certainty a diagram of the genealogical connection between Kaloyan
and the unnamed emperor, if the emperor in question was the then-reigning
Constantine Asen, nor is it possible to determine whether they were close or
distant relatives. We can claim with more certainty that Kaloyan was a direct
descendant of the Serbian king Stefan the First-Crowned.
He was perhaps the son of king Radoslav, therefore connected to Serbia and
close to the court circles which adopted the roots of the cult of the holy king
Stefan. A possible explication sees him as the bratučed of Michael Asen and
the descendant of sebastokrator Peter. Another one sees him regarding himself
the bratučed of Constantine Tih`s Asen in the general sense of distant blood
relation.
The complicated speculation about Kaloyan as the son of an unknown daugh-
ter of king Stefan is also an attractive one. She should have been married to
73  See for example Ђорђевић, И. Зидно сликарство српске властеле. Београд, 1994, 131.
32
Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада
an unknown aristocrat from the family of the future emperor Constantine, the
family which must have been de facto master of Skopje and have somehow
been acquainted with the worship of Symeon Nemanja as a saint, and with the
posthumous reputation of king Stefan as an unofficial saint in court circles in
Serbia.
A crucial question is whether Kaloyan began the construction of the church
before or after Constantine’s arrival on the throne. We cannot completely ex-
clude the possibility that he had become sebastokrator during the reign of
Michael Asen, or that he had become master of the region in some other way
prior to the accession of Constantine Tih`s (after the summer of 1254, or sum-
mer of 1256) and had been made sebastokrator by the new emperor. The unu-
sual re-composition of the frescoes on the Eastern wall of the narthex may
have been the consequence of political changes connected to the rise of em-
peror Constantine, but it may also have been caused by some banal reason.
Maybe the reference to, „the time of the Bulgarian Empire” had some inter-
connection with the mentioned re-composition and political changes.
At the very end, we would like to reiterate a past remark made in a similar situ-
ation: regardless of the insufficient prosopographic details about sebastokrator
Kaloyan and emperor Constantine Asen, these descendants of the Nemanya
family, together with the titles they acquired in the Bulgarian Empire, are a
striking indicator of the horizontal and vertical mobility of noblemen within
the area of Byzantine civilization, or the Byzantine commonwealth as this
phenomenon has been named by Sir Dimitri Obolensky.
Портретите в Боянската църква. Принос към просопография-
та на севастократор Калоян
Сърджан Пириватрич, Белград
Всеки опит да се каже нещо ново или да се повтори вече казаното за произхода на исто-
рическите личности, изобразени върху стените на притвора на църквата на св. Никола
в Бояна, представлява същевременно и своеобразен принос към корпуса на боянските
легенди, както отбеляза неотдавна и проф. Иван Божилов. Стечението на обстоятелствата
е направило така, че произходът на ктитора на църквата да остане загадка, която не са
успели да разрешат многобройните опити, изречени като хипотези или твърдения. По
този начин образите от стените на боянската църква се излъчват някои други, бихме ка-
зали по-важни послания със сотирологично значение. В изпълнение на своя академичен
дълг и на научната цел на настоящото изследване, ще дадем своя принос към корпуса с
наблюденията, дилемите, предположенията, заключенията или легендите за произхода
на ктитора на Боянската църква.
Въпросът за произхода на севастократор Калоян е тясно свързан с въпроса за произхода
на цар Константин Асен. Трябва да подчертаем несигурността на пътя, по който се сти-
гало до предположенията за техния произход. В случая с цар Константин, „Тиховия син”,
33
The Boyana Church between the East and the West Боянската църква между Изтока и Запада

не е известно неговата връзка със св. Симеон Неманя, когото е наричал свой „дядо”, да
е била по женска линия, както е прието да се мисли. Това не може да се изключи, род-
ството обаче е било по-скоро по-индиректно по мъжка линия, може би чрез потомък на
брата на Неманя Тихомир, който по едно време, някъде между 1166 и 1168 г. вероятно е
пребивавал в Скопие. В ктиторския надпис Калоян се нарича „братовчед царев” и внук
на „св. Стефан крал сръбски”. Най-проблематична е роднинската връзка „братовчед”.
Тя се отнася главно към синовете на двама братя. Но „братовчед” може да се отнася и
до синовете на две сестри, въобще кръвни роднини, даже и за братов син, т.е. племеник.
Затова и кръгът от възможни предположения за произхода и роднинските отношения на
въпросните личности е много широк.
Не може със сигурност да се каже кой български цар е издигнал Калоян за севастокра-
тор. Не може да се установи със сигурност схемата на роднинската връзка на Калоян със
споменатия цар, нито, ако и да е този цар Константин, да се установи дали родството
им е близко или далечно. С малко по-голяма сигурност можем да смятаме, че Калоян
е пряк потомък на сръбския крал Стефан Първовенчани. Калоян може да е бил син на
крал Радослав и от тук да е свързан със сръбски среди, близки до сръбския двор, къде-
то се формира култът към св. Стефан Неманич. Едно възможно обяснение е Калоян да
е братовчед на Михаил Асен (т.е. техните майки са сестри), друго – да е братовчед на
Константин Асен (като негов далечен кръвен роднина). Обстоятелствата, при което е мо-
гъл да завладее софия и околностите, не са в достатъчна степен известни. Това може да
е станало след българо-сръбската война от 1254 г., след българо-византийската от 1255-
1256 г. или в непосредствена връзка с възкачването на българския престол на Тиховия
син Константин през 1257 г. Привлекателно е и малко сложното предположение, според
което Калоян е син на непозната дъщеря на крал Стефан, омъжена за непознат представи-
тел на фамилията, от която произхожда по-късният цар, фамилия, която е владее Скопие
и на която е познат и важен светителският ореол на Симеон Неманя и посмъртната репу-
тация в светските и църковните среди на сръбската държава на неговия син крал Стефан.
От ключово значение е въпросът дали Калоян е започнал градежа на църквата преди или
след идването на власт на Константин. Необичайното разместване на фреските върху
източната стена на притвора би могло да бъде последица от политически промени, свър-
зани пряко с идването на Константин на власт, както и от съвсем банална причина. Може
би е във връзка с разместването на стенописите и политическите причини и изразът „по
време на българското царство”.
Накрая, повтаряме едно свое мнение, изразено по друг повод: независимо от недоста-
тъчните просопографски детайли за севастократор Калоян, както и за цар Константин
Асен, тези потомци и роднини на Неманичите, заедно с най-високото си положение в
Българското царство, са впечатляващо свидетелство за движението на велможите както
хоризонтално, така и вертикално, вътре в най-общо казано византийската цивилизация, и
по-точно във византийския комонвелт.

Portrait of Radoslav in the katholikon of the Mileševa monastery, Serbia (before 1227);
Portrait of Radoslav in the katholikon of the Studenica monastery, Serbia (1234);
Portrait of sebastokrator Kaloyan in the church of St. Nicholas in Boyana, Bulgaria (1258/9)

34 35